No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA88-110 BEGINNING OF FILE FILE TITLE ,i5A � gogg,. //0 fi lC cop(j 44 4 CITE F R N O E T N "LL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator August 23, 1991 Paul W. Sunich President, Quality Pacific, Inc. 13555 Bel-Red Road, Suite 206 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Re: Cedar Village, City file #SA-1 10-88 Dear Mr. Sunich: This letter is sent in response to your August 16, 1991 letter (received by the City on August 19th) regarding expiration of the Cedar Village site plan approval. Unfortunately, the Development Services Division is unable to approve an extension of your 1989 site plan approval. The Renton Municipal Code does not give the Division the authority to extend a Site Plan Approval past the two year time limit established in Section 4-31-33-I of the Zoning Code (enclosed). Only the City of Renton Hearing Examiner is empowered to grant an extension. We have discussed this matter with the Examiner and he has informed us that an extension request must be received and approved prior to the expiration of the initial two-year approval period. Because the Examiner's original 1989 approval for Cedar Village expired on March 20, 1991, even he is not authorized to approve your request for an extension. Since the final building permit extension for this project has also expired (on August 1, 1991), the only way to reactivate the project at this time is to reapply for both site plan approval and a building permit. I have enclosed the current City of Renton Site Plan Review Application package and our existing land use application fee schedule. Please feel free to contact Laureen Nicolay at 235-2550, if you have any questions about the submittal requirements. We regret that we cannot extend your previous site plan approval, but we will make every effort to expedite review of your new applications. Because of our previous knowledge about of the site, this review should go rather quickly. Sincerely, Donald K. Erickson Principal Planner enclosures /Oy Mill Avenue South - Renton. Washington 98055 4.) Quality Pacific, Incorporated August 16, 1991 up'? ON 4/isio Donald K. Erickson, AICP � NT Zoning Administrator ,el , City of Renton 141 r 9 sgy, Department of Community Development Ck� Planning Division IliN 200 Mill Avenue South �V Renton, WA 98055 Re: File No. SA-110-88 Bldg. Permit No. B-15774-A B-15775-B B-15776-C Dear Mr. Erickson: This letter is in followup to several converstaions I had with Loraine Nicolay today in an effort to aid me with questions I have regarding the captioned file and permit numbers. Due to a problem with proper financing we have been held up on the Cedar Village project as far as starting construction. The building permit expired on 8/1/91 and I called to find out the timing of obtaining a new permit when the time comes. I was advised that my site approval expired on 3/20/91. I was completely shocked and did not know that had happened. I assumed all was well since the permit was good until 8/1/91. I cannot find anywhere where the two-year limit is addressed in any correspondence or the Hearing Examiner's report. I would appreciate it if you could grant me the proper extensions as of 3/20/91. I also need to be advised how to proceed from here as this can be devastating when we do not know our timing. I am sorry for any inconvenience. If it had not been for my conversation this morning regarding the permit question, I still would not be aware of the problem. Anything you can do to help would be greatly appreciated. Thank o for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to cal . Y,bur eery / u ich ' President PWS/b cc: Lenora Blauman Anton Althoff 13555 BEL-RED RD., SUITE 206/ BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98005/TELEPHONE 746-4660/FAX 746-0603 CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION #223-01 QUALIP*345RE 4EMORANDUMa To File# SA-110-88 Cedar Village Apartments Date 8-16-91 From Development Services Division Subject Status of site plan approval The Cedar Village building permit expired 8-1-91 (see attached letter to Paul Sunich of Quality Pacific dated 1-28-91) . Mr. Sunich contacted the Building Division on 8-16-91 to check the status of his site plan approval . He was advised that the site plan had been approved on 3-20-89 by the Hearing Examiner and that site approvals were valid only two years from the date of approval . No extension request was filed prior to the 3-20-91 expiration date. Mr. Sunich was advised to write a letter to Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator, to obtain final clarification of the site plan's status. 4 ,' `' CITS )F RENTON "a Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator January 28 , 1991 Paul W. Sunich President Quality Pacific, Inc. 13555 Bel-Red Rd. , Suite 206 Bellevue, WA 98005 SUBJ: Extension of Permit Commencement Building Permit Nos. B-15774-76 1201 Anacortes Avenue NE Dear Mr. Sunich: I reviewed your letter requesting a 6 month extension in which to commence construction at the above referenced address. I have determined that your stated reasons for requesting the extension are valid and, therefore, per UBC 303 (d) , the extension is granted for 6 months. The permit will expire on August 1, 1991. Please be aware that only one extension is allowed so the August 1st deadline is the final extension that can be granted. You may reach me at 277-6180 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Ronald G. Nelson Building Official Construction Field Services Development Services Division RGN:mjp rgn#8/1201 AnNE 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Y.. 411. Quality Pacific, Incorporated January 7, 1991 Mr. Ronald G. Nelson Building Official , Bldg. Division City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Nelson: This letter is in regard to Quality Pacific's Building Permit #615774, B15775 and B15776. The Green Plan review number is #6814._ The project is a new 25-unit apartment located at 1201 Anacortes Ave. N.E. As we discussed at the time I picked up our permit; there was a possibility that we would not be able to commence construction in a timely manner. Due to the financing restrictions at this time we have been drastically delayed. Budgets are also a problem and it is not the policy of this or- ganization to start construction of a project that is not solidly in place and scheduled out in all areas no matter what the size is. Therefore, I would like to request a permit extension at this time of an additional six months or until August 1, 1991 at which time things will hopefully be more palatable in the finance area. I want. to thank you for your past and future cooperation and if you have any/clueions, please do not hesitate to call . i Yours ery trul QUAL Y N f Pa1' u 1 ` ident PWS/je CITY OF RENTON4 RECEWED JAN 0 9 1990 ,U LLan M- D VgSION 13555 BEL-RED RD., SUITE 206/BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98005/TELEPHONE 746-4660/ FAX 746-0603 CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION #223-01 QUALIP*345RE 2-. —//O—, , _ qew 0 CITY OF RENTON "LL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Traffic Engineering Division October 17, 1989 Mr. Richard W. Elliott, Esq. OCT 1 8 1989 Davis, Wright & Jones r 1800 Bellevue Place ( r !j 10500 NE 8th Street Bellevue, WA 98004-4300 Subject: Quality Pacific, Inc. (Cedar Village) Dear Mr. Elliott: As a follow up to Lawrence J. Warren's (City Attorney) letter to you dated September 15, 1989, we are providing you the estimated costs of the necessary improvements and the pro-rated charge relating to the re-alignemnt and signalization of the intersection of Sunset Blvd. (SR-900) and Anacortes Ave. NE. The preliminary estimated cost is as follows: • 1. Traffic Signal Study $ 2,500.00 (warrant analysis) 2. Engineering, PS & E $ 25,500.00 3. Construction Cost $150,000.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $178,000.00 Total existing traffic volume on Anacortes Ave. NE which includes both legs of the intersection is 2,869.5 vehicle trips per day. Daily traffic generated by Cedar Village 25 (units) x 6.595 (daily trips per unit) = 165 Percentage of Cedar Village traffic added to the existing traffic on Anacortes. . 165 = 5.75% 2,869.5 Estimated amount of voluntary contribution. 5.75% x $178,000 = $10,235.00 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2620 F:7r ql,p iln /'+h') ')'117_or7Z Mr. Richard W. Elliott, Esq. Page 2 October 17, 1989 At the time you apply for your building permit, you are to provide (1) cash amount or (2) an Irrevocable Letter of Credit for §10,235.00. Should ou have any questions, please so not hesitate to call me or Clint Morgan of this office. Very truly yours, Lt c�Z,1.c Gary A.Aorris, P.E. Transportation Services Manager CEM:ad cc: Larry Warren Ron Nelson Erickson John Ralston CEM192 CITY OF RENTOICT Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney "LL Daniel Kellogg - Mark E. Barber - David M. Dean - Zanetta L. Fontes - Robert L. Sewell Mary deVuono, Assistant City Attorneys September. 15, 1989 r' Richard W. Elliott, Esq. Davis, Wright & Jones 1800 Bellevue Place 10500 N.E. 8th Street Bellevue, Washington 98004-4300 SAP 8 1989 Re: Quality Pacific, Inc. (Cedar Village) Dear Mr. Elliott : This letter is in response to your initial letter to me of September 7 , 1989 , and a later letter dated September 13 , 1989 . I have spoken with the city' s traffic engineer . It has been decided that your client will not have to fund the entire traffic study and then expect reimbursement from other property owners . The city has taken that position because of the language in the various official city decisions , although the city' s recollection is that your client had previously committed to making that study and being reimbursed. I am somewhat concerned with your letter of September 13, 1989 , indicating that your client will pay its fair share of the study and improvements but only if there is a local improvement district or some other process which could lead to the allocation of costs . The city will, in the absence of the study, estimate the costs of the necessary improvements and charge pro-rata the appropriate costs . As part of the permitting process your client will have to pay its fair share, or bond for that fair share, as provided by city ordinances . Since the costs are supposedly a voluntary contribution they will be subject to RCW 82 . 02 . 020 and, if not expended by the city within five years of receipt, will be repayable to your client . This method of proceeding does appear to comport with the written decisions . Ver t ily yours, Lawrence_...J. Warren LJW:as . cc : Mayor Lynn Guttman Gary Norris A8 . 47 : 22 . Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057 - (206) 255-8678 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss. County of King ) DOTTY KLINGMAN being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 20th day of March , 1989 affiant deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. r— 411, L°-1'-'7"L'.4-""(j SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of14-e-eiti , 1989 ?)') Notary Pu and for the State of Washington, residing at 1G�`7✓ , therein. Application, Petition, or Case #: SA-110-88 - QUALITY PACIFIC INC. (CEDAR VILLAGE) (The minutes contain a list of the parties of record.) March 20, 1989 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: QUALITY PACIFIC, INC. (CEDAR VILLAGE) File No: SA-110-88 LOCATION: 1200 Block of Anacortes Ave. N.E. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Approval of a Site Plan for a 25 unit apartment building. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Planning Division Recommendation: Approval, with conditions PLANNING DIVISION REPORT: The Planning Division Report was received by the Examiner on March 1, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Planning Division Report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The hearing was opened on March 7, 1989 at 9:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit #1 - Yellow File containing application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit #2 - Site Plan Exhibit #3 - Landscape Plan Exhibit #4 - Vicinity Map Exhibit #5 - East-West Elevations Exhibit #6 - North-South Elevations The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Lenora Blauman. Senior Planner. Ms. Blauman pointed out that this proposal is for Site Plan approval to construct a 25 unit apartment building on a 1.01 acre site located in an R-3 zone, on property that is now vacant. She described the surrounding uses, stated utilities and public amenities are readily available to the site, and reviewed the site plan map noting the orientation and square footage of the buildings and the number of units each will contain. Most of the trees on the site will be retained. A review was given of the ERC mitigated conditions which require the applicant to install a storm water drainage management system, the applicant's support in mitigating traffic safety and efficiency in the vicinity by participating in a traffic study for the Anacortes Avenue and Sunset Blvd. corridor, as well as providing an easement for public access at the southern boundary of the property to develop a sidewalk to serve the future expansion of NE 12th Street to the south of the property. The applicant is also conditioned to retain natural vegetation, limit ambient noise levels to 50 dBA, provide an erosion plan, wheel wash trucks on-site, and post a bond for street clean-up. Continuing, Ms. Blauman indicated this proposal does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan since it is shown on the Plan as being suited for office park development. Staff feels the property is not suited for office park-type development as it is located off the main traffic corridor and would not be visible or convenient; is surrounded on three sides by residential development; there does not seem to be a market for office park development in the area; access is available; the apartments would encourage mostly local traffic which is supported by the Comprehensive Plan goals. The proposal would provide a buffer between the surrounding commercial and residential developments; lot sizes, dimensions, coverage and parking requirements are met; the applicant will retain natural vegetation for buffering, I r Quality Pacific, Inc. (Cedar V- Vie) SA-110-88 March 20, 1989 Page 2 and the proposal does a good job of addressing the needs of surrounding property with its design. There has been a traffic study prepared and staff is hoping once the general plans are approved there will be an agreement reached regarding traffic mitigation measures; mitigation of possible impacts to the site were reviewed noting the large amount of landscaping between the structures (areas along the north property line between buildings A & B and between B & C). There will be a congregating area for residents developed somewhere on the site; area-wide property values will not be injured; no shadow impacts are expected on the site or to adjacent properties; exterior pole lighting will be used; pedestrian pathways between structures will be provided; buildings will be sprinklered; and the applicant has agreed to provide a storm water retention system. Referring to light and air criteria, Ms. Blauman said the applicant had originally intended to place carports immediately south of buildings A and B and to the east of building C, but staff has recommended against the carports in that location feeling they obstruct the view, are not aesthetic, and will interfere with the light and air quality of the units. Staff has suggested the carports be placed along the southern boundary, but the current setback requirements do not permit this as carports are defined as structures and may not be placed in a setback area. It is the feeling of staff that a possible change may be forthcoming from the City Council to address this matter. It was suggested that this concern be discussed later. Completing the review Ms. Blauman discussed the eight staff-recommended conditions contained in the staff report of March 7, 1989 as presented to the Hearing Examiner. Calling for testimony in support of this proposal from the applicant or their representative, responding was Paul Sunich, President of Quality Pacific, Inc., 543 - 156th S.E., Bellevue. WA 98007. Mr. Sunich presented a brief review of the history of the company and other projects that have been completed by his company in the general area - with most of the projects being garden-type apartments. He said the drainage concerns of staff have been addressed and present no problem to his development; they are preserving a large amount of trees and vegetation on the property; building B will have individual storage lockers for tenants. Referring to carport placement, Mr. Sunich presented a memorandum to the Hearing Examiner which addressed carports. He said they have been to meetings and have addressed the Anacortes corridor with the City Attorney and Traffic Engineering staff and agreed to cooperate with the 7-1/2 ft. area for the walkway between this project and the Honeydew Apartment area, with the easement being set up for a period of 10 years. He feels the carports should be located at the building site due to tenant demand and does not feel they are unsightly. Sunich said there is not enough parking area along the south side of the project to allow them to place 20 carports in that area along with the 7-1/2 ft. easement, so they are still forced to put carports in front of the building on the west end of the site. Sunich said carports are an accessory and are permitted in an R-3 zone, stating he knows of no adopted City policy prohibiting carports in front of buildings; stated it is also felt relocation of the carports creates a circulation problem on the site as they would not have the minimum turning distance needed between parking on the north side and the carports on the south side. He asked that the Examiner approve the site plan with carports as they are shown on the plan. ' Mr. Sunich, referring to the requested bonding by the City, requested that the bonds be held over at the bank for financial reasons so it will be less expensive for his small company. He did state there will be no phasing of the project - all units will be built at the same time. He noted the name for the project - Cedar Village - comes from the presence of the large Cedar tree located at the entrance to the property. Also wishing to testify for the applicant was John Keegan, Attorney At Law, 2600 Century Square, 1501 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. Mr. Keegan referred to the memo presented by Mr. Sunich regarding carports and stated the mitigation measure they are asked to adopt in this instance is illegal in the City. It is not possible to locate carports on the southern boundary due to the required setbacks and open space - and he is not convinced the City Council would change their view, or change the zoning code to permit the setback and open space areas to house carports. Also, if moved as suggested by staff, a maneuvering problem would definitely exist. He strongly urged the setbacks and carports remain where they are now required and shown on the presented Site Plan. He had no further comments. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:50 A.M. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Quality Pacific, Inc., filed a request for approval of a site approval for a twenty- five (25) unit apartment building. • 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. Quality Pacific, Inc. (Cedar V`-_._oe) SA-110-88 March 20, 1989 Page 3 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance (DNS) for the subject proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located on the west side of the 1200 block of Anacortes Avenue N.E., just south of Sunset Boulevard N.E. 6. The site varies in elevation from approximately 393 feet to approximately 406 feet. Contours will be modified modestly to provide level surfaces for parking and building pads. In general the lot slopes downward to the north and is set apart from the northerly property by a slope differential. 7. The subject site is approximately 1.01 acres in area. The site is approximately 313.53 feet long (east/west) by approximately 140 feet wide (north/south). 8. The N.E. 12th Street, if it were to be extended, would form or extend along the southern boundary of the subject site. 9. The subject site was annexed into the City with the adoption of Ordinance 2408, enacted in May, 1968. 10. The site is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Multiple Family) which permits the development of approximately 25 units per acre. 11. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of office and office park uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the plan. 12. The Comprehensive Plan also contains goals and policies which suggest that commercial uses are to be located in areas with convenient access to arterial streets and near areas with compatible uses. The plan also specifies that multiple family uses be located to buffer or separate less intense uses from more intense uses. It also suggests that a variety of housing types and prices be located within the city. 13. The site is on the edge of the commercial node established at the intersection of Duvall Avenue N.E. and Sunset Boulevard N.E. Commercial and medium density uses are located in the immediate vicinity with a day care center immediately north of the site, a shopping center located across Anacortes to the east and apartment and single family uses located south and west of the site, respectively. 14. A similar mix of zoning districts surround the site. Additional R-3 zoning, the site's zoning, is located south of the site. A B-1 (Business/Commercial) district is located across Anacortes and encompasses the uses at the Sunset/Duvall intersection. A small O-P (Office Park) district is located north of the site along Sunset and R-2 (Duplex Residential) districts are located north of Sunset and east of Duvall. 15. The site is served by schools in the Renton School District and capacity is available at the various grade levels. 16. Kiwanis Park is located approximately .8 miles from the site. 17. The applicant proposes constructing a 25 unit apartment complex, 25 carports and 20 additional parking stalls. 18. The complex will consist of three separate apartment structures, Buildings A, B and C. While Building A is a single building with one main entrance, Buildings B and C consist of two attached units each. Building A contains four units, Building B contains nine units and Building C contains 12 units. 19. Building A would be approximately 3,646 square feet, Building B would contain approximately 9,115 square feet and Building C would contain approximately 10,938 square feet. 20. Lot area coverage will amount to approximately 32 percent, with building footprints totaling approximately 10,470 square feet and the carports totaling approximately 3,740 square feet. 21. The elevation drawings do not accurately reflect the configuration of the buildings as currently proposed. Quality Pacific, Inc. (Cedar VI ) SA-110-88 March 20, 1989 Page 4 • 22. The buildings will vary in height from two stories to two and a half stories or from approximately 20 feet to 26 feet in height. Building A and B2 would be two stories, while the remaining components would be the two and a half stories. 23. Honey Creek crosses the site immediately north of the subject site and sedimentation and storm drainage remain a concern. The ERC imposed requirements to mitigate any runoff problems either during construction or during occupancy. 24. The site contains natural vegetation and some sizeable larger trees. The applicant proposes maintaining as many of these trees as possible and has sited the buildings to preserve some of the larger specimens. 25. The 25 unit building has been estimated to increase the school age population by approximately 6 students, and add approximately 150 vehicle trips per day to the existing street system. 26. The building will be clad in a blue grey or blue or grey siding with a charcoal grey composition roofing material. Staff suggested the applicant,finish the building in cedar to provide a more quality, more traditional appearance. 27. Staff suggested that the carports be relocated to the south property line away from the buildings to afford better passage of light and air and to open up the interior of the complex. The Zoning Code as it currently exists would not permit the carports to be located as staff has suggested, and the applicant believes that the carports need to be near the buildings to attract a tenant population. The carports will be supported on 4 by 4 posts, the roof will be approximately 3 inches thick and it will contain neither sides nor a back. The height will be just below the first floor level. 28. The applicant proposed that some other provisions be made other than bonds to provide the necessary assurances for cleanup and maintenance. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Site Plan Ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; c. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. 2. In addition, proposed site plans must not adversely affect area-wide property values, must provide adequate air and light, and must not cause neighborhood deterioration or blight. The proposal appears to successfully satisfy these additional criteria. 3. While the map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the site for office park type uses, a number of factors militate against such development on the subject site. The parcel is removed from Sunset and lacks the exposure generally sought for commercial uses (even those not necessarily catering to the general public or retail trade). The site is also surrounded on three sides by residential uses including single family uses to the west and low and medium density multiple family uses on the south and east. Forcing office development on the subject site would introduce a more intense use, probably at the expense of the residential neighbors. 4. On the other hand, additional apartment units would not only be compatible with surrounding uses, but would introduce uses compatible with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The 25 units would provide additional residential variety close to retail and commercial Quality Pacific, Inc. (Cedar V___ ,e) SA-110-88 March 20, 1989 Page 5 shopping opportunities. The units would widen the choices for those residents who prefer the Highlands area of the city but do not choose single family living situations. 5. The buildings meet the setback, bulk, height and parking requirements of the Building Code. The Zoning Code permits 25 units per acre and the 25 units proposed is appropriate for this site which is just over one acre in size. The lot coverage of approximately 32 percent satisfies the code requirements and the 45 stalls exceeds by one the required 44 parking spaces. 6. The spacing of the buildings and the setbacks observed by the buildings afford privacy between the units on site and also afford privacy to the adjoining properties to the north, west and east. The complex generally is grouped along the north property line where the existing vegetation and slope differential buffers the northern property, a day care center, from the subject site. The favor is returned since this buffering works both ways, and little spill-over of noise, light or glare from the daycare center should affect the subject site. 7. The complex will be well landscaped and many of the existing trees will be preserved to maintain, enhance and complement the separation provided by the topographical differences. 8. While the relocation of the carports could possibly enhance the appearance of the complex, this office prefers to avoid speculation regarding amendments to the Zoning Code. Therefore, this office will not entertain a condition specifying that the carports be located in an impermissible location. The approximately one-story carports will probably detract from the complex's appearance, possibly cast shadows on the first floor units, and generally inhibit the passage of light, but they also provide an amenity many tenants favor - covered parking. 9. The applicant has agreed to staff recommendations regarding areas to permit tenants to congregate while checking for mail, pole lighting to enhance the nighttime appearance, and pedestrian paths through the complex. 10. The development of the site will increase traffic and population density but not out of proportion with the surrounding developments. The complex appears well designed and should not adversely impact adjacent uses, should enhance or at least conserve property values and will certainly not create any neighborhood deterioration or blight. 11. The circulation pattern for both vehicles and pedestrians appears both safe and efficient. Access to Anacortes from the site is acceptable. While this leg of Anacortes' intersection with Sunset is offset from the northerly leg, staff, the applicant and adjacent property owners are exploring potential methods of improving the safety of this offset intersection. 12. Again, the buildings are well separated from one another and from surrounding development, and with the exception of possible crowding by the proposed carports, the complex should permit adequate passage of.light and air. 13. The site is served by existing city water, storm sewer and sanitary sewer service, with schools sufficiently close and sized to provide services to the 6 students the proposal will probably generate. 14. The complex, other then adding somewhat to the population density of the area, should not create any adverse noise or odors. 15. In conclusion, the proposal appears to reasonably mitigate its adverse impacts, preserve sufficient on-site landscaping and to be well designed. The project could be enhanced with some additional emphasis on exterior materials and with the possible elimination of the carports but those will be matters left to the applicant's discretion. DECISION The 25 unit apartment complex is approved subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. 2. The applicant shall incorporate pedestrian pathways of not less than 48 inches as approved by staff. 3. All unit and building identification is to be clear and subject to the approval of the Planning Division and the Police and Fire Departments. 4. Monetary assurances of not less than $5,000.00 in a form acceptable to the City Attorney is to be provided to contain or-clean sediments due to on-site construction or grading. , Quality Pacific, Inc. (Cedar Vi11a.50 SA-110-88 March 20, 1989 Page 6 5. All exterior lighting shall be subject to the approval of the city. ORDERED THIS 20th day of March, 1989. . lam FRED J. K FMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 20th day of March, 1989 to the parties of record: Paul Sunich, President Quality Pacific, Inc. 543 - 156th S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98007 John Keegan Attorney At Law 2600 Century Square 1501 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Ron Healey, Architect John Anderson and Associates PS. Inc. 10620 NE 8th Bellevue, Washington 98004 Walter S. Pine, P.E. Northwest Engineering Company 12828 Northup Way, Suite 310 Bellevue, Washington 98005 TRANSMITTED THIS 20th day of March, 1989 to the following: Mayor Earl Clymer Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Lynn A. Guttmann, Public Works Director Members, Renton Planning Commission Don Monaghan, Acting Engineering Supervisor Glen Gordon, Fire Marshal Larry M. Springer, Planning Manager Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Ronald Nelson, Building Director Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer John Adamson, Developmental Program Coordinator Garth Cray, Senior Engineering Specialist Valley Daily News Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 P.M. April 3, 1989. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. . •*V!..\\i., 1 1 * ,• . •!--..,...:;:..';:•;,..,..•• '''' ' „. L." -------------- --1 :::•-•-•,:'..\'•••'''...'.•-,';:.:;: ...,............... ...,. ..- . • • k•. .,. , ., ,. . -•• :!.. •:,''''•'•' r••••••-. 1.••tr.,' --••!--•c•f.-., — . ....-.7..r, ...' '4%.4.•• ••••i.•il".!"n•'••.„,,:•..'-• :.:: • ••''..." "...,;2..t r.......•ri. .....•':::.cr:".1.41:_:,:,..•Iv:•e,-•:...`c 'c•. L-Z.'" ..--,C1245.-;.V./E•f,"'.:Z:.P.,'-'•,:;:7. :•:.A14 01,1..1e:'•:;....,.,.;.'r..'‘',*ii'l..xe.T-..-:;.-..-c;.:.0:4•„•,.•.•...%•.c<.."•.'.=.P%.c-.7',t.,..':7:•^,-.?re-rc.„'...:..•:4r.•:.:.'::-n 1:5'.1c:r.:....,,;b i,:,,**l•:•.;;..;.c....,;:.•':,'.:.c'•:;"•:7,..:•,.•....:.;F.:• '•*,:--,....:.c::•.1o1•1r11P.*:•,•w•_..i*v"....'c.-.,..':••:••^'••`••,•.-;.C:':,..-.-7"1..‘.,1.•..:•55•.*.'•,.'..: Scale 1 ' =20005 . ,:'4 , tT • ^ _ r .:;`•:0.-7'•-•:'•••••••••:"*."';'''..- ..'• ' . -." ..;•;...,7.:::,,:y .., ;"'•''''...•.'4V:I.:g..•r: r7...`..rele- ...: i"- ; . . •-•,.. .... - . . ... - -1 V.'-':'c..N-id. ' -' •- . ' . -.I;1.- :.:: '(?).."' ''''..."• -_____________. ..1,,•.*,%.:.•-r-_,TY; '-• . • •••••,, •.:.e• . - ••• 1,........„..v. 1 ..,...,......,.::::,.......1.,....,•:...... (.:t.t.,.;.,.71,043,:pocrocipezi_l_r . I El • 1:.. ,. .:•k '.`-...:t. .- -3 .. • \ i . .,,. • 7..\:...:::-.....1-•• i • " .• - •,'''..... .,, :. ' ._*....m•• 3 • -.1 • :5-'. ':-. I • ••- •• ,r r c J . I I . -%... —T ... ..... ...:::•....:::. .; ..,1..• f. 1 ...: • :.. ....4. .:,., • •,/ 1: - ........% %I, :::':1::::::: l'''':C.! l!.... •r r•—...— 1 /. I S I.1-a-- -;.;... ,•1:,,,,,,,( •• :•)••••••••: •••! • '-...7., .•, .—L ____ •. 0, , ,., .... . .... •• . . r-....-,!..,•••:::: ! \ 2., \ ..\•:::::::: ... .:k.,„.....• „...-,4•,....:::::::: 1_- OP -------. .--.... ".'...‘:"‘..........::::::::: :'...:;::::::' :::::.:::0, ,,,....•-'1‘‘ ,7.."..4 :::,: \--1- ....000. ...J.. i ...... . , .. ::::.::::.... .---. 1, . ••••:•; • • 1 • ',, 0 .., '...' ------• ... I :7;1;:;• I— •00000 .• 1 1'01-PAT .•-••• ,_-) 1'4'. 7,, 1 .... , i -. - - 00. - .1 - • •• . L . •••••• . ,. 0.00.0. ..,... r I f .____ "Itko.•• : —r-rtif:T::::;......,....:::,:::::::••••••:•:••:••• -• :•• • .o nt_. c• 000 o•no ...., -, r_r_ :,:,:,,:,:,:,:,:,::::: 10 , :... . ..on000000 L.'(......1.;''' .:::.i.::::.::.:....-...Pr _ ••::::::::::::::::.::::: r,# i I ! sre!sil ,,• .1 ';':•'-',:•••••••:':1 41111/P.i "..:aii:::*:i .'...•..":, . ' 10:00°0:0;o: ,r)(300(3‘ IV.-_, 1..; I r ,t!,........ . **::.:::,:::.:,:;:i:M:if.,::• • i - I 0.3,300 /.0.0.0.0.1 Dol (31f1/11 II a ,.;.••.> J,..., ••••• •••• .......... D..::..' 1.-;''..r.f. .........:::.!!!!!!!Fr._... ,1 11 I %:.:::::::::.:.iiii‘410 0°....A. : --- ' •Ze: • '; 1*. ,*i*i:i:ir: ....:........... . ':::::::::.iiii . ..: .......e.. ii; . \ 41, , . -.rs2:, . . • • ., ,, i:::..:::.i.:::::: :.: ri____ L.._3 i • . ; • :*:*i:::: .., 640. • • '' 1 ::::::::::: ,.. i 000 0 4 0 o o 1 • • ., .. ..i:::::. ' IL'—'— -• • i 00 • • ' ... :i'.i. a, '•• • 1 • • ';:, , 7P:1:11,11t4 )flelii n It o 04:139439 0.00083/4,41 tn• •. • 5' '1 ,cgf...- • -.... d; PP. • `">• • • ••i ........___ _ .C.• tw, ..... --",, ....:•••••.......:•::::::•:•.. --( . .1 . • • • ,,; 111 • •. • '-',.. \ 0 • h • -.';',.. 4'• , ••••••• .• m..o ... /.- '! •:•;.::......:, ..n I 1 o .::::•:::•:•:•. .•:::::::::::::•:,„••• I co .:• • ',II '• 0, ••••••• • • • • • :J.. .... ... .:.... ,0,0 -.........:.:•:-. ::::::::::::::::::::::...?. •::-:..... . • •, • • i 71 •• \.- ...::-:-: .: 1lIrIlIF ' ::::::::::' ..,:iiiiiiiff,?•,:::::::.:,:fii :::':i':iiiii'.,...::.:-,. • • • • 4 •-,„; • • • • • ',.., . I.:.:'''.:••••. __. •••••is sii) • l' ...••:**. .1::::::: :':::,:i:::• *::::::::.•(%, • • .0, 4 • 6 4 a, , „, ..................... [......b..1.1............ 4_,..6.6 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . II 11 IIIII S, ..............: .... ...... ............................ .................. .. •re • 41 h., vt, .10.0.1. :•••••.-:•:.:-:-:.:.:.:-:•:•:-:.:•:.:.:-:•: 0. 0 00 •••:,.....:•:-:•:•:•:-:-:-:-:•:•::::::::: . 0 n n, :.:•:.:•••••:•*:' :,•: •.:... el IBC !.::.•:...:::::,:.::.::•,:.'.:.6:.•;;i:...::: 1 I -— . •!Wilillir if:::2::*if:::.::.:iSiSi:::.•:... iiiiiiiiii ;:.::::iiimp:::......... ::*:::::::iiiii:::,.... ,,,4,r4./. rg •011at , :::::::iiI.:IiI:''' .,::::::fflii:.•:i To°0°AITOWcfl,III1f1PrInntlicrorl : :•:::::•:::::::::•.:4t :."..::::".":::::::::::.::"..i...:::.:.::•:::;i:i:.::.::::::.:;:.*". - 7101P " Writ, littOP ': .:** .....:::ii.iiiiiii:Iii:i::::•iiii::. Polf'cUoVontill Pe PIPIIIIITono°41 ..:. .::::::::?•:::::::::::::•'...... .--•• ......:;:iiiUt:.:•:::::::.•:i:::::::•::.:.ii.::,ii:ii.:iiiii"......:".. : 6 11011 \r• "• "'-"':.;'",.. . •.:iiiiii:ini:iiii.::.iiiM: PonelionoMall WP,41Ponolioni ....... ,„, .',..::::::2 .::.'.',::::::::::,::::*::N::::::.*:::::::::::''• / 1 . '-.4.1.-•!,'"' •••••••`• ••••: :. .:iii.::::::iii* gilfobV413117,3 "01113°00:itonni:041: • ;::::.::. tflP. e o .• .*:•:.i:.i::i::•ii:iiiIiii?..iii"• rob onolfillfo9141MIlo •o o o o o• n.........1:.••0 •- ..• -. • . . ;77-flii.t,: .1 0 00'4 ...:,*:•.if:::,:::::*:.*.::::'•:": I cro°o°o o o/Po 13 000 o o 0 o n o o ........-........... •••••••••• .ri• '.. i ..... 9 .. ,flo lllll • ..:.:::.;.:.;.:.:.:....:.;.:.;.: on non onnti000nonno not ...................• . 00000 '. :•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:. ,0000000000001)000onn , .................... i 0 0 0 n 0 •.. ;,..:,:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•: ...• 'MP,flIgnli' • ••••••••••:•:•:•:•:. (1. ,....,_,., f. i• ' .' 1 '11'411:11.' /. if.."i";::::::::::.:if.,:::::i"": . o o 4.o 1 w o o ...• ......C....:•:.:.! .. . ..-f.` c,• •''' . L. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1! :::N.4)41,041:14, A..: 1..........:::::::::•:•:. )(moo>oon 0000.000 ••....M..' '‘. .ti „ ..: :::::::::*:::::::::::::::::: ..:.'.' "(XIII f'0111; •,!..• N.44:2:•-•2': n...1 .... .. •••••4641 .•' s..'''• .."0"'" '1 :::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1' • 00, •,••," •:::::::•:•:•:::::::•• —--u-,2-. .. ,...) '... '1 lk...%;C::/ l'. i : •i":Si:::::::::::N: .',-):;.4.',4 6'•%.. .,. , ...I'. ,*: :.:•::::::::::•:..M.::: ,;;,-;'•:•`?..7:;• •ii.'•s,:r.`4'.f-.:,''*•si.rii.i,,, ii:•••••••:..... .....i:m i *,:,• . . ..... • ,. .. r''''':".•'4,5•.••'`i••• 0.•''.1,;,...,•;• i:.:1•1,-..>"V"?.',.-C)",'"6...:.:;,-'6'1,;•!.1,5;,:,.. ...:::.:....:::.:.:.::: *q, . ... t..<.;:,' ....a.c.*:.0..:a.;••,•••1'cilii,-.•:::!,- 3153 I ••::).',,..p 1..-•:°•1-3•"•''..htf,;;•:,•,••,;;....0:;•,,,: ":'ci 4, •:::::::.::::::::::: . ff i ii".14'. itiVg ;',.,..'•'''. ..1),C2,..r',1,14.);(__,.:'• Irt'1',..,.1 .•4 if:;::.'6- ..I.,..J.,1,`.!.,'•:;`:/,'..);.....!;;' •'.;"/','a f•-•f!e'fi ii.f.f. •••••.:::::::::::: • '')C , .. '''',f''•;. "-'i'kV...I?' 11\...0; '..:-...d..11...;',.;-',.!I-6''' ' ' -'•';' .'1"'.5;.'i'?..,.""(4:7.'"i, ''..... ., ./..:r41.,.;;;I:.e, ,, s..•.),"" t c. .";si°:yarcpc-,..__. `Tc.-•-'i !'4:).•.i:ii,:;*,..,,,i'f..,•:;,`?6`'i,(*()*. 4 ,,,,,...,p•,,?...„..,:, :9, ••'C'Zj?. ••.t>.Y. /... "•r••••,It•;;_ctiN•I'ct! 'i•'....1.;,'c":...:•', *•:(..,'.. . .-- \ \ "P..(1.,'..".i?•:•:•i:.....,',1. ......ara,,..t_LI.. n .17,...,a.L.6 ''''•rrr•i-j,145,1• r..1;c4(Y?:* '..f.;'•(• I . ' ' .n ,4,,u,,,,,;:-.,,-0,., ''•1)fin••••••41F7: :::"C:..)."••• • --••••• ' , l. • W..!..:coV,S7•Ci''Cr--:"'. • • •ivvy,').11!.,..ill:•re,0:.;•to.•*,',4111.9.T',.'',.)..';',•! 's^ ' ••-'--- •. 0,300 imm..4110..... ' `z". .e,..31-'2;;.••• ';'..1-•r4;.;.•!.."'..I.. !I • ' ' • .i•-;,...,,F,r ;,.:-.(-'1' . • .. . 1.3!I;,i•.Vg fit)!IN!•,,:...0::::::).... -'''r... • .-,.. ,,,..,•,•••"-,,i,4•;,..c.sp,c00:. •„1,-.4.)•,,,-cerr•izet,,..: • ....,,,•.,,,....!..,• -<A.•,.:,•,,.••••••<?: !:, 6hr ,, pv.4.1„..7.. '•4;,1f(iv V,•;,..:• i*e} •i,-.4-... )i'...... I.: • ..._ •. N...F•r r-, . ;04.t•x-....t.1,.•i 5, ., -. ••••••,.l'• •1•• • .4,5; -- - . ,1;f:;119.1::;;-';ri.•Ttl!!Pii!..1:!:1,C‘I'•;);4.?P':4.e.)..l'i . • 41..c . .. •• 3;!:?/. ...,),..3re.,.?i. 1 , •....".;:2,..,it:C;..e.....ii!;q,:•••ff:::9:1,.. LAND USE ELEMENT '.w...-c''''.#(;': .,. ' .. . ..,:q,.,,;: .,,,,,-....,,-,:c,:,17.-;:',;_,•;:.;.,'•.vrpf Ig-,•...-f,"1:.91;;e;:'•.‘2,.,..3• ) ...i„,. ., ...e.2.4,:r.: ,,,•' •0.0.-,..,.-41,-..,-. .ri,.,cQ.'...-' t.,;:!.‘• • ••,<I, ,. • •,Zi:"1:1'6Ci'...---`--:-------- - •r. •r.'.. - • .,P;.,-.; • I .;:ft(7;,t.r.relic.•f, .•r,•••• t'I'r.....14,*.‘,.:, ,•-N ,,,,. . = • - r•<••,(4%.•••,...:e.F.- ..-- 0 tr.)I!•*- ,,,...tre.r..cr-I,41( .,r.f.v.4.,A.:k.t,yr.,.•v ' ''• --..'' 761`'• 't!'-o-.145:•P`' !'f;':-C<'4.3.4.‘.tr'f ' .- .- -''* *'•?' "Cr•r'.rt**144 qii'.1 ' 1 Single Family 117:11111111 COmmercial. . 111, ---------__, ••• .e.:0,..ti••• r.,.. ---".• ...-- ..\ - •--... ••- tfe0V• 'vet. 6 • •_....._. ,c,-.) • • • .. - •• - • • ------.. ecrl- \,-, ,wt• • 0.c0;' '0.•:".0% S ll • ...:............::..i.........::::a Low Density I •••••.•:•:•:::::•:•:::: •-•:::::::•••.-:::::••.• • Multl-Family • \ N *:•• • .,.,0, ::•130,.....‘:::', .x>, It ••• ,.•,$•• 11:./)..pV.,fie'Y .4.11141111111k:&0.<1,-.•Office / Office Park *Isi.:',.,•;;/,'.:.• ' *q..,.. ..;•4 :pkiv-%,**. . • ......_ t'icujf:,.r' •-....., C.,.1 --. • • i., :•,'e.113 ' '"••••. '• 'Vt:•`c.•• 1711D^:4!'if.' •. imiLo..,t''• f.:411:'Pfrre' Medium Density 1.......0.00.01 !•;.:. .g.,1•,,• ,i , • .• •9•••: 10,q1.-t 'filjel, .• c :: ,t.moac,rar Public/Quasi-Public w.i..W•,- ,:,.,:tz,,•:,..,.:..,,.;‘1 ",i,Ito••••., •I'll' ri.it Multi-Famity „„...... .09,-00<ftrou .r., <3,-.•"•• < d ..„41. • • - ti • • • 4.1." P.:: • CI'•••6 %•ki.o.., , . ‘).-. ,'1;:,,y;. .. ."1?• 71.;'.:,,.,..,,..13:•.,1; .. • •.(r.V.01`.: ,i ., • •'I' '•L A " '''.'.• k'1.0 ..( .. •0 , :. •1..,:•,•v. `,'''. . 0..t41.;CY,.,. 'S' arra High Density i Light Industrial •,.,j,••.:c.,•in.,/..e:,-,‘I , 3.•?•,....* •:%.:7 . T.-!:4'..cit,ki.: tv, .--,, • *-------- •:si;:;•1 0.. 0 0,,,,- .,.,, .:0„,-.) • •,• 0 L.•• .a. ••• •,. "s-;•. ti$,,..y.c ' ••.•iv-W...,.••••• •••• 1•:'..4'1,z •'`.1?.••.:1".'-•".',I'•.`:P•t ," .••tia,Pa Multi-Fami•ly .*: . . •.".„-:, 4.)...< ....4 ., ...,,,) ,..,,,,, 34 3 th..d • 11."!.."..:?'''.""'''' '''14:N'C.....'''Cr i'..!!ii).!•?•4 '0."•iit,t1).'''Mb:" . ' ',1,4•0•0'ii •Ai•J.I?Q I• ••••1 • .. 6. •‘ - lor1.>.,„,';.„'(.0*...•.•,.0..:4 CI 4r.(y., • i • , ..'."1•-.f..IP(pl.$.,i'..14,,.,-•;.101',,,.',tt V))..A .(.1,,, ,*Recreation Heavy Industrial „ .Ponit . i•a•• ... ..'.1. .,,a(,,tN• . . o0on0000.. ;.,.... iI A'.."0 d.t.) 0000000000. ,-.• .4: 2 '.1.it0:0:0'‘7,0": ;*4t .:•,'': •-•,,;;;,;,-..:.' _____ n0000000noo ., -, .11,i;:r:12.'....' Greenbelt 1,..0.00°0"..• 000d • I -:-:--_-.-=.--_-- Manufacturing Park 'P209)°, ,300,3<71 -'..'4‘.' c;ri*-[ 41. ,cmcwc3 -- rm., ••••:*. o. woo 1, or. • . • I all 119-PrPri i ' ..... . • / Multiple Option 1:1=1:1-',11:1: • ( -• I I P\(C-------- 4 •: • le::',:•:' •.. • . , •2 .1 I i I I —• . . . • • I-LI I "1 __ • I /IdAr ILYA...A:II !I.!' r" -11•4 .. % 0 •1.1--X..-. ,./i . i .t.. —4 6 it__ 1 --• — ..i'... 4...-P.s.1 . m.141 • (11715.11r1 : . ; . • • 1 . . . , . •• -— • .. : :: . i ,,,,... or •,•' 1. •i• ::;--- •.'i'' , i;,- --- -- .• • : - i... el, ::•-i .. --.7---- • ..,„„'/' ..a !s i4:3-Xii ":. :• • > . ..• '':. .7.. .11: ,2 i/: :,.!.: 1_.17A11$,1>_.:)411-_4... i.•._k(\tst::.,1,,!.,.!:..i 4!i 4„.,.,.e4,4141: 1 id ,> i,,;,'L, 'i,.:,',i L.,,,,.I A.,,;',!lti::•,: 2. i • _ .iii.-_,....-.7,....;,,, '--.. . ..... -... ,: T-i - -rrT •-• e . " : :t •: I • I"a 1--- --1,1-.11131.TicRe,v201.: .: .i ,. .%,c.:; , ‘,.•,••••• ,- '•,...'.•'''•!..,-',. ' II - II I 44 1 R "' - --- ii_________ ____-- ... , • l' .,. ... . • . • . . 1 - 2 ..;t- _ .,-- . I —3 , , . • : ',. • t • • . t . 1 .1 • I . OP - i,c)•\____ ...1...' . 1 t' 101 lt.• . . '.:R—2 • . ..i ‘ i 1 ii 1 it .dzi V .- :1;1 V. 1- ..a.I ' •i-z . . A - -,7,,..,D., _. ,•- •1±. -7--- i I 54 '-• I..i •-•--; " S •;i i -i,-, —A •••,‘ ----.3 4 • " - I•• --- \._. - t 1 “;----ii5 " i •" ..z 00(7.1'.'_... • 1-) .R ,__. Midi 3 . .i., •.) , .:, , tr. •,,,, .. ,, ,,... .„ . r.' . , . II%V ."-I-T4 :1 .- . •1 ' ..: --z_ 1 ",....1-ct:/;:i\•0\+1.11ila,L1:441•16/ 4 . ;,,,;,.. , i IliAl.51 AR()o t A _I . ;,..,P1111 ‘1 -4-1- 11 '..•''... .••' I ' 5. P;\ 3.>'' 1 ---11-!" - -11 . 4 ..ii, . . -• V -'—'1.{.- 'w - • - ,.1. 4 '1,',..);0, 6. i 6 1: 11 W-oil.IP-I:-;;)• . 1 H c: • G— 1. • 4 1,_' _.,.%. -A% :. i. " c„-% ii 4, . • : ' "1- A- FR; -,lo -11-1-,. \ii i=, 7 i !,i ,/1},-.---1, R't— (-- -• . i• -_, . ,;.: ,i, 1 \[..\"' `• :,---i ' :' - .1!' , :: L11. ... j6.1:.: . • .--.7 77 iii [ Li 1.------"T! .. .; ! '' r'1 - . -1'i 'I- -F1-1" '• 1'9-2, t "Alv—* vii --.•. • '' LI ' -. 'f'['.1tif qs-;t:_i_q1‘2! LT' i . ..... . :,:.;...::: t, ..i.•—:,.:;; . 1...;:.....'.. ...'i'-:. .. .•';...i:T•';,i?ljii!;.i. )' , • i," ' 1 %-'1 "-- . .1.5 iLi.7-1.' - "i .11"1 ,1 , - - -- - ' "-- - ''' - - --.'L--- ' - --- ..1 ,, ---T- 11-111 .. — ,• 1. 11 -1 . q‘ : 1 1141 . . i .. I el , 'S'I t, t...... .ti .••;:'. ••'•• ;•. 'il 1 47.-- IAA 71-41..I .1 ' . I (.fd •......'..r..: ..:..:•,i. ...i..: S.T : AR— 1 -.! 1 _ V.,...: . ',, • 1 i.:..,_ . ._ • 1 S • '. 1 ..• : i•••;i:.••••,..!;,)•,44•Y'i.14•.••'' .1.:,' it.::.:',..I riii:t 'iiol.•,?,.. i.A''‘P.•; :1.11$ 4!:; .. _ .._... ... .... .. _ .9:I..T.) ...! • 1 • t • • . . • QUALITY PACIFIC , INC . • SA-110-88 , ECF - • • r APPLICANT QUALITY PACIFIC, INC. TOTAL AREA 1 . 01 ACRE PRINCIPAL ACCESS ANACORTES AVENUE NE EXISTING ZONING R-3 EXISTING USE VACANT , . PROPOSED USE 25 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX . COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN OFFICE PARK . COMMENTS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE. OF ANACORTES AVENUE N.E. „ 1200 BLOCK . . • . .. . , . .. . ..... .• • . • . . . . • . . . . . • . . . • • • , , .. ,.• . • • ` • - - . . s si 1 • ,�.o. ` �; t,, . • ; 1' j 1• e• 1 ,I . 1 l /ice :1hY I 'i ill ii, Y•i /A.' 1Jr,. :if. . ?N ' _-. i t`.vt , • 2.'' i I k.;1 �`' j • 0,6 • i 1 r 1 r'' r�{ rt f :, I y., i ., '� . i III !. ,� lif 'I - •1 Iilip ill 1;11. ' ( ' ' It 1 ' CD li ai YN //.�+ � , I I. { III �'; �;t, S - t 11 III 1. iA ,9st '� T ti" 'f r l A 6NukcoPi - 0 iI'J ,a n - • - �I �lf i • I I• j fl • ill • i 6 Ii 1 ti i`' a1 P • ' .; • • (t'li • ;tin (, J a,1�,•, , .i r' I ;.)1.;, I.. y.:. t 1 •i ;: i ,ii+' • il6 list t.;'rt A • r • a (,, LI7 G ltfi I P, vlC.11 II1'f Iti�l a 1� V,1(Y IAC,11(, b iF E cCU.v, •/•L.1c�G Aro.•71-It •,.• 1(l, ,.;., JINN�AAOEA{OM AND A{IOCIAEE{�k �.iw%a•o •i '--ef n If PS. INC. ...un.,..ww,..eto.. C Oil II `u I_ Cc? it 6 wise . ISAR DOE - a (� E ao • O „-. Rjj _ — j : A 0 W n • • o v • ` 1 .<:( ; 31.PMOTINIA CAASEN ` 1'AilllA fAAI.OIPUM 1 I ' f•au RFInG ASPEN.�- !�-.�—.�.J,/..11yr•�� :-LauYEL xA pluwnw Z0 C. _� •-�\ LIME Gll1 TINT PVT O ::::: , • • • • •YnIQOE .‘ ..1011( •VIYI NAPLC L•M•IILAl1 ASANIxjLIM { • �1' 3►IICNI.IN .7MIALLA ANIIIRI 1 .13 L.I NA At/l� 7-AMES LA SIOCA[M ,f S•MNNI•TR.N9ORCl0UR f — ,_ T AMMO 1t. I Y/ _ 1 1K NN! •- I • / •JE 1 LAWN /•' .AlO -A . _ .." Af:LEN VIM C. LAWNiir JOI MR.OIDIINMN J • 1.1•ALALAM • L • R•AIIIM CIANLIPIO[A � FM/0P0[N1UN • • .• � .I ••. '• ).J v. LAWN " _ _ _ CvAa1wG ASPEN I z ET QI� - ^�/ 1 '•) ,1.7 � la-..YiAEF TAR • `/i.l • • _ / . / (mow]TMNYK R Dr LLDD •-.--• —__-- _ -_ • _ f � -4Y0IOKNLRCV JEAN RANI( •'•AOTIYIA IONSER1 _ _ • T-. �ANANA :7-N(InSAYpIAI `� -" m6NR/N JEAMNC 2-CSJA KING ASPEN iC•FMOTIMIA C IIII Ew SERI../ 1 1 7 E. _1 1.ALL OCD AREAS TO NAVE R•TOPSOIL/AM ADDED •(�� • • - 2.LANN AREAS TO DC SODDED ON Z"TOPSOIL MIX BASE MITN PREMIUM SPA. '?= . LI - ALL TREES AND JMRV6]T1 It PLANTED IN POCKETS TRICE TIIE MIOTN .y 1. ' AMD IA.TIMES TOE DEPTM OF TN& PLANT 6ALL-LACK►ILL WITH TOPSOIL MIY. • • .:T,��!y: • 4 r.rERTILIZE TIITA PLANT TARLE TS IN •LANT MOLES AS DER MANUFACTORS R&COAMLIIOATIOA 1 PRG-EME4GANCE MELD CONTROL TO 6L APPU ED.AS PIE MANUCAC TA NS ICCON..END ATION - G.ALL TILES TO OL STANCE.OR GUVEIS • • ' - 7.ALL RES AREAS TO DC-CINLEM RAKED AND NULCMLO MITN S.FINE OARS VAASM[ARGO IN PLACC. yy - Z. A GROWING ALL PLANTINGS TO OG GUARANTLG ONG GOWG SEASON. . • ... 4 O • • • P. INIOFGT PO. c 2:b . . . _ ....RTIn OD►TINOs JON ANARSOI NO Am0O00 l ►11Ne - L R fO I I i 1 1 8 . 1 W P . I I ' 41. 1 \ 1 \ Hi Im 1 ......,.! g I—Li`i = \\, 7 t. i 17:1:1 ii i.- ri e, _ -1 no \ T_ I \ • I- flilllL �,l 1I — 'TnnnnIII Ll—..�:.._J awe_ -� ---- = X.f ._,_ \ I �a \ • \Cl 1)jmn� l liiulul \ • \ril N�� — 3!1-7.48 T. • 9 Ufa JL_/•GEIIT I-I,OFF YITIL i �ur•Llrr !^GII'IlC- (MI JOHN iNOE iiON AND ASSOCIATES t{, INC. '�I 7 Na !II'IL ILN! CGDPh YN LcG . Ir. THCN.5 r u. /�� (��9A � Gil I2� p U w 2�ei Uil ITII l`' Il`ll l� C IT �� Q oii ee KAIy• 1.•100.'01; • Y.1,71, I. 1.4.141. I•lII . MY.��•Y.^ral • p•�Nti s "g C a 6 i V . . .._ Ilt 1 ,1 g . 1Llll111ll11III11111Illlir. .I -L_1L (1 i �E IM ...._ QDP 1HJ11 IU 1 • r1LI EFIETl(.Tri i z lrlT1lfiillll11illiiI11mil!IIII1111II!:. , II11 1[I„ • I, I • • 71 T __r-- '. I 111i 1.1—illl Jl_IIIIEIII I 1 I III1II1111111111 -- _ 1 I Wllll, 1119 L-:1 111111 Illlll Il l I. MilE II) . • • _l111111liil1111111111111I11111111111lllI • • _� - )I - no r aL= ` ' I II I t-;' 111111111111101111TriI MIIIII1 IIIII. . : . C: .111I!!II 111111111111 — �D Ti =--- T__ _ , , : . . z , — _1 Ij Iit. , 1 1,- 1ji11 s L II. �.' ;. - _ � 1►IIIl ::: °i � 0 - Ill l Ii dll - I I:sx {'o . lRIEIIJIII — I -��;) ., . .. II Ir; I !IIIi'III' 11� 1111iillill\ ty, ;..,_ i ' I I 'I ' lI I I .1I �il.11lllj_ Lug.--'- 6 J IM"I IgL1111L I1! !L'Ii L1.Illl'� ,( 1' ISM, I If1.1_l.11.:__ip(:11 ' ' II• 1 '.1' 1E It 11 _ ii'' ..-1' .,,, ._ . __ • 1,� 4 T. 1 L`T1.:CI1- °__.1I 111.% o -1111:1111111?11:11711111171<III I�iI/ i z . V r77C01_ j-- q [A,Ill LING A.1/a2 E1.E'_V/•'IV)11`. ?I b-1 I I•'( I:ti.:II 1(_ oen () !� CtUN� ��L.LAGC hPAIAML'NTS �•(_q��, JOHN ANOEOSON AND ASSOCIATES U. INC. !i�NJ�IV INw.A1 L`V �OarOla wtinln�rUu c v n lutI I1 I. . Y1�..i.U..bMp I�ODI Qq 41AM • 1 I / f Jit CITY OF RENTON ..1 HEARING EXAMINER Earl Clymer, Mayor Fred J. Kaufman MEMORANDUM TO: DON ERICKSON, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FROM: FRED J. KAUFMAN, HEARING EXAMINER RE: Introduction of New Materials at Public Hearing Quality Pacific, Inc. - SA-110-88 Dear Don: I know you may find this hard to believe, but the public hearing is supposed to provide the opportunity for both the public and the applicant to respond to the staff report prepared by the Planning Division. In this particular instance, nothing in the staff report leads one to the conclusion that the applicant submitted modified plans, and I see nothing inherently inappropriate in the applicant being represented by an attorney of his choosing. The applicant submitted plans showing carports adjacent to buildings, you found them unaesthetic, and the applicant dissented. Voila! A healthy difference of opinion, perhaps! 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2593 4$ ® CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM zit izig.2) March 7, 1989 MAR u '989 CITy Ohz. HEARING ExAM oly TO: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner FROM: Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Introduction of New Materials at Public Hearings Lenora told me that Mr. Sunich of Quality Pacific submitted new materials that had been prepared by John Keegan at today's public hearing arguing against restraints by the City on the siting of carports. This new information and change in position was a complete surprise to her as well as to me. Since this office goes out of its way to notify applicants by mail or phone of it's recommendations in advance of the public hearing it seems only fair that staff should have some foreknowledge that an applicant is submitting major new information in order that we may be allowed to properly respond. What I find annoying in this instance is the fact that Mr. Sunich met with me on a number of occasions and agreed to remove carports from his submittal at this time since staff were recommending against their placement immediately adjacent to the apartment buildings. For aesthetic and light and air reasons, staff were recommending that the carports be sited over the parking bays nearest the street where they would not conflict with the architecture of the apartment buildings nor impact light to nearby units or impair views from there units. When it was determined that even though parking could be located in a required front yard but that carports could not (even though they are accessory to parking), we agreed to initiate amendments to our building regulations so that they would be allowed if removable (similar to the metal awnings found in many downtowns), of minimal silhouette, and adequately buffered by landscape screening. Mr. Sunich had agreed to delete his carports and we had agreed to work on the zoning amendment this year. The staff report was also prepared on this assumption. It seems to me and my staff that applicants should at least have the courtesy of informing us before the public hearing if they have a change of heart so that we are at least pre-pared to respond in an informed manner. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550 Fred Kaufman, Hearin :aminer Introduction of New Materials At Hearings March 7, 1989 Page 2 Incidentally, this applicant also seems to be ill-informed about the fact that the public hearing is not a review of SEPA compliance or, for that matter, the zoning code but rather their compliance with the site plan review criteria of Section 4-738 of the Building Regulations. I don't know if you want to continue the hearing on something this mundane or not but it would be nice if project applicants began treating others the way they wish to be treated in terms of due process, early notification, etc. Had I not been tied up in a three hour meeting at the Renton Boeing Facility I would have been there this morning and probably pressed for a continuation. But I wasn't. DKE:mjp • r , BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RE: QUALITY PACIFIC, INC. ) NO. SA-110-88 MEMORANDUM BY APPLICANT RELATING TO CARPORTS I . INTRODUCTION The Staff Report, at page 10, recommends that the carports or "covered parking stalls" be relocated away from the multifamily structures they are intended to serve. The applicant opposes this relocation recommendation for the reasons summarized below. II . DISCUSSION A. Carports Are "Accessory Uses" Permitted in the R-3 Zone, Accessory uses in the R-3 zone include: (a) Detached buildings and/or structures, and recreational facilities such as ordinarily associated with single or multi-family dwellings . Renton Municipal Code, Title IV, § 4-709A(B) (2) . B. The Carports Meet Setback Requirements in Their Proposed Locations . In the R-3 zone, the rear and side yard setbacks are "based on twenty percent (20%) of the lot width" as follows : ( 1) Lot Width Rear and Side Yard Setbacks 30 feet 6 feet 40 feet 8 feet 45 feet 9 feet 50 feet 10 feet 55 feet 11 feet 60+ feet 12 feet Renton Municipal Code, Title IV, § 4-709A(c) (4) (b) . The staff is recommending that the carports be noved into the setback area (p . 10 of Report) . This creates an unnecessary problem. Applicant does not want completion of his development made dependent upon a future text change to the zoning ordinance as suggested by staff (p . 10 of Report) . C. The Proposed Carports Meet the Parking and Loading Requirements of the City. The parking and carport facilities proposed meet the requirements of the Renton Parking and Loading Ordinance. Renton Municipal Code, Title IV, Chapter 22 . No finding is made in the Staff Report to the contrary. D. There Is No Adopted Renton Policy Which Prohibits Carports Next to Buildings . The Staff Report has cited no adopted regulation or even policy which prohibits carports next to multifamily buildings . In the environmental review, no City department raised the issue of carport relocation as a mitigating measure. See MEMORANDUM BY APPLICANT - 2 9701K .. ' Determination of Non-Significance, dated January 20 , 1989 , and accompanying staff memos . The Planning Division only commented on the "style" of the carports , suggesting they be a "wood style to match building . " Even this recommendation was left out of the MDNS conditions . The City cannot impose a condition to relocate the carports on the basis of SEPA because: (1) there is no adopted City SEPA policy which supports such relocation; and (2) the environmental analysis performed for this proposal did not specifically identify the carports as presenting an adverse environmental impact that required relocation. Applicant, doubts that there is any "aesthetic" , "view potential" or "open space" reason which supports relocation. See Staff Report, p. 10 . The carports are less than one story in height, next to buildings which are two and two and one-half stories in height . Moving the carports south, as suggested by staff , would put them next to the sidewalk which the City has asked the applicant to dedicate. E. Relocation of the Carports Could Create Circulation Problems on the Site . The carports work safely and efficiently in their current location. They provide adequate aisle space and turning radii . There is not sufficient room on the site to relocate all 25 carports away from the buildings . Relocation could also create circulation problems on the site . MEMORANDUM BY APPLICANT - 3 9701K For these reasons and others to be explained at the hearing , the applicant respectfully requests the Examiner to approve the site plan with the carports at their proposed location next to the buildings they serve.G DATED this 1. day of / CIL( , 1989 . DAVIS WRIGHT & JONES By Jo n E. Keegan MEMORANDUM BY APPLICANT - 4 9701K BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RE: QUALITY PACIFIC, INC. ) NO. SA-110-88 ) ) MEMORANDUM BY APPLICANT ) RELATING TO CARPORTS ) I . INTRODUCTION The Staff Report, at page 10, recommends that the carports or "covered parking stalls" be relocated away from the multifamily structures they are intended to serve. The applicant opposes this relocation recommendation for the reasons summarized below. II . DISCUSSION A. Carports Are "Accessory Uses" Permitted in the R-3 Zone. Accessory uses in the R-3 zone include: (a) Detached buildings and/or structures, and recreational facilities such as ordinarily associated with single or multi-family dwellings . Renton Municipal Code, Title IV, § 4-709A(B) (2) . B. The Carports Meet Setback Requirements in Their Proposed Locations . In the R-3 zone, the rear and side yard setbacks are "based on twenty percent (20%) of the lot width" as follows : (1) Lot Width Rear and Side Yard Setbacks 30 feet 6 feet 40 feet 8 feet 45 feet 9 feet 50 feet 10 feet 55 feet 11 feet 60+ feet 12 feet Renton Municipal Code, Title IV, § 4-709A(c) (4) (b) . The staff is recommending that the carports be moved into the setback area (p . 10 of Report) . This creates an unnecessary problem. Applicant does not want completion of his development made dependent upon a future text change to the zoning ordinance as suggested by staff (p. 10 of Report) . C. The Proposed Carports Meet the Parking and Loading Requirements of the City. The parking and carport facilities proposed meet the requirements of the Renton Parking and Loading Ordinance. Renton Municipal Code, Title IV, Chapter 22 . No finding is made in the Staff Report to the contrary. D. There Is No Adopted Renton Policy Which Prohibits Carports Next to Buildings . The Staff Report has cited no adopted regulation or even policy which prohibits carports next to multifamily buildings . In the environmental review, no City department raised the issue of carport relocation as a mitigating measure . See MEMORANDUM BY APPLICANT - 2 9701K Determination of Non-Significance, dated January 20 , 1989 , and accompanying staff memos . The Planning Division only commented on the "style" of the carports , suggesting they be a "wood style to match building . " Even this recommendation was left out of the MDNS conditions . The City cannot impose a condition to relocate the carports on the basis of SEPA because: (1) there is no adopted City SEPA policy which supports such relocation; and (2) the environmental analysis performed for this proposal did not specifically identify the carports as presenting an adverse environmental impact that required relocation. Applicant doubts that there is any "aesthetic" , "view potential" or "open space" reason which supports relocation. See Staff Report, p . 10 . The carports are less than one story in height, next to buildings which are two and two and one-half stories in height . Moving the carports south, as suggested by staff , would put them next to the sidewalk which the City has asked the applicant to dedicate. E . Relocation of the Carports Could Create Circulation Problems on the Site. The carports work safely and efficiently in their current location. They provide adequate aisle space and turning radii . There is not sufficient room on the site to relocate all 25 carports away from the buildings . Relocation could also create circulation problems on the site. MEMORANDUM BY APPLICANT - 3 9701K For these reasons and others to be explained at the hearing, the applicant respectfully requests the Examiner to approve the site plan with the carports at their proposed location next to the buildings they serve. DATED this Gem' day of / f , 1989 . DAVIS WRIGHT & JONES By � � Jo 41E . Keegan U • MEMORANDUM BY APPLICANT - 4 9701K CHRISTINE O. GREGOIRE Director • STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop P1-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 • (206) 459-6000 February 6, 1989 Mr. Don Erickson City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 • Dear Mr. Erickson: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance for the Cedar Village Apartments proposed by Quality Pacific Homes. We reviewed the environmental checklist and have the following comments. The project should include an erosion control pond designed to accommodate the 10 year design storm, as well as volumes generated by the 'construction truck wheel wash. A pond that is so hydraulically designed would help mitigate potential surface water infractions. o;) A restoration bond to protect against sediment impacts to `c,+j>>�' Honey Creek should be required. If you have any questions, please call Ms. Rachel Friedman-Thomas of the Northwest Regional Office at (206) • 867-7128 . Sincerely, • /. , . • Barbara J. Ritchie • Environmental Review Section BJR: cc: Rachel Friedman-Thomas PLANNING D�r�� ,�,� , I :!CN CITY OF F`'' D MAR 1 1989 • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT: QUALITY PACIFIC, INC. FILE NUMBER: SA-110-88 LOCATION: 1200 block of Anacortes Ave. N.E. A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building. The proposed project is consistent with the R-3 zoning for the property. The site is vacant. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: Anton A. Althoff 2 . Applicant: Quality Pacific, Inc. 3 . Existing Zoning: Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District (R-3) . 4 . Existing Zoning in the Area: Medium-Density Multi-Family Residential (R-3) ; Low-Density Multi-Family Residential (R-2) ; Business Use District (B-1) ; Office Park (O-P) ; • and General Use (G-1) . 5. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Office/Office Park 6. •Size of Property: 1. 01 acres 7 . Access: Anacortes Ave. N.E. 8 . Land Use: Undeveloped land 9 . Neighborhood Characteristics: North: . Child care facility (Kinder Care Learning Center) . East: Low-Density Multi-Family Residences; Business District (Central Highlands Plaza shopping center) . South: Medium-Density Multi- Family Residences. West: Single-Family Residence. C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action File Ordinance Date Initial Annexation N/A 2408 May 27, 1968 . PRELIMINARY REPORT TO _. E HEARING EXAMINER Quality Pacific - Cede__ Village PUBLIC HEARING March 7, 1989 Page 2 D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities a. Water: Eight-inch main runs along Anacortes Ave. N.E. b. Sewer: Eight-inch line serves the west property line. c. Storm Water Drainage: Fifteen-inch pipe runs north along Anacortes Ave. N.E. toward N.E. Sunset Blvd. and eventually drains into Honey Creek. 2 . Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton as per ordinance requirements. 3 . Transit: Two Metro bus routes have transit stops approximately one-fourth mile from the project site. Route 114, a morning and evening commuter run between Renton and Seattle, is located on Union Ave. N.E. near N.E. Sunset Blvd. Route 107, a local bus service, is located on Union Ave. N.E. near N.E. Twelfth St. 4 . Schools: a. Elementary Schools: Honeydew Elementary School is approximately one-half mile from the project site. b. Middle Schools: McKnight Middle School is approximately 1.2 miles from the project site. c. High Schools: Hazen High School is approximately .8 mile from the project site. 5.. Recreation: Kiwanis Park is located approximately .8 mile south of the project site at N.E. Ninth St. and Union Ave. N.E. E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1. Section 4-709A, Medium-Density Multi-Family Residential District (R-3). . F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENT: 1. Northeast Renton Plan, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, 1986 (Pgs. 55-60) . 2 . Urban Design Goal, Objectives and Policies, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, 1986 (Pgs. 11-14) . 3 . Residential Goal, Objectives and Policies, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, 1986 (Pgs. 14-16) . 4 . Commercial Goal, Objectives and Policies, City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Compendium, 1986 (Pgs. 16-18) . G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. The applicant, Quality Pacific, Inc. , has requested site plan approval to allow development of a twenty-five (25) unit residential complex on a 1. 01 acre site, including open space recreation areas and parking facilities. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER - Quality Pacific - Cedar Village PUBLIC HEARING March 7, 1989 r. Page 3 The development will include three (3) discrete buildings. Building "A" is detached. Buildings "B1" and "B2" have a common side wall. Buildings "Cl" and "C2" also have a common side wall. Building "A" is proposed to have four units, Buildings "Bl" and "B2" (combined) are proposed to have nine units. Buildings "Cl" and "C2" (combined) are proposed to have 12 units. Building "A", at the northeast perimeter of the site is proposed to contain 3, 646 square feet; Buildings "Bl" and "B2" , on the northern perimeter of the site, are proposed to contain 9115 square feet (combined) ; Buildings "C1" and "C2", on the western perimeter of the site, are proposed to contain 10, 938 square feet (combined) . Each of the five buildings is proposed to be essentially square in shape. Buildings "A" and "B2" are proposed to be two stories in height; Buildings "Bl", "Cl" and "C2" are proposed to be 2-1/2 stories in height. Building exteriors are proposed to be treated with gray vinyl siding and with composition roofing. Living areas in Building "A" are oriented toward the interior of the site; living areas in Buildings "Bl" and "B2" are oriented toward the site to the north of the subject property. Living areas in Buildings "Cl" and "C2" are oriented toward the property to the west of the site. The parking area is situated on the southern section of the site. Picnic tables and related amenities are proposed to be located in the northern section of the site. The property is now vacant and is covered with trees and a variety of wild plant materials. 2 . Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43 . 21C, 1971, as amended) , a Determination of Non- Significance - Mitigated was issued for the subject proposal on January 20, 1989, (amended for clarification on February 8, 1989) with the following conditions: a. That the applicant be required to install a storm drainage management system to mitigate storm water runoff impacts to the site and to nearby Honeydew Creek, to be designed for 25 year developed state runoff, with a five year undeveloped state release, with a three stage baffled oil/water separator downstream of the detention system control structure. The specific plan should be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. Note: If it is feasible to do so, an open drainage plan may be preferred for this site. b. That the applicant be encouraged to support mitigation activities to enhance traffic safety and efficiency in the immediate vicinity by: a) participating in a study for the roadway for signalization of Anacortes Avenue at. Sunset Boulevard and for realignment of Anacortes Avenue at Sunset Boulevard to make a concurrent intersection (to their fair share, with payment advanced to be credited against future financing of re-alignment and signalization) ; and b). providing a 7 . 5 foot easement for public access at the southern boundary of the property, with the understanding that this easement be used exclusively for the development of sidewalk to serve future expansion of N.E. 12th Street to the south of the subject property. (Clarification: the easement shall remain valid for a ten year period. ) Note The easement is to be duly recorded with the City of Renton and with King County. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER - Quality Pacific - Cedar Village PUBLIC HEARING March 7 , 1989 Page 4 c. That the applicant retain natural vegetation as proposed on the tree plan and design and locate plantings and screening at the periphery of the site in a way which mitigates noise, light and glare impacts. d. That the applicant limit interior ambient noise levels to' 50 dBA to Buildings A and B 1/2 to mitigate noise impacts from nearby commercial activities to those residential units. It is recommended that either: a) interior insulation be installed in those buildings; or b) that insulation be installed along the north facades of buildings A- and B1/2 and along the east facade of Building A to achieve required mitigation. e. That the applicant provide a bond in the amount of $2, 000. 00 for street clean-up. (Clarification: a letter of credit will be acceptable in lieu of a bond) . 3 . Various City departments have commented upon the proposed development. The comments are attached; discussion of these ' items has been incorporated into this report. SITE PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA 4 . Section 4-738 (D, 1) lists ten criteria (and several sub-criteria incorporated into general criteria) that the Hearing Examiner is asked to consider along with all other relevant information in making a decision on a Site Plan Approval application. These include the following: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements and policies: The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the subject property for Office Park development. However, Comprehensive Plan Policies for Commercial (Office) development do not appear to support Office Park designation or development, for this property. For example, Commercial Goals, Policies and Objectives (Section V, V-A-3 , V-A-4, V-A-5, V-A-6, and V-A- 7) call for the promotion of conveniently located, viable systems of commercial-type facilities, which are easily accessible, which are compatible with adjacent land uses, and which are not located near uses which require-a high degree of safety and traffic control. The subject property is located at a site which is surrounded on three sides by residential development, which is some distance from the nearest major arterial, and is located on a minor roadway; thus, the site is neither visible nor conveniently accessible -- two characteristics which are important for success of office developments. The proximity to residential development poses a question as to compatibility of use for office development, and could pose a hazard as children from those developments encounter vehicles approaching such a commercial use on this site. Additionally, a marketing analysis for the area (dated 1988) indicates a limited market for office development -- plans for other office development in the area have been thwarted by this limited market. While the proposed use does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan Map designation, staff recommend approval of this proposal for the following reasons: 1) the proposed development is generally consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policies for Residential Development (especially IV-A-1, IV- A-6, and IV-A-7 and IV-B-3) which call for: 1) the creation of sound, viable neighborhoods, 2) the development of a variety of housing types/designs, 3) the location of housing where access is available, 4) the discouragement of non- PRELIMINARY REPORT TO,' .E HEARING EXAMINER - Quality Pacific - Cede Village PUBLIC HEARING March 7, 1989 Page 5 local traffic into residential neighborhoods, and 5) the design of dwellings to take advantage of site character (e.g. vegetation, proximity to Honeydew Creek) . The proposed development is also consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policies IV-C-3 , which calls for location in the vicinity of arterials -- the site is approximately 500 feet from Union Avenue and a similar distance from Sunset Boulevard (appropriate for residential accessibility, but not for commercial accessibility) ; and IV-C-4 - 5, which call for medium density residential uses to act as buffers between low density residential uses, high density residential uses and commercial uses. b. Conformance with existing land use regulations: The proposed residential complex generally conforms with land use regulations established in the Zoning Ordinance for R-3 , multi-family residential development (Section 4-709A) , for Parking and Loading (Chapter 22) , and for Landscaping (Section 4-744) . Specifically, development of the proposed 25 unit residential complex on this 1. 01 acre parcel would result in the maximum permitted density of 25 units per acre. This level of density is similar to that for surrounding multi- family residential development. Development standards delineated in the Zoning Ordinance for developments in the R-3 zone are satisfied for: a) lot size, configuration and dimension; b) (dwelling) building heights and setbacks; and c) lot coverage for structures and impervious surfaces. The number, location and dimension of parking spaces, (except for the carports) , and the configuration of the maneuvering area in compliance with requirements established in Chapter 22 for parking and loading for multi-family developments. Retention of natural vegetation and creation of landscaped areas (as established previously by the Environmental Review Committee through the Determination of Non-Significance - See Section G#2 - and as established through conditions which are set in conjunction with land use review) will ensure conformance with requirements set by the Landscaping Code (Section 4-744) . c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses: Staff from various City departments reviewed this project. Potential impacts to the surrounding environment and to neighboring land uses were identified in the areas of aesthetics, light and glare, traffic circulation and storm drainage management. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated, for this project, on January 20, 1989 (clarified February 8, 1989) with conditions developed to address the above-defined environmental impacts (See Section #G-2) as they would affect surrounding properties. Similarly, conditions established in conjunction with this site plan review are intended to mitigate land use impacts from the proposed development. For example, existing plans, with modifications recommended by staff for design and location of buildings, parking and service areas, open space, and landscaping provide an acceptable level of separation between on-site structures and abutting residential/commercial cl(evelopments. The variation in terrain which slopes down to the north divides the site from the parcels to the north, thus further reducing impacts from the site to that property. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO ] HEARING EXAMINER Quality Pacific - Cedar Village PUBLIC HEARING March 7, 1989 Page 6 The orientation of living areas of units in Buildings "Bl" and "B2" and "Cl" and "C2" toward adjacent lots does reduce privacy to surrounding developments, but the above-described features such as setbacks, slope, landscaping and screening can serve to minimize the impacts from this orientation. Conditions requiring that the applicant participate in a study to facilitate improvements to the N.E. Sunset Boulevard/Anacortes Avenue intersection and encouraging the applicant to provide a 7 . 5 foot easement for sidewalks to serve a possible expansion of N.E. 12th Street will result in more efficient, safer circulation for vehicles and pedestrians travelling in the vicinity of the development. (*) (*) Pedestrian and traffic impacts from this project do not warrant such an easement or dedication at this time. The applicant is providing an easement in lieu of the City acquiring property through eminent domain later if the City decides to extend N.E. 12th Street to the south of this property. On-site lighting plans shall be designed in a manner which minimizes off-site light and glare impacts. Further, development of this site may enhance the attractiveness of nearby sites for new development; improvements to storm runoff management systems (as required by the City and by the Department of Ecology) and improvements to traffic circulation systems may enhance the utility/accessibility of those neighboring sites. Recommendations for revisions/improvements proposed in conjunction with site plan review: a) location of structures, parking (covered and uncovered) and open areas; b) landscaping/screening design;. c) lighting; d) signage; e) selection of exterior siding and roofing materials; and f) location of access to the site, should serve to enhance compatibility between the project site and neighboring properties. The multi-family residential development proposed for this site provides an appropriate transitional use between single-family residences to the west, commercial uses to the north and northeast, and higher density multi-family residential uses to the south and to the east. d. Mitigation of impacts to the site: Conditions established for this project by the Environmental Review Committee in the Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated issued on January 20, 1989 (See Section #G-2) and land use conditions established through this site plan review, in combination with improvements proposed by the applicant, should serve to adequately mitigate impacts to this site from the proposed development. For example, site plans submitted by the proponent, combined with staff recommendations for design and location of structures, for selection of exterior materials (siding and roofing) , for a congregate area at the mail boxes, landscaping and screening, open space, private and common (community) recreational areas, exterior pole lighting, signage, access and parking areas (covered and uncovered) , have been developed in order to promote an attractive, safe, functional development, which provides a sense of community and a sense of private space for residents. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER Quality Pacific - Cedar Village PUBLIC HEARING March 7, 1989 Page 7 e. Conservation of area-wide property values The proposed development is generally anticipated to have a positive impact on property values since the proposed residential complex will be: a) located on a currently unimproved property; b) providing residential development in an area in which such development is appropriate and desirable (See Northeast Renton Plan - Comprehensive Plan Compendium - page 55-61) ; and c) designed to be well- screened from abutting properties by fencing and/or landscaping. f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation City recommendations for access and circulation routes on the site (e.g. minimum 48 inch width pedestrian pathways - 60 inch preferred - linking structures to parking areas, recreation areas, service areas (mail boxes, dumpsters) and off-site pedestrian access routes, as well as ° ` plans/recommendations for on-site exterior pole lighting to illuminate structures, parking, service and recreation areas, should' facilitate safe, efficient use of the site for vehicles (ITE anticipates approximately 150 trips per day) and for pedestrian travel. g. Provision of adequate light and air Conditions established by the Environmental Review Committee in the Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated issued on January 20, 1989 (See Section #G-2) and conditions established in conjunction with this land use review, for design and location of structures (so that they are well separated from one another and from neighboring sites to reduce shadow impacts) , for location of structural windows and outdoor patios/terraces, for provision of open space and recreation areas, for design of the parking areas (to eliminate and/or relocate the covered carports) , and for landscaping/screening should serve to ensure that residents are provided an environment which offers sufficient light and air to the site. h. Mitigation of noise, odors, and other harmful or unhealthy conditions; Residential structures have been located at a sufficient distance from one another, and have been conditioned to have interior noise levels not exceeding 50 dBA (See Section #G- 2) and landscaping (See Section #G-2) so that interior sounds from one structure are not anticipated to be heard in other structures. Similarly, requirements for landscaping/screening of private patios and parking areas should reduce impacts from noise created with the use of these areas to the interior of the apartments. Requirements for screening of recreation space and of property boundaries are also intended to mitigate on-site noise, and noise to neighboring residential developments. Because the site is proposed for residential use, odors and other unhealthful conditions are not anticipated. i. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use: and Public services and facilities area available to serve the site, including fire and police service, schools, and recreation areas, described below. PRELIMINARY REPORT TO ',E HEARING EXAMINER Quality Pacific - Cedi - Village PUBLIC HEARING March 7, 1989 . Page 8 Police service resources are adequate to serve the site. Clear signage at the entry to the site and identification on the residential structures, well-demarcated access, and on- site exterior lighting are recommended and/or required (pursuant to City Code) to facilitate efficient emergency service. Fire service resources are also adequate to serve the site. ' Access, signage and identification, exterior lighting, location of hydrants, fire flow requirements, sprinklering and alarm systems are recommended and/or required, pursuant to Code, to facilitate efficient service. Schools, similarly, have adequate resources to serve the anticipated 6 students who will be coming from this development. Honeydew Elementary School and Hazen High School are each approximately one mile from the project site. McKnight Middle School is approximately one-half mile from the project site. Kiwanis Park is located approximately .8 mile south of the project site at N.E. Ninth St. and Union Ave. N.E. The park provides a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities. Public utilities are currently available to serve the site. Water and sewer systems will need to be connected to the property; the developer may be assessed fees for system improvements by the City, as required b Code, with plans subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. Street improvements, such as sidewalks, curbs, gutters and streetlighting may also be required to be installed by the developer, as required by Code, with plans subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. Voluntary and required traffic mitigation measures were established for this development in conjunction with environmental review (See Section #G-2) . The specific responsibilities assigned to the developer will be established by the Traffic Engineering Division. Storm water runoff management system development requirements were also established in conjunction with environmental review (See Section #G-2) . Development of a specific system will be subject to requirements described by the Department of Ecology (see letter of February, 1989) and set by City Code. These plans will be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. j . Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight. This development is seen by staff as having a positive impact on the existing predominantly residential neighborhood. The use envisioned should fit in well with existing single-family developments, multi-family developments in the neighborhood. Residents should contribute to the local neighborhood identity as well as help support existing services and businesses, such as those along the Sunset corridor and the Duvall Avenue corridor. H. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner approve the site plan for Cedar Village Apartments (Quality Pacific) , file SA 110-88, subject to the following conditions: PRELIMINARY REPORT TO E HEARING EXAMINER Quality Pacific - Cedar Village PUBLIC HEARING March 7, 1989 ' Page 9 1. That the applicant shall comply with the environmental conditions established by the Environmental Review Committee with the Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated, of January 20, 1989 (clarified on February 8, 1989) . Note: The Department of Ecology submitted a letter to the City of Renton in February, 1989, advising that certain, specific actions be taken in conjunction with the installation of a storm drainage system for this project to ensure protection of the project site, the adjacent properties, and, Honeydew Creek, which is located to the west of the site. The applicant will be required to meet DOE requirements as well as those requirements established in the Environmental Review Committee. 2 . That in order to provide an aesthetically attractive, safe development, which will hold its value for a number of years and which is compatible with City Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives, and consistent with neighboring developments, the applicant select exterior materials (such as wood or stucco siding) of proven durability, and roofing materials (such as tile or textured composition) which are similarly visually pleasing, functional and durable. 3 . That in order to ensure safe, convenient, efficient pedestrian travel routes, the applicant shall provide pedestrian linkage on-site, with defined pathways and sidewalks of a minimum of 48 inches in width (60 inches is the preferred width) to connect each of the structures to the parking area, to the service areas (mail boxes, dumpsters) , to the recreation areas, and to the adjacent City rights-of-way, subject to the approval of the City. 4 . That in order to ensure adequate building identification to provide information for visitors and for emergency services, the applicant shall provide clearly readable on-site signage, limited to one larger sign at the entry way (preferably a ground or monument sign) , and individual building and unit signs, subject to approval by the City's Building Department, Fire Prevention Bureau and Police Department. 5. That the applicant shall provide on-site exterior pole lighting, at a residential scale, which is directed so that: a) the site is illuminated sufficiently to enable safe passage for residents and to facilitate the provision of emergency services; and b) there is no adverse impact from light and glare to on-site structures, parking areas or services/amenities, or to neighboring properties. This plan shall be subject to approval by the City. 6. That in order to improve the quality of private spaces for residents, the applicant shall provide wing walls, wood fencing and/or landscaping sufficiently dense to provide a visual screen on the open sides of the ground level patio areas for each of the structures. 7. That in order to improve on-site amenities, the applicant shall create an informal congregate area (perhaps at the mail boxes if those boxes are in a central area rather than at each structure) , which should be a covered area -- hipped or gabled roofing -- including such amenities as benches, a bulletin board for posting information of interest to residents, and landscaping of a type/scale suitable for this area. (Note: A number of sociological studies indicate that congregate areas provide opportunities for residents to socialize, and this these amenities result in improved camaraderie and better on- site safety -- where neighbors know one another, there is less opportunity for crime against persons or vandalism. ) PRELIMINARY REPORT TO E HEARING EXAMINER Quality Pacific - Cedar: Village PUBLIC HEARING March 7, 1989 • Page 10 8 . That in order to maximize view potential, natural lighting and sense of open space on-site for residents, the applicant shall not provide covered parking stalls next to the structures. Rather covered parking stalls should be located away from structures where they do not block light or conflict with the architecture of the buildings themselves. Note: Staff would support the inclusion of covered parking stalls on the southern perimeter of the site. However, these covered parking stalls (carports) are defined as a "structure" by the Zoning Ordinance, and, as such, require setbacks which are identical to those required for dwelling units. Given the configuration of the property, and the various applicable development standards set by the Zoning Ordinance, it is not possible to locate the carports on the southern boundary of the site as would be aesthetically preferable. Staff will recommend amendments to the Zoning Ordinance so that carports, which are essentially temporary facilities (similar to metal awnings) , are so defined, rather than being defined as structures which are intended to be permanent. Carports, as temporary facilities, could then be permitted within the required setback area, as is allowed for open parking spaces. . Upon approval of that proposed amendment, staff would be willing to consider an application by the proponent to install aesthetically compatible carports on the site' s southern boundary. Note to the Applicant: The applicant shall provide a grading plan, street improvements (e.g. sidewalks, driveway access, streetlighting, curbs, gutters) , utility systems, and improvements to facilitate emergency services (e.g. vehicle access and turnaround lanes, hydrants, addressing of buildings, sprinklering and alarm systems) as required by City Code. • I. s 1 �i�}� r ej�I tl it at a • • V�� •6ti log •o . •t to (I' 3'I 1 , ---• r 4 L .9t==•I. ' •r o'• 96 it t cc •t �15 Or a LS .3 !• . • ' ` tc < vu •1. ,,, , „ rs 's +S t111. . ,.I; Z • • 0• ! •t 11 1 W O. wH� ':n ,• • H is ti rc t• l• i .7 . _ •. ©r tttl•9 M + .O tt 71 t0 LU 1' _!! ? t. -V es bt s. u„ s. w' V -s - L�'LlS�al�11 B 1 • • j�2[3��S�c i�a,� �o r t , . c��c�r: - :n - j I1 �. t/� . 1,...! . R 3 ) I B_ 1 ' %� : R-3 • �� LJ a r ' \11 = v t L, s'r 1 I .t• °LQ f el.\..... - • • • R 3 s . I„L,= • IIAZEN SR ' HIGH SCHOOL - •q" ---It1a , a.• NL,II 1" .,.. 74,1\.O .. �c rgrlt ,l,1.L1..I:/0 t 'iy > L 1IIM -5- A 19 ` .-. It';, I s. \ 7y 1 10. •, S1 �t 1 1 , 1. •S t 4 4..yo 1 a` s r• n' t • V �. fG Ft/1 12 NC.^ ` 7 - - • t\• J3 1( ,c�.elt.�!,I=I : t. ...I, • .. • ..::. - 1 t. ,1 'y •1 to __ '1 4, '�'.c�J\ ,. :may ,a • i� .• • \•\ 1 l e p t'. - t rr s •_ > 10=- ••r _ 3''Ps• �\ /7'(( I.1 ••/' r r, 6 5`_ �� C _ a S cl; .rlt. 7;G�rI• f io I ��'\ .- a: r ..:? • 1..;..,. 'i• - .F•„51' . 41 1. 16 , , ,a rt t � � . _NC 10•� 51 ,�= .r.• tir' t r ,dr 71� .f .e • �ec:o.o t T `��. �'I 11 u . . r , • .'.., \ I. tA. 41 .1.. t R 1 z.. t:�,� S;' r r , s- - „y r• '1•fr ax. "�•1 •�* 'tY..t r• .,.L 11•i i • • QUALITY PACIFIC , INC . SA-110-88 , ECF • APPLICANT QUALITY PACIFIC, INC . TOTAL AREA 1 . 01 ACRE PRINCIPAL ACCESS ANACORTES AVENUE NE EXISTING ZONING R-3 EXISTING USE VACANT PROPOSED USE 25 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX . COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN OFFICEPARK COMMENTS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ANACORTES AVENUE N.E „ 1200 BLOCK r..,../ ' . ,\/, I I .• , I:,...;•... . ... 7- •\,_ .--.'-:.•:•:'.:).'.‘\......::::.::.: -.-•,. ......:..:...._ • . • "I.-. 7.; . • 1 5)•••.n In- .:.- ,k.,.:...,...,:',-... -... L ••.: •*..".ii-..":••:-. ...s,:..,..•-:••;:'..1....";.• .:.:. •,..-..'4.-":L!.,.. •• ..c.:'n':::•.1"..•,.t- .''...!•i".••• •r••;•••t'''&24.4-4... .,...•nr, : 6::',.:.'•''2..••..:.r,.;.•?, . .• ..i.v.,,e6;-,..,,-:.;-: ''' -;•••:''' ':-'' '':g....::.'...'. .J..'' . 1 ::-., 4';'':;?:::`,..:; i•i .; ,:P'..;.r:-.7?:',.. .,..`. ....;.:•,.-5.-Fr:';':-rrf`Y5F.:: :;•:7,Fiff. '•?.•. Scale 153 =2000' .. ..„.,..,,11•0 .r.•1: 1., r..-'z': 11111406.-.6";•..-V7:1.'''':'..r.c`l 1"-;;;;::;;;....1.3'. •°.tr's'1''." 1r6''7•.0-'.(:',"::''-..:-',•;...•.0,.c.,F,'f:i'r":•-::...:::^ci.:,,%•,".-,:;::,z:••:.,',•,;;;;',..:.7.:• 51. r . 'O.c..':•'1,7.,...:',,,,::V,!.re!;..:;:::,:.;5 kt.......,b:..,..,,:ri.6 ..,;;,....4.,,..E.a. .*:•.Q1.:..c.,...,:..1.:..,. •• - ...,:.;:-::: ,.Z, .(i.:::.?..t..7.1:..._ . '.. •.. . . C,.". . . ,, - J 0 ‘.) P:':7.,::,'t":1,4:f,'•7.r,:•:':.1., :i .- . • •., tr.''......;••'...-.1:. ...' • • A...-____________ . •.....:jl".:1;:,.., i... TS. , • OOOOOOOOOO •••••t..1-, 4.7.'' ti . 1...•.."...7.71......t. , -. " I....., ..._,._ , •. , I'G '1-....-r,• ... I • ,:. • . .. ...• :..\--:-..„..,:...... , .., ,.. . r .. . . . ....::::.:.:..• ,..,....._.......„. ....„:„.::•:•:.:...:... ..,.... •••• ::::::..r. .-...„:.„,,, ..,,, .:. ,.. .• :.:\,/..,1,11,:,,,,.„,.i,,:-..i:..„: „.... ,:..„. :::. .... ... .„„.:" :... . • _ , . •. i 111 1: 1 'IN / i•-r - -\ 'H--- •,,,..• .-i., ...• • ..c 1\--! Ill ----I \ •-•cs .... °.° 401 •:::.:::. 'i •- ".••• • . i: ---:i .iii*:::i iii : (.., • 'r.....7•'(;" • .. 0.-..'.• .. . ...MINIMUM yo:.;•:•: 1.7_111:114`........ .:. ...r.-:-. I III 011 II I i:::ii:::'.• ' INN) .141...., M '00000 j ..jil 1 I 11111111.11111 111141,1, ....., .. 1.. - ' hillill.1 .- ' ii ! N.1 • .... 4111111\ ....:......:. 0 -- .::,:;. 00000. io 17-, . .:...;•:•::•• . 111ii1.:1i1;11i:;i:.1iRii.i: .•,•.:. 4 ••,'• ::::::.:.,, - ....... - '0°-- I 1 I . ..000000( ,00000000 00000000 1.4.,''.. ' •, •iS :;•:•••••::::.:.:... • mli ' •:::::::::::::::::: .0070700. 414• ' • r42111 I j III 0_ i( I ilh 1 .° o°o°o°o C\ • A'‘.' :::::!...' •i::1:::!:i IL '::ii:::::•:.tip) --t, :.••..••, ':::•:'::1*. i 4 iiiiiii :ii; .....i::' •,...\ ::::::::::.? 1 \ ,.. dile 0°.0... , .. OO.... c . . „, . 0.00. 0 0• • • ... . :::::,::::::::: ... lq 111111 • • • , • .,...x. .. '• ....... .. r.,` ,,b- 1 a••• " , .::::::::::: :. • • • mewl , trir 011111111T '," • •—•— -• ' I • • • .: :::::: . ion- ----4....-- ._ tr.`:••c• •,•.1'. •%:,..,,, ''., .:' . um (61;_lac ME ( f.* I )00°0°19o093°0oNo°0971 A .. ie__•_•_ ' "- • • <,..4 o o 10 > • • • ..,, ,...i4,. n .. --,. ........i:i:i::::.... < • • • • ,.., 1, , .,. )0, ..:.:.:... to. :::.:„. :, . ,, co • • 6 • •-:!.'„ , •• .:.:••,.. ..'.. . 0 • •• • '',.t3. '. :::::::: ,oc: .. •.. It.I • • ID • :I'. %• -..,. • • • • 4,i '. `. illk :::: . :73cjilli • .....x.:. ..:::::::::::::::::::04.4.:::::::::;::*:::.. • • Er • ''''•; i • • • • ;:: . Iiii I.::.:::::.: .0( IN N:fc.ff,i, . _ - 0 • • • ,• .!) T1 !. 1188811P:t.. Nik '1 ,,••••..••_•fi j,„ A ... '' - 1 Mit , * iirt,7 .,, .o•o( :...:•:.:•:•:.:•:•:•::::::::::::::.:.:.:. , •0•00 •:•:.:•:;::::::::::::.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.: - • • .1. i :•:.:ii:'.:..... • •?!‘• • • .f le, 0 0•0 0' :•::::::•:•:•:•:•:•:•:-:•:•:•:•:•:::::::: % gm No N. ' '111'q?1 tfbi Iff # izt‘ . .,., °.•.•„°.°,7°, ii:;:i:::::::.::::U::.: :::•:;i:•: • 1 i• .A.1 inmost.: Nh g'l„ :Olii:iii:::1M ...:.:.1•• •••••••••+• . i a° .5,riElln ... • ___,•• -21,_-___.-.-- -...:::'::: 1 N.:. 4i } 4, •— ' ./.77.7.7 .7:::::.;.;:-. 111 /0000001700C i fill Nil 1--.7 Tt111111E5Miigf:Mjiff iiiiiiiIii 1..iik',. •:i:......:::::::.:*:::•::.:K::::•:"' ,on• "11-11 ;1111'0%1?.°0°.°0° 11111111111 I i•••,.i:::..-.-=•-•-=--- ...::iii:::::•:- .::-il 1:11:11:1 1 . 04,, .. ,.*•::::.;:i:i*i*i,..:.•• ......::::•:: .0.0°09•Po 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0. • .0' 72, ,.........: ' :.:::.:::!::.:::::::::!:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . Fir. gli., aftiiiit ' • .:i:::i'i::::-... ,...::::iii:: ::•.&: ..focaucull:1,1,,b1,1"007,0°00°00:46 Aiiiiiiii.:::., ..• • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••-•••••••• Yri0 W is410,40' ;: . ...x:iiii1:16iii:ig ':°°f0°A1 mbc'ocgraal ....'::'•::::•:•:-:.:.:::::.::.:..i. :::ii::.::?:::ii:::•:•:::::::::::.::*:::•::::::::::' •illir .:...;,,.::„,.., . . ii:•.aE.i: IVAVAWAVAITA°0°.°0°. :::::: •:::::::::::•.. ;.;,......•:••••:•:•:•::.• •....•••• / varismgwv, , 0 ,. :iiiiiiiiiiiiii:gi:i::i:i§:ii ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 0000000000000000000c r..:.:.:........... . :).:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:., 0000000000000000000 :..................• '6.• 1 - . ) 1 -.k• '. 1, '4 V 41:69, ; .::.:;;;;;;;;;iii.i.;...:::.; ".•• . • 7 _ .::.:::*::::::iii:i; •:. ; 4.:..§,.-,.. I .01.0 ;:. i:i::1:.:•:.:ii: i:ii::ii 1! 000000000 ,,.. (.,....!........2.i.... ..j., .r. 11 0000.000 0000.000. I -...:CVN` ." . .............. • ..•' TO°14'09430°0°0°; 4:' .•..•:•.::..:..44 ,•711 MEI • -''-• .-)...:•-• IN&In ..:, :::•PiniM: •.," .0..0000 ..r. :•• :•• :•:•••:• ,1:"/..3.%r, •.00• .:,0 •:::::.:•:•:•:•:•:::•• -- , •, • , • - .t•411 b, •;:. i'':':•Pi s' :i:i:iiii:::i*:.*;i:i •',31;.,•.',:.;i',•:•!,,. . - ,•.•1"; :::::::::::::::::::::: 1,• "!.•,?,,, , I ,...se si. ".•...:., It .., q::::i:i:::i:i:::: . .r.,,,,..--.';;,;,,•.A.••••••:,..,:;.,-,,..._.;',..:„..,,.. :;:::::::::::::::::::: —. -1-- .--.441ti 4,,,.•4.,... •?,. „ ••••.:.:..:•:-••••.,,.;.•(:•,..'...f.•-...!;,..;:•.:7•,,- .•,;.'.4-Pr)?' X::.:•:::::.:i::':::.: -;.,. t... '3.`•:;.P tr ....,....,e,• ..r.:- • q?.,,,.r.,••.. ., • •,•,...-t•• ,..•1.•,-.7'.?,..-•c••:',.=.•75.•.•'•'?..'.%.•0"e'.' :.:•••••••••:....:•:•:•:• 111101W •,-;, •f.'' 7,4A••-!i 1-- • . n..8.),‘•Ytik'ser.1:"...-.4...S.r 1 •••:i-':•'"4-C?.f31.C.,P.4";!.(3.' 9.••"%;7f.5/3-r.P;•-,::',-V.13-.r.•;?..1•'`P,, ."•:•:•:-:•:•:•:•:.:. ...,r. %.,-1' 1.4*. ,e,,•,.;". '. .5r.....i.FeV.14 N.::'A.,•!,,,••,p,.:7)..';'.•,-,';•-,11.',-3•,:,.,.•"..?.".o" q ri rp•(. "-•.:•:•:•:•:•, 0 . . .j.s.. ' ' r• ‘c., .••• 1 c., •,x),.•1 lit . .0 .....- •1 .1 -• ‘•(pp..7,n7,0.,...,-j,... 6.11,....„ y. -..•;3.'?P••••• ',V-• ' •,-;::„.:;'.`•','•:-.. .:spz,ief III- -'•••›- ....•:.1..;, . .. . .11:31) ,•ts-,,,t.','-.4q‘1111fty, . C•rfil., jie.C) ,,....k •0. .ue,:e...,A r,.3.1..1.!.., ..6.;1:'.It:' li•%);" '' .crt:C.0 s',;:......72''..:c.:;:;;,:f,f•,:::1.v..:-:::•6'. 1111 ..._..,..w.,..,0• ..,),..,..x., ,,,,,...1.. ..,:%.,!%,....;„..,,,,?..n.,•k? :777711F.F:.-4.•,)',:,.. 44,': •--744rAm,'"Ilk'..C.:.x..c 0 rr'•"•••:0.'a.-.Y' IL, .. •ii.,,,,,.13,n•..,.,?•1,7. ..0...to ....0...v..•11.ci, , .e.el.r,,,:.t. •„rt. , '''''':':',01';'•;i.I.;,1",0.-;01..?.,..,‘Z1,13;i1..;„0,1.-e.;.,;, ' z.' ,:::. _411%41' 41 iill til..%••tcVerlpwi. .. :.t,•,.,...-., . lob NI,0,0.0'0 ri c'eP•r;;.'t• •(/-•it;.•0,1%-.•'.`.','•,- ...i;.,, . - ''•nr tp.t: :Ago. . . , ;.,. .-.... .,. T.- -- • ‘0000( ..., 1. . ....4 ci -.!.I ,-;•r.,,".0... :,• •,.,... -• -....•,.., .•i••-.47,1.,;.it.e.,•sp ,:...tp,4,t.,.i...c .:: mil ;,•?...,.,...,,,••,..,-.I.,..cecr. „.;-„?..,, •.....00. ;.,;•:„1-,.....,.,,,,c:•,,„„.„.,...•.:<•,, !„ .c....,4,,,, -•.‹..., .ctz,......,e•...;,...,.. ..,.., ..,co.....r;.,..,. ., ..r,,,,,.;.„54, ..,..-,:.,;,--;,.s;..„..•,.., ' " • -, • - • -.. -. 3 t:•r.'.".I. (e. -,r r ..fin),F..t.;:r,, .. „,,,i),',31:0.1d!,;‘,,li•tZ1,;,!/!.•',,i.,c.t.;,re-..4'.0'.. • tr. -•. . ? 4. . .i, .../.•Te..?.i.:ii.9.g'1;•„„ly-_.?'-'•;•8,.?; •.?,;.1-7....0;, LAND USE ELEMENT 7' ''::Th.,1..1y..,;ne,::::i.7:r.,34.:•-'S;-,q,•;•;....`.0.:.'..t. 45.7gr?"•..0::'..' •* •,:4-,..- 4, .:•0,;..„.• • ••ST/,.0•.p,-•••. ;•4,,•p.'.... '..6:,.;• :;:e'r."._isr.).i.t4i•itic.•••,... ,••€•,•• :..•• T.:.,.,.,- • Nrif•Vt,'• - •••'Fi,,%e',•(..c. egii•Ci.gtzle,„e•evecc...ti.,...0 ,t:,,,i. t.1 ;...,.. rc...r c--...„... •:.:.:;:.;*;eel.:,t,":;.er,. • il I I IM I • Single Family 111111111 Commercial r .- ,C.Irrii`4-.) git• '.`1•V. -. .• 1,.. . .:, .....cr,ts.,: •COle, i:Ar:§•`...:, .0.,,,,i; •.• ,..`-. r(let.11:' •I'• •••• . '4'4' ' '3.'4,1 MM: Low DensFityamily ,,'7.s,?,;R::•„-. ,.,1111 -,.):,,...., ft , At.i.R. •'•••atiV:•:::::•:::::::::]* Office / Office Park •','i.14)i,,v•')6?" • ""*. lh.,...3v...?1,.p.. • ...,„, Multl- •,,,:•!..--• .q....:,•,.'4.•'tt)%i.4tV-I'Y • '•,Alf5Vir •,., l',••;• 9., .0•?...Pit„,11!rro:9., S • 7'Ir:vire,1•;ii.rriti,•;•4:,v.. '''cy;i ".°) ••'t•-• retif. il-dt.• Medium Density gra ,.0000833.0.0001 ..a 0 Public/Quasi-Public blic/Ouasi-Public :1, er,-... 7:!1,.:'0,.1!..:'' 1,1,b",i • ''''"j'A'' ..........................• ,:).--..„,1). ,.. 13:".:'4 . •`).'"••LI ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• MU Iti-Family pc,00.0.0%.00 .....00 .,-,11,,n71,.,. . • Ci•''',':•c:.J.,•• . .0.::,,°:-.).•6:;:,v,... • .'".,..s.',.i';'•4'. .-.(1.:0•., . 7 04.;;.;, ..,.,,,,,'..; •1....,,,..,"r. •t• •4 •' • -i?...1%:':0•<'Si c.,. ..,•c:. ..bwo, !,0),,,, . .5.•'.:M:§:IR.IM ILI:...I. ri,„........,Ii. • •C.‘es,ii'•.,•••••(,..j.:f2'A.t.,..,‘, , ..;,,, - ,,-,-;7, -. •T:yito...;?..x!).-,11), :: .- ------ .siiiimmiA mull 'Jet ibiLy x...,,:::•.*:*50% •c17 i,':•0.''•(.........1,1.......,.S1'2'In..1...!.•'.,,1°..,\...* ..,:^%.144•..f i•.••.?.!;.:.0..'•:sl . .„;•:,:inp•:::::::::: Light Industrial ., i'',1,,lt.g...4y,,".•:;.;•,-;tk.ILT.4.--.,..51:e.,,,,zw:qc.,,...4 -.,i,,,:,.1,1,tv:...,:, ......-::,..., •,...,.,.: . .„. •,,,,.„„,,..„ •,•, (!..,,.0,;!,1,.. 0:Au5:7,„1,11„ . ,,,'44,,z.0,,i, ' ' •m•‘,..#?f, . . •NR..,. . ,,,,,. . ..'.4.E,r:.Vv. • • • .. ,,.:9::::f.7..v.°:. .4'irt,c b.4 Al Recreation l• • • • • • k Heavy Industrial 111.1114 : INF •.,....-te R.)r el/•,,..'''. t'S•'t)lit, .... • • • b•% .C....cs•ai,.,•?;‘,a. .. o'c,*.. 17111111r.\\ ,. • t Oil LI,C.....i.V. .14. .,. •,,t,"•,(31e0 ,If...I: ,.;..,- aom0000cF693orpo F. , 11110,CV •••• t • .,,,. ,;,.. .:-_-_-_-_:- .000000 00 , r 0 •Oo0. ..; ) .e, „,, .93000.0 Greenbelt . =-=.--:-.-_-_--72.- Manufacturing Park 0.000 .:•• ,,c, ,oc,,:,„ ,..:. . • i .0.04:60...., :• • ••••... ,.. . _____ ......... . :.:. o 7 41 1 000000• )000 00 / Mtiltinla CIntim, 00000 .,,,,, • • • CITY OF RENTON . DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE o.: (MITIGATED) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST NO. : APPLICATION NO: SA-110-88 PROPONENT: Quality Pacific Homes DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Cedar Village - Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building on a 1.01 acre parcel. Proposed project is consistent with R- 3 zoning for property. Site is vacant. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Approximately 500 feet south of N.E. Sunset Blvd. located at the northwest corner of Anacortes Avenue and N.E. 12th Street, if extended. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Community Development Department Planning Division The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2) (c) . Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-2822 (D) Renton Municipal Code (see attached sheet) . These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified-during the environmental review process. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340 (2) . Because mitigation measures have been imposed, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fifteen (15) days from January 23, 1989. Any interested party may submit written comments which must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. , February 7, 1989, in order to be considered. A fourteen (14) day appeal period will commence following the finalization of the DNS. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee c/o Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Planning Division Community Development Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 PUBLICATION DATE: January 23, 1989 DATE OF DECISION: January 20, 1989 SIGNATURES: R ald G. Nelson iwf ' •r ng-I Building Official •lann 1 Mailaper Lynn Guttmann Public Works Director / • DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. MITIGATION MEASURES i PROJECT: Cedar Village ENVIRONMENTAL CIIECKLIST: APPLICATION NUMBER: SA-110-88 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL; Applicant seeks site approval 25 unit apartment builngon for a 1. 01 acre parcel. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning property. Site is vacant. for LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Approximately 500 feet south of N.E. Sunset Blvd. located at the northwest corner of Anacortes Avenue and N.E. 12th Street, if extended. RECOMMENDATIONS: ERC issued a Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant be required to management system to mitigate storm water runoff impacts and to nearby Honeydew Creeke install a storm drainage state runoff with a five year releaseundevelopedeniat�gtater 25 pto the site required, with ael�ree-stage baffled oil/water separatoryear developed req detention system controle structure. . sdownd be subject to the approvalThe specific downstreamb of of the Public Works Department. should be Not If it is feasible to partment. preferred for this site. do °O� an open drainage plan may be 2 . That the applicant be encouraged to support to enhance traffic safety and efficiency mitigation activities a) participating in a studyd aiy the immediate vicinity by: Anacortes Avenue at Sunset Boulevard and for realignment for the roadway for signalization of Avenue at Sunset Boulevard to gnment of Aer hare make a concurrent intersection (to with payment advanced to be credited against future o their financing of re-alignment and signalization) J and b) easement be provided for public access at the southern of the Providing a 7.5 property, with the understanding that this easement beousedry exclusively for the development of sidewalk to serve future expansion N.E. 12th Street to the south of the subject Note: The easement is to be duly recorded withProPerty. the City of Renton and with King County. 3 . That the applicant retrain natural vegetation as tree plan and design and locate periphery of the siteg in a wayproposed on the plantings and screening at the ier.1I)he which mitigates noise, light and glare 4 . That the applicant limit interior ambient noise Buildings "A' and "D", levels to 50 dBA to commercial activities too those gresiate dentialoise munits from nearbyr . It. is recommended i • I.• Cedar Village • - Mitigation Measures Page 2 • • • that either: a) interior insulation be installed in those buildings; or b) •that insulation be installed along the north facades of buildings "A" and "B" and along the east facade of building "A" to achieve required mitigation. • 5. That the applicant be required to provide the following during construction activities: a) an erosion control plan subject to City approval; b) wheel washing of construction trucks on site to protect adjacent roadways from dirt and debris; c) limited hours of operation as approved by the Traffic Engineering Division to limit noise and to limit traffic impacts. 6. That the applicant provide a bond in the amount of $2, 000. 00 for street clean up. • mmdoc • / . APPROVED • ',.. .N../# . - APPROVED' WITH COND) ONS ;:- N . , ,,.. OT APPROVED _ A) . , j .. 15 c 6.6....41,iSi__ , "7 ''-'... .... - -- 1:7.---• ' - . ' - / li';'10111 1: ° t" 11 ' -,,.(t.e.its,6,-,e* c)T .. .4 .. .6e.je..5, Avc.:..... • . . 4-f/ -) vi () 10 fr,.1A.i-c .... c<f•icid„er:( '•,/ ' ••• '.4 4 L... . rk / ./a.1 :' i p eth'i ;co r 01-0,1' e_. ...r I.!jvw..\( :-,)'11'0•-• (La ,„ k,..,,„-.4,N,„ (..., - •ii i_i .-I.0 01,-)eci..e,,j-- . 2. .S.1 h. .(:,,(11' J.:\(.. , ,1 Li k . • at,._,1/44,vr,:6 , , pee' g=1 Isi-- (...-.1z15 A i 1 0, le3 iS k,,.. (..),'•-ci re,.....1.-/- z c— . ‘' ' • - . ..,--1‘0; .,...• 0,.,. i) (, ; s s .. . . .,,,, f:),-, l..• f•.! ..),-- I. I-0 ill t..1, ,,- s ill yi-j.- ii c.... ...?.....0 I p•-1‘4i,-‘ i : • C)er\C;'( (r • k I ,,I) C)c-,%--,ev.iit-v% r r?)t.il'iC.J . - - i\.0.,14., ._. ., -.t. ',I)'A . . .1 . ' ' . ::- - • ' DATE1 " 0(1...-• , . T ' f. ./-'4 ' •".• 1 6 ir" • • ' • SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AXT)10RIZED R PRESENTATIVE .: !.::: • :• .•• REV. 6/88 : • . .. . . .., , •• . . .. , • i . . i .. . • . .. •• . . .•- — :: , • , , ' . . . ..• • •. ' 1 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Lb y.101 "r R"-- , - r . • _ __ APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS . NOT APPROVED • . ---7Asq41-49-el-ee'-e -51-A--‘--Ce. /1/-87-4,-.--c olde_ Is ---",,,-11-e-er-1:--7'.--/-4-6e - --1-eizaco.:7'.- . e04.:._ _ef.//:,"‹._._ ..--4-:p. . ta-ez,--2_,_e_- _- --(-er2- ,ef.- "c. -- e:e.--- ...-e...',....e..y..AL, / eg„,....,...._ A 67c -I...e.....- -- &- ,_ ,- ../,, i. e%2 - /-,- / • --1.---,a_e---ifc)--1-4-- 6 ---- er- _e - -cia....:--42 t I t r (,•4,24... ...... de-..C. . Ze_ d-e:--d6r-42._. , --C-;---e--. 7,":2- -et....f...:-/ . ....,64-er...../., 0•2,./.27—..eet...-. ....-4.--e-____, ..e..... ,V,..."---...5" t._;,__,2__ evez.d., .,---)...,.........6/74- • - . . ---- ) .,. ..02,e...-•fr..-e-- rf.....2._ A)-2e-c--;-c,Gg_c:,e_ - /Z,.. .:--Zs , , .. • , !DATE //---(— . „ . SIGNATURgEDIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE :.-,,.,..,: r, . ,,,.', ..r - • REV. 6/88 . • . k.) . , .. . ?• .: i . . .: . :'! ;.6-,; ''' ' , . . ,.. . . . . , . . ii REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: rif??...! 1;-:/k,ategg416, • . . „:.„, APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ,)‹ NOT APPROVED d6 it- 4rr--42 F LIAL f .-464S A tZ - Wre--e--Wir-e/7 ;ira W.-eV/V-2-0 4* „.,1;.;.• i , • z) er)\.TzAT .. . 10% • • •• • .,..... • r-izeg.-r 4- 7-131ziti n',4t1 . _ ' P,:....... A) fg...F7. -Tamf: tz...0 /0,1 e7..1444 . . .. • . i,,,,,:.. • ,...:„, • . . . . • • . , ,,,,,;•::.,...:,,:: • . i . 1 . ,r,:.i ,.?:,,;,_ ' . . • . , . .. . . *.24VIT;7 '41114f711.gillYi . ' DATE //1--, . tiAff SIGNATURE OF DT:RECT01/ oR TTFTinnTr,rn P r T,T.'r-'---77 • . APPROVED - APPROVED WITH CONDI"••'•)NS X NOT APPROVED Lor • [UTILIg APPROVAL SI'r.3'" F:)1 yV-4•17 P.xprec•i/i -P? /, e' 'ThewC.y Ce/lcc LATE COMERS AGREEL IWArrx ' y,Es #/Q_&zQ j7 -?4 x#/,4'ST.i . LATE COMERS AGREELIT:.1 SE WE. t I Hob.it-- • SYSTEM DEVELOPMEIIT C: YVATI;Ig L r 1022 'T X 2�-u„I/5- _ 041 375.co SYSTEM DEVELOPnua 1 . „Fj.Axg. ' . .._. ��s ��/7S'c'°x waifs ...4t,;3747 ov SPECIAL ASSESS"E::7( . t • •:' A/O SPEC_ASSESSM T L. ;T"""; 472con° C^FROITiD WATER FLA:I p_s RreC2� Fan N1024,-•T3 •APi'i,:l:'ED SEWER FLf..±I =--�-.� NO .9f e- cet-.Jcc Oiuc`-/ APi iMi:11 FIRE ROM :;;;i;3;'i CY FIRE[POT. V65 FI"t!.:",1�:;,;11SI ��� A FigE' F%a.✓,,4N4LYSIS ',VIL•L. tbt/G 7v d3G rit_ woe,. 1 cost c' To mite_ 3700 641.1 .4.414. ,- -4-1" '�--- DATE /!/ r /867, SIGNATURE OF RECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE _ - yy / REZV. 6/88 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: rode k APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED F/3 d • 64/ 20 c.ks • i L 1 el-fr i.r,/i e l./�%c c U,I d i i i, n u d ,/D / USN 6 ties P .4-] Ir 1 PARK i Js l-o 1 DATE // /V�6. 1.. URE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 f'. • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: /9ar.k"( A ieecc-LoS/c7 . APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED •GfG'vr face A/ `l a e , 41— dc/`N//c'c( ber i%e i i`c //c_ Z - ee Ohl'col�•ci4e a-, G,� oc17/1?G/c 4-0e i ,fe G/C-7 Qw �ir��d �>��.1� o 'e dcct' � �.._e /he /� / S�JllCe 0� r�!?e fe .iz ).' f )tr r. e ,-C//e/C o4..- i e- �/ e T� hP�` c�v/:-emu e,,2 7� �"r� ' ���'"�a'� s�5�.. • r l /F �., ``�`"�3 • DATE �/ SIGNATURE OF DIR CTOR OR AUTIIORT 7,ED RFPT?rrr1TTTTTiIT5 ♦l L L L♦lJ V L u �-._� f _ A APPROVED 11ITH CONDIT( ,IS NOT APPROVED kMI,c -:�Le. C_ �tr� p DATE /0 -.t1�)� SIGNATU DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ' REV . 6/88 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ►Y ' Fe\.1-ex-i\lel\ APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED Any development and/or construction shall comply with current Fire and Building Codes and Ordi- �.. -lances. A second means of approved access is required. FirDepartment access roads/lanes-shall be paved minimum width 20'; minimum height 13' 6". Yes No 'reliminary fire flow calcu ations show a lire flow of ,_ 1 Z$c • -equired. hydrants with a minimum flow of lG gpm each • s required. 'rimar hydrant is required to be within _..__._ /So feet of the structure.,y Secondary hydrants are required to be within � OD ' feet of the structure. An approved automatic sprinkler system is required to protect the total structure. Yes No All fire department access roads are to be paved and installed prior to construction. Yes No — F;.. NII fire hydrants are required to be installed and approved prior to construction. Yes No SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE DATE REV. 6/88 ,; EVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 1 iAijkloWdo bIUI?tOtJ n APPROVED XAPPROVED WITH CONDITIONS p. n NOT APPROVED ` . DPe1t��1t„'Tlthr4 t Ku #1 3 St1ouuD C.O'Ji 1E,Lt To rrt stot wilsL Oa D w nu s tout o at t oukto t o -itt c o ACT' P rtk uvto 1O111434 Ur,r rs To *nit ktoRT'W--. I414 ( Pttetlect 3146.4 met t ipj,S. A ilia Fool 5e9Bitich RIOw+ °rig MO Nit1"'( UML pit,®ni�, Aar ricaTES nut t.i.e , .. s) NoRTH ennui rn057 PSititikg. salikt.t, piprettlics ikottoritto . PiltwilER.. va%041.14t0 a ( Mout fit. Y �t k, -TtR,tL� _. .A .,a..,... 'n 1 A .- 1 ' 1.t . 1 • 1. LhiCI'l ,F,MAT 1 sh outdo at. t l R A� . I1�0 -0 prtootot 4301t hot 1420,1/Locha ftttletiWs co ite t 1oa phi /()VC k , • (�► 114 Cmp ' cr PPr KING 31PU4s Ttal6 Wilve Ittem ILL A 24' B.Pic lh1ttp ISi4 • Pis Li11L rig is flux)kbto , Pitouloc. PeoCIiU` TtitAT SOLIDSCRt�c1)Iiu` e 1 • P E . C. 5' c ti hmi u ant • 15 1 W sl tAIN D 0 N 11m c, S Pie PuvJ Itti4o 1% . Narlic1k, 11.1 O0TR1 c l.. (LOk l kg, no FINKA it•Mbt. ) c P'tt•o° I Oct. c3t111.06 4 Th es. O ry s • o Ik (c.ES l rc eiv i , I`� CAR 1OrCT g s tKauLb sikiLE th wrc 14 PCPs NNO nor w,t► . (Je . • 4 �. f r 1. r,a �.. • •. • -1 Y r• q �r S • • •I ii lq i g . , ra . a 1 7f "r • 1 . ir pi ., I.I . • IP 0 1 .. - 1 . ti !.:., :Ii:7- 11----\. .••‘1,4,:i,. `•-=ri:-. • • , . n,,•-"•, it\ .1.,;:, ),\A 1 .14 -:-.1 ci ! 11 •""- /•• • . • •r• 1,-4 r., • r • • • 7 'o lit — 33 ? i •! t.. . ' •(; > II •••, .• U/ M , .....1 : ; • 1. il ,i, •, . 6 \ . IP ..,..1 t \,1 • ...‘ / %: • ..tr. -S II 4 .;ttr.:.— 4::•,,: lill,:i . I, k k/ , 71:• :ti.,, :I lir'."..1.k.. f; i,l "1 0. 1 "( 4 , - -;-N , v..• ._._ ..,•, • ,N 1 Pri I I V- '* • !.) . V., - \ .r • . 11 1---1.' I a X' • IV. I' r ) 1'11. Rel: , , •i 1 !kli, . .„, t, , 1...."ri , ..y.y. ) " ' li:a.I ,f.: • , • ,-, :;11.4. !_ l'' - ---C.i 11, -E• , l.,t , IA • t i1 1 . .‘..! /1 l viii)111,, ,...- ,.. , ,Lt lirr .•k ‘ , 71 I r. ' nr• ., ., •I :I •, 1 •; I r. gr)J te, , 'II I V, ! It . ' ' •1 41, I !ii 4114 u. . I I", • .. 4 - II • r• / ;Iril . . • . l L 1 i. I I:: I ._,?Ii7,74! .,, • • 1•.11 1, II • • . . ,.,,•, III 1 , •I ,i, t3.2.1 ;424 '2'*, ii,, 1 ..----..: . ......-, tol • i; ii f . ) ., i I pillit ill ,.,.! II . ., ill , ; dijo i 4 1 0, .1 yr, ,-,q •,- ). bii • I.— . — — - , . *—'-;-.—-- -- -------•'o,i 1 , ! ($. . .1 • 1 .: t ...,• i,,IN i. f 1, 6 0 Nikr,./),Tt5 hwttue ss . ..-- - - • • ;-, J' .Al2,r. IA ....5 91. 1 pro , - I J • r, . f) •• k;• " - ; - ' r I .• i • '! .., I , .t .7 ( 1 if 1 !. . t 1- e '.; 0 a •i- 4 ;•:. ? • ''-i °hi ..1 r• " ;,. r• • I, , i; . ; ..j.-, 10.: ...1 I;• 114 I ,'; : :77 I:-.1ii !'" t::::li 1/6 ,,1!; r • • it• I Ifr 1. • 1 .•.. .•..,:t . :, 1.'0. 1 . t • i.,.. 8,i .... k •I: .! 1 1.1:I H.. 's ti • •.' ' .1 i 'I •''I 1 L. li 1 .•!IIA I.( • t:. 1 r l i A .., ..r• ••J ..:. i ...r :." i• .t . .1.. ; (t! I'l 1 I :„ ...11... .,,i-. .. :,. •.. ..., ,..,I: t ',' ..;-.:4 .1.-' -,t'.•:.-iv, .., t. ( I iAr:t1 ..... • i't 4 •'.:..:.• r••,.. g 0,1 (AIL FLA!' OA )(ICI!Ilif 1404 r..11/1.11 f rAL:II IC bArrr JOHN ANCENSON ANA ASSOCIATE. PS. INC. — • , CCD.,1•1 Y.L....AGG 1.1)...7r-ltNi : 1- 15 0 .17-De. Cft-11111NECUS e!..•. . $ r....AZ At.'Hamm co roll,no.,V•00•11100.1,214 ..II•I SO • SA......I.SW • ,1 i•.:' [ • • .. . ... . i •••, (". '''• • :..:.'••• . ,. C:i ••• ..'•;',1•., . . • • '.•C' • • '.....t..'i • t r" • , . . . . . . , ......,. • J$�i .. S 1 • G i l .l 1 • I F • . I I 1 1 \ Ll \ it .[1 1 il iii ,....,1 \ 0 i i I ;I R� �.\ e Iflluf �• —TTllljmltll I • ti.±wmn� J.. \ SIT y \ 4. ;i 1 it lwiw \ • . 1. a 1101 A /-L'L/✓1 iT F t,OFEY.TIC:i ?kiLJT{ F�'GIFIIG °"T' JOHN ANOEAbIJN 000 ASSOCIATES Pt. INC. I. 7 Il i !ill f'_ I LAt l CGDAJ� VILLK.�E ArAIiTHCNT9 a Zi a /�\ n fLJI �i 2 �r �C .o all r.--o u u 1I11 ll lS U C�J __bit: 11-l00.'01 --I'CI I l.......:-,,l.I. IM.I Y . Y`.a VsY1r a • QI�at ion Hi , . 1r---1 • '- 119111111lllllllllllllln ,C:]rN_ L .1.11 �0.r LiJI1 __dJ:[• I11- 111 (p z 1111fll]i111i111ITI iiihlfl! , I .MHOMHO111 — I I ', ' I ' . • ,___,, . - - . I �;, .__ p : ____I , ,, , I:'I_ - i I I .. oujoimilic 1 L.1.11 li — — Ills l ' 14 � ' ' ale 11131 d I ii iu i i i i'Mp 1111111111111ll1IWl . . 6 +Ir 1Q&E :] Ili,. f-1 - ,_. ••llim I1I111111111ifififfi1111I111f11f 1 k I ,:..., .. ," ... ,, ,, ..ii . i . ,., „.....„, .. ; .„. .,. , „,,, ! , , . ,1 .,.--..,.... ..,.-.....,.. ILH jji' LiEI 'L 1.1111IDloyi 1 �g E flit 1 r I �:�: •:111JU 111. i t iI 1Illl cry � 0 t__1 L r __ �I��IOhII1l��l o -z !!I►f1`II i' ; 1 Il1111.11m, mm¢im - r- .-"....jc 1 1: 1 ' 1 - • .1,14 . 1 I II IIII I' I 1 I II I I- _.___ __ ' _4, ffiril„Ig1f1111 inr••I111'IiUJII , .�1� Ft ' I=1laCll__1F_11_I 1 ., !h !1::' Ii-dff[11:711-11f1 - IF. 1-=:_1121.-11f- 1LTI:II1/ i o CMffI11f1U1_>..:fl hI1ETA, l/ 4 R , ItiL —_= , �1,3 U.III DII•IG A.I 6 a ELLVFr lt711•`, t 7Ur�l 1(—I I Y•.:II IL ova I' CEDM VILLA;t hPAr7MEN15 rLgfn JOHN ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES PS, INC. Ul c.c./six-Ir.ulOIG/V EL, �_1rON wti�:IN/srvN immesh • Mil....f.u.1r 1 I • MII M nor • 11' IL h u o P QIn It_ 4_ i` < 11 IIIII!IIIIIIIIIWIII1i1IHil'iiI i1 p.iitl4 1-.=I�IL II1EM IInto J z I :•` • -= III' Ill ,.11- = r — II I I'IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII:II!IIID IIIIIIIIIiI, I I .. III; i :1I i 11E77 '11�, .!. ;,I i! I I 1111I!1;' r z( I'l fir jl ANAL_ I.,, I C �G II t('�+ — _—_ r-_ ` lllll, i t __I AIIilrri it _! 1 117,11 s n ,',:,Y I _ _r ii III 1 I - 1= � n.If I 1171:1lin 1!l !1 I El El ,: I I 111111iIi : ;11ii , , (. II I 1,, . • - p', ''..III v -EIII E i" 1-717.1_1 11:17-1111711111 11Pir::l:i.ffi:i: m- ajij • Ik'l , _ I� I ■ 1 9 .. L IIII1:„ FA • . , „ ,[I1I „- E- ,-ill,„,, „„ITIII=1 .4, , i .[---I �� i 1 I �� zI I I IE iq i 1I�l Il.!il! :1111 Il::.I.. -41 •: 9 9 C iI .! "' I o _ II■ __ .Till„„ II II ==J ,-- !I■ -- .I I I I If 11 11 ---- . �°�� - . � ! ll ,III. O,2I II i. ,I .1 I .. - C. . 1.� 1 , 1_ I 0_ 11 ;I ! �I1 ;! !I"I nil, ►�I� Ii �M, ; I 1 filfrE i I 111"-nrir-60 I-- I 11 I IIIIgIIID.I•II,.���;�j11111111 1 I .r. 1,I '"'nl!IIIIIII1111r�L.IgrEE 1 ,/, I ri r< _t-rl 1 I-I JL_—lr3c �, !11, 2 1 r-IR __ . ii . _ , • _1.'::. ...aL.=1u'T'I111.7-ir,i.IR:T111.I G-_— ==1 1._-1■ i LIIILDIIJG (.1I,2. I I V/'Trait:, ?lag r 1%;II I( °"" JOHN ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES PS. INC. cI 'Y.r VILLFSt APtJ+1MCN",;. ^ ?;.'— I•IJ El,.1, Olt .. I-1,11 I0t1�1 Y • I.IM•a�a1 IIOU, • RW dbM . • • • . . , .. . . ' . vA02E5/1 • . . AMR MARIE DATE . . • . . ., • ... . • .7, .- ' .. r•.1. ci 0 1 . _ •4.9''• • a f . - . ' © '• . cc• a ilg 1 , ... . • • . . • . , - 1 ...: Z 2 • . a3 • • , • Z.c• g • . .•. . • . . g A • 7 • , • g rz-, i • . . •• 3/•r“c/INIA CRASERI . • i•ABLLIA cA.AmolfLAILA, • . ., 1.OuRRIN C.A DER. ...- . „..----.....____:_--."...- Cc-LAUREL EABBLIRrtR '..7o A. .. . /Ilk 4111116 --4111k 411b, Am. . .LIMA E11371N6 NT • ii-RimosambRON 31mARRIC -DmLwiremvaeireiFigoftkrmg,a--.-a-4 - Nor . - - ait; , c-..../....... .-- - - cot al"" IIIIE .M...L... 'A,,,-,,, \Z• S-RI11.010EPAD RAM dam.mmat :, '1.3.mcorIAAAA. - 1 Art.44, - -. - . • • ••-7.• 10,51tIORMIA 31.11, -7`..,... ...:, Is...r•LEA nasteve , 3•Pn3b3tLACNIN uompra Mir F . •AtAlt A ROAM c.4, "- .!0;:::=TganA 1 I. -1...1:::74: • . • • ....!Ames LASIKAAAA i•- ......, A.AitEs LASIIKARAR 1 • a f-RuceopEul10.1 UNIQUE .- iA•ALALEA AA5L0u0 ' - di Sa-PACIMAKI •... .,,4:3 NW, 04-rAtuji,.4344,44. . .-u'',,"F" ••ActC LANOCAILIA 1 ' . 3.,R.Au.IlivonsER.V.0m. _ 7. )111 rut mi," `i'ic•- .D . . ;,..GYM IR Watt .4004 "... ore4L,„iliv:,...„,e-e.f.rx: , Mice • 6-tmlitlatte4 JEA•malui .)- . , •AZALEA Allt,7.7 i-'. s Si L a Mill. " • ‘''.." , •,;,75-PAD'S-DOHA 4 el ._ .11.11ARbINA haIRESTICA . s.I..‘LIALAWN. . .., LAWN • ',MAUD ,,i 7 :;,( ON. ' : .73POCKFLPA • • L ., f.• .. f: E•All0110BENOln .• i • . 11 . ei-AILLIA CIANIIPLIMA ••• WHOSE . di ' lm . • • Jr: 4ili Ini. -- . . ( 1.0AlkiNG ACPEA is • > '. ' i TS-VIANUe tAIIIIN SZ•VIAPANuM::1%) .r.„, 1 • It• ._ . 07 I t L. !,-QUARIN • MIEN . ' A 11. . _ — ... _,.. -- •. .-. .-- -. _-_ _. _ _'. • ac? NI-.o.IPEK.Tam .„. • o H 6 .. . 4 1,, •_,. --Ask .. .-„:_ , ,••, A .• , •R.41 tso •,..., :-Plow,TIOWEROLCUITT--- .. ----- ••--• -•- '-•-• OA Tel•••-• •• ...... ... - •I 4/41/61/1X_— .7.:••'' ••-•-'-'•'-',-;: = __ OtraiLiAMO._ iniatilab AlICAda - - •• . . .--NBTA.RA CORM, ...RuabOttEMARCM JEAN laARIE / :L- ... . ----2'1.i''''..'4"1" WO--o-bE.01bluni JEANDANE 2•OUAKING N. S ASPEN • 3.9•PMATINIR CARSERc 1 Z,..,,........ ..L., . - - NOTES . . • . _.1 - . • • ._ . I.ALL TOO AREAS TO NAVE UT TOPSOILMIX ADDED .,2.LAILIN AREAS TO WE SODDED ON 2'.TOPSOIL MIX EASE WITH PREMIUM SOD. LI `R ALL TREEs AND'MUSS TA RE PLANTED IN PLANT POCKETS TWICE THE WIDTH • .::•''.--••• .•,:-,f.T:. „; P.:•'.4. t- AND IN.TIMES 711E IMAM.AC TIAE OLAIrl•BALL IS- ACKF/LL WITH TOPSOIL PAIR. . e•••-''Hi.4. - . 41 % T.FERTILI2E.WITHT N PLANT 'I AELEE IN PLANTHOLES AS PER MAN N UFACTORS RECOMMENDATION. ' - -- :• S. PRE-EMERGANCE WEED CONTROL.TO SE APPLIED AI ?IR MANUCACTORS RECOMMENDATION G.ALL TREES TO WE STAKED OR GUYED 7.ALL ZED AREAS To RE FINISH RAKES AND MULCHED WITH 2."PINE 1300K AIRIER RACED IN PLACE. ......,„ , - : g Z.ALL PLANTINGS TA ISE GUARANTEED ONE GROWING SEASON. I•' . . . • • :• RELECT lel • 526• • ••••••:: , - :- ....,- . . a • ' ......" . . , , - • ' .. ..comma Cyn .01•I NI MO AISIXICES PS.NG • . ii .. . r . 1 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the i' day of M '1 , 198/, I deposited n the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing fi.Q. ® 1 a documents. This information was sent to: NAME: REPRESENTING: l vt i Itu.anr' / dax Pit\e, M.mil. i nP�r co. 1:Zon kAealei lokr, QG. is r, 1 h . 0 SuLnid/ auat ki l?-ac c_ • SIGNED BY: 2�dlLG ��2��-1 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 144 day of ,!i/- eck( , 19 89. 4YL � ' Ny Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at ,Qpy-d-AJ , therein. Project Name and Number: (31u,at;1 Tay , ,M[ 5A - 110 -e5e..) riNG N,ITICE OF PUBLIC HEAF IN RFNTON HEARING EXAM FR RENTON, WASHINGTO AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUN- CIL CHAMBERS ON THE SECOND Audrey Benner ,being first duly sworn on oath states FLOOR OF CITY HALL, RENTON, WASH- INGTON, ON MARCH 7, 1989, AT 9:00 that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOI,OWING PET,'•c)N: CEDAR VILLAGE (ECF; SA-110-88) 40 VALLEY DAILY NEWS Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit • Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition apartment building on a 1.01 acre parcel. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 Dailynewspapers six (6) times a week.That said newspapers ponieg for property. Site is vacant. The publishedproperty is located approximately 500 feet are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six south of N.E. Sunset Blvd. located at the nortmonthsprior to the date ofpublication referred to,printed andpublished N.E. 12 ht Street,corner of Anacortes. Avenue and N.E. 12th if extended. in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King Legal descriptions of the files noted County,Washington.The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal above are on file in the Renton Community newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Development Department. KingCounty. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS T;. _ . PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE SENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARII' 1V The notice in the exact form attached,was published in the Kent Edition MARCH 7, 1989, AT 9:00 A. EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. , Renton Edition x , Auburn Edition , (and not in Published February 24, 1989 Vall, supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers News R5194 during the below stated period.The annexed notice a W ticc of Public Hearing was published on Fcbruary 24 , 1989 R5194 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $ 21 . :4:3 . Subscribed and sworn to before me his ay of Feb 19119_ Notar ublic for the State of Washington, residing at Federal Way, King County, Washington. VDN#87 Revised 11,86 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON MARCH 7, 1989, AT 9: 00 A.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PETITION: CEDAR VILLAGE ECF; SA-110-88 Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building on a 1. 01 acre parcel. Proposed project is consistent. with R-3 zoning for property. Site is vacant. The property is located approximately 500 feet south of N.E. Sunset Blvd. located at the northwest corner of Anacortes Avenue and N.E. 12th Street, if extended. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Renton Community Development Department. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SAID. PETITIONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 7, 1989, AT 9:00 A.M. TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. Published: FEBRUARY 24, 1989 0 CITY O.F RENTON h.LL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor PLANNING DIVISION February 21, 1988 Paul W. Sunich President Quality Pacific, Inc. 543 156th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98007 RE: Cedar Village (ECF; SA-110-88) Dear Mr. Sunich: A public hearing before the City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner has been scheduled for March 7, 1989. The public hearing commences at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you before the hearing. If you have any questions, please call 235-2550. S' rely, Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:mjp cc: Anton Alhoff Gary Guinn 9610 Triton Drive N.W. N.W. Engineering Co. Seattle, WA 98117 12828 Northup Way, Suite 310 Bellevue, WA 98005 Ron Healey Walter Pine John Anderson & Associates N.W. Engineering Co. 10620 N.E. 8th St. 12828 Northup Way, Suite 310 Bellevue, WA 98004 Bellevue, WA 98005 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550 `l j: 1. • '• • 7 ENVIRONMENTAL . • • , , ...., •t DECLARATION •• ' . A . . ,, , . . • . ... .. . —scA ., APPLICATION NO. • t ?.�i ECF-110-88, SA-110-88 1h APPLICANT `,.p CEDAR VILLAGE PROPOSED ACTION i APPLICANT SEEKS' SITE APPROVAL FOR A 25 UNIT .:,ri APARTMENT BUILDING ON A 1.01 ACRE PARCEL. PROPOSED PROJECT IS • ,V, CONSISTENT WITH R-3 ZONING FOR PROPERTY. SITE IS VACANT. ' ;+ GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS r • �,�• LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET SOUTH OF NE SUNSET BLVD. AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ANACORTES AVENUE AND NE 12TH STREET, IF EXTENDED. POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS ' OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. :a • • • • • THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (E.R.C.) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION • ' DOES XDOES NOT =` r .•,!•• ,! HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. • AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT • • WILL >AIM/ILL NOT ` • BE REQUIRED. ' t A THE CITY OF RENTON WILL NOT ACT ON THIS • • i PROPOSAL FOR 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE BELOW. 1 COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY . • AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY • y BE FILED WITH THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER i• 1 BY 5:00 P.M., FEBRUARY 27, 1989 • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION AT 235-2550. . DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE • WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION. - -CERTIFICATION I , T)CJJ -f T- Lgtjc-), , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 1 1` ( 3). • COPIES OF • THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN-1 j7Mt ( 3) CONSPICUOUS - PLACES ON OR NEARBY THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY ON f $JUAf 1.jl ��s� , .. • . .. . ' ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a • • Notary Public, n and for the State of Washingtonn residing in {•��%AN �/lJ , on the u� day Of F y J f•Q l� SIGNED : �1OL.----.., 51067 • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Audrey Benner ,being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the VALLEY DAILY NEWS • Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week.That said newspapers are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King County,Washington.The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form attached,was published in the Kent Edition , Renton Edition X , Auburn Edition , (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period.The annexed notice a Notice of Environmental Determination • was published on Fet.)ruary 12 , 1)89 R5186 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $ 2 7 . 3 5 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21 t day of F r U r y 19 09 Notar ublic for the State of Washington, residing at Federal Way, King County, Washington. VDN#87 Rev,sed 11/86. NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated for the following pro- ject under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. The following Applicant has completed a mitigation process: CEDAR VILLAGE (ECF; SA-110-88) Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building on a 1.01 acre parcel. Public Notice Public Notice Proposed project is consistent with H-3 is available in the Community Development Municipal Building, 200 Mill Avenue South, z Wing for property. Site is vacant. The Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Renton, Washington. An appeal must state property is located approximately 500 feet Washington, 235-2550. This Determination clearly, in writing, why the Determination south of N.E. Sunset Blvd. located at the is FINAL. There is a 14 day appeal period should be revised and must be accornpa- northwest corner of Anacortes Avenue and which will end at 5:00 PM on February 27, nied by a non-refundable $75.00 filing fee. N.E. 12th Street, if extended. 1989. Any appeal of this decision may be Published February 12, 1989 Valley Daily Further information regarding this action made to the City's Hearing Examiner, News R51Re Y 'j rye, -1#s Qualify Paci.7IlC9 llncorpir Lted CITY OF,��;v;c;,� February 15, 1989 D FEB 1 7 1989 ECEIVIE2i Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator City of Renton Department of Community Development Planning Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: Quality Pacific Homes - Cedar Village Located on Anacortes Avenue, south of Sunset Blvd: Project No. SA-110-88 Dear Mr. Erickson: This letter is in. answer to your letters to me of February 8 and February 9, 1989. With regard to the February 9 letter, I do not know what complaints were received, however, Walt Pine advises me it had to do. with a drainage complaint from someone by the name of Ellen Dial . Apparently there was a letter I was to receive from your office, however, I have nothing and I would appreciate a fax copy or whatever is available. I have asked Walt Pine to follow up on this immediately. Also, regarding the 72 foot easement; again, this is not something I am required to do nor negotiate. However, in the spirit of cooperation I will agree to 10 years. Also bear in mind there is discussion regarding moving the carports away from the buildings, but it is a problem with the side- walk easement. Also, regarding the $2,000.00 concerning condition #6 for street clean up, I would still like to request that a hold-back be established by the lender rather than a letter of credit or bond. The reason is these are expensive and a hold-back establishes the same thing. Don, we have changed the site plan several times and Ron Healey is attempting to make an appointment to satisfy all concerns so we can complete our plans 543 156TH AVENUE S.E. / BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98007 / TELEPHONE 746-4660 CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION H 223-01 QUALIP'345RE Page 2 February 15, 1989 Donald K. Erickson, AICP and engineer the underground work. I would appreciate your cooperation as at this point I am not sure where we are and we were promised cooperation after our meeting of January 9, 1989. Thank you for your cooperation and if you have any questions please do not hesita, to call . Yours very truly , / T QUA TYJPAC (,P4d////.. S is esident PWS/je cc: Walt Pine Ron Healey • I ., 111•11s. , :.*.. • • 0 F 4, \ 011 : • ..,.. , • ..•.• . •A''.1 A .,), ,• .-, -,- ,-r-.1 ; 17:"At--,;'• :4,10., '•'•i A''ti". • • •");,.• . • •• '4''::.. A, ,,lw • ..,, 0ammk' , (-3- 0 .6 .2- IMO . 1 •,, . . • - . ..., •.. . ' , :if:: -i mIL ' i • . ..?,•,,, % — .. ,• '': . .. ••-:,,,: 13 •. . . . . - • ..30., <c.c".• 41•to sEPW' . • • • .1.:. • . .. ' • •• .•;'.1' • ' , City of Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner . , .. ... . . .. . . . will hold a - -.• . .. Y., PUBLIC HEARING , • . ... . . • - . . . :.. •,..• . : ... . ..:.: .', • .... .1.,,,, • ...:,. . . ..... .. . .. . .. ., . . • • • „ . • . • ,,,,..., . . .,.,..,, in • .. . . •,,,'.. : • CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL . . (• • MARCH 7, 1989 9:00 . • • ..- , • - ON BEGINNING AT A.M. i P.M. . . •,.1. . : ECF-110-88, SA-110-88 . .. . . . ,,, • CEDAR VILLAGE . , • - . • .. , •. . •:‘':':: CONCERNING: • : . . . • . ., ,, . .• . .• r .y,:;. • APPLICANT SEEKS SITE APPROVAL FOR A 25 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON . .,!.; A 1.01 ACRE PARCEL. PROPOSED PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH R-3 ZONING FOR PROPERTY. SITE IS VACANT. . • • --.- "1W it '':' . i, 7.61 . -1111.'411,7/7t, i4/14 .! 31 '. ..71:14 :,;X..• i .. ., . . . . ,. . , • . . r;-...'",,i,..','.:+::11y),.?,11.41,,. . . . . • 2 : . . .. .. .... ......5.,:,..,.5.1.1.,;:.c. . .. -. ‘ :- . . •,:,';• ', ' I it.I:.;!........d 1;.;,;, ,\-,,I4. ,,V, g?t. IT,r,,,',.., . . • ..., :'• '•:' it 271.. I . ;;Ii; 0.4f,ti.8,'•v;';.,1,14- ;,.i+ki-gi . . , --, • . . 1-7i;1:1;Fai;.!;P:14'.1:f.;:,:.I. • .. . , . .....: . :,.. • . !•. 1 • ... ' : 1 CI:: - ..,---'- ':•-• .- .. . ., .....,:-.. .. .:... . , . ..s. • - -I '' • , • , . . R-3 1 ,......—. . '..,•:.,,1;:'•:.1'i L. • • ''' ! . 1:1_3 , -1 - G.....i •...'.k...:.&...,.v.. .. • ,:,.. • • . . . , il ..... • . 'n ...._ !I R-G .. , B_i -3 ...'• .;...,1.1:•.5''''•11: •.:!..:?, . , ''' '' ..1% • 1 • • " . .•• . • ,..,; i•i% • .s; ;F11 • ._s____.;-- '-)P # bilt . . • :,i.,, .. . - . . . , :•,,. ,,..., i .,. ,, .• LI____:,.,i. .;----- • . . ,,,.. • ,•,....!. t' ..' - -....-------,P 13....t- . k\ i.,,,•• :. ',1iFiTy '' ' ' • • ..':•.c.; ;3'..:. '!•,::' .r-, ; ,;,, ,I...,, .,. R • . • . • .--:. . . ..... .- .,t, . ; .,.' .. j, 1 — t -.1°. -.- ii... ;‘ . . . —. HAZEN 5R : Z t.t.1‘----\.; ,i: ,;;rAit 1 ; . 111011 SCROOL 4 • ,.. ' . . • ..A.• :. ' 'P's.,•API.iV ... :f -.1.,..,,,,qt,,,,.....--ri..4..:7A-__.-_-_,; r • • (7 ,W.4,1,ri;::i!I :. • • • . -,...,„,:.,..:. .;....,, , . . . 13,,,.., „ ,-. i;.. • ' • . .1.-1.••• ill.; ...=1,: • . ..,;.i.- .:v.;,„_-_, ..,.,i, I if -.1 7 .c :75:1:'---2-.1 0.c... .-s. . .., .,.:.:.1%:•,-;- g • • • • :II;':: .. •!•‘, -:.-&1: -,Efil .M1-11.1111111ir .::.• .„,,,,, J :vollimittilk •• . • . . . , • . v3:,. 1 <......-;:, -7 ;„ .; ; , •:i•l'.7 !i.1!''21:1:,!". ,,.1_ . . . . . • .. • ••=•,4pl.initsit*,; •.. .. . , . . . ..AD!. ;.•. ': •. ••;,;',', ,F- 1 1t Tliit 16 '1 *1 '.9--..T- 7-107. 1--... t:Jr.:11 ,,,.,..:,...,,,„,: ,l,.,,, . .. . • . . E --.1:,-....:1,:r.' 1.,:..y. lk::,. • • ;R—1 , -,,,-*.oii ALI 09,5..,...'n.. . . :i,..,..i.• ..tl-Pi b, ...., • . - •,—"--. :1 . ..1 . . . . .. . . , • - • . ..:T!'.1... GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS: • PROPERTY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET SOUTH OF N.E. SUNSET ••••••• • ,:. ... BLVD. LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ANACORTES AVENUE AND . • —,i., N.E. 12TH STREET, IF EXTENDED. : • . . .. . • . . . , . . . .::.., FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY OF RENTON . . • . . „ . . . ' •,:i", BUILDING&ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 . . . . . . ,'...1 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED • WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION • . CERTIFICATION 1 , . / ) I , Hr:11-B1/4- -, 'Lli\..)D , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT Illtibet C 7.-Z . fCOPIES OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN .-rme6 es ) CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON OR NEARBY THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY ON I • • • ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington • ,. lr- i . . residing in lx-. L...trat_i , on the a8 . ,SIGNED : Ouutlr-.. k mid_day of' ,€) \OtRA / . • . , ,. ' - • • OF R� fi �' i - ' IfIrl- : F..~ O ' D!! l � 7?7;� ,.` ' r 1 •t Ii i;: STt,; ,tif IU `$ I I 09 ;,,' j; �.:, w;.,. ,,. , .y' is / ,mf•;, r. +r i;+ ,I h�,. f' T !t .., F I,c •,4,'' {,ft F! ,�a iii ,(ii;;;'.,1,', FD SEPS c "' (?: a'S"4°. lr . l,. l, tb6l~j!' �''; `' ',4 .a .t=�'f;:.::+jl,,l .1l•iwlal3r•T�:�.Ct',,,'i�6ifj.,l'�li;:i:p.t�ihfl'� ' , e�7�' ; ,.. ..b�,, �'�,�,r!tl.,df{'h•C1 fi.'rti!ILh7ri�..i'!t '� I,.I� City• of Renton Land Use He rin Ex nnint`''�`'`;I�,I� h'';! 'a; a g; .a a.• �f,, i,.' ' . . • .. •'i' it a i 1+',..i,;.3•:i�•.r ;.•••,A' 1• 1;•!•:' I 1 1"1;+' •'C'j pis., 3I11t il'",' • • will hold. a ,'I ,} FI7 rlt 1� Va f • HE „ .,, :.,, ,.,, ,„ ,,,, ,,„, .„., ..,., „..:, ,,, ,,... „„..„.,.,..,..,„ ,,„„..„,,,. „, „,,,„„, „,. „!.,,, :,,,..:i:,,,„,, ,,„, .: i„,, ,.„,,,,k,. , ,., R• :�+ I''IjI':PUBLIC I . ., ... j r.,. ,,•',:•, .,.. ,•.:'T in ;'•' ;YF9.'I • )t i. y • • CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS , CITY HALL - Y ';' •` }''' MARCH 7 1989 +.'. 1. .. .' :r, . :;':;., ,ni.,,;, ON • BEGINNING AT A, ' • ECF-110-88 P•M•: "• SA-110-88 ,L. •:1';:,'1; .i CEDAR VILLAGE .. '4aj ; ,.,` . • :i, C®NCERNINC. ° 'Y; • . • APPLICANT SEEKS SITE APPROVAL FOR A 25 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING'. ON •' .' A 1. 01 ACRE PARCEL. PROPOSED PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH R-3. ! . ZONING FOR PROPERTY. SITE IS VACANT. ' r•. '' +J—:,.1. `�';._-_;.1 L-1)'i1l‘'•i S:,),t:t Ai..iW it 'I. • k D ( ti ..... ;!�i r, r{FF' I :, -- 'r s^-14.1•Ti;1,;',, '�, e'--1- - `.t it'`11�11 - 'w •r..','41; Yrl� ! •y. • �� i -1 ? l' tiJ:i d__ et w g 1 „gij t•-'I.1[ ,CA 1 1'f�y -71 •!' :k F�':1:,, i ,,,•°7:"; °. (ee , Iu`�t•t. ° Ct n tJ��f l.lti�5�4 C91' J .1 :} , , 14 • . , . .:,..;: , .; . . . . .. . I 1 ir1-14IsI)I,Is1,1„1•„1„�.f;'::; -- • :;; , , „.,.......,,.,.,,:.::„. .,, • r _ ®_, _ .. �. r • / � ts.. ,'.l is • L.L. JJ ..• • . . .r; 'i:•'•' f 'f' • �i op .r, ( t; '• . 11 t ` t o_1 1 .f.• II ' �_ r'1,) BI- l I t t '_ t • ' _, - — HAZEN DR Z ' • r1''1 —tit_ 4., r,.i't: tz HIGfI SCHOOL • ' . • �j;,.7 -�1-, A ,`eYe,i,3 ' , r•.• •• •r •la.Sh I;I h •, +e« '\t II 11 - '. kill l•.�'_i 41 c .'�� . •.. N nlI .«y;.,.+ t.. ,• 7 ,•t..' .. • ,,i1•l l 1•0,,� ' , 'i ._ r�F- �„�! dt. •�. If!t.nl,. . 7 1, 1,r•1 ' 1, •1.: ;!: . ,• `O 1 •t,t', i' ', Ili' : 1 1 t"'t •t. '. fIf r•t'(I1 rl.Ir I—Ili u�; \ . . t: 1 •I y p ���. .Il_; �p „ ; L� `I^l!�.�I a'-:I:�h �'1'_I'1"I; 1_ 1 4 rill:,Y:!�S''1L� ':Y41t�1V7 �. !•� Ml 10— 3! _ ,� yiU ~t I _T_ ilia _ - JrI .. ,t,.` ' Fl •1 t ; • I a ;� -�J ....L, :.:•, .• .:,.x„yn?r,..,..,',�,;„.,.D..'' i3,' :: c.E 0 r 1 I�.1 . r t t•of: t'-` i}•k•. 'ik.,4}'Ni—KI.,Y•1 •tilt.: . „.i '• Y• n t • lit •, :.•t.:.... ., f• ,`r a ,,,,,,,. .„ . • ;,„`l;l;• •.; ,•, nn C 1'R� -,,.....,........v.:, - 7 0f ••t'• •i • • GENERAL LOCATION AMID/OR,,..3ADPRESS; PROPERTY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET SOUTH OF N.E. SUNSET '`';,''' ' BLVD. LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ANACORTES. 'AVENUE AND,.,., ' N.E. 12TH STREET, IF EXTENDED. ,r}4' •>, .'.':•:.. • • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY OF:;'.RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 235,-2550 ' • THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE • REMOVED.:,:;WITHOUT • PROPER AUTHORIZATION , `; .., :,`�°' ir // !// (A? ,1 4 ,„ NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Environmental Review Committee Renton, Washington The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued ,a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. The following Applicant has completed a, mitigation process: CEDAR VILLAGE ECF; SA-110-88 Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building on a 1. 01 acre parcel. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning for property. Site is vacant. The property is located approximately 500 feet south of N.E. Sunset Blvd. located at the northwest corner of Anacortes Avenue and N.E. 12th Street, if extended. Further information regarding this action is available in the Community Development Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2550. This Determination is FINAL. There is a 14 day appeal period which will end at 5:00 PM on February 27, 1989. Any appeal of this decision may be made to the City's Hearing Examiner, Municipal Building, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington. An appeal must state clearly, in writing, why the Determination should be revised and must be accompanied by a non-refundable $75.00 filing fee. Published: February 12, 1989 N OT ICE 7w .. NviRoNmENTAL DECLARATION APPLICATION NO. ECF-110-88 , SA-110-88 APPLICANT CEDAR VILLAGE PROPOSED ACTION APPLICANT SEEKS SITE APPROVAL FOR A 25 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON A 1. 01 ACRE PARCEL. PROPOSED PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH R-3 ZONING FOR PROPERTY. SITE IS VACANT. GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS • LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET SOUTH OF NE SUNSET BLVD. AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ANACORTES AVENUE AND NE 12TH STREET, IF EXTENDED. POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (E.R.C.) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL 1,KWILL NOT BE REQUIRED. THE CITY OF RENTON WILL NOT ACT ON THIS PROPOSAL FOR 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE BELOW. COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER BY 5:00 P.M., FEBRUARY 27 , 1989 • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION. ® 7: 9 •S ' CITY OF RENTON. I is DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor . PLANNING DIVISION February 9, 1988 4, Paul W. Sunich President Quality Pacific, Inc. 543 156th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98007 RE: Cedar Village (ECF; SA-110-88) Dear Mr. Sunich: This letter is to inform you that the comment period has ended for the Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the above referenced project. Comments were received. The issues raised by the respondents have been noted and will be considered by Staff in their reports. The Committee's determination is final and may be appealed to the City's Hearing Examiner no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 27, 1989. Any appeal must state clearly why the determination should be revised and must be accompanied by a non-refundable $75.00 filing fee. If you have questions or desire clarification of the above, please call our office at 235-2550. For the Environmental Review Committee, /Srrrcerle- Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE/LB:mjp cc: Anton Alhoff 9610 Triton Drive N.W. Seattle, Washington 98117 Gary Guinn N.W. Engineering Co. 12828 Northup Way, Suite #310 Bellevue, Washington 98005 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550 • f • tt$ -0) CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor PLANNING DIVISION February 8, 1989 Paul Sunich Quality Pacific, Incorporated 543 156th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98007 RE: Cedar Village Apartment, 1500 Block of Anacortes N.E., south of N.E. Sunset Boulevard (110-88) Dear Mr. Sunich: This letter is written in response to your letter dated January 27, 1989 concerning conditions established in conjunction with the Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated, which was issued by our Environmental Review Committee on January 20, 1989 for the above-referenced project. Staff submitted your letter for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee and the Environmental Review Committee on February 8, 1989. With respect to your inquiry concerning Condition #2, these Committees agreed that the proposed 7.5 foot easement could be extended for a limited period of time. However, it is recommended that the period of retention for the easement be ten years, rather than the six years suggested in your letter. This ten year period of time is preferred because it is likely that it will take this length of time to establish policies and plans for roadway improvements and to obtain funding for implementing such plans. With respect to your inquiry concerning Condition #6, there was also agreement that a letter of credit for $2,000.00 would be a suitable substitute for a $2,000.00 bond for street clean-up in conjunction with this project. A form which is acceptable to the City has been enclosed for your convenience. The appeal period for the project will begin on February 12, 1989 and will end February 26, 1989. A decision will be made as to whether the project will undergo public review or administrative review following the end of the appeal period. The project continues to be scheduled for review by the Hearing Examiner on March 7, 1989 in the event that a public hearing is necessary. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550 Paul Sunich Cedar Village (110-88; February 8, 1989 Page 2 • I have been in touch with Mr. Healy and he is in the process of preparing revised site plans and landscaping plans for this project. We will begin to review these as soon as they are submitted to our office. If you have questions, please contact Lenora Blauman or me at 235-2550. • Thank you. ly, y . Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE/LB:mjp cc: Walter Pine Ron Healy . Enclosures: Letter of Credit CITY OF RENTON 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WA 98055 206-235-2501 FAX# 235-2513 DATE c2-7// s� 02- PAGES (EXCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET) ATTENTION: I/ &t_e, FA-X A)%' FROM: t,/,✓ 0-et7Y7L-1-- PERKINS GOIE A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 1201 THIRD AVENUE, 40TH FLOOR•SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3099•(206)328-4000 February 7, 1989 PLANNING DIVISION HAND DELIVERED CITY OF RENTON City of Renton FEB 7 1989 DI Environmental Review Committee c/o Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator HEM Planning Division Community Development Department 200 Mill Ave. So . Renton, WA 98055 Re: Determination of Non-Significance : Application SA-110-88 (Quality Pacific Homes) Ladies and Gentlemen: This firm represents the owners of Central Highlands Plaza, a property located to the northeast of the subject site, across Anacortes Avenue. This letter constitutes written comments on behalf of the owners of Central Highlands Plaza on the mitigated determination of non-significance issued in connection with the application referenced above . Honeydew Creek, which runs under the surface of the parking lot at Central Highlands Plaza, is to provide drainage for surface and storm water . We believe that the proposed mitigation measure is inadequate in that it does not require mitigation of impacts to neighboring sites . Although the current owners acquired Central Highlands Plaza just 13 months ago, and the intervening months have been extraordinarily dry, the owners understand that Honeydew Creek is near or at capacity. Moreover, we understand that standing water on the Central Highlands parking lot has been observed during wet periods, and this may be attributable to Creek overflows . Additional drainage into the Creek will exacerbate existing problems . Accordingly, the system required should be adequate to mitigate impacts to neighboring sites caused by increase flows into the Creek . Our second concern relates to runoff during construction periods . Recent construction on the east side of the Central Highlands Plaza has resulted in a substantial increase of flow of soil into the storm water system, with a resulting buildup TELEX:32-0319 PERKINS SEA•FACSIMILE(206)583-8500 ANCHORAGE•BELLEVUE•Los ANGELES •PORTLAND •WASHINGTON,D.C. City of Renton February 7 , 1989 Page 2 of solid materials in the system entering the Central Highlands Plaza. While the applicant ' s environmental checklist identifies an increased turbidity of storm water during construction, the standards for an erosion control plan are not set forth in the mitigation measures . Moreover , the requirement that wheels of construction trucks be washed at the site will exacerbate the runoff of soil and other materials into the Creek ' s system. Clearing and grading, as well as wheel washing, should be limited to periods of dry weather to mitigate the effects of construction period runoff . Your attention to the foregoing matters is greatly appreciated. truly yo s , O-(--,(f- E en Conedera Dial ECD:vky 7625r cc : Morris Piha Management Group cc : Property Owners PIANN!Nr!?!VISION Dl FEB 7 1989 1 2 A- I)0 -at') 04,64 CEF,STATE OA O cii ".iiii` /di CHRISTINE O. GREGOIRE Director 44 1889 aoy STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 • (206) 459-6000 February 6, 1989 Mr. Don Erickson City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Erickson: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance for the Cedar Village Apartments proposed by Quality Pacific Homes. We reviewed the environmental checklist and have the following comments. The project should include an erosion control pond designed to accommodate the 10 year design storm, as well as volumes generated by the construction truck wheel wash. A pond that is so hydraulically designed would help mitigate potential surface water infractions. A restoration bond to protect against sediment impacts to Honey Creek should be required. If you have any questions, please call Ms. Rachel Friedman-Thomas of the Northwest Regional Office at (206) 867-7128 . Sincerely, N60-)16-04 Barbara J. itchie Environmental Review Section BJR: cc: Rachel Friedman-Thomas PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON QECEll FEg8 1989 -42:METRO I, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle,WA 98104-1598 February 1, 1989 FLF\NNMU UIV(SION Environmental Review Committee CITY OF RENTON c/o Donald K. Erickson 6 19$9 Zoning Administrator D FEB Planning Department 200 Mill Avenue South ECE ir1 15 Renton, Washington 98055 Determination of Non-Significance File No. : SA-110-88 Quality Pacific Homes Dear Environmental Review Committee: Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no significant impacts to its wastewater facilities or public transportation services. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, //-2) p‘ot ;- Gregory M. Bush, Manager Environmental Planning Division GMB:wsg Qually Fa Tic, li icorpor . ted FL.A,NNING DIVISION January 27, 1989 CRTYQFIENT®N T.)) 'JAN W8 1989 3CrRilfilE Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator City of Renton Department of Community Development Planning Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: Quality Pacific Homes - Cedar Village Located on Anacortes Avenue, south of Sunset Blvd, Project No. SA-110-88 Dear Mr. Erickson: This letter is in answer to your letter dated January 25, 1989. I also want to thank you for your immediate response and the issuance of the Determination of Non-Significance based on the conditions stated. With regard to paragraph #1, I have discussed this with Walt Pine of Northwest Engineering and we see no problem with the design. With reference to paragraph #2, we stated before we would support partici- pating in the traffic study concurrent with our paying our fair share in accordance with your memorandum dated January 11, 1989, and the so stated parties. With reference to the 72 foot sidewalk easement, please be advised there is no legal basis for us to do this. It also destroys a good part of our green belt which we are sensitive to. However, we are willing to grant the 71/2 foot easement should N.E. 12th Street be extended in the next 6-year period of time. Any costs for installing the sidewalk would be borne by the City of Renton or by all parties should an L.I.D. process be imposed. With regard to paragraphs #3, #4 and #5, we are in agreement. Paragraph #6 is very costly when it involves purchasing bonds. If it is acceptable with you I would prefer a $2,000.00 holdback to be held at our financing 543 156TH AVENUE S.E. / BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON 98007 / TELEPHONE 746-4660 CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION #223-01 QUALIP'345RE Page 2 January. 27, 1989 Donald K. Erickson, AICP outlet and released to you at the completion of our work should we be in violation of the street cleaning ordinance. In follow up to your letter and our meeting of January 9, 1989, I assume we are in agreement and everything is in order. Thank you for your consideration and prompt attention. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call . ` Yours' v y truly, QUALI Y PACIF (—/L/;/;// / r esident PWS/je cc: Anton Althoff Walt Pine, Northwest Engineering John Anderson CITY OF RENTON • 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WA 98055 206-235-2501 FAX# 235-2513 DATE ,9/3/,? 3 PAGES (EXCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET) ATTENTION: ri.64.1, ,54-7 - FROM: ( . . _ r- :. . :,. . : ,;:). , . ! . . . NOTICE: : . :! ,,.., .;:, ,'fit . :I; • . : :: :. : , ..: :4.ii , ..... ,....: .:.,?,,;„ ENVIRONMENTAL ,.,, : . 2,.. ;., .:. :,-., DECLARATION . . . :,,,,, ''.- ECF-110-88, SA-110-88 , . APPLICATION NO. CEDAR VILLAGE •,`4 APPLICANT PROPOSED ACTION APPLICANT SEEKS SITE APPROVAL FOR A 25 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON A 1.01 ACRE PARCEL. PROPOSED PROJECT IS ^• CONSISTENT WITH R-3 ZONING FOR PROPERTY. SITE IS VACANT. ::.:•;'; GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS ,, a • ';,.j Approximately 500 feet south of N.E. Sunset Blvd. located at the j•i`�1 northwest corner of Anacortes Avenue and N.E. 12th Street, if extended. • ') POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS : • • �`) OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. r�x - 57:{t THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ,'S (E.R.C.) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION i.' 1 DOES IN DOES NOT :_, 1. 1-; HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. :4 AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT . + WILL ii4rWILL NOT BE REQUIRED, . THE CITY OF RENTON WILL NOT ACT ON THIS ,;;?� PROPOSAL FOR 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE BELOW. COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY FEBRUARY 7, 1989 V;.':i AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY • '.`� BE FILED WITH THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER :‘,,-.-,•:.:: as_ p•': ! ' BY 5:00 P.M : FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON ',,yt ti' PLANNING DIVISION AT 235-2550. - DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION. CERTIFICATION I , VETI33 1-4 L,,i1OD , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ` 3) COPIES OF • THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN TlikeS, ( 3) CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON OR NEARBY THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY ON t. A.JVA 5 21, Ng?. • • ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington • residing in IRgiuT o0 , on the J 1 SIGNED : 6eNZAISrliAld 1day of C 1,41, 1 n�%0 i. • \ • • tr CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor PLANNING DIVISION q January 25, 1988 Paul W. Sunich President Quality Pacific, Inc. • 543 156th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98007 Re: Quality Pacific Homes - Cedar Village Located on Anacortes Avenue, south of Sunset Blvd. Project No. SA-110-88 Dear Mr. Sunich: This letter is to inform you that the Environmental Review Committee completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above referenced project. The Committee on January 20, 1989 decided that your project may be issued a Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant be required to install a storm drainage management system to mitigate storm water runoff impacts to the site and to nearby Honeydew Creek, to be designed for 25 year developed state runoff with a five year undeveloped state release should be required, with a three-stage baffled oil/water separator downstream of the detention system control structure. The specific plan should be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. Note: If it is feasible to do so, an open drainage plan may be preferred for this site. 2. That the applicant be encouraged to support mitigation activities to enhance traffic safety and efficiency in the immediate vicinity by: a) participating in a study for the roadway for signalization of Anacortes Avenue at Sunset Boulevard and for realignment of Anacortes Avenue at Sunset Boulevard to make a concurrent intersection (to their fair share, with payment advanced to be credited against future financing of re-alignment and signalization); and b) providing a 7.5 foot easement be provided for public access at the southern boundary of the property, with the understanding that this easement be used exclusively for the development of sidewalk to serve future expansion N.E. 12th Street to the south of the subject property. Note: The easement is to be duly recorded with the City of Renton and with King County. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550 • r 3. That the applicant retain natural vegetation as proposed on the tree plan and design and locate plantings and screening at the periphery of the site in a way which mitigates noise, light and glare impacts. 4. That the applicant limit interior ambient noise levels to 50 dBA to Buildings "A' and "B", to mitigate noise impacts from nearby commercial activities to those residential units. It is recommended that either: a) interior insulation be installed in those buildings; or b) that insulation be installed along the north facades of buildings "A" and "B" and along the east facade of building "A" to achieve required mitigation. 5. That the applicant be required to provide the following during construction activities: a) an erosion control plan subject to City approval; b) wheel washing of construction trucks on site to protect adjacent roadways from dirt and debris; c) limited hours of operation as approved by the Traffic Engineering Division to limit noise and to limit traffic impacts. 6. That the applicant provide a bond in the amount of $2,000.00.for street clean up. Because the Environmental Review Committee imposed specific mitigation measures rather than issue a Determination of Significance, there is a required fifteen (15) day comment period during which comments are solicited from various agencies, jurisdictions or individuals who may have an interest in,the Committee's decision. The comment period will end February 2, 1989. Following the end of the comment period, the City will finalize it's Determination unless comments received require a reevaluation. Following the finalization of the Determination, there is a required fourteen (14) day appeal period. In addition, by the end of the comment period, we should be able to establish a tentative public hearing date before the Hearing Examiner, should a public hearing be necessary for the project. • If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call our office at 235- 2550 and ask for Lenora Blauman or me. For the Environmental Review ' . mittee, • ely, Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:mjp cc: Anton Alhoff 9610 Triton Drive N.W. Seattle, Washington 98117 Gary Guinn N.W. Engineering Co. 12828 Northup Way, Suite #310 Bellevue, Washington 98005 „ ® CITY OF RENTON ..LL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Traffic Engineering Division PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON January 23, 1989 `J A N 2 4 '1989 Mr. Pat Newbury - McDonald's 17422 108th Ave SE Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Study for Re-alignment and Signalization of Anacortes Ave. with Sunset Blvd. NE Dear Mr. Newbury: The intersection of Anacortes Ave. and Sunset Blvd. NE has been the location of 17 accidents (10 injuries) in the past 3 years (see attached traffic accident record) . Fourteen of the 17 accidents occurred when a vehicle attempted to cross Sunset Blvd. from one leg of Anacortes to the other. The legs of Anacortes do not line up, making this maneuver more dangerous. We feel that re-alignment of the north and south legs of Anacortes to make a concurrent intersection would significantly reduce the number of right angle types of accidents. Because of the number and type of accidents the City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division is requesting a study be done to determine costs associated with re-alignment of Anacortes Ave. Also, provisions for signal - ization of this intersection need to be provided. Signalization will be based on meeting traffic warrants as outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The scope of work for this study will include the following: 1. Determine project cost. 2. Equitably assign costs to users. 3. Determine area of influence (this would primarily consist of Anacortes Ave. users) . 4. Prepare a traffic warrant analysis. All costs incurred for study will be credited against future assessments for project design and construction. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2620 Mr. Pat Newbury Page 2 January 23, 1989 Listed below are other parties requested to participate: C. E. Loveless - Central Highlands Plaza c/o Westec Ltd. 14711 NE 29th Place, Suite 111 Bellevue, WA 98007 Walter Pine - Cedar Village Northwest Engineering 12828 Northup Way Suite 310 Bellevue, WA 98005 Bill Bechtold - Kohl Excavating 235 SW 153rd Seattle, WA 98166 Phone (206) 867-9800 If you have any questions, please contact me at 235-2620. Sincerely, %7a &. 74 Gary Norm s, P. E. Traffic Engineer Attachmmen-t cc: Odin Erickson, Zoning Administrator /0, p • CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Traffic Engineering Division PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON January 23, 1989 p 'JAN 2 4 1989 ECEOVE Mr. Walter Pine - Cedar Village Northwest Engineering 12828 Northup Way Suite 310 Bellevue, WA 98005 Subject: Study for Re-alignment and ignali ation of Anacortes Ave. with Sunset Blvd. NE i �/�—//a- 'e Dear Mr. Pine: The intersection of Anacortes Ave. and Sunset Blvd. NE has been the location of 17 accidents (10 injuries) in the past 3 years (see attached traffic accident record) . Fourteen of the 17 accidents occurred when a vehicle attempted to cross Sunset Blvd. from one leg of Anacortes to the other. The legs of Anacortes do not line up, making this maneuver more dangerous. We feel that re-alignment of the north and south legs of Anacortes to make a concurrent intersection would significantly reduce the number of right angle types of accidents. Because of the number and type of accidents the City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division is requesting a study be done to determine costs associated with re-alignment of Anacortes Ave. Also, provisions for signal - ization of this intersection need to be provided. Signalization will be based on meeting traffic warrants as outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The scope of work for this study will include the following: 1. Determine project cost. 2. Equitably assign costs to users. 3. Determine area of influence (this would primarily consist of Anacortes Ave. users) . 4. Prepare a traffic warrant analysis. All costs incurred for study will be credited against future assessments for project design and construction. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2620 C_onciroiio /9/IR1 94S-941R IVI Mr. Walter Pine Page 2 January 23, 1989 Listed below are other parties requested to participate: Bill Bechtold - Kohl Excavating 235 SW 153rd Seattle, WA 98166 Phone (206) 867-9800 Pat Newbury - McDonald's 17422 108th Ave SE Renton, WA 98055 Phone (206) 271-4340 C. E. Loveless - Central Highlands Plaza c/o Westec Ltd. 14711 NE 29th Place, Suite 111 Bellevue, WA 98007 If you have any questions, please contact me at 235-2620. Sincerely, Gary Nor is, P.E. Traffic Engineer Attachme.. cc: .54 Erickson, Zoning Administrator ii Ps vta-k-L-, ,4,,,O , 0 .0. CITY OF RENTON "LL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Traffic Engineering Division PLANNING V(O2 4 R DIVISION Cl January 20, 1989 ® "JAN 1989 Mr. Walter Pine - Quality Pacific Northwest Engineering 12828 Northup Way, Suite 310 Bellevue, WA 98005 Subject: Easement Requirements for Cedar River Develoment Dear Mr. Pine: `� The City of Renton Traffic Engineering Division requires that right-of-way be maintained for NE 12th Street. This requirement will allow for future extension of NE 12th westward to Union Ave. During the meeting on January 9, 1989, the City proposed that your development provide a seven and one-half foot (7.5') public access easement. This easement would be along the southern boundary of your property. The City agreed that upon future development of the road the easement would be used for a sidewalk and will not affect your setback requirement. Also, the roadway itself would be constructed to the south of your property line. During the meeting you informall a reed with this approach pending a formal concurrence. you still agree, please forwar confirming letter. If you have any questions, please contact me at 235-2620. Sincerely, . pØ; 5 GallorrP.E./6/0 Traffic Engineer U" O( crote . MJJ cc: to n Erickson, Zoning Administrator File 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2620 4$ 1 CITY OF RENTON ..IL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor PLANNING DIVISION •1, rf January 20, 1988 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section Mail Stop PV-11 Olympia, WA 98504 Re: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a cop y of the Environmental Determination issued on January +; 20, 1989: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED CEDAR VILLAGE ECF; SA-110-88 Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building on a 1.01 acre parcel. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning for property. Site is vacant. The property is located approximately 500 feet south of N.E. Sunset Blvd. located at the northwest corner of Anacortes Avenue and N.E. 12th Street, if extended. The fifteen (15) day comment period for this project will end on February 7, 1989. Following the end of the comment period, the City'will finalize it's Determination unless comments received require a reevaluation. Following the finalization of the • Determination, there is a required 14 day appeal period. If you have questions, please call Jeanette Samek-McKague or me at 235-2550. Sie.Fely, wit / Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:m jp cc: Mr. Gerald W. Marbett, King County Bldg. & Land Division Mr. Gregory M. Bush, Metro Department of Wildlife Mr. Joe Robels, Department of Fisheries 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE ;: (MITIGATED) 1= ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST NO. : 3, APPLICATION NO: SA-110-88 PROPONENT: Quality Pacific Homes DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Cedar Village - Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building on a 1.01 acre parcel. Proposed project is consistent with R- 3 zoning for property. Site is vacant. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Approximately 500 feet south of N.E. Sunset Blvd. located at the northwest corner of Anacortes Avenue and N.E. 12th Street, if extended. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Community Development Department Planning Division The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43 .21C. 030 (2) (c). . Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-2822 (D) Renton Municipal Code (see attached sheet) . These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2) . Because mitigation measures have been imposed, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fifteen (15) days from January 23, 1989. Any interested party may submit written comments which must be submitted by 5: 00 p.m. , February 7, 1989, in order to be considered. A fourteen (14) day appeal period will commence following the finalization of the DNS. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee c/o Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Planning Division Community Development Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 PUBLICATION DATE: January 23, 1989 DATE OF DECISION: January 20, 1989 SIGNATURES: 1/1/47 R ald G. Nelson : ir3 •ring' Building Official •lann Mader Lynn Guttmann Public Works Director DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES PROJECT: Cedar Village ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: APPLICATION NUMBER: SA-110-88 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building on a 1.01 acre parcel. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning for property. Site is vacant. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Approximately 500 feet south of N.E. Sunset Blvd. located at the northwest corner of Anacortes Avenue and N.E. 12th Street, if extended. RECOMMENDATIONS: ERC issued a Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant be required to install a storm drainage management system to mitigate storm water runoff impacts to the site and to nearby Honeydew Creek, 'to be designed for 25 year developed state runoff with a five year undeveloped state release should be required, with a three-stage baffled oil/water separator downstream of the detention system control structure. The specific plan should be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. Note: If it is feasible to do so, an open drainage plan may be preferred for this site. 2 . That the applicant be encouraged to support mitigation activities to enhance traffic safety and efficiency in the immediate vicinity by: a) participating in a study for the roadway for signalization of Anacortes Avenue at Sunset Boulevard and for realignment of Anacortes Avenue at Sunset Boulevard to make a concurrent intersection (to their fair share, with payment advanced to be credited against future financing of re-alignment and signalization) ; and b) providing a 7.5 foot easement be provided for public access at the southern boundary of the property, with the understanding that this easement be used exclusively for the development of sidewalk to serve future expansion N.E. 12th Street to the south of the subject property. Note:. The easement is to be duly recorded with the City of Renton and with King County. 3 . That the applicant retain natural vegetation as proposed on the tree plan and design and locate plantings and screening at the periphery of the site in a way which mitigates noise, light and glare impacts. 4. That the applicant limit interior ambient noise levels to 50 dBA to Buildings "A' and "B", to mitigate noise impacts from nearby commercial activities to those residential units. It is recommended V2 . Cedar Village Mitigation Measures Page 2 that either: a) interior insulation be installed in those buildings; or b) that insulation be installed along the north facades of buildings "A" and "B" and along the east facade of building "A" to achieve required mitigation. 5. That the applicant be required to provide the following during construction activities: a) an erosion control plan subject to City approval; b) wheel washing of construction trucks on site to protect adjacent roadways from dirt and debris; c) limited hours of operation as approved by the Traffic Engineering Division to limit noise and to limit traffic impacts. 6. That the applicant provide a bond in the amount of $2,000. 00 for street clean up. mmdoc a I1 Cedar Village Mitigation Measures Page 2 that either: a) interior insulation be installed in those buildings; or b) that insulation be installed along the north facades of buildings "A" and "B" and along the east facade of building "A" to achieve required mitigation. 5. That the applicant be required to provide the following during construction activities: a) an erosion control plan subject to City approval; b) wheel washing of construction trucks on site to protect adjacent roadways from dirt and debris; c) limited hours of operation as approved by the Traffic Engineering Division to limit noise and to limit traffic impacts. 6. That the applicant provide a bond in the amount of $2,000.00 for street clean up. mmdoc N OT E ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION APPLICATION NO. ECF-110-88, SA-110-88 APPLICANT CEDAR VILLAGE PROPOSED ACTION APPLICANT SEEKS SITE APPROVAL FOR A 25 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON A 1. 01 ACRE PARCEL. PROPOSED PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH R-3 ZONING FOR PROPERTY. SITE IS VACANT. GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS Approximately 500 feet south of N.E. Sunset Blvd. located at the northwest corner of Anacortes Avenue and N.E. 12th Street, if extended. POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (E.R.C.) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. THE CITY OF RENTON WILL NOT ACT ON THIS PROPOSAL FOR 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE BELOW. COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY FEBRUARY 7, 1989 AN APPEAL OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER BY 5:00 P.M., FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION AT 2 3 5-2 5 5 0. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION. Public'Not'ice AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON ; Audrey Benner ,being first duly sworn on oath states The Environmental Review Committee- that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the ,, (ERC) has issued,a Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated for the following pro- ject under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. VALLEY DAILY NEWS f CEDAR VILLAGE (ECF; SA-110-88) Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit • Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition apartment building on a 1.01 acre parcel. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 Daily newspapers published six(6) times a week.That said newspapers zoning for property. Site is vacant. The are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six property is located on Anacortes Avenue, south of Sunset Blvd. months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published This decision will be finalized in 15 days. in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King Written comments received after 5:00 p.m. Count Washington.The ValleyDailyNews has been approved as ale al February 1 ) day7, will not be considered.illy, g pp g fourteen (14) appeal period will corn- newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for mence following the finalization of DNS-M. King County. The mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review 1 Committee are available at the Planning , The notice in the exact form attached,was published in the Kent Edition Divisionartnf theM Community ingeRenton, Department, Municipal Building Renton, , Renton Edition x , Auburn Edition , (and not in Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. . supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers Published January 23,,.A1989ti,V,alley Daily; during the below stated period.The annexed notice a News R5182 .. Public Notice was published on January 23, 1989 R5182 • The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the • sum of $ 24 , 32 • • Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2 7�ilday of an uaty 19 39 Notary Public for the State of Washington, residing at Federal Way, King County, Washington. VDN#87 Revised 11/86 : ' , NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ' ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON • The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. CEDAR VILLAGE ECF; SA-110-88 Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building on a 1. 01 acre parcel. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning for property. Site is vacant. The property is located approximately 500 feet south of N.E. Sunset Blvd. located at the northwest corner of Anacortes Avenue and N.E. 12th Street, if extended. This decision will be finalized in 15 days. Written comments received after 5: 00 p.m. February 7, 1989 will not be considered. A fourteen (14) day appeal period will commence following the finalization of • DNS-M. The mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Planning Division of the Community Development Department, Municipal Building Renton, Washington 98055, . Phone: 235-2550. Published: January 23, 1989 t • 7 1 t r. i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT t January 20, 1989 A. BACKGROUND: APPLICANT: Quality Pacific, Inc. PROJECT: Cedar Village ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: 110-88 ECF; SA DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning , for property. Site is vacant. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Anacortes Avenue, south of Sunset I. s _ _Blvd. _ ��I1.^/t`•r-., a f. 4 J.c�L \i5 I Is ' .SS_ I I -...18. w.".w;(' .\'.1 li 74 4r' 'K.r)J t —84•'s. Mandl ?eft• i 7 SDP 1 -, 1.n .e • L.-. . . „E _ 17- 7 B—1 1�J•I--- —'i Tz: �a�L f Yb �o •r �. ,• �ci��1.• I , 1 , I _ I � � L � R-3 , B - 1 v G— i . _ R-3 • .moo _3 R-2 1 it_ SITE •R-2 i 1 1 i'�= 1 l� , _ i. 1 aT•1 . -' . - - - -- -- t s. i 1'-r R u HAZEN SR z � •�•„�ZO .. HIGH SCHOOL NE Cr W • IZ ------..— •I !1 -.1:' .5. q �em 1l jG_J ;i1I 4 �,,� ! 1•..• n•L tt t t i 1 ,•\= 9 9 ,; w .1 1 \il'il Nt t. •1 r- -� n .L rl s • u•.Il �. • . I . i.0 • ' 71• ,,Z® 8 ? 5 'I N, - , 10= �+ _ P 0 -1Q1101t > �� a .- a 5 C.o . d 7'TO 7 • ! W " =fa ,• 1 . .) 1 owl on 4 .w Iwl.f .1 .t •1 .f +/e z 10•` ,�-•� � � NE yt _ • s1 1 . i�eo� I - - Iris" Li Iw LCNEf• two 11 •w•.. _.. A ��� 1 `'3 4 Ski I O 7 e •lion ‘1,R- 1 1 1 - 1. • r-- 7 •4 s m • •Ili I SE. iie� _ST • 51 •. RBIL 1 t I R_ 1 . - N r� !Cr 4 K11.n/AN1S 0AFt K �,;,;i i1 HONEY DEW . ‘.! • . l I EIEMENIAR`f SCHOOL . Environmental Rev i Committee Staff Report Cedar Village Page 2 January 20, 1989 B. ANALYSIS 1. BACKGROUND: 2 . Issues: 1. Whether aesthetic impacts from the project to the site and the surrounding community have been adequately identified and addressed? The applicant seeks to construct 25 residential units on the subject property. This parcel is located in an area which is developed with residential and commercial uses; it would be an "in- fill" project. The parcel itself is essentially flat, is accessible, and public services/utilities are available to serve the site. Therefore, staff believes that a multi-family residential project is appropriate for the property; however, the proposed design is not viewed by staff as being aesthetically compatible with the surrounding "uses or with City development goals. Staff recommends that the applicant: a) separate proposed structures "A" and "B" and orient living areas of those structures toward the interior of the site in order to provide adequate space, privacy, light and glare and a noise-limited environment for residents and for users of neighboring commercial and residential properties; and b) provide pedestrian walkways to connect structures to on- site parking areas and to sidewalk along Union Avenue N.E. in order to provide a safe, functional "user friendly" environment for residents and visitors. 2 . Whether adequate storm drainage management systems are present at or available to the site? Honeydew Creek flows approximately seventy (70) feet to the northwest of the subject parcel. The Creek • Environmental Rev / Committee Staff Report Cedar Village Page 3 January 20, 1989 is utilized to accommodate regional storm run-off. As the site itself is undeveloped, local run-off percolates through the permeable surface. Because the replacement of permeable surfaces with impervious surfaces will redirect local run-off, and because development of the property will change the character of the run-off (e.g. the addition of motor oil leakage from automobiles, weed control products, etc. ) , thereby potentially having an adverse impact upon Honeydew Creek, staff recommends that the applicant be required to install a storm drainage management system to mitigate such impacts. Staff is recommending that a detention system designed for 25 year developed state runoff with a five year undeveloped state release should be required, with a three-stage baffled oil/water separator downstream of the detention system control structure. The specific plan should be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. 3 . Whether traffic impacts anticipated in conjunction with the proposed development have been adequately identified and addressed? Staff reports that ITE Trip Generation Manual anticipates approximately 6. 6 average daily trips per unit for multi-family medium density residential units. Using that data, the proposed development is anticipated to generate approximately 165 trips per day, of which 16.5 would be peak a.m./p.m trips. Because commuting and destination traffic in this area is generally substantial in this area, staff recommends that the applicant be encouraged to: a) participate in a study for the roadway re-alignment and signalization of Anacortes Avenue and Sunset Boulevard to make a Environmental Rev i Committee Staff Report Cedar Village Page 4 January 20, 1989 , concurrent intersection (to the cost of their fair share of this study, with payment advanced and to be credited against future financing of re-alignment and signalization) ; and b) provide a 7.5 foot public access easement at the southern boundary of the property, with the understanding that this easement be used exclusively for the development of a sidewalk to serve a future expansion of N.E. 12th Street to the south of the subject property. This is necessary in order to improve traffic circulation to the area. The proposed easement shall be duly recorded with the City of Renton and King County. 4. Whether impacts to the natural environment on-site and in the vicinity of the site have been adequately identified and addressed? The site is undeveloped at present, but is covered with trees, shrubs and grasses. Staff has reviewed the tree inventory and plan submitted by the applicant and finds that this plan satisfactorily addresses impacts to the natural environment through retention of significant natural vegetation as well as the provision of new plantings. The specific tree plan and landscaping plan reviewed in conjunction with site plan analysis, should be subject to approval by the City's landscape architect. 5. Whether public facility/recreation impacts from the proposed development have been adequately identified and addressed? The proposed development of 25 units (approximately 45 residents at 1.8 x 25 units) is not anticipated to have a significant impact upon available public facilities. The seven (7) anticipated school children can be - Environmental Rev Committee Staff Report , Cedar Village Page 5 F., January 20, 1989 accommodated at Hillcrest Elementary School, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. Recreation areas at May Creek and Kiwanis Park can accommodate the residents. Staff does recommend the addition of on-site recreational amenities, however, in order to improve the appearance and utility of the development for the residents, including such features as patios, decks, outdoor seating, storage lockers. Such improvements may be required in conjunction with site plan review (land use analysis) of the project. 6. Whether light, glare and noise impacts have been adequately identified and addressed in conjunction with the proposed development? The proposed development is anticipated to generate some noise, related to daily living activities of the residents. Similarly, some light and glare is anticipated from vehicles traveling to and from the site. The level and type of sound is anticipated to be similar to that which already exists in the area. Additionally, as a number of residential and commercial developments surround the subject parcel, it is anticipated that activities on those sites would impact the residents of Cedar Village, and , in turn, be impacted by the development. Staff recommends that the applicant: a) create a greater separation between Buildings "A" and "B" to reduce noise impacts and to allow the buildings to receive more light and air; b) design and locate screening (plantings -and fencing) within and at the periphery of the site -- the proposed five foot chain link fence should be replaced with a sight- obscuring wood fence -- to Environmental Rev r Committee Staff Report Cedar Village Page 6 January 20, 1989 reduce light and glare and to provide a more attractive development and ; d) install {' interior insulation sufficient to limit ambient interior noise levels to 50 dBA to reduce noise impacts from adjacent commercial developments. 8. Whether anticipated impacts relating to •project construction have been adequately identified and addressed? Staff recommends that the applicant be required to provide the following during construction activities: a) an erosion control plan subject to City approval; b) wheel washing of construction trucks on site to protect adjacent roadways from dirt and debris; c) limited hours of operation as approved by the Traffic Engineering Division to control noise impacts and traffic impacts; and d) a bond in the amount of $2,000.00 for street clean up. C. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the ERC issue a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant be required to install a storm drainage management system to mitigate storm water runoff impacts to the site and to nearby Honeydew Creek, to be designed for 25 year developed state runoff with a five year undeveloped state release should be required, with a three-stage baffled oil/water separator downstream of the detention system control structure. The specific plan should be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. Note: If it is feasible to do so, an open drainage plan may be preferred for this site. 2 . That the applicant be encouraged to support mitigation activities to enhance traffic safety and efficiency in the immediate Environmental Rev ' Committee Staff Report Cedar Village Page 7 January 20, 1989 vicinity by: a) participating in a study for the roadway for signalization of Anacortes Avenue at Sunset Boulevard and for realignment of Anacortes Avenue at Sunset Boulevard to make a concurrent intersection (to their fair share, with payment advanced to be credited against future financing of re-alignment and signalization) ; and b) providing a 7.5 foot public access easement at the southern boundary of the property, with the understanding that this easement be used exclusively for the development of sidewalk to serve future expansion N.E. 12th-Street to the south of the subject property. Note: The easement is to be duly recorded with the City of Renton and with King County. 3 . That the applicant retain natural vegetation as proposed on the tree plan and design and locate plantings and screening at the periphery of the site in a way which mitigates noise, light and glare impacts. It is recommended that the proposed five foot chain link fence be replaced with a sight-obscuring wood fence. 4. That the applicant provide interior insulation to limit interior ambient noise levels to 50 dBA, to mitigate noise impacts to the residential units. 5. That the applicant be required to provide the following during construction activities: a) an erosion control plan subject to City approval; b) wheel washing of construction trucks on site to protect adjacent roadways from dirt and debris; c) limited hours of operation as approved by the Traffic Engineering Division to limit noise and to limit traffic impacts. Environmental Rev Committee Staff Report Cedar Village Page 8 January 20, 1989 6. That the applicant provide a bond in the amount of $2,000.00 for street clean up. r: D. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS: Various City departments have reviewed and commented upon the project. These comments are as follows: Police Department: Probable minor impact to public services. In itself, this project does not seem to present any significant need for police service expansion; however, it does present the potential for expansion in proportion to other similar developments and other normal growth. Fire Prevention Bureau: Probable minor impact to public services. A Fire Department secondary access is required and fire, lanes are required as indicated on site plan. Design Engineering: Probable minor impacts to all areas; however, more information is required regarding water and utilities. Traffic Engineering: Probable minor impacts to all areas except transportation; more information is needed regarding transportation. Utility Engineering: Probable minor impact to Utilities. Fire flow improvements are required. Parks and Recreation: Building Division: Probable minor impact to earth and housing only. Current Planning Division: Long Range Planning: Proposed residential use is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for "Office Park" . However, the proposed project appears to be compatible with the surrounding uses. Honey Creek is located approximately 70 feet north of the NW corner of the property; therefore, storm drainage would be a major issue of the project. Grading and site preparation may create runoff problems. Removal of the existing vegetation would adversely affect the aesthetics of the area. 4i ® CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU Earl Clymer, Mayor Fire Marshal: Glen G. Gordon Chief: A. Lee Wheeler MEMOR ANDUM DATE: January 20, 1989 TO: Lenore Blauman FROM: Glen G. Gordon - Fire Marshal \����� "�?. SUBJECT: Cedar Village, Quality Pacific Incorporated The developer has stated that he will sprinkler all of the buildings on site. Also, he will install two new fire hydrants on site meeting all minimum requirements. The third hydrant, which is required is located off site and does meet fire department approval. If all these conditions are met, the fire department will approve the property. Please note, an approved fire alarm as per Uniform Fire Code, 1985 Edition, is required. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. GGG:mjk PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON. IrJAN 2 0 1989 J1i1UAllJ1 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2642 CONFERENCE REPORT NAME OF PROJICT: A L.- CA I I DATE OF CONFERENCE: \ \ � ' ��j PROTECT NLIIvIBER: I TIME: �. 4 S (START) (END) NAME AND TITLE OF ORGANIZATION PHONE PEOPLE_.ATTENDING � cJ L CM-- j e 10 0-1 II ( U 71 ► I ���� 7 y n i`ter 72ieve ! txt- .:21-� t 7 - S" ' ry No,-rys .free ehrieea, Z 3 S= z G zo " C0 .I R 10 D 4I GLSO ,v 132, 'rsPt, I i%i N El 2 2 7-4 O 2.P\ qP rr I 7 aS -LSs 0 Vt-y\ k„\rc_Es t-k - COMMENTS: CITY OF RENTON 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WA 98055 206-235-2501 FAX # 235-2513 DATE f//' 71g PAGES (EXCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET) ATTENTION: (Z2.6- ff . FROM: 4/./tt.4LtQ%. 2-6--(-Lh.44,� �/ 9 rtrx 0 CITY OF RENTON� - "1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Traffic Engineering Division MEMORANDUM DATE: January 11, 1989 TO: Lenora Blauman, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Jacobs, Asst Traffic Planning Engineer John R. Adamson, Prog. Develop. Coordinator SUBJECT: Quality Pacific's Cedar Village Development REF: January 9, 1989 meeting STAFF CONTACT: Mark Jacobs or John R. Adamson On January 9, 1989 Mark Jacobs, Asst Traffic Planning Engineer; John R. Adamson, Program Development Coordinator; Gary Norris, PE, Traffic Engineer; Lenora Blauman, Senior Planner; and Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator representing the City met with Paul Sunich, Walter Pine, and John Keegan from Quality Pacific to discuss traffic mitigation measures. The issues discussed were Traffic Division's requirement for a 30' easement on the south side of their property for future extension of NE 12th St and participation in a traffic study for re-alignment of Anacortes Ave including warrant analysis for possible signalization. 30' Easement A 7.5 foot public access easement was determined to be sufficient. The developer agreed to this action with a stipulation that the easement be used for sidewalk only and that the roadway itself be south of their property line. We will send a letter of explanation for developer signature. Re-align Anacortes The developer agreed to participate in the study to their fair share. Money spent on study will be credited against future financing of re-alignment and signalization (provisions-for if currently not meeting warrants) costs. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2620 r//21 The Traffic Engineer agreed to write letter stating scope of project and to invite interested parties to participate. This letter will be sent to the developer for signature. The letter will also be sent to the following parties: hAOXY * Path - McDonalds 17422 108th Ave S.E. Suite 200 Renton, Wa. 98055 Phone (206) -271-4340 * Bill Bechtold - Kohl Excavating 235 S.W. 153rd Seattle, Wa. 98166 * C. E. Loveless - Central Highlands Plaza % Westec LTD \ 14711 N.E. 29th Pl. Suite 111 Bellevue, Wa. 98007 I , /IP PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON rif;.) DEC 1 9 1989 I) y uliit Pacific, Incorporated December 16, 1988 • • Mr. Ron Nelson Chairman, ERC City of -Renton • 200 Mill Ave. S. • Renton, WA 98055 Re: Quality Pacific Homes Cedar Village .(SA 110'--8'8•) Dear Mr. Nelson: . I .am writing on behalf of the applicant for the above project to take exception to the report and recommended conditions of the Technical Advisory Committee dated November 30. A copy of that letter is also enclosed for your convenience. We have serious concerns with .some of the conclusions of the Committee and are requesting that you and the Environmental Review Committee not accept their recommended conditions as • written. I have reviewed the November 30 letter with our counsel, John E. Keegan of Davis, Wright & Jones, with the project engineer, Walter S. Pine, P.E. of Northwest .Engineering Company, and with the project architect, Ron Healy. We have also reviewed the November 30 conclusions of the Committee with . other City of Renton officials. The following are our con- clusions and requests for change in the conditions. �� Item I, Request that. this item be amended. This item as ,r-' stated is unnecessarily broad. Following site plan review and approval, we understand that a design prepared by a professional ` C`'\\\ engineer is required for the storm drainage collection, de- t,.:` - ' tention .and discharge system. Staff has stated that a detention system designed for the 25-year developed state runoff with a 5-year undeveloped state release will be re- quired with a. 3-stage baffled oil/water separator downstream of the detention system control structure. The condition should be amended to specifically recite these requirements. 543 156TH AVENUE S.E. / BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98007 / TELEPHONE 746-4660 CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION n 223-01 QUALIP'345RE r I * f/ r" Mr. Ron Nelson Page 2 Item 2 ® Please confirm that this item has been complied with already. We have provided Mr. Don Erickson with a copy of the survey which locates all significant trees in the current plan. We have retained 65% of all significant trees. Mr. Erickson said the City does not have a tree preservation ordinance that calls for a certain percentage to be retained. �� ,}�J He does agree that 65% is far in excess of normal expectations. i( The landscape architect has provided very attractive, dense landscaping both at the perimeter and interior of the site. We will be glad to address any specific concerns which Jerry Lund might have. Item 3. Request that this item be stricken. It is unnecessary. The project proponent has agreed to provide sprinklers to all of the units and a firs=.: hydrant at the entry and one in the vicinity of Building C. The water mains to these fire hydrants will be designed to provide 1,000 gallons per minute to each hydrant. This approach has been approved by the Fire Department. Item 4 . Request that this item be stricken for the same ~---- reason as Item 3. Item 5.• This item is acceptable as is. Water, sewer and stormwater plans will be provided after site plan review and approval, together with the application for building permits. Item .6. This item is acceptable as is. A temporary erosion-sedimentation control plan will be a part of the stormwater plans provided in response to Item 5. Item 7. This condition should be stricken in its entirety. The condition, as worded, represents an unreasonable mitigating condition. The Cedar Village project does not create an adverse impact at this intersection. The Cedar Village project will have an estimated total of 153 trips per t;. `py day with peak hour trips (in the p.m. ) of only 10 trips. It is C�? 1 unreasonable to make this project carry the burden of' a traffic ' !, analysis for the signalization of the Anacortes/Sunset \3tvv Boulevard intersection. We understand there are other projects 13 proposed near the intersection which will have much more traffic than the Cedar. Village project. Furthermore, we do not believe a signal is even needed or appropriate at this intersection. / A Mr. Ron Nelson Page 3 If the signal is constructed, its cost should be spread among all users of the intersection, not just new development. It is illegal to do otherwise. This would mean that our - project' s share not exceed a percentage equal to the share which the Cedar Village' s peak trips at this intersection bear to the total of all vehicle trips through the intersection during the p.m. peak period. This would be a very small amount. Item 8. This condition should be stricken in its entirety. We believe that this condition is plainly illegal and excessive because: (a) it has no relationship or nexus to impacts from the Cedar Village project; (b) it would have a o severe economic impact on the project, eliminating more than 20% of the land area of the project; (C) it is totally ,� `; impractical and unreasonable -- in order for the City to � N� develop this proposed roadway, the City would have to acquire W land on which. 60 parking spaces for the Honey Dew Apartments are located (to the south) and land on which there are commercial buildings located (to the west of Whitman Avenue) ; (d) the City has no current plan to extend this street, N.E. 12th Street: and (e) there is no adopted City SEPA policy which would support this condition. Item -9.. This condition should be amended. The project densit'- y and lot coverage are within the requirements of the City' s Zoning Ordinance. We have discussed the need for emergency access and through route with Mr. Glen Gordon. He feels the hammerhead, as shown, is acceptable to him and the Fire Department. We have discussed the aesthetic considerations with Mr. Don Erickson. His concerns were the setbacks and close placement of the front two buildings. We can easily address these concerns without decreasing density. We have intentionally held the buildings toward the north and east in order to retain significant trees. See Item #2 . above. By reducing the number of trees we have retained, we can correct this concern without decreasing density. . . Please amend Item #9 to say: Relocate the buildings to provide a greater setback from the north property line and to provide more separation between building "A" and building "B" . 1 Mr. Ron Nelson Page 4 Item 10. Amend this condition. We have discussed the need for open space for recreational activities by the residents with Mr. Jerry Lund. He concurred that an active recreational space like a sports court could not be justified on this small site. We discussed the possibility of a children's play area, (;\6- but again he felt there were not enough units to support this either. He felt and our experience confirms that a passive �� area with picnic benches, etc. is appropriate for the project. We concur and will provide on-site space for this, probably at the north or ,south end of building "C". We have provided :pedestrian linkage from the, parking lot to the buildings but overlooked tying them together and connecting them with the existing walk on Anacortes Avenue. We will be glad to correct this oversight. • Please amend Item No. 10 to say: Show passive open space for use of the residence and facilities (picnic tables, etc. ) to be provided. Connect pedestrian walks to existing walk on Anacortes Avenue. We have attempted to work very closely with City staff to develop an attractive and environmentally sound project. We certainly want to avoid the need for an appeal to the hearing examiner. We appreciate your attention to our concerns. Please consider our comments carefully. If you need any further infor ion, I will be glad to provide it to you. i Si cerely Zi//f unicn cc: onald K. Erickson John E. Keegan Walter S. Pine Ronald Healy 1 d 4 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED DEC 5 1988 November 30, 1988 • Paul W. Sunich President Quality Pacific, Inc. 543 156th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98007 RE: Quality Pacific Homes - Cedar Village Located on Anacortes Avenue, south of Sunset Boulevard SA 110-88 Dear Mr. Sunich: The Technical Advisory Committee completed a review of the above-referenced project on November 30, 1988. The Committee recommended that a Determination of Significance be required for the project, as submitted, based upon the following factors: ✓ 1. Necessity for a storm drainage management analysis and mitigation plan, subject to approval by the Public Works Department, in order to protect the site and the adjacent Honeydew Creek. V 2. Necessity for a tree inventory and a revised landscaping plan which provides for retention of significant trees and improvement of the level of on-site landscaping and screening to mitigate environmental impacts to flora, fauna, as well as to mitigate light and glare impacts and to enhance the overall attractiveness of the site. 3. Necessity for a fire flow analysis to ensure that water is available in sufficient quantities at appropriate locations to facilitate fire fighting activities. 4. Necessity for a plan which includes a secondary access route for emergency equipment. 5. Necessity for plans which depict all proposed utility service lines. 6. Necessity for an erosion control plan. • 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550 1 i / a ' Paul W. Sunich Cedar Village November 30, 1988 • Page 2 7. Necessity fora traffic analysis (warrant analysis) to determine level of required participation in the improvement of the signalization of the Anacortes/Sunset Boulevard intersection in order to mitigate traffic impacts. 8. Necessity to reserve a thirty (30) foot wide corridor along the southern boundary of the property for future roadway development to connect Anacortes Avenue to Union Avenue (extension of N.E. 12th Street). 9. Necessity to provide a revised site plan which reduces the level of density on the site. (Note: The City's Zoning Ordinance allows up to 25 units per acre. While the proposed development does not exceed the allowable maximum acreage, staff does not believe the site can support 25 units based upon aesthetic considerations and based upon need for retention of space upon the parcel for emergency access and through route.) 10. Necessity to revise the site plan to include amenities for the residents, including but not limited to, open space for recreational activities, pedestrian linkage to the parking area and pedestrian linkage to adjoining rights-of-way. Technical Advisory Committee members did agree that in lieu of issuing a Determination of Significance and requiring an Environmental Impact Statement, the Committee would be willing to consider supporting an amended application with the revised site plan and supplemental materials described above: We would appreciate hearing from you by 5:00 PM on December 12, 1988 as to whether you wish to have the City issue a Determination of Significance for the above- referenced project (which is appealable to the Hearing Examiner) and continue the evaluation of the project as submitted or, whether you would prefer to amend the project application as suggested in this letter. If you have any questions or would like to schedule an appointment to meet with staff to discuss the project further, please telephone me at 235-2550. Sincerely, Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE/lb:mjp November 30, 1988 Paul W. Sunich President Quality Pacific, Inc. 543 156th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98007 RE: Quality Pacific Homes - Cedar Village Located on Anacortes Avenue, south of Sunset Boulevard SA 110-88 Dear Mr. Sunich: The Technical Advisory Committee completed a review of the above-referenced project on November 30, 1988. The Committee recommended that a Determination of Significance be required for the project, as submitted, based upon the following factors: 1. Necessity for a storm drainage management analysis and mitigation plan, subject to approval by the Public Works Department, in order to protect the site and the adjacent Honeydew Creek. 2. Necessity for a tree inventory and a revised landscaping plan which provides for retention of significant trees and improvement of the level of on-site landscaping and screening to mitigate environmental impacts to flora, fauna, as well as to mitigate light and glare impacts and to enhance the overall attractiveness of the site. 3. Necessity for a fire flow analysis to ensure that water is available in sufficient quantities at appropriate locations to facilitate fire fighting activities. 4. Necessity for a plan which includes a secondary access route for emergency equipment. 5. Necessity for plans which depict all proposed utility service lines. 6. Necessity for an erosion control plan. Paul W. Sunich Cedar Village November 30, 1988 Page 2 7. Necessity for a traffic analysis (warrant analysis) to determine level of required participation in the improvement of the signalization of the Anacortes/Sunset Boulevard intersection in order to mitigate traffic impacts. 8. Necessity to reserve a thirty (30) foot wide corridor along the southern boundary of the property for future roadway development to connect Anacortes Avenue to Union Avenue (extension of N.E. 12th Street). 9. Necessity to provide a revised site plan which reduces the level of density on the site. (Note: The City's Zoning Ordinance allows up to 25 units per acre. While the proposed development does not exceed the allowable maximum acreage, staff does not believe the site can support 25 units based upon aesthetic considerations and based upon need for retention of space upon the parcel for emergency access and through route.) 10. Necessity to revise the site plan to include amenities for the residents, including but not limited to, open space for recreational activities, pedestrian linkage to the parking area and pedestrian linkage to adjoining rights-of-way. Technical Advisory Committee members did agree that in lieu of issuing a Determination of Significance and requiring an Environmental Impact Statement, the Committee would be willing to consider supporting an amended application with the revised site plan and supplemental materials described above. We would appreciate hearing from you by 5:00 PM on December 12, 1988 as to whether you wish to have the City issue a Determination of Significance for the above- referenced project (which is appealable to the Hearing Examiner) and continue the evaluation of the project as submitted or, whether you would prefer to amend the project application as suggested in this letter. If you have any questions or would like to schedule an appointment to meet with staff to discuss the project further, please telephone me at 235-2550. Sincerely, Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE/lb:mjp OF R� U \/ Z 6 0,P11E0 SEPI°1'- i OF PENDING ♦ SITE PLAN APPLICATI ® N ® E S C R ' P T O N • QUALITY8PACIFIC, INC. APPLICANT SEEKS SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 25 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING. PROPOSED PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH R-3 ZONING FOR PROPERTY. SITE IS VACANT. GENERAL LOCATIO N AND/OR ADDRESS: WEST SIDE OF ANACORTES AVENUE N.E. , 1200 BLOCK I ' I • PUBLIC APPROVALS REQUIRED : 1. SITE PLAN APPROVAL 2. BUILDING PERMIT • PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE RECEIVED BY THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT .ANYTIME PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 I THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATION I ( )(;Mc T.LR)D , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT II--R (3) COPIES OF THE. ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN TH- (3 ) CONSPICUOUS PLACES ON OR NEARBY THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY ON ,125 (J, 501 l C HA ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public/j and for the•State of Washington 0 • residing in cn the Q — Ty� ►n^"( day of P-__- -- ,SIGNED : 1-011 OF RE @ ° ) SEPS OF PENDING SITE PLAN APPLICATION DESCRIPTION . SA-110-88 , ECF • QUALITY PACIFIC, INC. APPLICANT SEEKS SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 25 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING. PROPOSED PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH R-3 ZONING FOR PROPERTY. SITE IS VACANT. GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS: WEST SIDE OF ANACORTES AVENUE N.E. , 1200 BLOCK PUBLIC APPROVALS REQUIRE ® . 1. SITE PLAN APPROVAL 2. BUILDING PERMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE RECEIVED BY THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT .ANYTIME PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CALL THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 235-2550 THIS NOTICE NOT TO BE REMOVED WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION �i CITY (yx,' RENTON ••LL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor PLANNING DIVISION NOTICE OF PENDING SITE PLAN APPROVAL RENTON, WASHINGTON A Site Plan Application has been filed and accepted with the Planning Division of the Community Development Department. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DESCRIPTION: OUALITY PACIFIC, INC. SA-110-88 , ECF • APPLICANT SEEKS SITE APPROVAL FOR A 25 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING. PROPOSED PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH R.-3 ZONING FOR PROPERTY. SITE IS VACANT. GENERAL LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF ANACORTES AVENUE N.E. , 1200 BLOCK PUBLIC APPROVALS: 1. SITE PLAN APPROVAL 2. BUILDING PERMIT • • The application can be reviewed at the Planning Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted anytime prior to Public Hearings, during Public Hearings, or prior to an administrative site plan approval. For further information on the application or dates of final action by the City, please contact the Planning Division at 235-2550. • 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550 gri i i . r.E 1, • ,o, • . __171-- . 1 • .r.,,i.r., . z..;.,..,., . . ._________ 1_ g i• I- . ill ,.0 • ,,,,, .., F ru ii. i! Friiiimifilliturr':iivirifi II ') ,t i o I .: ILLEY,-_,ALL_I_LI I.\ I' -r-if LIFEll i-; IL] 21. . . L--- • E l I 1" fru9Tri HIM!:!.11111111111111fliliffillifilliliiiii111.1 li!E,I;,1:11{lii 1111111111 I. IF 'I.. !I .: I 0 I 1 I... i,.• L 1 • I illiill ' • __ ,:i E!lirl • i ! ..;Ii :1 . • , f i il ...!;I ..., 11..y:1 WIDarml ,. r.i5,71.,-1 .1 _ CT) :,.• ' 11. 1:•,..1.___ , 1111 ..:I.....1! -. .I, • --,----I1-- aiigl] i:;:•,...... ......!.,.. .:"-- mu. •1111.1. ir! '• -I-, ' C il ..) I • ' I [I' '. i'I. •••••., •, . .1 111iFin i Ir. L,..,...) '1-11•,-;TELL E] ' • I .• •ly 1r..r,,,., Is - - 4 E F. := • _. • 1 I „ ICI irD . 1 iniiipoiliuilitlir.r: litlimpal...', . ....... . i i-• 1=1 _ ii_i. i ,s,\ • ',6•-p 1 ul ,..< _ , •. i.,.. ...... I I ••: 1[11t1.---__.11-T,1- 11N 9. . -- m. ie _.. .T El1l-----77- I- jillifir Till, ji Iiirl• -< 1 >. ....i . ..,.• __ i_...1 . _1 1vi Fi El z 1 il.„,,..- 4.1 !• E ., ..,I'Etsr9Hii. f'31 k-I I fj 91 II . . I IllilliiII,,,,IT 1 1 •nrill '. 4 Ilill'i'. 1 0 0 i - 1 .___ 1: , Frorano ,1 1 .';r....• .i '_I • - NJ) 0j••1--- , •11— '1111'..1 i 1:r1.1 1111._"_!.._.1.!.1q:111 di • . r 111, 'I 1 q •-,141 I 77,7--- 1 1 1 ' I 1 _. -.... kY 0'1 I 1 i ILI E I •=_P=3— - i I 1 ill .... 1111111:11!1"1.1 14-1'-ill: i, _ ' 1 I . nil I it.uff j-64-azo.. i!ii 1114iiii' 1; 4`, . 2. • I.:11 .'' .1 Hirii'lll,• ;CI :ill:ill . ;.<. .:.i—••!--- 7112011111-1! -Pli". I '.Z1,, , 7;. '. , Q),. • .-i 1771_ L_:_Lt II _.Jr:.'. 1. ,.1,.••1•v .' . . .1, / Timi LE .1 , . . ... . _ . 1 . L....L. ..y/ . 1 F-iirilini.-77-,ii, : _ 0 . i ..7.:717111 . TT-t111.-li' ' F:____. VT-im-r— • , . . ,.4 _ . ....„.„..., • . , kp DATE 1 r_Alii..-rAl 6 C.-1 t',a I I I VATIO9 ,.:,.kir I,I.,rILY.:1 I....,IL" _, r..t. JOHN ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES PS. INC.;‘,'..':Sr (J 0 ia • ,......„„„,,,-,... • pail cm se • 1 ,...• /.-. 11[(TWAT I I., • l .- • . • . • . . • • . • PROGRESS • PAPE MILE AGE . • • • • - • ..-. • . '---i':.•:.. .V.4.:..-; .— 'd•-• .., , • • .• . . . m © •• • ri ig i t • .. • A ..,• . PC •.1 . . IP Z 1 . - 0 an . . . • t'a © • . e. ' 9• g• II z • • • . N.PritTINIA CRASERI-1 1.SUARINC.rcleASiEl ' E•FIBELIA CAANDiruali4,. 7.:L.AUREL'ABELIAN/., .---/-••••• _LEAVE 61151ING nEt- . . • • • • • • - •- ii-AABOSALIPSRON JAMI.SAL • -- ' •-• 1.-Min011.1011L - \----•:/- \‘"••-;••••..:2- •-•"••••••\.1...- .. . • AwN ‘. S-ANOSORBINO.N.1 DEAN M.PAIL .. an•IALIMAIADIA LAWN - • - : ;• . •-•':‘ •in-stamini.JAr." •Ein.------i...; It•A ULLA 11,3 UPS-) I f "LompOitelln. 2•140PAIINGAmiiont.„ - • •fL, • -A/ALIA FIS i SOL- • .L. i!..";...L0=xviSt., JLA.anAAIL • . .• 'IMES LII5i.c.•• - .' :.ASK,LA.iecAsi. 1;? r,I . 0110ILL 5-ANCIRISLtibtOit UNIQUE-.........., . -5-Alz_LL MASA I S.P1.1 IAAPLE A•AZALI A ittlLeot .• I.•1) - ":"P• I ; ;/./S•ven'Aii"tin"Illrls ..• ".:77 ' a ,5'55,5,LASIOzAILAA I I / •._ k.j) 5,Notios"NPHRSFFLLH. ICA '••••••....,\ 1 211.Ar01.. -• .e. lo tr. II I . 1 .I . • .:.40fge -, -- -2 fr RiinliBBE NM*JE AN MA .....:1,..;.... . 011.14yot .7.LA • e• .....5-zAzniSMOSA .•l' e.j in AZALEA .iria - ,0..01.1,IR INNALSTiCAr• •• . LAWN -lin 12 r ASSE en ,:i: . 73•PALIITSMSPA• •4 • is i.•namotsektilAnin J. ••• . •' • ••• • • .r: BLINIZOIRINSILL. •••• " . , •P" . Ili ..•) HE CAANAGLORA .1) ij il I • Z i I. J-OUANING A 31.1.1. • • 7,0-wilfunaium UMW...) 36 LIIIBLIANUNZD---/ r• . • , •- •••. . _ I.-....').4, 2.....,,...... `t.;1......,--17,...2.a. •••7.--Lii -•• L., ..„_—_- /..1_ _ 513.Att.:.AS I L..„.,_ 1 Z •-•"'S'•• .. • ...Sr ..;RI ..• . . •1‘ - - .=•r• . ••—• .- -""••••: • I" ...---- r-Z.VON.A VILASCR I "• •- ' `••••-•_SLNAtibINA., -1..0 \...._.4„..,....--s...--, . s........., -0S ••••• ..N... --•=---'w=-•2S-PA A..../. .4. S-RLIPAREMbiteN JEAN'S/LAE (2:5,L•iiiir. ASPEN ' a4..K-Driiivi,"-ri,tERc--) t . , ..-- .. . . , t ALL BEL AREAS TO 'SAVE ta.TOPSOIL MIX AISIBEIS 2.LAWN AREAS TO ISE SOLIDER ON 2-•TOPSOIL MIS BASE WITH PREMIUM 5 01, I I • B ALL TREES ANL 31011115 le BE PLANTED IN PLANT POCKETS TWICE THE WIDTH t AND It, TIMES THE REPTil OF THE PLANT BALL-BACKFILL 1011'.1 TOPSOIL MIY • -: ...FERTILIZE•NIT II PLANT 1 ABLE TS IN PLANT HOLES AS PER PA ANUFACToR S RECOMMENDATION "1 5. PRE-EMEROANEE 'NEU:,[ANTRAL TO BE APPLIED Al PER MANLJPACTORS RECOMNENISSZT i ON • t•• ._ 6.ALL. TREES TO BE STARER OR GUYED .7•-• ..,- T.ALL DEL ARE AS ID BE FINISH RARER ANIn MULCHED mtTai 5'PINE BOR."PiNISI.RAKED IN PLACE. - ••••••.K.ALL PLANTINGS TB BE GIJARANT EEO ONE BROWNING SEASON. - : •' _ • 1...°C..-:,. n i. "". . PFOECTOCI. • 5215 • . . . - BT • :-- . •••=, - ...._. •. _• • . ,. • , , COFS-A1G4E II .0.MCERSCH AlA 050CPSES P.S.PC. -- -- - -- -- -- • • - - -_ - ' . t . ,./. • .t„ ? g.41 • M . . 1 . . a . •,:::11 •!,',i . :•,..v • i I iii ‘ •:-.i.; •,•,,: . ..,. 11.111.21144111111111.1111.1111Liti, E.1ELEHI Iii I .1 ' -fr ';',0.: . • P ___ . _ ._ ... , ,.... 6.<-.•" . D -I . 1 . L[..I.I It 11-11,1 l ' 1 , (5 . ,y - —ILLErir nr.--Etrti-.. . ... T.I i,I l: M1:1111417113 ?rEDD I.1'1H'.1II1' . z 111111111T1111111111111H11 . t 1 IL HIP' 1 111Iil1 . . 11111111 . 11111 • i'....:1. :•...:i 1 6111111 I 1 t:•. ' ' 111 .1 . — .f..',.i i'..'.•".i 11 Mi. . if Ili i 1 ! In H F . . . i ; ; , , Hour ..,... : i.n_llitl[1111111.111111111.11J11[1.11, i‘,,,, ..: • .... .. . .....•• , 1--,..1=--JW-1-1F-----7111111 1 El E i... •,.., .. '..:.3.: •7 -.I ....i .• .. ______ . ...__________ c.,1 .., i..i.:i ..... .11:---7- 1E:1--1:11f.÷-_-t:•-iELT_El i, ' •-:'..4 • . ,t:..... ,....1., :: : / II -..,,,,... I '11.v.mialz '.'.I cti ''''s:'..-.' ..."'T ...: 'Il• ' 1 • •T ;I fi'l . •t• Li Fillill11.1 " • .__ E E , _ftI1IIIJ ,.•:., , L•••'-'"":.''.•:''."''''.' '' Ul Id, "I . ...'l .. I;,. c.f.? . Ty::. • ; 1 . El E. ,-." ! r,,. ,...,, ;. Pr 1 . ! . v .i.• •• 11 rii 1 .i.: 4,13 0:1 •._. ._.'1111.111111. 1!I! all.111.1 ._..._.1 ...,. , .:.;i 114 '1 :i 11111111 IIIN ,... 0 . 111111.1 1 1 :::'..! '. ` '''' .•"-"::" f ...,..,. , .. 24 ....:i.•- — "TS1 Wir"1111.11 r"-"" r ill 1 •' .0 I t At,. ''.i :15 12=i1E11-111:-...11:1-111:1:1,1 '1,4 ..;:f f;11 -±.:,_.:,17] : " .: 772.:1.7—;=7... - , • 11 I _I" O.< • -4). ....,. • • 1° L-A II.Eril=_Yfl. LITT];7 ; . o .,. • ' EfILIIil ME_. • . • .'. i 1 41 i - • k . . ' • I, •I---_-HIL..a , :....I 1 in •.. _ ;._____.____., .:.I , 1 1 GIJILDING A IA LLE_W-TIOhlt Calkl_ln v:Az_•!r lc C.t.Dkh VA..L.L.Gt ArtIVirMEN1.5 DATE JOHN ANOERSON AND ASSOCIATES PS. INC. A VA C G4 El 1r E C 4 S . .•, " (Po - It ALA(.. EL OKI ma II DE • ImAt Ilunlow 10:0I • DOE ES4 VII -2.4......i_L..A., /.., , ,E-...TT . .AiA,to P.-Via/4 .. . • .. • . . . . . . I• • ill • an N 1 1 F T.f v • N1 \ _. ,___, \ _ I u- 1 - 1 I._I--J it t \ —TTnnn11111 I •.------- - E.' n� J\ , i b....., • t \ I jmrm \\ • 111W11� 7 nl•.0 nee w_ 1 . 1 OM 1 JOIN ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATED 1S• INC, i�l as N .`/I I I. I U.I I CeD!>,,� '/II_(..fv2 Ar NEN T, yi u-eo�. O 4 o- GAa ER ,,Al-L 1P.loo.ol '-J:-•:I. �./ ' '.:.:'. 1@s.1 is • West wreps MN • @ill SLIM • . • . .,'. 113! A . , . II , (fi) • ••••,. Y i - i --- • 1 D I Y 1 1 4. ..! , 3 . 0 7.-\4 0 g 142' A.•'. • • I I 63 M ,1 . ;,,..,...--2C-_—•.,15..,,, i ',.4 I E it.*'I Ili\ . 11 ll % )." 9 a r 1 , ! .y mw.:41,y P •, L . .\..,!• 1 1 ti// 1 7 c" ‘.., •,..:ir.C i i1l ' . . .. MG) 4 1 1 J. \ '-•Z, ,7 • , ,\Ioy "-\--7- --1-)(..411‘)'\ ,-0 \ .) .1 // ' k 1.1'-' • -1-1--Th115' •• , .1.,,• - I',tut/,.-.1,,,, . 1 \ 1., I \ q i? • \ 1 1.-<'IOWA 1 • 0 `,... 1 • —'------\ 1?, PR ' I i --"'''''', \ •\ ...•--- 4i \ \ ,v. 4) \ . 4_ • k r •' - , , I ,,...,/ 4- 1 ___-1_ I t'.-- ''?_ il si' •4 q I [- ----T vall .?..,. 1 t•--17. o I 1 ,1 ...3-•.1 ? • -- • 1 t,...), . ____•:.1ri.t -• -. •._1.•.11 / — ,\111 l!I.i1i 1 ,gc; . 1I , .....-_, __ I II 1,4 . . :g- --- - I. U I) ._ i„„„ -I=C 1111;1 Z: - -, 1 ' — .. a -----I 1 g Ti , ---] . 1 .'I k ' • rs. 1 c,.. , . . .t. jll v -1 -.• - 1 „,„ir„, .,. F-7-4. , ,. . , , ,„k. ,)1 - D -4 -1.:- •i': 'rail l ,--L- 'irk_ -I 1-.JIII ,,•1, o„ , fit-•,1 / .4' id • -,ii,111; rn t I(s_.i,gliq ) — ____j -u )1„: i III i -1 ._5‘...'h• _ ._ _ .._.-71 .—---L--——) I., Agr6 g 5 , ,(1°/.-1::_ --,i e j ) birrE p 0_ r i! , ri i ,-- • - - — f -- -.---•, , .c. t16q f a ti:).t) i tl - • . , A g •,' 1. '•• f 5 tstikcor-tr Es Avtkrut--- •.—•- ---- Yi fi .32 . 4) . • 7 . . t 1 • . . • H 11--, • 7 ai pc:. 4.1.7v? p li ti ii .1 f;1 5 °,11 V 50 • I, • (0 C-ii ' i . ; 9 11 r, Le (•-„ C,',-, l'i .. . Y.,;'),Ipi'ilupihqr. .,: ,',...; pi • , h . '' '''•'•'t" :”,t.141' " 4;14; . . • ' ' '!•"-4 ',•i'-::•i•,k ti !ao:;'•r m • 0,•!'I r,,,i12. • • i 5 6' •:,L 1,9 g •. 1ljr.2 . A i. •i • ?'. ,,. ,..i.' ..:7:4•• '.:. it • . • ) li AT t:: t !:i' ,..li:4 N"'' "'•''',.:'.! ,,,,-°- ' 'i .. '...:',..1 l'• ';'.1 .1:7;:4 .;..0 1.1 • , . 3 00 1 SITL 11.._M EIA YIGINITY Fii\Y (-)11/.1 II e 1-..4:II IC DATE C.ED‘r) I's_-,:3E. /-0,,,F•TME1115 •-?. ::, JOHN ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES PS, INC. • ,,, 0 ri. ARCHOTHEC76 ::,..,,, ,IIAGAIAIIA ME II ID • 11•118AA IT AkInto IA:01 • MI WM .. , - . . _„•__-,---__-- - _ . _ PROC=9.8 . • . . . , • Sr . - • •- VFW, 4 =LE DEE •••••• ....., -, --• -.-- •--- -... '-‘) -,.. ;CEDAR - . ..N.y.-- 1..z. ...3 . 1 . . . VILLAGE,. • . .._-• • ',Ls. - . , . . .., _......-..,, --...-.--r* —r..z_. .,.. ..3.-J..z.......:•.;.•.: • ! . a . . 6 . . 4..=..o-'. 7-_!..'/--•.:'. . ' a • •' • • .. . • 1 ... . • . • . . . . - .. . •. i . • . • h ' . 5 • • - . • - • . • •, . . . . . -. • , . . . • . •-, ,... •••,- ,, . ..• / ' .--- .- '7.''''- Z...-•••;7;---'r ;-;:.;•••'!- -- --- --- -... .' . ... ',••!,'-A- . .. _. _ ... . ,‘-_,,_ _,_ -•=z; ' . . ..• ...... -- -,,,,...,t".:!'•-:..)/' ••'.. % ., - - 1 r , - .-1.___!---1___; . • • • - : .....•••. ...._1---L_T. 1 ... ---, ••• , . ...., .- -•--: ./ :.-• ,•,• :. ....• , . . _.7,-- -,---' • ' . i ... . ,... A,.t. 7.• :•,.e., I-‘:- . .3.-............, . .3 •. .. - • • •.. . . ‘11 • • - -_. •, -I '. : . --- • ,.I ,___,__. —_, , . . • -.7., ,. a • . _ - • ,..: •-••• 7....- , •..' . -'76:;;:iti - • - ;-• ,ZN 44E1'-''''E Wirl'' :. .1* - •,• , \1."- ''' ,ra:•-•., MIS1/11111 s P.Z.Va. •."-- •-7-.'. , ;.....1A‘...,.L'r. 1 . - 4,1k." .•• • •.. ' .:'-'.' .'..-.....--• i.:.....::.,:: 7.- 3. . ..,,'3.:.4: -....:.•-•.••••7--•,-.. -.,--,.---....----,---•."—_-...-......-.. -.- • . • •. 1 , .... 1 • •,•:-.1'.''---•-`;-:."-•-.-.-C".1---).) ..--% •-- ..,.....th,,-. •,... •.•1• .....••••r.••••-•••----)_ •-•-•-•••••-••••-•-•••••---------•-._..-_, • s_.„.,.,, .1- ' '_?.-,T:',--,1-• ,I ±.' -....... .__,_z__-L, , • .,.. i s"--'i:::-.^. •. . ._. ..., , 1,.... .1. ,./ :, . , O " . .--.. —7-1 .4 _.. - ••..--,•• . • .. _ 6 . I 6-:•.......-•.s.. ..... : .' • ... -_ __.„ .,.... ...-, . . — ", . r ......--.. . -.7 -:•,- ,, :-. . , •'t ••••••• -- .0._ ..c ......... --, --.......4., ,.• . --- ,t-S.-••••2,-....' :,::....- „ , -•._ ••-..7.. ••- 4 •,,S. ' 6---.., I,:...._ :...:". C-••7...:::.LT - 1 _,. --__.,..C.-t••••t• .=, 1 . • • . = \:... 3.------.7...7...-‘3.03,rr."....... 17..:- - •. •---' 7. g_. . ._-_,_. -:•1.--.• •517E.- 11_,1,1,1 ."-. ... LIM M.!. .:,•,.--,'..!:•-••42...e- k...-.,_ ...C.I.tt.,..1.- ,"11.-,.., - -5t1.,•,...e-6-6,. 6.! PIWCOSTI.;P.en,.... 5,..."..1,.....-...- 4,7,•..-. ,......--, .66...,46.,,..c..-6.6 1.76.6,-............6. ' PR g . . • '- ./.. -I . . CC...M.3.ff 0 IS .00101:1131301 NO ASBC'CWEI3 PS.DC - • . . 7 " ,..• • . . • • 51 usi t___ . -? -1 ... I 60 e. es GO f .o s, 36 • 3 I I, . . . • i ,II..t„.. ., ... 9, ,, .,. G‘ •Z iT, • *• • or ,r '<sXi, W •s 2 . :.1•• ' I ____ ,ao will'"... ^\V �,,..: ,c -• I• .,.. •1, •.,1 a L � " I li- � S.n ,J'_I _-. as " ti „ . p''' tr "Il-q* ItLIS .a _ I _ i I 0 rt ,; , n . “s,c,,,,1 _ t H.7 On'''' 1 ,, • ' , u �,_ ._3 'N\Nr"...""' 1 Li...A.V Fr— d-,-tl,,,,rfr`.. !' HAZEN SR I� _ - S -ir, W 1 • •�� N`\.E (, _ HIGH SCHOOL t: w --go s10- • 1-031. T_ • 11,cr1, , _ 1sç \_ ' -H) '7' 1 •IL \ 1 _. _ •,' '•''''''11- .1!..FleAlt'%--:ii.--: s/11 Y „ ,u 1 .Z '1 h.i'tt-��'�-I�\ :�\;4;1 _\•'I .1 .. • 7r93-ram_ °—` I • 1, L= 'q(I,- li5.i-C...11 19 J, ' , -` - ,ig1 9 e' 1l1 a1.FT !'1fi1TriT• to 111 —I— [-pa .J f w , e x. 1 . . la • i S� i ��______. f 1,_fp-1.t:1r, Ji.:l. 5.�'. _.`•.'I', .k.•ter.. ,`,}f' ' �.. ,n... —ram e:)---. 11D•• sr• I 1 • QUALITY PACIFIC , INC . SA-110-88 , ECF • APPLICANT QUALITY PACIFIC , INC . TOTAL AREA 1. 01 ACRE PRINCIPAL ACCESS ANACORTES AVENUE NE EXISTING ZONING R-3 • EXISTING USE VACANT PROPOSED USE 25 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN OFFICEPARK COMMENTS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ANACORTES AVENUE N.E . , 1200 BLOCK %0 �► - CITY RENTON NAL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor PLANNING DIVISION. NOTICE OF PENDING SITE PLAN APPROVAL RENTON, WASHINGTON A Site Plan Application has been filed and accepted with the Planning Division of the Community Development Department. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DESCRIPTION: OUALITY PACIFIC , INC. SA-110-88 , ECF APPLICANT SEEKS SITE APPROVAL FOR A 25 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING. PROPOSED PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH R-3 ZONING FOR. PROPERTY. SITE IS VACANT. GENERAL LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF ANACORTES AVENUE N.E . , 1200 BLOCK PUBLIC APPROVALS: 1. SITE PLAN APPROVAL 2. BUILDING PERMIT The application can be reviewed at the Planning Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted anytime prior to Public Hearings, during Public Hearings, or prior to an administrative site plan approval. For further information on the application or dates of final action by the City, please contact the Planning Division at 235-2550. • 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550 8 9 • • PLANNING DIVISION '?:„.., :.:-'' 1 CITY OF RENTON DEC 1 y ,' ..,, 9 1989 `: (..�u f Iit Pacific, Incorporated inlinN I) December 16 , 1988 e4truf 4- 7-79- ( ,PcePp? SOK' L4 5 /elks cas G1S.evssel). c 44-/ l b.t / S (44 Le w/f« i-s Vetter ?'� Xf"1 Mr. Ron Nelson // Chairman, ERC To 7e1; f'r- gtcf,-e . :Tile, 'mac -1 City of Renton 200 Mill Ave. S. 'Z'W Do„ 4, copLa /Kept 4-0 Renton, WA 98055 Gi,scvss ti Tk' yOLJ Re: Quality Pacific Homes Cedar Village (SA 110-88) /� Dear Mr. Nelson: '�-�z— I am writing on behalf of the applicant for the above project to take exception to the report and recommended conditions of the Technical Advisory Committee dated November 30. A copy of that letter is also enclosed for your convenience. We have serious concerns with some of the conclusions of the Committee and are requesting that you and the Environmental Review Committee not accept their recommended conditions as written. I have reviewed the November 30 letter with our counsel, John E. Keegan of Davis, Wright & Jones, with the project engineer, Walter S. Pine, P.E. of Northwest Engineering Company, and with the project architect, Ron Healy. We have also reviewed the November 30 conclusions of the Committee with other City of Renton officials. The following are our con- clusions and requests for change in the conditions. Item 1. Request that this item be amended. This item as stated is unnecessarily broad. Following site plan review and approval, we understand that a design prepared by a professional engineer is required for the storm drainage collection, de- tention and discharge system. Staff has stated that a detention system designed for the 25-year developed state runoff with a 5-year undeveloped state release will be re- quired with a 3-stage baffled oil/water ^eparator downstream of the detention system control structure. The condition should be amended to specifically recite these requirements . 543 156TH AVFNI.1F S E / ElELLEVUF. WASHINGTON 98007 / TELEPHONE 746.4660 CONTRACTOR ttEGI.i flt:.flC.N . . 3 01 OUAI IP'349RE ) Mr. Ron Nelson Page 2 Item 2. Please confirm that this item has been complied with already. We: have provided Mr. Don Erickson with a copy of the survey which locates all significant trees in the current plan. We have retained 65% of all significant trees. Mr. ' Erickson said the City does not have a tree preservation ordinance that calls for a certain percentage to be retained. He does agree that 65% is far in excess of normal expectations. The landscape architect has provided very attractive, dense • landscaping both at the perimeter and interior of the site. We will be glad to address any specific concerns which Jerry Lund might have. Item 3. Request that this item be stricken. It is unnecessary. The project proponent has agreed to provide sprinklers to all of the units and a firs hydrant at the entry and one in the vicinity of Building C. The water mains to these fire hydrants Will be designed to providel 1,000 gallons per minute to each hydrant. This approach has been approved by the Fire Department. Item 4. Request that this item be stricken for the same reason as Item 3. Item 5. This item is acceptable as is. Water, sewer and stormwater plans will be provided after site plan review and approval, together with the application for building permits. Item 6. This item is acceptable as is. A temporary erosion-sedimentation control plan will, be a part of the stormwater plans provided in response to Item 5. Item 7. This condition should be stricken in its entirety. The condition, as worded, represents an unreasonable mitigating condition. The Cedar Village project does not create an adverse impact at this intersection. The Cedar Village project will have an estimated total of 153 trips per ' day with peak hour trips (in the p.m. ) of only 10 trips. It is unreasonable to make this project carry the burden of a traffic analysis for the signalization of the Anacortes/Sunset Boulevard intersection. We understand there are other projects proposed near the intersection which will have much more traffic than the Cedar Village project. Furthermore, we do, not believe a signal is even needed or appropriate at this intersection. Mr. Ron Nelson Page 3 If the signal is constructed, its cost should be spread among all users of the intersection, not just new development. It is illegal to do otherwise. This would mean that our project' s share not exceed a percentage equal to the share which the Cedar Village' s peak trips at this intersection bear to the total of all vehicle trips through the intersection during the p.m. peak period. This would be a very small amount. Item 8. This condition should be stricken in its entirety. We believe that this condition is plainly illegal and excessive because: (a) it has no relationship or nexus to t� o^ impacts from the Cedar Village project; (b) it would have a severe economic impact on the project, eliminating more than IJ IQ � 20% of the land area of the project; (c) it is totally ��✓�` impractical and unreasonable -- in order for the City toTv develop this proposed roadway, the City would have to acquire land on which 60 parking spaces for the Honey Dew Apartments are located (to the south) and land on which there are commercial buildings located (to the west of Whitman Avenue) ; (d) the City has no current plan to extend this street, N.E. 12th Street: and (e) there is no adopted City SEPA policy which would support this condition. Item 9. This condition should be amended. The project density and lot coverage are within the requirements of the City' s Zoning Ordinance. We have discussed the need for emergency access and through route with Mr. Glen Gordon, He feels the hammerhead, as shown, is acceptable to him and the Fire Department. We have discussed the aesthetic considerations with Mr. Don Erickson. His concerns were the setbacks and close placement of the front two buildings. We can easily address these concerns without decreasing density. We have intentionally held the buildings toward the north and east in order to retain significant trees. See Item #2 above. By reducing the number of trees we have retained, we can correct this concern without decreasing density. Please amend Item #9 to say: Relocate the buildings to provide a greater setback from the north property line and to provide more separation between building "A" and building "B" . • Mr. Ron Nelson Page 4 Item 10. Amend this condition. Ifie have discussed the need for open space for recreational activities by the residents with Mr. Jerry Lund. He concurred that an active recreational space like a sports court could not be justified on this small site. We discussed the possibility of a children's play area, but again he felt there were not enough units to support this either. He felt and our experience confirms that a passive ' area with picnic benches, etc. is appropriate 'for • the project. We concur and. will provide on-site space for this, probably at the north or south end of building "C". We have provided pedestrian linkage _from the parking lot to the buildings but overlooked tying them together and connecting them with the existing walk on Anacortes Avenue. We will be . glad to correct this oversight. ; . . Please amend Item No. .10 to say: Show passive open space for use of the • .`.:w; r';;`' residence and facilities (picnic tables, etc. ) to be provided. Connect pedestrian'` , walks to existing walk on Anacortes Avenue. We have attempted to work very closely with, City .staff to develop an attractive and environmentally soundproject. We " certainly want to avoid the need for an appeal to the hearing examiner. We appreciate your attention to our concerns. Please consider our comments carefully. If you need any further infor ion, I will be glad to provide it to you. ,Si cerely • unich cc: onald .K. Erickson 'John E. Keegan I Walter S. Pine Ronald Healy 1P t% ArloCITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earl.Clymer, Mayor PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVED DEC. 5 198$ November 30, 1988 Paul W. Sunich President Quality Pacific, Inc. 543 156th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98007 RE: Quality Pacific Homes Cedar Village Located on Anacortes Avenue, south of Sunset Boulevard SA 110-88 Dear Mr. Sunich: The Technical Advisory Committee completed a review,of the above-referenced project on November 30, 1988. The Committee recommended that a Determination of Significance be required for the project, as submitted, based upon the following factors: 1/1. Necessity for a storm drainage m' anagement analysis and mitigation plan, subject to approval by the Public Works Department, in order to protect the site and the adjacent Honeydew Creek. V 2. Necessity for a tree inventory and a revised landscaping plan which provides for retention of significant trees and improvement of the level of on-site . landscaping and screening to mitigate environmental impacts to flora, fauna, as well as to mitigate light and glare impacts and to enhance the overall attractiveness of the site. tit 3. Necessity for a fire flow analysis to ensure that water is available in sufficient quantities at appropriate locations to facilitate fire fighting activities. 4. Necessity for a plan which includes a secondary access route for emergency, equipment. 5. Necessity for plans which depict all proposed utility service lines. 6. Necessity for an erosion control plan. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550 is Paul W. Sunich.. Cedar Village . November 30, 1988 Page 2 .. 7. Necessity for a traffic analysis (warrant analysis) to determine level of required participation in the improvement of the signalization of the Anacortes/Sunset Boulevard intersection in order to mitigate traffic impacts. 8. Necessity to reserve a thirty (30) foot'wide corridor along the.southern boundary of the property for future roadway development to connect Anacortes Avenue to Union Avenue (extension of N.E. 12th Street), • 9. Necessity to provide a revised site plan which reduces the level of density on the site. (Note: The City's Zoning Ordinance allows up to 25 units per acre. While the proposed development does not exceed the allowable maximum acreage, staff does not believe the site can support 25 units based upon aesthetic considerations and based upon need for retention of space upon the,parcel for emergency access , .and through route.) 10. Necessity to revise the site plan to include amenities tor the residents, including but not limited to, open space for recreational activities, pedestrian linkage to the parking area and pedestrian linkage to adjoining rights-of-way. Technical Advisory Committee members did agree that in lieu of issuing a Determination of Significance and requiring an Environmental Impact Statement, the Committee would be willing to consider supporting an amended application with the revised site plan and supplemental materials described above. We would appreciate hearing from you by 5:00 PM on December 12, 1988 as to whether . you wish to have the City issue a Determination of Significance for the above- referenced project (which is.appealable to the Hearing Examiner) and continue the evaluation of the project as submitted or, whether you would prefer to amend the project application as suggested in this letter.. If you have any questions or would like to schedule an appointment to meet with staff to discuss the project further, please telephone me at,235-2550. Sincerely, Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE/lb:mjp (I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT November 30, 1988 A. BACKGROUND: APPLICANT: Quality Pacific, Inc. PROJECT: Cedar Village ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: 110-88 ECF; SA DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning for property. Site is vacant. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4418 NE Sunset Blvd. r IL II I , • 51 .. .T 4011)111.111'o'+�I_1+Jtwl��I•l ....p t Ej. c — - -- fe - isri"? 1 ‘. . . . I ii, z:s..,„wig:. ,..: :,,, :_,. . . , • • . . . . : —___. , .. 1 ,9_""- _•. r--mot .s,_°�' •� /, r cc .i IS �� • 1 ; ,rJ I• 7 i , _ to li • e�7• \ r `rr ,. 'f „ H +{. .. n • ' .S . ._-_lee' Ww--,—- 6 ' '` 7• KiNc 1. G f` a • •7 _ :'��-.>•"_' I 64 e, 6._1a1 %, l el 49 S tr 18 �.dV TM - ( -:{{�`- „_l -- 1 ' 1 t .ItoN1,. w . ',11' IrLJ4er ',,I4IS�.gi.3ty . .,J 1�� 1 1 1 • ii; -�•---- ,(, I I 1 i'tt,R1'l s,� .o1 1..c — - _ 1. I B _ I : —=1/ T R-30 Qi A �J • i R-2 _3 I - I 1 , 0 Bw 1 y \ cV � . �/ OP i. � ';R-2I �� � c—�I I — -- —-, --..1 ( . A, , 1 , LIIIP.64- I.— 1;_. : ------ ..__ • .,. xti s � • HAZEN SR •1 Nt 11'rcr • HIGH SCHOOL �E,1 � ;„ r ui :.: 'I; 1,1e A 1- i .7 1'.d -_- \'- ;q 1\:O .. .e .j Z ,I, .1,I..I:J. , !f I 1 , ' --,,((\\1. - SI iz.40 66 I .e 3 ,e ., w•i, ,, G— 1 ,,, h_ I It to '�1 �'iA •� 'it_ Sf�• i , j I ,, _�I. 3'r - - . j _ a _ • .•, I„ .f� r y , J1' (�i/ 1 L�n S V s t-�T-Gr • s ,o�i'\ :4 .f':«.:;7 . .do;.. v r1fl Ii { ,.1.. �, :1 = .i �I 11.E tr.'Salt - ' I,•�I9 Lf-Sl l�; 4IJ 11.Ij 1 11 I.rl_ — .. -1.'.. '• L l 1 NE lot_ t _Si_ o� —r r L T t_......1 %ill ... ..,.,.... .,.,, ..: • •:"' ''-' -'-' 1 ' .fiLY\1 7 11 • , :.1 cs1 ' \ ', [4:4 i 1. Z, :.f .i , Environmental Re' w Committee Staff Report Cedar Village Page 2 November 30, 1988 B. ANALYSIS 1. BACKGROUND: 2 . ISSUES: 1. Whether aesthetic impacts from the project to the site and the surrounding community have been adequately identified and addressed? The applicant seeks to construct 25 residential units on the subject property. This parcel is located in an area which is developed with residential and commercial uses; it would be an "in- fill" project. The parcel itself is essentially flat, is accessible, and public services/utilities are available to serve the site. Therefore, staff believes that a multi-family residential project is appropriate for the property; however, the proposed design and density is not viewed by staff as being aesthetically compatible with the surrounding uses or with City development goals. Staff recommends that the applicant: a) reduce development density; b) separate proposed structures, c) provide pedestrian walkways to connect structures to sidewalk along Union Avenue N.E. ; d) provide pedestrian walkways to connect to parking areas to building units; e) relocate parking to allow for greater separation of living units from parking area; f) increase landscaping/buffering on the site in a way that promotes a more attractive, and efficient use of the property. 2 . Whether adequate public services/infrastructure is currently available to serve the site or can be improved to provide adequate service? The Public Works Department reports that adequate water and sewer services can be made available to the now vacant site; the applicant will be required to participate in the financing of such services. Street improvements, such as streetlighting, will be required in conjunction with the proposed development. Building plans will need to include plans for such improvements. All utility/improvement plans should be subject to approval by the Public Works Department. Fire Prevention Bureau staff require that the applicant shall provide a fire flow analysis and fire flow improvements as determined to be necessary in that analysis. Additionally, secondary Environmental Re, w Committee Staff Report Cedar Village Page 3 November 30, 1988. access and fire lanes must be provided for this development. All plans/improvements are subject to approval by the Fire Prevention Bureau. • The Police Department anticipates no significant impacts from this proposed development. Staff suggests that illumination, signage, and other development features be designed and constructed to facilitate provision of fast, efficient emergency services. 3 . Whether adequate storm drainage management systems are present at or available to the site? Honeydew Creek flows approximately seventy (70) feet to the northwest of the subject parcel. The Creek is utilized to accommodate regional storm run-off. As the site itself is undeveloped, local run-off percolates through the permeable surface. Because the replacement of permeable surfaces with impervious surfaces will redirect • local run-off, and because development of the property will change the character of the run-off, thereby potentially having adverse impacts upon Honeydew Creek, staff recommends that the applicant submit a complete storm drainage analysis with mitigation measures (drainage systems) , subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. 4. Whether traffic impacts anticipated in conjunction with the proposed development have been adequately identified and addressed? Staff reports that ITE Trip Generation Manual anticipates approximately 6. 6 average daily trips per unit for multi- family medium density residential units. Using that data, the proposed development is anticipated to generate approximately 165 trips per day, of which 16.5 would be peak a.m./p.m trips. In order to accommodate the anticipated number of trips on adjacent roadways, staff recommends that the applicant be required to: a) participate in the roadway re-alignment of Anacortes Avenue and Sunset Boulevard to make a better aligned intersection; and b) provide a warrant analysis to determine level of support necessary for future signalization at the Anacortes/Sunset intersection. Additionally, on-site access road (primary and emergency) must be thirty feet (30 ' ) in width in order to meet City Code requirements. `r; Environmental ReI w Committee Staff Report Cedar Village Page 4 November 30, 1988 5. Whether impacts to the natural environment on-site and in the vicinity of the site have been adequately identified and addressed? The site is undeveloped at present, but is covered with trees, shrubs and grasses. Staff recommends that in order to improve the site and provide enhanced protection to the adjacent Honeydew Creek, the applicant be required to provide a tree inventory and preservation plan. Staff encourages the applicant to provide a revised development/landscape plan which provides for retention of the maximum feasible number of significant trees. 6. Whether recreation impacts from the proposed development have been adequately identified and addressed? The proposed development is near to the May Creek recreational area and Kiwanis Park. Staff encourages the applicant to contribute to the support of these • existing recreational areas and to the development of new recreation areas. Staff also recommends the addition of on-site recreational amenities, in order to improve the appearance and utility of the development for the residents. Both passive and active recreational spaces would be desirable, including such features as patios, decks, outdoor seating, and storage locker space. Of particular concern is the development of on-site play areas for younger children. 7. Whether light, glare and noise impacts have been adequately identified and addressed in conjunction with the proposed development? The proposed development is anticipated to generate some noise, related to daily living activities of the residents. Similarly, some light and glare is anticipated from vehicles traveling to and from the site. Additionally, as a number of residential and commercial developments surround the subject parcel, it is anticipated that activities on those sites would impact the residents of Cedar Village. Staff recommends that plantings and screening be designed to mitigate light and glare impacts. For example, it is recommended that significant trees be retained, that new plantings be increased in size and number, and that proposed five foot chain link fence be replaced with a sight-obscuring wood fence. Environmental Rey w Committee Staff Report Cedar Village Page 5 November 30, 1988 Additionally, staff recommends that interior insulation be installed, with a limit of 50 dBA, to mitigate noise to the residential units. 8. Whether anticipated impacts relating to project construction have been adequately identified and addressed? Staff recommends that the applicant be required to: a) provide an erosion control plan subject to City approval; b) provide wheel washing on site to protect adjacent roadways; c) limit hours of operation to those approved by the Traffic Engineering Division; and d) provide a bond in the amount of $2, 000. 00 for street clean up. C. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the ERC issue a Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant to submit a revised site plan which: (a) reduces development density; (b) separates • proposed structures, (c) provides pedestrian walkways to connect structures to sidewalk along Union Avenue N.E. ; (d) provides pedestrian walkways to connect parking areas to building units; and (e) , relocates parking to allow for additional landscaping. 2 . That the applicant submit a storm drainage management analysis and mitigation plan, subject to approval of the Public Works Department, in order to protect the site and the adjacent Honeydew Creek. Note: If it is feasible to do so, an open drainage plan may be preferred for this site. 3. That the applicant agree to participate in the realignment of the Sunset Boulevard/Anacortes Avenue intersection in order to mitigate traffic impacts. 4. That the applicant submit a tree inventory and a revised landscaping plan which provides for retention of significant trees and improvement of the level of on-site landscaping and screening to mitigate environmental impacts to flora, fauna, as well as • mitigate light and glare impacts and to enhance the overall attractiveness of the site. 5. That the applicant submit a utility system plans subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. • Environmental Re, w Committee Staff Report Cedar Village Page 6 November 30, 1988 6. That the applicant submit a public service support/access system plan subject to the approval of the Public Works Department and the Fire Prevention Bureau. 7. That the applicant submit on-site and off-site improvement plans subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. 8. That the buildings be provided with insulation which limits interior noise levels in residential units to 50 dBA or less. 9. That the applicant submit revised plans showing outdoor recreational space on-site for adults and children living in the proposed residential units. 10. That the applicant submit an erosion control plan subject to City approval. 11. That the applicant provide wheel • washing on site to protect adjacent roadways during construction activities. 12 . That the applicant limit hours of construction operations to those approved by the Traffic Engineering Division. 13 . That the applicant submit a bond in the amount of $2,000. 00 for street clean up. Note: Staff will recommend as a land use condition that the applicant provide a traffic analysis (warrant analysis) to determine level of required participation in the improvement of the signalization of the Anacortes/Sunset Boulevard intersection in order to mitigate traffic impacts. D. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS: Various City departments have reviewed and commented upon the project. These comments are as follows: Police Department: Probable minor impact to public services. In itself, this project does not seem to present any significant need for police service expansion; however, it does present the potential for expansion in proportion to other similar developments and other normal growth. Fire Prevention Bureau: Probable minor impact to public services. A Fire Department secondary access is required and fire lanes are required as indicated on site plan. Design Engineering: Probable minor impacts to all areas; however, more information is required regarding water and utilities. • Environmental ReS. a Committee Staff Report Cedar Village Page 7 November 30, 1988 Traffic Engineering: Probable minor impacts to all areas except transportation; more information is needed regarding transportation. Utility Engineering: Probable minor impact to Utilities. Fire flow improvements are required. Parks and Recreation: Building Division: Probable minor impact to earth and housing only. Current Planning Division: Long Range Planning: Proposed residential use is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for "Office Park" . However, the proposed project appears to be compatible with the surrounding uses. Honey Creek is located approximately 70 feet north of the NW corner of the property; therefore, storm drainage would be a major issue of the project. Grading and site preparation may create runoff problems. Removal of the existing vegetation would adversely affect the aesthetics of the area. City of Renton Technical Advisory Committee MEETING NOTICE November 21, 1988 To: Nancy Laswell Morris Don Monaghan Steve Baima John Morris Gary Norris • Rick Stoddard From: Don Erickson, Chairman Meeting Date: November 23, 1988 Time: 8:30 a.m. Location: Third Floor Conference Room • Agenda is attached below. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA November 23, 1988 Third Floor Conference Room Commencing at 8:30 a.m. TIME/KEY PARTICIPANTS NEW PROJECTS CEDAR VILLAGE ECF; SA-110-88 Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building. Proposed project consistent with R-3 zoning for property. Site is vacant. Property is located at approximately the 1200 block of Anacortes Avenue N.E. along the.west side of the street. LOWE REZONE (BRANDT/JARVIS) ECF; R-104-88 Applicant seeks non-project rezone of subject property fro R-1 to R-3 for future development of multi-family housing. Property is currently developed with single family residences. The proposed rezone conforms to the Comprehensive Plan Map. The property location is 909/951 Aberdeen Avenue N.E. \ F Agenda November 21, 1988 Page 2 OAKWOOD HOMES ECF; R; PP-091-88 Applicant seeks to: 1) rezone 2.06 acres from G-1, General Use, to R-I, Single- Family Use; and 2) obtain a preliminary plat subdividing the parcel into ten (10) lots (minimum 7200 sq.ft. per lot) for future construction of a single-family development. Property is located at 763 Union Avenue N.E. RENTON TEMPORARY COURTHOUSE ECF; SA-099-88 Construction of a temporary structure to serve as a temporary courthouse for the City of Renton. Property location - Renton Municipal Building Campus. ` a_ RE] : N COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DtieARTMENT ' ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: -Try c, DATE CIRCULATED: 10/28/88 COMMENTS DUE: 11/10/88 EFC - 110-88 APPLICATION NO(S) : SA-110-88 PROPONENT: Quality Pacific (Paul Sunich) PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Village BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning fo property. Site is vacant. mik LOCATION: 4415 NE Sunset Blvd. 111 SITE AREA 1. 01 acres BUILDING AREA (gross) : IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth ° v ° ° ° 0 2 . Air ° v ° ° ° ° ° 3 . Water ° v 0 ° 4 . Plants ° c_/ ° ° ° ° 5. Animals ° l� ° ° ° ° 6. Energy & Natural Resources • L/ ° ° `� ° ° 7. Environmental Health ° ° ° 0 ° j 8 . Land & Shoreline Use ° o / ° ° 9 . Housing ° ° ° 010. Aesthetics ° 1,/ ° ° ° ° 11. Light & Glare ° ° o ° ° 12 . Recreation ° ° ° 13 . Historic & Cultural Preservation ° L./7 ° o ° ° 14 . Transportation. ° ° ° 15. Public Services 0 �/ 0 16. Utilities ° ° ° COMMENTS: We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas which we have expertise a, d have identified areas of probable impact or are where additio infori ti on 7needed to properly assess this proposal. \IP 11,{n 6,4, , -ff--4-0 / t ie-(Aef Signature of irector uthorized Representative Date Rev. 6/88 r _,-;. O' RENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DE. a__;TMENT t� ;.; . DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET - lir ECF - 110-88 APPLICATION NO(S) . : SA-110-88 PROPONENT: . • Quality Pacific (Paul Sunich) PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Village BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning for property. Site ' is vacant. LOCATION: ' . 4415 NE Sunset Blvd. TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT . SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION I TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: • UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION • FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: i fetci<-- APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ;/, NOT APPROVED r 1S feb•iof(L "Iti'c / r r.i /Or..‘ 1 ! y` �J (e. ,Q '�`'� / Gr�('�Jl..� �'-';i-����1..;�^.-a(=r. l'�, f:.�-_�' •ll��_C.C�r'rC i / ll/ ' -• DQ VLSjt. +0 h-ik Lye._ f. C.f 1 t i/V/r r .._ 'e..,.. t f. n / _"Ur -j- c.. J�v�r.`C ?r I o Cb/� ( oh frtlY.:fljs..b.: f.r Jr-r..,X wc.vri�vvh ‘) 2, SIBe� (IJ��,( / it G� lir 5.1.4., Ahr<0, le - e �I' I�!JS' sl, ( d pe 1l�t� I y._, r�I�c .�. a,�,^ D v+, I (/.v\ S • ( Dr;V e L. 't r -1�1) il ',corks `�.S 1"" .1. .�V ' ('`1 l4Y\ l,ci\ 11 . P �er\e✓1,VOre\ 1 ill 01y"' I EY\ rC'Li,i ic. I )� .�c_- 1+ f � ��/�try DATE 1//tl/fr ' ' ' 1 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR(A�"T1ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE `./ 1 REV. 6/88 I • ,(/7 0,16 Cc r(41 ,i� qi L l / -co Jo �1J S�-_� �vr :' /t� Z4)r/S: ‘'s r, )1}1A-/v---q, November 30, 1988 G' � c)* Paul W. Sunich President Quality Pacific, Inc. 543 156th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98007 RE: Quality Pacific Homes - Cedar Village Located on Anacortes Avenue, south of Sunset Boulevard SA 110-88 Dear Mr. Sunich: The Technical Advisory Committee completed a review of the above-referenced project on November 30, 1988. The Committee recommended that a Determination of Significance be required for the project, as submitted, based upon the following factors: 1. Necessity for a storm drainage management analysis and mitigation plan, subject to approval by the Public Works Department, in order to protect the site and the adjacent Honeydew Creek. 2. Necessity for a tree inventory and a revised landscaping plan which provides for retention of significant trees and improvement of the level of on-site landscaping and screening to mitigate environmental impacts to flora, fauna, as well as to mitigate light and glare impacts and to enhance the overall attractiveness of the site. 3. Necessity for a fire flow analysis to ensure that water is available in sufficient • quantities at appropriate locations to facilitate fire fighting activities. 4. Necessity for a plan which includes a secondary access route for emergency equipment. 5. Necessity for plans which depict all proposed utility service lines. 6. Necessity for an erosion control plan. r `7\Uv., Pal W. Sunich " Cedar Village �i�N ,1 � November 30, 1988 L� Page 2 �ti ?\ n� c , 7. Necessity for a traffic analysis (warrant analysis) to determine level of required participation in the improvement of the signalization of the Anacortes/Sunset Boulevard intersection in order to mitigate traffic impacts. 8. Necessity to reserve a thirty (30) foot wide corridor along the southern boundary of the property for future roadway development to connect Anacortes Avenue to Union Avenue (extension of N.E. 12th Street). 9. Necessity to provide a revised site plan which reduces the level of density on the site. (Note: The City's Zoning Ordinance allows up to 25 units per acre. While the proposed development does not exceed the allowable maximum acreage, staff does not believe the site can support 25 units based upon aesthetic considerations and based upon need for retention of space upon the parcel for emergency access and through route.) 10. Necessity to revise the site plan to include amenities for the residents, including but not limited to, open space for recreational activities, pedestrian linkage to the parking area and pedestrian linkage to adjoining rights-of-way. Technical Advisory Committee members did agree that in lieu of issuing a Determination of Significance and requiring an Environmental Impact Statement, the Committee would be willing to consider supporting an amended application with the revised site plan and supplemental materials described above. We would appreciate hearing from you by 5:00 PM on December 12, 1988 as to whether you wish to have the City issue a Determination of Significance for the above- referenced project (which is appealable to the Hearing Examiner) and continue the evaluation of the project as submitted or, whether you would prefer to amend the project application as suggested in this letter. If you have any questions or would like to schedule an appointment to meet with staff to discuss the project further, please telephone me at 235-2550. Sincerely, Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator • DKE/lb:injp • JOHN ANDERSON ANDA SSOCIAY 'S. INC, 11 LI LI L 07 UJUQuVSRIOTULL 10620 N.E.6th • Bellevue.Washington 98004 • (2061 454-3096 DATE JOB No ATTENTION aer ee` N,Gro ., t at 1 1 :.�,r C 67 n 1988 II WE ARE SENDING YOU Attached ❑ Under separate cover • the following items: ❑ Shop drawings ,Prints 0 Plans 0 Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter 0 Change order ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION `7' 1 o/Z7 '32-15 2 g v Ls 1 10/27 eZ � ' �--�o- � � 4tz i 15 THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑' For approval 0 Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval or your use 0 Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution XAs requested ❑ Returned for corrections 0 Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment 0 ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS p� r A t f` g����� A P--.K L IQ j � � �r� I 6 1 lei COPY i SIGNED: PRODUCT 240-2 (tires/Inc,Groton,.Mass,01471. - If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. / piANNiNGeD�NISION v. !'fir Renton Fire Dept. 1 7��� '.'.CITY OF REN IVON u '-e Prevention Bureau I ; REM_ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .ctyv---fib:., OCT 2 8 1988 NVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEWRR SHEET � V ?revi.fotrivm -N E ENT: 1 re__ DATE CIRCULATED: 10/28/88 COME NTS �DUE:11/10/88 a r EFC - 110-88 APPLICATION N9(S) : SA-110-88 PROPONENT: Quality Pacific (Paul Sunich) PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Village BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning fc property. Site is vacant. LOCATION: 4415 NE Sunset Blvd. SITE AREA 1.01 acres BUILDING AREA (gross) : IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth ° ° ° o ° ° 2 . Air ° ° o ° 0 3 . Water ° ° o ° 0 4 . Plants ° ° ° 5. Animals 0 ° 6. Energy & Natural Resources ° ° 7. Environmental Health ° ° 8. Land & Shoreline Use ° ° 9. Housing ° ° o ° ° 10. Aesthetics ° ° o °- ° 11. Light & Glare ° ° ° ° 12 . Recreation ° ° ° 13 . Historic & Cultural Preservation ° o ° 0 14. Transportation ° 15. Public Services ,/ ° ° 16. Utilities ° ° COMMENTS: lar.,4.44.i fQ We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or ari where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. , e./ .e4/P.,-/ Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Rev. 6/88 • w o .! RENTC_ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEE____DMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 110-88 APPLICATION NO(S) . : SA-110-88 PROPONENT: Quality Pacific (Paul Sunich) PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Village BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning for property. Site is vacant. LOCATION: 4415 NE Sunset Blvd. TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNIT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON . • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: - Ir ReQ-e-v-NAIMA APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVE Any development and/or construction shall comply with current Fire and Building Codes and Ordi nances. A second means of approved access is required. Firepartment access roads/lanes shall be pave minimum width 20'; minimum height 13' 6". Yes No � Preliminary fire flow calcu ations show ah fire fl ow v fh a minimum flow of /tea gpm eac required. is required. /,5-e feet of the structure Primary hydrant is required to be within _ Do feet of th Secondary hydrants are required to be within structure. An approved automatic sprinkler system is required to protect the total structure. Yes No = All fire department access roads are to be paved and installed prior to construction. Yes �o No . All fire hydrants are required to be installed and approved prior to construction. Yes DATE /m't SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 4 am#i/o,ry;1,;..) ''�;.51, C.:),,✓.,�0 REQU I RCI) FIRE FLOC! CALCULATIONS 1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION NAME 42 ,9//,y ./'9e/,'"e U.B.C. CLASS OF BUILD ADDRESS 445//5- /V, E �C'es.,.s,,,- ,g:'-'4 FIRE MGMT AREA 2. DETERMINE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTIQ -_ CLASS (CIRCLE ONE): I - II IV III -'`V FIRE-RESISTIVE NON-COMBUSTIBLE ORDINARY WO F- MIXED (NOTE: IF "MIXED", SEE SPECIAL INSTRUCTION FOR AREA AND BASIC FIRE FLOW) 3. DETERMINE AREA: GROUND FLOOR AREA: FT2 (A) NUMBER OF STORIES: TOTAL BUILDING AREA: / / S%5- • 4. DETERMINE BASIC FIRE FLOW FROM TABLE 01, USING AREA CA) : �7if57) GPM (B) 5. DETERMINE OCCUPANCY FACTOR ADJUSTMENT: ADJUSTMENT: 7,5- GPM (C) IF LOW HAZARD, SUBTRACT UP TO 25% OF (B): IF HIGH HAZARD0 ADD UP TO 25% OF (B) 6. COMPUTE SUB-TOTAL (B+C): - (IF B+C IS LESS THAN 500 GPM, INSERT 500 GPM) ;DX, ;. ,5-- GPM (D) 7. DETERMINE SPRINKLER ADJUSTMENT: ADJUSTMENT: GPM CE) (IF COMPLETELY SPRINKLERED, SUBTRACT UP TO 50% OF (D): IF LIGHT HAZARD OCCUPANCY AND FIRE RESISTIVE OR NON-COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION, SUBTRACT UP TO 75% OF CD). 8. DETERMINE EXPOSURE ADJUSTMENT': USING THE TABLE AT LEFT AS A GUIDE, ENTER THE SEPARATION AND ADJUSTMENT FOR EACH OF THE ',FOUR FACES" OF THE BUILDING IN THE TABLE AT THE RIGHT: SEPARATION MAX. ADJUSTMENT EXPOSURE SEPARATION ACT. ADJ. 0 - 10 25% MAX. NORTH rz.L ADD z o % 11 - 30 20% MAX. EAST 4,0 ' ADD /5- % • 31 - 60 15% MAX. SOUTH • !'7 ' ADD ,ID % 61 -100 10% MAX. WEST ' ADD 20 % 101 -150 5% MAX. TOTAL % OF ADJUSTMENT 150 OR 4-HR WALL 0% MAX. (NOT TO EXCEED 75%) : `/5 % CTOTAL % ADJUSTMENT TIMES (D) ADJUSTMENT: -1-- ( S I- („ , 55 7` - GPM (F) 9. DETERMINE ROOF AND SIDING COVERING ADJUSTMENT: C� _ CIF SHINGLE COVERING, ADD 500 GPM) ADJUSTMENT: GPM (G) :-)o COMPUTE ESTIMATED FIRE FLOW REQUIRED: (IF D+E+F+G IS LESS THAN 500 GPM, INSERT 500 GPM) CIF D+E+F+G IS GREATER THAN 12--000 GPM, INSERT 12,030 GPM) (D+E+F+G) REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: L ou_3 75 GPM (H) 0.0 SIGNED: C_, % -44-, I-ATE � f, /9,,r , i RENTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ftsfkkiNANX, b114.)151010 DATE CIRCULATED: COMMENTS DUE: EFC - IR() - B APPLICATION NO(S) : 4pW w ®, PROPONENT: a L0/ phonc. A 041Cob PROJECT TITLE: BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: LOCATION: SITE AREA BUILDING AREA (gross) : IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT . NECESSARY 1. Earth 2 . Air 3 . Water 4 . Plants 5. Animals 6 . Energy & Natural Resources 7 . Environmental Health 8 . Land & Shoreline Use 9 . Housing 10 . Aesthetics 11. Light & Glare 12 . Recreation 13 . Historic & Cultural Preservation ° ° 14 . Transportation ° ° ° 15. Public Services 16 . Utilities COMMENTS: tgeOW\WW lei t:AkaY?? A WOVLO so t ov Rgemuctio4 V i1474 et- itkicwoto ‘Awr 14 1`141S. Prt900 Moot tbtiti.0 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or are where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Di tor or Authorized Representative Date /� • BEN'. _.V BUILDING & ZONING DEPAF TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - f10 - egN APPLICATION NO(S) : 7A" I 106.18 PROPONENT : OtU.ait..��{ PAS Wk.., I1i . PROJECT TITLE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: LOCATION : TO : 111 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE ; ENGINEERING DIVISION n TRAFFIC ENG.. DIVISION SCHEDULED' HEARING DATE : • UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION _ifG • FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU NA -, ..IE9 'Fork. El PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT . VA:®vy\10 5 ..{C KIN ' BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT PPADV POLICE DEPARTMENT 0 POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Eli OTHERS : ; COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : PLAtkINIIIv6 baul51014 APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS fl NOT APPROVED PEOESTRIAk1 WMit.K1 y5 sHouti.o COACT TO TIME Slot t•obik.K KAM, ukiXON Au L n.E 1.04)14‘14W4Pri S 1OUW at P WUIOtO 'um cOuNecy pemtkirg, wI 0.-44 vorrs To TN4 moo-TH S104 ( 1 o)Ect si46A 1 1u,oulds A um root 5e113Ach mom 114 pRa pil1'Y uNit. oit.oiv4 14v.A quitertc W t N.'e CpuOO %/ rttiertitit weal PaJO 1HE srltrzel puilmiett w►Ott!WA 2 C Mait i compitrc't 4 lobo% -mitt) • DATE : li'22 " SIGNATURE OF DIR TO OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Z REVISION 5/1982 ,o., .PicI4 piphoweio sHoutt, MetuiM .J p1Zoo kot tot R 1/Loclhat — 17611616PS COMM c1 D h 10 jDCI tistt%�- 'f l4 C.c►mpAocT P MK two. S111~l43 110 Th6 4I T Ttrze*tlitL c 241►, B ACV)14p Amide. As. Litia isPitov,oto , ® pLou11E, peocin ` m soup sctttcsUIru4 ripE . L '' t i LU u11. 15 ‘Uw4 s ,D ®N Th % s r re PLANu two 1 w Notriklk wouvricsAL tzokih36 FICA R t ) 4 d, P to l roc. „ Set:Mao& 4 rye otv s r rc Tot& r'5I0e s cmt,,Rxers HrOUL13 rat 14000 SI 1 I CA TO wrc 14 ft-laps 1Wc Nor w►torm. viricz . .. I 6 -.> K 11NG 0IVIS10N D �, Vl�'1(QF*ON RENTC-=. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEF___PMENT 8 1988 Slii: VIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET On 2 1;lc; I%IEWIPI ' NT: . -U.1\c\ll ' DATE CIRCULATED: 10/28/88 !! COMMENTS DUE: 11/10/88 EFC - 110-88 APPLICATION NO(S) : SA-110-88 PROPONENT: Quality Pacific (Paul Sunich) PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Village BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning fo property. Site is vacant. LOCATION: 4415 NE Sunset Blvd. SITE AREA 1. 01 acres BUILDING AREA (gross) : IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT , IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth ° . . . 2 . Air ° . . 0 3 . Water 0 . 0 0 4 . Plants ° . 0 0 5. Animals 0 . 0 . 6. Energy & Natural Resources ° . . . 7. Environmental Health ° 0 . 0 8. Land & Shoreline Use ° . 0 p 9 . Housing ° O . . . 10. Aesthetics ° 0 . 0 11. Light & Glare ° . . . 12 . Recreation ° 0 . . 13 . Historic & Cultural Preservation 0 ° . 0 0 14. Transportation ° 15. Public Services 0 • ° . 0 . 16. Utilities 0 ° 0 00MMENTS: We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or are dwhere addit' nal informati n is needed to properly assess this proposal.�(Director � er� � /- Signat (Director or Authorized Representative Date Rev. 6/88 11:// I •• • RENTOI. .:OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEP1 MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 110-88 APPLICATION NO(S) . : SA-110-88 PROPONENT: Quality Pacific (Paul Sunich) PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Village BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning for property. Site is vacant. LOCATION: 4415 NE Sunset Blvd. TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: c/,D C^� APPROVED XAPPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED 3cel L D /4✓G Cp1.76 CM76-ote5-0--- DATE /0 --1-)%1/ • SIGNATURE O DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 V . o RENTOL -OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPL. _KENT O 41 /� ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SH V BOG ��'c9% +1' /04, qe REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ,; ge.y �,..ri q C� �� DATE CIRCULATED: 10/28/88 I COMMENTS DUE: 11y 1 886) EFC - 110-88 D APPLICATION NO(S) : SA-110-88 PROPONENT: Quality Pacific (Paul Sunich) PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Village BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning fo property. Site is vacant. LOCATION: 4415 NE Sunset Blvd. SITE AREA 1. 01 acres BUILDING AREA (gross) : IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth -, ° ° ° 2 . Air o )4. ° o ° ° 3 . Water ° x ° 4 . Plants < ° ° 5. Animals x ° ° 6. Energy & Natural Resources ° X ° ° 7 . Environmental Health ix ° o ° ° 8 . Land & Shoreline Use s ° ° 9 . Housing 0 , ° o ° ° 10. Aesthetics x ° ° . ° 11. Light & Glare x ° . . ° 12 . Recreation ° 0 ° ° 13 . Historic & Cultural Preservation ° )( ° ° 14. Transportation 0 >( 0 ° ° 15. Public Services ° 16. Utilities >! COMMENTS: /� . m -i,e.gee.,/e.---,,t 71 //2-41-14-eee-kzw--' 1P-171-- ----/j7 ////''''''' We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or are where additional ' formation is needed to properly assess this proposal. �tY t411 al /! e :.3 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Da Rev. 6/88 \ �_ RENTON v- MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAF____IENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 110-88 APPLICATION NO(S) ..: SA-110-88 PROPONENT: Quality Pacific (Paul Sunich) PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Village BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning for property. Site is vacant. LOCATION: 4415 NE Sunset Blvd. TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING RTALI-S-I.ON TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: jJ(iiJJ /{,1(. - APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS / NOT APPROVED A;ze, ge6Wir-si7 )ra Z� spArzbae. Witt-iretz IZAL/ ‘gr. nay izoloFl FT:14i4 u tv i‘et 6T a il DATE /6 04443 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 } • RENTOL ....OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPA....AENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET PLANNING DIVISION ECF - 110-88 CITY OFRENTON APPLICATION NO(S) . : SA-110-88 ® OCT 281988 PROPONENT: Quality Pacific (Paul Sunic ) E c E it U E PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Village BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning for property. Site is vacant. LOCATION: 4415 NE Sunset Blvd. TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE X. LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: �'�Ji � D\ `r‘n ok.0 APPROVED X APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED -7613 -e.-&/ /J Pi-ee --ci 01-4_ • � " /- "cc 3 DATE //- / -- D SIGNATUREGOF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 Wnen RENT.,. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEI.2MEN 1 FRENTON No ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW S 1 1988 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 7/1 e E D ffin l l DATE CIRCULATED: 10/28/88 COMMENTS DUE: 11/10/88 EFC - 110-88 PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON APPLICATION NO(S) : SA-110-88 D OCT 2 8 1988 li) PROPONENT: Quality Pacific (Paul S ch) . - VE PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Village BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning fo property. Site is vacant. LOCATION: 4415 NE Sunset Blvd. SITE AREA 1. 01 acres BUILDING AREA (gross) : IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth ° ° 0 ° 2 . Air ° ° O ° ° 3 . Water ° ° ° 4 . Plants 0 0 ° ° 5. Animals 0 ° ° 6. Energy & Natural Resources ° 7 . Environmental Health ° O 0 0 8 . Land & Shoreline Use ° o 0 0 9 . Housing ° ° o ° ° 10. Aesthetics ° ° o ° 0 11. Light & Glare ° o ° ° 12 . Recreation ° ° 13 . Historic & Cultural Preservation ° O 0 ° 14. Transportation ° o ° ° 15. Public Services ° ° 16. Utilities .me- -,,.e�e__ ° 0 I, y/l6.-,4 e . '?-zc�- iclr 1-ri.- 7eclz-74"-CL ,--4_- &57,re f' COMMENTS: a, fl9P, /.Ze 2 -e. ,,--2c;-f g7�'ce oPete.2y - -- de_ --2 - -2L ` V'�L.eletz_ ,, �, G�i t,C ((y--e _ G � � � - f -V_�- We have reviewed this application wi particular attention to those areas which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or are where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal.� �// Q) �� i `J- I/-r1(r Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date `'` Rev. 6/8 8 l • f tz it , �E., L. �c ,. • V Se. • ' , as REN'1.,,. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DES L TMENT /0 0�Q ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET s G ` �F��p/O,y REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: -T1(a6,c e 4:9 ,,� 8� DATE CIRCULATED: 10/28/88 COMMENTS DUE: 11/10/8 O EFC - 110-88 APPLICATION NO(S) : SA-110-88 PROPONENT: Quality Pacific (Paul Sunich) , PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Village BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning fo property. Site is vacant. LOCATION: 4415 NE Sunset Blvd. SITE AREA 1. 01 acres BUILDING AREA (gross) : IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth v ° O ° 0 2 . Air v ° o ° ° 3 . Water 0 0 o ° O 4 . Plants C/' ° ° ° ° 5. Animals a/ ° o O ° 6. Energy & Natural Resources ° ° ° ° `I 7 . Environmental Health ° o 0 0 8. Land & Shoreline Use ° O ° ° 9 . Housing ° ° ° o ° ° 10. Aesthetics L,,, ° o ° ° 11. Light & Glare ° ° ° ° 12 . Recreation ° o ° O 13 . Historic & Cultural Preservation ° c�'f ° 14 . Transportation v o ° ° 15. Public Services L// ° ° o Li," ° ° 16. Utilities 0 ° 0 00MMENTS: We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas which we have expertise apd have identified areas of probable impact or are where additions inform t'on i n eded to properly assess this proposal. 71 7 (/(710- Signature of Director dr Authorized Representative Date U 1 -/ \ Rev. 6/88 RENTGiv COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPrix.2MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 110-88 APPLICATION NO(S) . : SA-110-88 PROPONENT: Quality Pacific (Paul Sunich) PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Village BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning for property. Site is vacant. LOCATION: 4415 NE Sunset Blvd. TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: j (c.A j I' — APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED �0 ( 1 �� .5 it t1: l fi r. () (( / N j r6 ( OI P l1 s' %A_ �7(1 Y�1l,L.Cr:i li' ° jam; fF. /T- JJ t -Dr .1 `I`ll I v\: t 0F`li-` (11 J '.. ` r i / Q , k/( ,__. _ „ t DATE 1 agr SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AJT ORIZED R PRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 / %, RENT.. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEP TMENT 0*4, DEVELOPMENT ® �lo �4��4 /�/s/4 APPLICATION REVIEW SH„ k /VT0N N ECF - 110-88 rs / : 8 /49 8 1 APPLICATION NO(S) . : SA-110-88 PROPONENT: Quality Pacific (Paul Sunich) PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Village BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning for property. Site is vacant. LOCATION: 4415 NE Sunset Blvd. TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: •.. ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: ® )( UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: 697"i4iry ,E;v6//ti,E ,eIIV1 APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS X NOT APPROVED ,LoT 4 E'en/Few 5 :4434S-79 UTILITY APPROVAL SI B` P, -61 Lv-477__exP;,-ew,f-s��74 - �e4 y Co/lmA• LATE COMERS AGREEW :J TWATEr � y,.s /p.4,ez 4-- x #/,-ziz8T./41 LATE COMERS AGREC6!.'1EL SEWEf I 4°,4:ii—. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT C:: -- WA R L rs "iJ °D X 217suHs/.s — Oil,3'JS.°D SYSTEM DEVELOPP,3E L. SEWE1 1 )i,Ess ;.,/VCD°x . z t,rs = oh;37s:o0 SPECIAL ASSESS E i E.1 _..-,:......a /Jo SPECIAL ASSESSMEET C '. -Sf'a'El 02.50.00 X e.$"u:4efs_ $(l,25'o.to t.i_14 e ,y . ,4 D'r t°:�PROVER WATER PLAN 2 riQ I-!yid 24.-.rS ,4FPn�1ED SEWER PL�:g3 51Oe SC°w 0 Daac.`/ APP;',O'ED FIRE RYDRAILT L�Mrd3C S ®Y FIRE DEPT. f,rP VLI. .1AMISS! Fib FcOU✓;414m-Als w1QtL- 39✓G 86 - � �a B Owl- i4ti 37DO.G�•q ,d✓u✓.uc esc 6 (12L,....._. DATE /l/ r hr SIGNATURE OF RECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE �yy 1�-REV. 6/88 1\ t • 0 REN___f COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT D._..RTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: L l j-h e....S DATE CIRCULATED: 10/28/88 COMMENTS DUE: 11/10/88 EFC - 110-88 APPLICATION NO(S) : SA-110-88 PROPONENT: Quality Pacific (Paul Sunich) PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Village BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning fo property. Site is vacant. LOCATION: 4415 NE Sunset Blvd. SITE AREA 1.01 acres BUILDING AREA (gross) : IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR 'MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth . . . . ° 2 . Air 0 ° ° . . . 3 . Water ° ° . . ° 4 . Plants ° ° ° . . . 5. Animals 0 ° . . . . 6. Energy & Natural Resources ° . . . 7 . Environmental Health ° 0 0 . 8 . Land & Shoreline Use ° . . . 9 . Housing ° ° . . . 10. Aesthetics ° . . 0 11. Light & Glare ° . . . 12 . Recreation ° ° . . . 13 . Historic & Cultural Preservation ° . . . 14. Transportation ° . . . 15. Public Services ° . . . 16. Utilities ° COMMENTS: "--x PiA" Alt-r".°- T 1)(- 1. We have ,re i- ed this application with particular attention to those areas which we ave expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or are where add'tio al i•fo:! =tion is needed to properly assess this proposal. Al r1/ s' /re Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date,(, L. Rev. 6/88 /Fr- REN`_ __` COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DF__ RTMENT 0 e4Y04,, l/ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEE� 4%k ��Rcivi 0 1 0* REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: fOliCe, e '49 n 861/2 DATE CIRCULATED: 10/28/88 COMMENTS DUE: 11/10/8'84 EFC - 110-88 APPLICATION NO(S) : SA-110-88 PROPONENT: Quality Pacific (Paul Sunich) PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Village BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning fo property. Site is vacant. LOCATION: 4415 NE Sunset Blvd. SITE AREA 1. 01 acres BUILDING AREA (gross) : IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth ° ° o ° ° 2 . Air ° ° ° ° 3 . Water ° ° ° 4 . Plants ° ° o ° ° 5. Animals ° ° o ° ° 6. Energy & Natural Resources ° o ° ° 7 . Environmental Health ° o ° ° 8 . Land & Shoreline Use ° o ° ° 9 . Housing ° ° o ° ° 10. Aesthetics 0 ° ° o ° ° 11. Light & Glare ° o ° ° 12 . Recreation ° o ° ° 13 . Historic & Cultural Preservation ° o 0 ° 14. Transportation ° ° ° 15. Public Services 4.,----° ° o ° ° 16. Utilities ° COMMENTS: '; !, L ' p Nc).A5..r.L.,..tj. A-o-,_ _e_77,10_6„,.4,4 , ,'.> ia.<-074-0-7-,:--1 -73. _,,,y,t4-E- J.4c-i.,aei, 0_0„,„_e_44,„_,„.cL i- - - . ,7-7_0,--1------e Jx--t -4- We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas wh' , h we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or are wP:rt.= ' ' .formation is needed to properly assess this proposal. 01111iiNgAlo \ — ,..i9/411r-e.e70 7Z— /V -,_f//---- i•nature of Director or Authorized Representative Date i\ Rev. 6/88 7 I RENTC_ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEI�.� 2MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 110-88 APPLICATION NO(S) . : SA-110-88 PROPONENT: Quality Pacific (Paul Sunich) PROJECT, TITLE: Cedar Village BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning for property. Site is vacant. LOCATION: 4415 NE Sunset Blvd. TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU x, POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: fthce, APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED F/3 d 4, ells Lew %sc( u c JD f►l J 0/1463 f/fs fizAKI05 DATE 1/ S URE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 i\L\ . V ' to / RENTON . _JMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPA . ENT ® /A,�//�j� ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHE ' �'P 174;7% 4/ REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: eCYP,e116Y\ e 406 DATE CIRCULATED: 10/28/88 COMMENTS DUE: 11/10 3t EFC - 110-88 APPLICATION NO(S) : SA-110-88 PROPONENT: Quality Pacific (Paul Sunich) PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Village BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning fo property. Site is vacant. LOCATION: 4415 NE Sunset Blvd. SITE AREA 1. 01 acres BUILDING AREA (gross) : IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1. Earth ° 0 ° 2 . Air ° ° 3 . Water ° ° 4 . Plants ° ° 5. Animals ° 6 . Energy & Natural Resources ° ° 7 . Environmental Health ° 0 ° ° 8 . Land & Shoreline Use ° 9 . Housing ° 10. Aesthetics X ° ° 11. Light & Glare ° 12 . Recreation Y\ ° 13 . Historic & Cultural Preservation ° 14 . Transportation ° ° 15. Public Services ° ° 16. Utilities 0 ° COMMENTS: lAe`te, �`e .f.76,,,fe,4ve, 0ivscfe / .//he e•1/Z c7zs gbCcQ2e ie- 7:4 e '/v/9 L''✓ T(-rdk C 0A l/ /6.7,•(*" Tz*e /--k•0c..cim 0- s1` a a.- rde ale// A-•0 `l.1.-6 7 cr4-ZL/' Cli? /xi7Gl-ry,-- $7 2iC c 7*74 ( /C f c r X- e 6' Cle•I'7`4efiCI, Ved! j-,ae•e �..-e / -�R.__ wei.-t/Of We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or are where addit?io 1 ' formation is needed to properly assess this proposal. j" er Sign lire lure o Director or Authorized Representative Date O�� he a ,•7 u /e,--oe IL(`1 e -`-or 7% 4 r WI ef- G ,e,, �4J` /, ► /?Jr4e/'rC. r e RENTON ;..,.IMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAR'_;__NT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 110-88 APPLICATION NO(S) . : SA-110-88 PROPONENT: Quality Pacific (Paul Sunich) PROJECT TITLE: Cedar Village BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Applicant seeks site approval for a 25 unit apartment building. Proposed project is consistent with R-3 zoning for property. Site is vacant. LOCATION: 4415 NE Sunset Blvd. TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE: ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE: UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION SHORT RANGE LONG RANGE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OTHERS: COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P.M. ON REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: /9&/^of / jeeC ffev %ak APPROVED ,x APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED •G1e� f/iaee Ai / c do-,c..erze��- adarA I/e°c1 'nee Z- ,e c'-, emt �.r�lc o� G,� oil/I''i/C //1(i i eZ/ ,f 7v l27`ciydi- ovzds_ Vale G�s��h 7`he 5'a ei� ele 0-I Z a4/l f C /2 c /Jl e /Gl (dr- 5/9aCe s/ Me _re•Ice !-iPz e ,-Cl/ C ,t;d4A- &l C Glccrrk C�vli-emu Gii��i 74-: DATE 11/lG/18- SIGNA E OF DIR CTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REV. 6/88 • 4i 10 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor PLANNING DIVISION October 28, 1988 Paul W. Sunich President Quality Pacific; Inc. 543 156th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98007 Re: Cedar Village, 4415 N.E. Sunset Boulevard ECF;SA 110-88 Dear Mr. Sunich: The Community Development Department has formally accepted the above referenced application. It has been routed for departmental review and is tentatively scheduled for the Technical Advisory Committee on November 16, 1988 for consideration. If you have any questions regarding the scheduling of this project, please contact our office at 235-2550. Sincerely, Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator cc: Anton Alhoff 9610 Triton Drive N.W. Seattle, Washington 98117 Gary Guinn N.W. Engineering Co. 12828 Northup Way, Suite #310 Bellevue, Washington 98005 DKE/lb:mjp 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2550 o� .„C TY ' OF RENTON FILE ND(S): SA=,10- yt.,.s.(0'4 cm, B .DING & ZONING DEPARTMaT EU� I/O'SO , ♦ • Nr•V MASTER APPLICATION NOTE TO APPLICANT: Since this is a comprehensive application form, only those items related to your specific type of applications) are to be completed. (Please print or type. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) APPLICANT IITYPE OF APPLICATION NAME - FEES Quality Pacific, Inc. • ADDRESS CDREZONE*(FROM • TO ) 543 156th Avenue S.E. D SPECIAL PERMIT* CITY Zip ED TEMPORARY PERMIT* Bellevue, Washington 9t3007 �Q�-�y CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT* TELEPHONE ' x ' SITE PLAN APPROVAL D SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GRADE AND FILL (206) 746-4660 No. of Cubic Yards: CONTACT PERSON Q VARIANCE* . From Section: NAME * Justification Required . Paul W. Sunich, President ADDRESS ' SUBDIVISIONS: 543 156th Avenue S.E. D SHORT PLAT CITY •Bellevue, Washington ZIP_ -.• D TENTATIVE PLAT 98007 C D ��) 7'Fb-4 bbo PRELIMINARY PLAT TELEPHONE At.9,; c p..,a,..4 •E. . ( v,,4„, czoo$6-i_,goo a FINAL PLAT N.W• EN1C.ttac:ER-tNCx c-1-p.fJY 1282$ P4oRrniu p WAY, s n- . 310 SEu_b-Nic-w k wA 99co WAIVER (Justification Required) OWNER NO. OF LOTS: NAME PLAT NAME: ' Anton A. Althoff t . ADDRESS ' PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: , 9610 Triton Drive N.W. Q PRELIMINARY CITY ZIP D FINAL Seattle, WA 98117 P.U.D. NAME: TELEPHONE (206) 782-7466 D Residential Q Industrial • / I Commercial D Mixed LOCATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: • PROPERTY ADDRESS 4415 N.E. Sunset Blvd. TENTATIVE EXISTING USE PRESENT ZONING Q PRELIMINARY Vacant, Undeveloped R-3 1=1 ' FINAL PROPOSED USE PARK NAME: 25 unit apartment complex NUMBER OF SPACES: 0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE SQ. FT. ACRES ,' •AREA: 43,929 SQ. FT. I 1.01 Acres ' ' TOTAL FEES PLANNING DMSOMFF USE ONLY -- ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING :..:.:. DATE STAMP CITY OF RENTON APPLICATION RECEIVED BY: �'.,:;, • OCT 1 8 1988 APPLI TION DETERMINED TO BE: s "'+ n Accepted :; ( 1f I! IF Incommplete :Notification Sent,,On• ,.: By: (Initials) / DATE ROUTED ADDITIONAL MATERIAL RECEIVED BY: vw C;;, .I-' 11)\ '12668 APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: DAccepted Q Incomplete Notification Sent On By: (Initials) ROUTED TO: eg, . • . . Building PA Design Eng. Fire 14 Parks tiPolice a Policy Dev. Traffic Eng. Utilities '� REVISED 1-31-84 I • t Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach a separate sheet). Lot 4 of the Anton A. Alto.ff -. Short Plat No. 34.5-79 of City of Renton, as recorded under Auditor's File No. 7908179008, being a portion of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington. AFFIDAVIT r—Pprc) -u 1N i c i+ , being duly sworn, declare 'that I am T.ELauthorized representative to act for the property owner,Elowner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS 72± DAY . OF Qcf-o,bed' , 19 W. NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, RESIDING AT uV/ --- k Mq 1aunfy • Name of Notary Public) ' Paul Sunich (For:Owner) ',/lam i . �fAW n /J 1/3 �� �%�f 545 15(,.7-0- nue.. (Address) � 9�Sc (Address) mac` L1NE "Itl I Zr a`;.�,..' :t~o r;'•'r {. hi" .4* 4 p14 Q // :.r \AofARr �_r.:a 7` ..�,•�... = (City) (State)' , (Z'ip) VAS PUMA :tg:*= ; ,1 <6�''��,,,,,,....,�,,,= 74L- y'(o a f" Q��WRS�`�-`_ (Telephone) Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other materials required to constitute a complete application are listed in the "Application Procedure." Foxm #174 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 4 of the Anton A. Ali-off Short Plat No. 345-79 of City of Renton, as recorded under-Auditor's file No.-'90 81 7 90 0 8, being a portion of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington. PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF RENTON O C T 1 8 1988 ifl) [ '' CITY OF RENT8N � BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMEx RECEIPT #�� — ZONING DIVISION \ � ` ' y� . [� ( ��� � DATE � /l `^ �--� 19 -' ^ PROJECT \ 1 ' �_- \'~ LOCATION . DOLLARS ` BASIC FEE ACREAGE FEE APPLICATION TYPE TOTAL FEE OOO/ 5'8l'OO'OO Rezone Conditional Use - Variance 8, Other Administrative Appeal Short Plat P.U.D. Plat ` 110/345'81'00'00 Final Plat � 000/345'84'00'00 EIS Fees 000/341'50'00'00 Salo of maps/pub' , ` OOO/369'9O'OO'l8 Miscellaneous Copies / Subtotal Cosh Tax ` Check L~� Total � BY: Northwest Engineering Company k5\> 12828 Northup Way, Suite 310 October 17, 1988 Bellevue, Washington 98005-1932 Date: 206-867-9800 FAX 206-885-2089 To: Planning Division, City of Renton Re Project No: 102043.5 • Submittal documents and fees required for Site We are transmitting the following material: Plan Approval for the 1.01-acre Cedar Village Apartment Project, as proposed by Quality Pacific, Inc. These are: ❑ for approval ❑ per your request ❑ for your information C/ for your use ❑ for your review and comment Reply: II requested ❑ not requested Very truly yours, PLANNING DIVISInm NORTHWEST ENGINEERING COMPANY CITY OF REN 0 CT 1 8 1988 • Gary E. Guinn, Director of Planning ; 1. ULI 11 'bU 14:= UUHL11Y F1-L. bhL. &IC rkLI 10/11/88 CEDAR VILLAGE - . , PLANT LIST z.'`.=:: . I SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NO.USED SIZE COMMENTS Acer Circinatum Vine Maple 6 10-12' . 2-5 Stem Clumps Popul.us Tremuloides Quaking Aspen • 16 10-12' 2-3 Stem Clumps Prunus Thundercloud Purple Leaf Plum 5 8-10' • Heavy Head Azalea Rosebud Evergreen Azalea 62 Gal .Can . Azalea Hino Crimson Evergreen Azalea 10 Gal .Can • Rhododendron JeanMarie Rhode . . 57 24-30" Bushy Rhododendron Unique Rhode 43 21-24" Bushy Skimmia Japovica Skimmia 10 Gal .Can 8 Female/2 Male Nandina Domestica. . Nandina • 24 2 Gal .Can Abelia Grandiflora 18 24-30" Photinia Fraseri Fraseri 77 30-36" Laurel Zabeliana Cherry Laurel 20 21-24" Juniper Tamariscifolia Tam 18 24-30" Abies Lasiocarpa Alpine 8 2-4' Multiple Stem Clun Pachysandra Terminalis Japanese Spurge 425 2 l" Pots PLANNING DIVISION CITY OFRENTON 1ri OCT 18 1988 6 • ECEi VIE CEDAR VILLAGE APARTMENTS Application Fees For Site Plan Approval 1 . Permit Fee: $300 plus $5 per acre = $300 plus $5 x 1 .01 acres = $300 plus $5.05 _ $305.05 2. Environmental Check List Fee: $60 plus $1 per $10,000 if value greater than $10,000 = $60 plus $1 X ($900,000 value 4 $10,000) = $60 plus $90 _ $150 Total Fees, Items 1 and 2: $455.05 • • PLANNING DMSION CITY OF RENTON OCT 1 8 1988 c (i11' OF R4, ;. .� � ECF: 17/1111 9% o z City of Renton `U: o 9 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ��TfO SEP1*-0-15 Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43,21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for allproposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impacts. Use of Checklist for Nonproject Proposals: (Please Type or Print Legibly) Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant." and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: -Cedar..Village 2. Name of applicant: Quality Pacific, Inc. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Quality Pacific, Inc. Contact Person: 543 156th Avenue S.E. Mr. Paul Sunich, President Bellevue, WA 98007 Phone: 746-4660 �A2� . 4. Date checklist prepared: Ciz'N`PAJ ? October 10, 1988 I2?,2 B 1oc'ar%+vP Ct'��( �►-r� 31c� 5. Agency requesting checklist: ���- `� �A 98�5 Planning Division, City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction on the project is proposed to begin in approximately 90 days, or whenever city approvals are obtained. Because the one-acre project will consist of only 25 apartment units, the MANING I IO!e • completed in one phase. CITY OF RENTON '"< 0CT 1 8 1988 !n) 7. Do you. have any pia! ,or future additions, expansions, al .then activity related to or connected with this proposal? if yes, explain. No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The applicant is not aware of any environmental information that has been prepared or that may be requested during the approval process. However, a landscape plan is prepared that will show existing trees, and those that are to be retained. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. There are no pending applications or other proposals that will directly affect the property covered by this proposal. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City of Renton: . Site Plan Approval . Environmental Review Committee . Building Permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. The proposal consists of a 25-unit apartment complex in 3 buildings on a 1.01 Acre site. The property is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Multi- Family) . Buildings will be 2 stories and two of the buildings will have basement level units. 44 parking spaces will be provided. Approximately 45% of the site will be in landscaped or natural open space. Access to the site will be from a single curb cut on Anacortes Avenue N.E. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topography map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. A portion of the S.W. quarter of S.W. quarter of section 3, TWP. 23 N. , Range S.E. , W.M. , in King County, Washington, more specific- ally, Lot 4 of Renton Short Plat No. 345-79, AF #7908179008, as recorded in Book 19 of Surveys Page 288, King County, Washington. General Location: The 1.01 Acre parcel is located on the west side of Anacortes Ave. N.E. , approx. 600 feet south of the intersection of N.E. Sunset Blvd. and Anacortes Ave. N.E. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS . 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one): flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Flat to gently sloping (10% avg. slope) b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 11% slope. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, caly, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Per Soil Conservation Service and King County Soil Survey (1973) , general soil type is Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, moderately well drained, typically located on uplands and terraces. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None known. Extensive residential and commercial development has taken place in immediate vicinity of this site. - 2 - • e. Describe the`iiurpose, type, and approximate qu&ai ies of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Some site grading will be required to realign contours to establish suitable grades for private drives, parking and buildings. Cut/fill will be balanced on site, requiring no importation of fill material. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction. or use? If so, generally describe. Temporary localized eroision due to grading and removal of upper soil levels and existing vegetation could occur. Once project is completed and pervious areas are re-vegetated, there should be no further occurrence of erosion. (See H, below.) g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Buildings = 23% Paved areas = 32% Total = 55% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: The potential for erosion could be reduced by clearing and grading only those areas necessary for immediate construction of improvements and reseeding exposed soils. During construction, a temporary sedimentation and errosion control plan will be im- plemented and could include: hay bales, fabric filter fence, sedimentation pond & interceptor ditches. Permanent storm water 2. AIR facilities will be built. a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Temporary exhaust emissions from construction equipment and dust from grading and cutting and clearing of trees and brush from buildable areas would result. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission? Vehicular traffic generated from this development will slightly increase CO and HC to existing off-site vehicular emissions, but no violation of air quality standards is anticipated. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: . Limit clearing. and grading .until •.. : . Construction is about ,to begin. . Keep all dust generation areas wet. . Encourage transit use as a substitute for private vehicles. . Car pooling 3. WATER . Units will be built without fireplaces. a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds. wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Honey Creek, located approx. 70 feet North of the N.W. corner of the property is used as a regional storm drainage channel. Sections of the channel are piped and others left open. It flows to the N.W. into May Creek, and eventually to Lake Washington. Honey Creek is not designated as a "sensitive area". 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. An exist. 12" C.M.P. storm drainage outfall pipe into Honey Creek is currently stubbed out at the site for connection and use by this project. On site grading and construction of appropriate storm tlgfi l gEiitRiggd detention facilities will be required to tie into 3) Estimate' the amoun of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site • that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. - 3 - ( • 4) Will the prc,..al require surface water withdra--a or diversions? Give general description, purpose. and approximately quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on i. the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and appaoximately quantities if known. No. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals . . .; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable). or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No waste material will be discharged into the ground. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): • 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so. describe. Storm water will be retained on site and metered into an existing 12" C.M.P. storm water sewer, located at the N.W. corner of the site, and will outfall into Honey Creek, a regional storm drainage channel. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. There could be a temporary increased potential for turbidity of storm water during construction, but it is highly un- likely that any waste materials would enter ground or surface waters during construction or after the development is completed. - 4 - • d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: . Implementation of a sedimentation and erosion control plan during construction. . Clear and grade only those areas necessary for immediate construction. • . Landscape or seed exposed soils. . Construct permanent run-off collection and detention systems for storm water and any, uncovered ground water. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: o deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other x[ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other o Shrubs xi grass o crop or grain o Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other o water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other 3 x[ other types of vegetation- brush b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Approximately . o the site will be cleared of existing veg- etation to accomodate the proposed buildings and paved areas. Additional existing vegetation will be selectively removed, but will be substituted with landscaping. Many of the existing large trees will be retained. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: In addition to the preservation of many of the existing larger firs and cedars, a landscaping plan, as attached with this application, has been prepared to substitute landscaping, where possible, for removed existing vegetation. S. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Hawk,heron, eagle, songbirds, other A variety of common birds Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Rodents and other small animals Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other None b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. This site is not part of a migration route. • • • - 5 - d. Proposed mew=_:'es to preserve or enhance wildlife. .. any: Selective preservation of existing large trees and new landscaping sub- stituted for any existing vegetation removed would preserve some wildlife habitats. However the proposal would convert un- developed vegetated land to residential use which will cause an incremental reduction of total wildlife populations. • 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be ' used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. It is anticipated that electricity will be the sole energy source to meet the completed projects heating needs. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. • c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Construction of buildings will comply with local building codes. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Construction will • comply with applicable codes. An extremely low risk of any en- vironmental health hazards will occur as a result of this proposal. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. The usual fire, police, and ambulance services, typical to all communities, will be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: During construction, keep all dust generation areas wet, limit clearing and grading until construction is about to begin, cleared brush and trees will be hauled off site rather than burned on site. After construction is completed, reduce vehicular exhaust emissions by encouraging transit use or carpooling. The units will not be b. Noise built with fireplaces. IIII 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Vehicular traffic noise is generated from nearby commercial developments (parking lots, loading/unloading areas, trash pick- up and parking lot sweeping) . - 6 - •. 2) What types anu levals of noise would be created by ,r associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Temporary noise levels during construction hours (from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 P.M.) may reach levels of 85 to 95 DBA. Also a slight in- crease in noise levels from automobile traffic (construction workers driving to and from the site) would occur. Long term low level noise would be gen- erated from daily vehicular traffic to and from the 25-unit..apartment complex, particularly during peak a.m. and p.m. rush hour traffic. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts. if any: . Construction noise impacts could be reduced by limiting work be- tween the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. . Landscaping (existing and proposed) and fencing along three sides of the property. B. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? . Site -- undeveloped. . Property on north side -- Kinder Care Learning Center and parking lots. . Property on south side -- Honeydew Too Apartments with parking lots. . Property on east side -- Condominiums and Central Highlands Plaza, shopping center, parking lots, loading/un- loading, and Anacortes Avenue N.E. . Property on west side -- Wooded 1.9 acre residential lot. House is located on north portion of lot, away from site. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. None. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R-3 (Medium Density - Multiple Family) • f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Office/office park (includes properties adjacent and north of this site that have been , developed as a Kinder Care Learning Center and McDonalds restaurant) . g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No. • i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 25 units x 2.1 persons/unit = 53 people. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A - 7 - • 1. Proposed mei es to ensure the proposal is comj_ ble with existing and projected land uses and plans, If any: This 25 unit apartment project will be a higher quality development than existing multi-family projects located im- mediately south and east of the site. The parking for this proposal will be located adjacent to an existing parking lot in the existing apartment complex 7 9. Housing south of the site. Buildings will be located on the north portion of the site, adjacent to the Kinder Care Learning Center. Many large trees. t.o a.be preAs prox mately how manyunits would be p provided, if any? Indicate 9 whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 25 two-bedroom apartment units will be provided in three buildings. Units will be middle income housing. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. Use is compatible and appropriate with types of uses developed adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, the site. 10. Aesthetics , a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. Height - 26 feet. Materials - Wood or vinyl siding, composition roofs. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or,obstructed? There are no views in the immediate vicinity that would be altered or obstructed with this proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Apartment buildings will be constructed of low maintenance materials. Existing large trees will be preserved, where possible, and new landscaping substituted for existing vegetation removed in pervious areas. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Vehicle headlights and lighting within the development during hours of darkness and reflection of sunlight off vehicles in open parking lots will produce light and glare. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. Light or glare from parking lots and vehicles • will be localized to one area of the site and facing an existing parking" lot on adjacent property to the south and proposed buildings to the north, on-site. Fencing along three sides of the property and landscaping will further help mitigate potential light and glare. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? The primary off-site source of light or glare that may affect the proposal would be the existing Central Highlands Plaza .shopping center located adjacent and northeast of the property. However the majority of the light glare would come from the shopping center parking lot, which is partially obscured by existing commercial buildings. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: . Landscaping. . Preservation of existing trees, where possible. . Fencing on the north, south, and west sides of the site. . Location of project's parking lot on back side of project so that its visibility is minimized. Also, parking spaces are broken up by periodic planting areas between spaces. — 8 - • • 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The closest designated and informal recreation opportunity is at Kiwanis Park, a public park located at N.E. 9th Street and Union Avenue N.E. , approximately 0.8 mile from the site. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so. describe. No. . c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation. including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant. if any: Residents of the project would use existing park and other re- creational facilities in the area. Because of the limited size of the project (25 units) no recreational facilities are proposed for this project. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on. or proposed for, national. state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b.. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological. • scientific. or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None are necessary. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site. and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans. if any. Access to the site will be from Anacortes Ave. N.E. , approximately 450' north of the intersection with N.E. 12th Street. Both are improved with 36 feet of paving and curb, gutter and sidewalks. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximately distance to the nearest transit stop? No. Metro Route #114, an evening and morning commuter route between Seattle and Renton, is located on Union Ave. N.E. near N.E. Sunset Blvd. Route #107 an hourly local bus service is (see below) c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Completed project - 44 parking spaces Parking spaces eliminated by the project - None. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not Including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Existing Anacortes Avenue N.E. is fully improved, except for the required curb cut for project access. On site improvements will include parking, drive and turnaround and will be privately maintained. 14 b. (cont.) located on Union Ave. N.E. near N.E. 112th Street. Both transit stops are approximately 1.4 mile from the site. - 9 - • e. Will the pro use (or occur in the immediate lity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, Indicate when peak volumes would occur. 6.6 Avg. trips/day x 25 units = 165 trips/day. Time of peak volumes would occur at a.m. and p.m. work day rush hours. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Residents of the proposed project should be encouraged to use public transit or carpool. The nearest Park-N-Ride is located at Edmonds Avenue N.E. and N.E. 16th Street approximately 2 miles driving distance to the West on the way to Interstate 405, Renton and other employment centers. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The project, by itself, will have a minimal impact on public services. The cumulative effect of growing development of all kinds is an increase in the demand for public services. • b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. No particular measures are contemplated to reduce or control direct impacts on public services. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Storm sewer. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the Immediate vicinity which might be needed. • Water- City of Renton. . Power- Puget Sound Power and Light. . Sewer- City of Renton. . Telephone- Pacific N.W. Bell. . Refuse Service- Rainier Disposal Company. Storm Sewer- City of Renton. General construction activities would be required to tie into existing utilities already close to the site. Disturbing of existing in-ground C. SIGNATURE improvements will, thus, be minimized. 1, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. I s understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non;sig' icance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any illful misrepresentation r willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: Au l- •Su p`'o 9 - 10 - ' bp f .`01' , Ns• ) use`_r,s v -4-% rL / ° ; :h' - i � •F.. , JO PI 10 i prt 10 r• 'I ��" `,O foes Ow' l, Q P i� Vie' . v� o Pi. a •. ' t 4 �� �plob "� , ` /el yL • - , t NI LPL• ' ...:....4..... . N tti 4.1),j.e‘40.g.. , Ie4. y - - 5 > °I‘j• tt- - „ o ,o/0 -� : * LOT 2 " H LOT 1 '° N N es-36.2„s, ,v,••03.39e -- ��' f 9 �n /300 t N99-39.5S,u fl O `�. * O ,, vs SG.34 l+66 94 t/�c, ,v B9 36 2/ua /92.26 t144) YP* co /''•1 a REN SP 345-79 -7908179008 °I ' `�� a R \ .,� /L4.SS _ /Sp V W p W 1 I Wn 2 h 3 h`/ 0 398-39-0/E 3/LSS 0 V - 0. `, 'h 0 Q ♦ VVV h O v o �? 2 r•o9Z7 ti o0 0 �, a Z D ti In "-- 1 1 3oo - 41,�oro 2 Zs,0°Zo 3q.Co �2 L D , h r �~ 0 LOT 3 �. c NBA �, 2,�, • - ,.a.,4 0;� z � ele O O OrA 244.48 • ,.,i-t3.39E ,BBB 3G'2icu ,42.4/ hi, P` ,vBB-3G-2/lu /9ab /30 4So 163 02 V h r i9 00 �� ,v/?3�9E Be•3B SS ru a 0 0 5.29-39-0YE / 23.3 9E ,+BeBe-36.2/t4 G99 V `� F ill 3/�.04 �� ".88-38-55 ccr • 407./5 !P1 / •f`f \ ` r • /5-9.88 por. 9. /S'0.87 /¢3-7bPor• /43.7t7 1 I • `r� - fl 1 REN SP 331 - 79 . W 8002269015 _� REN SP 330-79 '� �8002269014 o ` , • 15 ' �JU� T -PR•oPs1"'f 6 L s 2. off' LOT 3 0 8 IZ°� g�°� �,8 .LOT 4 O�Pc. . 56A 4' .,p a°.,s• ��pt v LOT 3,o blo LOTS ¢ 000 16,1 ,L 51 b t•�$ o' 25 tofo3 3 1f,D�-5l I500 d ,73 • 6 o O' p - \ _- a a¢ NBB- -�'�/ • /43.7t7 .'gg- 8.s w 1.4t5� - v .cross ' -- CN 3/3.53 — h 323t 7j ',Ns..,,t, pa :RE vTi v oRR 294 e• S.8O s '>o ZvB rp/y t , dot() a 4 o , F ems,,, 13t8.53 :r � N.. .-3 -01W. i - 1 _ 1 y- _ - W - "row Tool C ,TV (..#'I )/TS •`Oho •Oo N �T. • — ' • 1 - i . , T' - . 4.. - ,. __ : . ``' - PIING t. DIVISION . + 4 _ CITY F RENTON, • .. 4 �' - t r ''mil' rIr 1 8' '19881 -4 CERTIFICATION OF NOTIFICATION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS/SITE PLAN • • * * *FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY* * * • • PROJECT TITLE: • CEDAR VILLAGE APARTMENTS APPLICANT: QUALITY PACIFIC, INC. APPLICATION NUMBER: SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA-11O-88 The following is a list of adjacent property owners and their addresses. A notification of the pending site plan application shall be sent to these individuals as prescribed by Renton City Code, Chapter.7 Section 38 of Title IV (Building Regulations) of Ordinance No. 1628 relating to site plan approval. • ASSESSOR'S NAME ADDRESS PARCEL NUMBER. 1. Kinder Care Learning Center c/o Strategis 032305-9044 1566 Broadway; Suite 730 Denver, Colorado 80202 2. Dorothy Beale 4325 N.E. Sunset Blvd. 032305-9055 Renton, Washington 98056 3. Security Capital Rl. Estate 1290 Avenue of the Americas 345050-0005 (Honeydew Too Apartments) New York, NY 10104 4. Mildred M. Hazen 11235 - 137th Avenue S.E. 102305-9135 Renton, WA 98056 5. David Azose _ Morris Piha Management 149450-0050 Group, Inc. 12320 N.E. 8th, Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98005 6. David Azose. Morris Piha Management 149450-0010 Group, Inc. - 12320 N.E. 8th, Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98005 7. Thomas J. Dedonato 10257 N.E. 64th Street 032305-0948 Kirkland, WA 98033 PLANNING DIVISION - CDYOFRea "T. 1 8 19 rSh� :•.�� .. g 88 1-0) (E 11 Ile F �,M • • ASSESSOR'S NAME ADDRESS PARCEL NUMBER CERTIFICATION I. LISP`{ 1 . 60 N14, hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property owners and their addresses were taken from the records of the King County Assessor as prescribed by law. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me. a Notary Public, in and for State of Washington residing at nlTa on the )7tic day of Oct \ . ct SIGNED. CERTIFICATION OF MAILING I. Sar,41 ..t.. , hereby certify that notices of the public meeting on the subject site plan approval wee mailed on 1DeOo..101 tr 29.12:'S to each listed adjacent property owner as prescribed by law. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me. a Notary Public, the State of Washington residing„ � at lJ the 9 on — day of. ' /r e SIGNED:aaLa�1, i�..q.eJ►� _ f FORM 20B • PSOOAESS Pb\' • I. IS61E OIAfE r - _ w 4 •'CVn RM0i C[m�+u.eD ""_ Y /CEDAR r �„ FT • <;` VILLAGE, (fin I L.:.Dnere roams: • u vv • uJ u g 516N LI=NATION to, s LJ nnnn o F c e s . i e i . • C v,1 . i t Il"m f i - r • 94NRAF!MN.19> /> ' 4 . I I I W%'�� ./ NGN 7 GTA _ ( v ✓1 n 'PJL'G a r�br. nG �- ••• �`1L12S1P•ID co 53= O I o _ —��---�. ,00 I �( .:r.eNc vauu G=N.EhAL INFO: r.••+yJIT?Oo5 T.0 I.V.•' `pa / ' BLSJG-aTC I ,9J`vcY_ .Tv_0be, �-/ /,f,{D li: ` rr .,Y�+' Cp A•I �`I la( ce4n>': LAND.A::yr•= �.^_ •w 10 \IC�yy Y• % f "c 1 �� r _ �LDG f�'Z f _'+o•- f I .Z., M:1 • .._1 F r w�-`"8_ - % CL;.'_ �,O. p I F^�.oa 5' 'w i ILA _.ri Its ...c.;Dr��('.s _�~ E - /-'-faro Alf,,,`,, , +4p'� I_ 14 ?-uAj-oerNsl" _ _ _ �J-:•Ike 17 T>_•• � pb j� 111 • J^1CGh'^�bJ.L•tvi- .. Q :9 > / r 'I- I f I Mk.\\ I :: NII Z V �.:IM✓ �• J'.._ t Th— XF O d m• -�O �~ I I I I , c ^' l iJb` n I� hgen'^C.cS cu �•GN -'c l _' �1'-Dv+ to ( :ee-5.-., e=�_• _ 11 1yT , (n. ii _J >' Z.'- rer�vIPANG4 cf) 1 �_T9I IbJJ✓ K� t !1^ -mac_. _ ,_� '•t. �'.JJ 3 uN�FcreN � E� r' •i of ./ �. '�T .--T ivr,.. � �; e 1 i rt,..--,.\ ram.,rin re; •+�u.. _Q 1 -{ - =j/ 1 I I o, I I 1 i :clad vA�w.u. I I I 1 , \ cc`sz� •. ::-) ..r. m) .._`� V V 1 rye ---, n'm a- iD: D+-. 1�a_�„ vs e� ��ros y� .oca:u.e ta, r +T \ mow", nrN+.r's etlrer' i�� O_—c . NE I2., eTPlt=_LT Y. • y• fONCh 1d2 /"' T NaTu G . DC cD•$.D 1'E �}. H e( P°O� rn vr:vea 3 S v i • ^JJ•IffM"YJNPPB NI'1 DC 9Ake“-rp. v .1Dz rna wAler. ex.D1y'IJCL -Pc n•`I eC.+^J, ' Awc47?ru-.1,1.e - 070nr1 14,70I-, N'IJ.GE.MDTNNCIJ 04575 `c) AND'',.t7r_t.e.o INTO STCFM 1...7011, • DC,Nus ILCXTM-0 NM,MN 1.1152 fP01EC71C.- 52 • a1>£r NO. I COPN Wr©12 J01N NOF]SCN•-ASSOUCES P5.PC. PROGRESS . MDR i 135.1E ONE . -...- / CEDAR , -,- -..... . VILLAGE,,- ___- • " i r2 65 g ...t I73 . i : 0 _7 • . : • = p s) .. . : . 6.2 . . — ,T. • ! fan ,•, ... 7' . - ..L.,•,., ....••----....,,--; _•. . -.,,. .L. .., . . . ••• '--- — --'- :n•'-••-•4•4-.!•-•-=:--;._-t.:,-.•-•_ — —- ----,:- ,. '.'.,,.', , Ek .. -, -04....0: ...‘ . ,.r.-- . ; ., - •,- . -.. / ' -''',,„....\.„,......,,,,',.-,_.)/ • '` s -' :.-•7-:5',Xt.,•',.•:.:".:, • r03..' • __...,._ • •-r-----1_____r .,'-. I .,.-;' ...t..". I. ....., ... ---- .:-.. : y "...-_. .. 4.: r• • , — . - E • • --- r.i.i'..•I ' 0 -3 ' ..-f'.. •''! ,. 7 i.( ' .j...•. .town :I I .., "! n • ••— . t __ .--vi--)--...::::•-•Al, \ mo.,......„... 1 _.'. ..----- -:.. LI) ,_ „, •: _ ,1 i•tr..,7.1-, ,,,w, , r`...%.-":. E I'M , ' r....vp,,,,,,w, ,-14-0,,,,,,,D'7 1'''. 4 7--0 _ - .....,Ci.- • -- ;„-.i--•••-• ••• •-, _-_,--_,=:. -- 0„ •. ;-• , • ,-., ,•••••,--•=;r-- •'.t.,'7. r.:,-_,'•-- ',..177:\7•:'-,,,,,'",.-..'-',...,-_;',“.---....1 A c7:---------Th.r.!..,I.70 ----7----C,L-',.120_±.J 5..-I )("ri ,1 ' ''''''", X... `0,'...S....-.r-4.—. 010'MGM k-ri i ._,. " 1:,"- - -'''' ' --r•• :-.'.l'-•,,F.X .. ..-.1:.1 i' ( --.••-••::-,-,_-_.•...,- -;,.. j •.. -,-...:•-a-z,•-L„-,.. ......:.-_, L_r ..--_,_;__ __.... ....5.4 5......... I-- ' , C.-,,, . e:fS,,-( i 1 ' -13 ...-- : i N''' I; ' .'. ,',,L,,, - • i - -!•_t •:-__ ..: Ou ...,- .. ..6......• ...i• NE. 12.-". 5-7-)Le.T :- = .N-‘..:-'_•,-- /TE- n_A.,.., ..--- w•...„,,_.,:., .OGA.L.E. I=70 0 LITILIIIL9 .0,0,4-'I1....7.1•410.E. I..,--5,,M.-4•1=-,--. 70 .6.-- _ OA14,4,1 et...t. d • -ras-oe e.,, ,,..7...- -- ;4... !le.1.-0 • t- AND PIST....1,1,Irfr. --.^^. ...-T.: • .,..1.11 LOC..-fr-C P.ICAF r-q-....r..1 PRO.ECT,.. (2)216 "'SRZET 10 , I ROPRIOR(g)12 JOIN AKERSON APO ASSES P.S.INC. • s s • • PROGRESS el-a, ' ' ' PRINT ISSUE DATE 2'C•.r, rr,,,„ GLUC i mwCLPD _ NRTunPtlL fiNl✓ ne e l CEDAR of- 5u � �`'� VILLAGE: 5reN P1-YATION W o a IPAJ y 1 6 1 p CI ■ G € D. 6 p e V • ▪ OF g z g • o• Q g • bib OVI 9b PAT • I W NN 8'NRAI.T 10.952 NCLJ D F3AlC I✓dD y'. • ' L A. -_r_ _ - 31904' ._.II h FEN_C a o•Ci, LING .TELXHONE Si -cB 932 CI _ O✓x' ' /�• - ——.-- �— _- �� Pe oe ( TCILPIiONC YAU4 ��-m /'— —__ ^\ p •w;r„v rE9 GENFIIAL INFO: I �.-/��� F' L 10�4 Cr M-NiO�Y gCiiT PV•T NO.'�19-'19. pa ��Ly� L.J I Or 9UhrwCl 5 MCC 2PS,14NG COUNTYASH. 3�.g '. �a ` V M,�" My.p�.a BLCG Al �I T]< coIsag LAND I.ve Dlsrnlcr n-a 'A °j /I i t� ditO' I PP . `iyl -.b�(i!�-Z Fr-I.,-4oa.•3' I I�JY -• LOT MCA 4,,92.9 29 ri 1-- (P' .//. 1 Fr 90'.5'NI 1 • �(---I Lne C a/ ) 9e4cbJN•L (E) yalJ22a, /off</i wws I_is S nuOw4ete Da•HIn 2YPC ne 25 UNITS ®_ /ty /// !! - iu I ACTUAL.DENSITY 25 UNITS 211D ,' • �'1 J _ II/e• ILI y�f 7rfc or 4. TILDIN$0 v IHn ® I- I \ w I 2 N-IN CP unirr N(�i 5 Q IN ` I I/�My NUMDD i UNITS8I31b •\/ at L'P•I�My� P • .' I. •. /--.--.1' r\ • .• •Y��I-. k 1 5 - V61 V I • 1 1 ttK 'G' 12 11 7 II '-`_'�`J.J AYE( WLDN6 A1LA CWL-IDIN GCCr9,65NTnIeS) V a f ACT I )1—' l— � I C. I I II I • I n •(- won MCiLF TbfP� 25 1qy-n z 31T 4�PO I Ce S�ID'P `a r T ' b) P,nK a bgV 81W DLO,'Pl (((29TT0 IIts,5,.YJ9PJYT) 5255901r / V GJ CLO6'C• (29'2.IBeG.9en CRT) asr5901, J 2 O (1j I//ON, I wp/ Imo- - .t"•- + `-qp'a f- TOTAL T9,950PT .1=D CHNN �N[I4'4 .1? / i PCPr, tor2S,`+ F,IJNM FGCP ♦ 4 'PW'Wii.T CTfP) P^ PAflniW - • \•^ / O /I 4' 61LAG ON 1 riLThEDD Ix32uNIT 44 J O `\J ,o a-- 6.t to G� .� S�Ta+o�vw�Ccwaen rnee) e3 CCi)x) '`�'°`'`� rr \ CB•'.a28 TOTAL 44 U C N O I j D ('')a"Cic, f I I�� I I •.if.c aExs 4x \_._ � ti 1 . I - S � '.ICE - 0- BTD '-1M 4OJ 901 9b1 •fDM1 3Fis7' ���5_�U�e N 1„+C 9a. r-a4,�r I m-P..L mHr 8eewen rr \ �TCLerxowe — NE CE b2L.STP)ff�T -' )/ ) 5 HGL5 1.----Co vrnTicwL 2 \�_-- ./n PT 1 CUne c 6tflfeh J —*/ rowrh Rxg • ? El, EV_. CE•E15 v5 ot 6lTE FLAht o\ NAlCh YA{YC5 S -1�.S.ALG. 1•.20.0' IIi1L TICO - -I 5HI17MY.CbJCF6 1.10.1-Ee.CNNEG2O to nH 1E0- (l f 96N •USU_ ... uJ J-,EN TO TSU nwve use.rM-r PIN . "r*: I- -SloM7 N^TCA WILL te.1. -INE�D 0555E • CCW[h l INNGhN♦4 , PRD.CCT NO 1 82Ib ..- • 'slur ND. cUPPRnrt Ole JOIN AmERsw AW ASSOC/DES PS.pa • PROGRESS . , PRINT ISSUE DATE • iSii` vU • • I- I KC • . y 4 a I� s e o ; - •€ z• • o © . z - 0 in o• Q S ABELIA•CMNDIFLORA� 31-PNDTIN IA ERA 5ER1 LIJ 5 ���/ T SIJ pKING ASPEN' • n • . !, ` '.0-LAUREL ZA BE IIRNA OI) +M_.)AyPO_707011}'O�Q�aK--�• I���«7� �� �±SP _ �o - -_-LEAVE EXISTING IVY 11-RHODSBEN BRIM JEAN MARIE i ` __ 1 `_ q i , 13-Kw*MORON UNIQUE �� OO�Wr ` ��`- ' ��—`- AND-Pqc NiSq NOM', .LTWN -j' 888 �� �OO�OP HWN 5-RNODDDE ND lib DI NEAN MRI! 7 ID-SKIMMIA JAP. ; / IS-R ZALIA RDS EBVD �2 AZALEA ROSEBUD =='�'_Y` ID-VIBURNUM DAYIDI '�'RNDQFNORDN 9-RNODeDEN00N UNlqu4 I0 w',3'A BIES I-WOCARPA O B-flNODDDENORON JEAN Mfl NE r S-RNODDDEHORDN UNIQUE ` f 4 f, �. SSS.. UNIQUE 1-ARIFS LASIDCARPA • 1 r ' SD-PACHTSAMD ' ' 60.6 NOVA. 15-AZALEA ROSEBUD 3 ASIc MAPLE SIOCARPA IO AZALEA ROSEBUD • ! 3-PiLUNVs THUNDERCCO VD rll�.De.-,— •,+� VINE AWL E ei_ VINF MAPL• (8y �. _��1�� S.NANDINfl I• Q��25-VIBU RN UM DR DI Ye�fIPA�,{ l"' LLI S Y! IL ittEi•e-eo7.. • �it QA.^_' - - G�,B 7N 3.. . aS_ l3 E :tica J.- „5- � � ; Q_ b-RNDBD DE NBRDN JEAN MARIE . D' '- w� I to gLALEfl .� 0•1�LA WN_ IS•NRHDINp D`ES` _ ' -TS-PA[NTSANBAA` di r LAWN:ppp RPSEBUD I�s I 1-.-.__.,;.-. Si - ON1gLER:NIHO C. •'. �,/I•-"LAWN .' 16-RUDDDDENDRON JK - �J rs-PALNT IPA .. ID-ASELIA CRANDI FLORA Q' / S-RII SODENERSN I I I L • UNIQUE I =---, N 5 4 /O �AWNI _ d-QUAKING ASPEN -'• 1--�\1 J i' ` _ - +y3-VIBURNUM USAIDI 31-VIBURNUM DAVIN) y Q 8'>,-61'` r 2 3 UAKING ASPEN i •. �\ p LAWN" 1 .ems I —I—.— Q ,_-__iii �— NI �' �'f �j • +�_: ,)- - it -T-- y' -� I''.,,1 �.I I I E'?'' IS-JUNIPER TAM \ (���-1( 'a IT-PNATIN IA CR ASERI _ '_ _- -' /^�l1p�� p��� saga 1-PRUNUS TNUNDERCLOU6-=-- ---.:_ - ������ "� QI' L,. -y A/ 't'•y',' 4-RHODODENDRON JEAN MARIE 9-NgNDINq -- pNIIIW -*MI*. ----" _ -log01110' _ • • \t 5-PA[NYSANURA U-RNODDDE.NDRON JEAN MARIE 2.OUAKING ASPEN 29-PHDTINIR FRESER1 so's NE Zt� rJTI�CeT NOTES -' r ._ _.. __ d I.ALL BED AREAS TO HAVE W.TOPSOILMIX ASSES (..\___ J 2.LAWN AREAS TO BE SASSES ON 2'.TOPSOIL MIX BASE WITH PREMIUM SOD. 6. 7..-7.., 3 ALL TREES ANS'HALMS TO BE PLANTED IN PLANT POCKETS TWICE THE WIDTH d AND IPA-TIMES THE DEPTH OF THE PLANT BALL-BACKFILL WITH TOPSAIL MIY. :": ja."\'/'1 p_ '1-.FERTILIZE WITH PLANT TABLETS IN PLANT HOLES A PER MANUFACTARS RECOMMENDATION- 5. PRE-EMERGENCE WEED CONTROL TO BE APPLIES.AS PER MANULACTORS RECOMMENDATION ' OD P.ALL TREES TA BE STAKES OR GUVES e • , Z ALL SEE AREAS TA BG FINISH RAKES ANS MULCHES WITH R'FINE SARK FINISH RAKES IN PLACE. 7. 4, 5 8.ALL PLANTINGS TB OE GUARANTEES ONE GROWING SEASON. . 1 , ?,~ ,.. E1 r .. R PROJECT PC '.,. 821b ,vt 3• COT©IS JOIN AIDERSON AN A....MS A..VES P.O.D C. - 1 ' PYRKRN • gqg E m O g . g i i g N I I 1 I \ - r 1 \ 1---I I ! \ \ --, Li 1 I I 1i1 \ \ _ ) - ?; _. tie\ .-- I -1 I , j--,' M ', \V s1, I�i +' \\ \ {I` ANACO 6 AN., G N _—� I \ \ x \ . Y R Are \\ • . .�rt�• ... OIIb.1L YEN —�tin fifi .},. g CA A..L�AC�NT F-,OPEXITIE. 0LIALJTi' FAGIFIIC. DATE JOHN IINOEASON AND ASSOCIATES PS. INC. N (JITE FLAN CE.DP3) VILLPGG APAf77MtN-r 9GAL.E... IL 100.01 IOAWO It EN • B•Ilrvu..WOEinpbn MBE • ROW 4.54XAB im I 1 I F F • I I . I 1 \ _ ip ; H 1i . i ill , \ , gi 141 . , , . \\ , . .,\ ) III ' H ...., z.V..,/, — / , \„.\. L i 1 ./4„,...., ,--1 I I �I AIiI u... \ ,- \ 1_ , � . . � 1 \ 1 I ,\ 11111111 1 - b' \\ 0 .7uul r \ - -1 __ 1 ) _ GNNLL AYEN 1, (j1 PLAG�IJT'PfiOpE/.171ES Q ALTY PAGIFIIG DATE JOHN ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES PS. INC. v.zrzn N"") N '✓,TE PLAN CEDAPi VILLPGE APAhTMENTS w-2,vi:&b A l © n n B 4 E © 7 S p�b o'zree lnf SALE;-IL 100:01 ,Ol1.'NA=Alt.:6.TO KEA LE kb • WYwI•otlgY— Qom'*MID !'i i,1; 1 A ro 1 . 1 Illiniril 1 1 A • !! • 1- . .• IFTINFITTIMMITIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITI.1 In-TPI D F > MM - - n now 5 TI ILl111• . .. - • II ' IIII I I - I L• • , . . •1 i,_, 11 I, ,,,, I lif ii 11 . I ----I-1111111W 11E11 I- F,-1.. _..1=-: yIMMM1110101 IIIII En • 1....1 • NENE I L Iiiiil U 'I ,Il 11 1 ir \ in. , muummuniiiiiiiii, • • . . . i ( li tii tramt 4 1111 1.1 .--,6 i-,'1:'.7;...:,-:'`,,,7;..'..: -ctC•.•-.o';"--:-:"i.'••• -;':,;,'....5,.'"--.:--.:5•.1--.,4.'.-'1.,'.'!..!•:'•.:.•\",-:..'q.5-', 4:'..:1•!•4•1"i.'l•11,1 1'1.J 11i111n11n11[i1 1ff1111 ,i F._t oF_ts_ HiIIiilIMi11m1il IIIl; I ri . . fx.4) • , :,,,. .L. 1 1 a --- -- t- 11 Tiliflulil ' 1111 II .g. 2 0 II Hill!!! 1 . q ,,.IMO '% 11 7:;:74.?/:-. •4;_`...::.' • '. g El Ill ....- -;.r......; t.--$4 L , i , C=Ettg. . '...... 1 1 1 r91 ,:_,....,.. • • , .. ....,.____, _ . ,,,,_, , ....st .. _,..4 ffi dm. 1 ill _.< ... , , . it_. ,„,.,...„ ...›, .. . ,0,..._. 1-7 — Elf i' —"TIIII1151,... . 1142=3 IIIMEIT= .........-...t..:. •.4„ • I i !. H 1 - - '' • '1-3'4 11 I =EMI wiumim MIT.1-=1. .'' c 11111111111 .di It111411 ilii •-•19 iii 1,11111[1111Pu: iiimini , k 1 ig 1,'. I --t-5 1 EE133 =ik 1 1 IIIIT 111: . PE- MN IMEME F' 6-< --1 • . -::- • Iii. I Era___IEEEir ; 0 . . _ z. ,, • ii i _ . •,, =ILE. . z ,,„.., / IDUILDIN.C.,A-I C4 2 EJ-EYATION5 QUALITY PACIFIG. DATE JOHN ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES PS, INC. GE.DAP-1 VILLAGE PrAMTMEN-15 e1-2.9-PG G\ NCHILTIEC7S 'A5 . ICO20 ELlan • Ulm.Vinhington Mil • psi 4543)98 9C.A.I_E.Pb inu:ACATES2 P,r..,41-01.1,v../A_A-t11.. ,J ' D� 0 • • 1 o''l z4.‘.." ._____ .-._. i 7o '1 1. N • 31 o_' D g -I'd 4_ I' T - nnlrrnnulfrlmrmrmmm_ N • .7,1-' ,IIIII�I�I,IIIII I I®[ l=l o °z r` I IUI I IIIIIIInI ...' , 1111ui { III III I I. II '1 111111111 Il ' U... i:� t,,,.,., U... .... I I' i lug: �f m I I ' ox�mu I %�` h; '~• 1111111111 II i IIII III I[IT 11 J . ••Y T.1s. 1 I� aL_ Ea 0 • I-I; .• 1111 IIII ! . tI�II,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, p,III,IIIIII,IIIIIII,I� B B ,I : I 1 1 IIII IIIII MI11111111 IIIIIIIIIII - ',� - " ;ice ...■ ..■■ .. U... I.... 1..■. ','_ I r r'1IIII-� n I II IIIII''nm1%�n jiiui�nmiME =iu-ili q�I _{ .t Nl... ...•' ...• III' 2 II (IIIII' 10 1 =TER _2 II�IIIIII 11HIIUI��I�InI�nnI11,II!Uiul - - I,, 1 L I —r II„((IIIII-. _< �r,ul i.n�.o� .■■■ ■■■ .NW 39 13 Ei p I....I ■...,; .... 3 - z l l ii l U... ss .. 111111110III I� III 1mmlhl__ uIImlIIII m°III n mm, L- 1: oB... 'MIMI ■.■■'1 .... !...■ 1■......, ■■■■ - . rI I iW I — II, riIIIIIIII_ rIIIIm_ IllmII P. r 11111 ,Ilan 'I 0 IF r N G II3 I ii ii3 Illlmlll nlllllllll I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�''II \ — —" (--9 i Num rwumw�0mmj I 1 Illnll \ 9= iiii ::II' rl iiii ! OMEN I _ jjj � I 'IAll1111111111111111 I I— 1 II IIIli ,I I (I 1 I ill— II 1 1 1 11 0 III MI *U.. link F I®L E r 1 _ I llll�ll . 1 111. ._..1 .. . _uiI 1Minli 11. • 1 ' u O o_ DI C ul 01 bUILDI1,16 C-I E12 FI FVATIOtyt QUALITY Pt-CIPIC DATE JOHN ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES PS, INC. CEDAh VILLAS APAPiTMENT3 to ay:e6 3cl.1.E !�S INDICATtJI P.F.-(TON, WIVI1II IGTbK IOBiO NE BM • Mims.WMNpbe WVDM W i Q { 41i , I • r F I. � fn G g Lei Y tin i . h u i Qg i la ;L I" .1_. '11 !l I'''!illluri iun,ulu;,,llr.iinu.umi > I 1 I 1 ' � I=-1[2:Ei! = =-1C 1 1, o z 1 I f111 (�_ I� --1N 1 'III_ IIIJIl llll lllllf l I—I�I iflfi, Ii I:• I]II Illili. 1 ll!!;11:I lil I i'I!" ,1,;111111� ,II.•I,;l . I IIIi ' ., .I: ;I i • ---:1 li 1 - ! 1�11 ill 1' ;1 'i ;' !i,�1 Iill. '1 11 , �1 ' r A 1 pI J�1-~�1 l 1 I. , , O - I "11TTiiil 1 ji".71Ti1�'�, 'ii�il'�il El A .--) -LI - •. 1 .:Iv E' II . a ;I II I. ' ' ii IIII: IIi IIil;L orn i II IIIIITl'IIII!II'IIIIIIIIIII!II,IIIIIIII IVII ' a \• • - I1 �111I ! i t N • � 1ii 1 I + - �i: lll` i I I .II. .I — ! �I L ' �s IT _o� I II I1 I ` ? [ E Co I �II Z ` gZ 1 I i' „ I ' � 1! 8 9 li_�LI I1i _' 1 11 i'i - : . . IiI!II II II it ' LIll; l'----- L- 1_ . sn..11 ,I 11 . . >�1L I :� L <1-pail 11II I 11[ _.';'I !1.1 11 z€ I- � ,j1Ii1 , ,I • ,L3i 1 ' , �, F' - gj I-- I i111' '...I' :e-1'II1111 it N'I IIIII'Iill I E =.• - j 'V I I I wir.i.• I IOIINIIIIm1IOG 1 i 1 :---1---!.. ,I ' II. [ :!H 1!I : I: : , ,.-, 1 2 , I ¢�s't I Lhmm�wN I I I Un,1„„:,7 IT 1 I: ,':I l'. 1 ! 11'I ,111f11 Di�n 1.17 r „ 1911lllfll111-_ tirrli.- 1 , N. qp • 1 i n n_ I .e LLIILDII.16 C..I,,,L I I I v,'rIrJFI:, !7L1,•Lg( t%''I I( DATE 1 CA - JOHN ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES- PS. INC. . /". "'o'c/•r'v I'u 1, 1 r i -Tr'l IOE70 A!.Mn i.i• ..ManIMYn 114W DM dnE • • PROGRESS AR AN ISSUE DATE • • J ` LT V V _ '�I• — a • L • • . I▪ II�II�IIILL • • H D. ` D ` y 0 0 ■ . Z o ///��1 II1��� • C v • t• O g Z •E'ABELIACRANDIPLDKA, • 01-PNDTIN IA ERRSE RI —� ���� T-OV gKIHG qSP Ed' .t�•- :C-LAUREL zADELIAMA 'Del) • JGp�p1:17OA1-•. ..41Ik Mk. - _�_ _ • :All!'warrant AMR"•_• � _LEAVE EXISTING IVY II•RNob DOENDRDN JEANNIIRIF .—air*" ai v 4�, r!-FMDDDD,�D0.0N MODE . ` �—_ p 5•RNODDDENDRpN OEM..MARIL ANDM LAWN �4 �p AWN OP - . ,1 'ID-SNINNIA JAP ,T�yNr ;/ IE-A ZA LFA ADSE6VD I `D• i, •-Axe.....N 1 AIAL[A FISF EVD �I ID-VIDV0.LVM pAYID1 !•nnDDDD1 MOON UNI `� �1 � • �:'A61Ep LA5I ICARPA 6-flNODOD[NokON • JEAN MANE TYL � I A•ANDMENORDN UNIQUE o/ YNIpUC J'ARIfJ IASIDCARGA •YI J 9 SD-M[Xf}AAS I`.-AUP,CA nC5f 6VD 3-VINE MAPLE 3.RANDOM ID-Atgt[A Re5E6UD III ree WII�.\ �•1 _ - ;-ARIL LA510LARP �•1 ' 3-N UNVr 1NvnDERCLOup JIFF APRS a[1AFL is 11( �'�1' I ' • 25-V®VIVIUM DAWd �1 ,'•Q • f 6 A4. Np DD DE NDADN •SEAx MAAIFf ,yl � VII -- me t�o0o7! Kcpnt J • -di 4. VrQ' N ALALEA � . ALA WN� LA • `_ `� : 1.DA WBu ip DS•NRNOINA ODMES TICA \LAWN RDSEOUD �y • T6-PA[IRSAYDM E'ALRL[F KIN C. •• LAWN IKCI - /; L-RxoppeEMD bI5 JM. & 1 • •i d -)di ID-ABELIA CFANDIPLORA Q E-ANDEOPENORDN /3 .- L �. UNIQUE ill 8 `EWN I-quARING ASPEN J _ • TS-VIBURM UM EAYI pI 32-yl6URNUM pqy 1p1J r •A• • �Yri. .7 LAWN • --' �_ _.. '_C L'A WING ASPEN _ _ _ I I.•{(1 7 �i4. ''''\\ I A .J J� :L - � IS•__NG�PEF TAMI 1 d '(• saa /�` PAUNy3 THUNDERCLOUD-'•---•----.._ I--DNpTIN IA TRASCRI • _ • . -7 - '_ — a -_ �'D =��. ;tit -+ A_gNODCDENpRON JEAN MAAIE _--- 9•NgNe1NA _ ,A0 / ^^^'�Paa� 'NW ` -DS • .- At N. Iz' sT°;c_r t S•PgCNYSAYpRA Y-RNDDPDENDRDN JEAN IUi RIF 2-QUAKING ASPEN 19-PXDTIN IA igA5E R1 II • NOTES r ' 1 - 7 ALL BEE AREAS TO HAVE N^TOPSOILMIX ADDED // ��-- �— I p 2. I 2.LAWN AREAS TO 15E SODDED ON 2..TOPSOIL-MIX ERSE WITH PREMIUM 501, `I B ALL TREES ANC.SHRUBS'fa BE PLANTED IN PLANT POCKETS TWICE THE WID7N - El AND Irv."TIMES THE DEPTH 6F THE OLANT BALL-BACKFILL WITH TOPSOIL PAIR. • - • i= .L._ V•� V- 1.FERTILIZE WITH PLANT TABLETS IN PLANT HOLES AS DER MANUFACTORS RECO HMENDATION • ' C 5. PRE-EMERGANCE WELD CONTROL TO EL APPLIED AL PER MANULACTORS RECDA116ENDATION 1 B.ALL TREES TD BE STAPLE OR COVEN - • 7. ALL EEL AREAS TO BE PINISH RAKED AND MULCHED WITH 2-FINE BORE PINICH FARED IN PLACE. • ' ' y. 8.ALL PLANTINGS 'CO WE GVRRAIIT EEO ONE GROWING SEASON. - • Ja • `.'-' n RID.ECiM0. • • SIHT NO. j_ COPY IT©IA ,q WI ArfIEASONAIMA As`' S P.S.NG. I • a r • PROGRESS - • 5_ J ' PENT yy-i- - -- ISSUE DATE •y`Ff ', -'- ' =,21p4""...ti-,__?,-.,,�e. / CEDAR ,,� 9u, �-`—, " VILLAGES __ _ -- _ �70,rs,''-`' E-- ___ _ I I . I a 1 N nnI= N 11 u 1 • O _, 5 C g Z: s 0 s ▪ Q_ I 02 "" - 1 I W Nr� /_ _ __ s J= . - _ , Etre _ •ti -------I --.ter —_ , - _ .,- 'g 4-O_ r -_ _ cD =—'-cam'a-'c.,•,_ "- I.. _ L7Y _ 9'' /o l/: j r.`,-d; x:= bLLG l �` LF _c4 a x = - 4i. rT _ bLL_T:,-� - r� r-':�-� ,1-9N^- 1- 3/5 - - — PL 3 S . Q j {n L _�' �. Cis ' ;�'�"`�' � �d_ T•.t � `w AL', - 1 ::ate J . rt:( uu_i?✓-erv-r ,r__ c ac•- p Z JL�7 C C ,[L--- 19 90 F 4 A^ _ -ye:, _-- .I,' lu er.;,, =_r 5, �-5_er U FGY£ _- YsnD LK„-.TCTY5,02____ j-4 4 __ `` _ _ _r� I` rE .311 a°I _-_-D. _ J'�"-___-`\K�s 4,04 e� ear-Hier�e 1a.`_ ,--- ' �_[c'�^v_�U<_ "M y• wF�, r�,, p NE 12 SThl=e_T H, z \\- / [�.,-`tint,:GlfifPh 0] �/ F'>weh P.--C ( ram- OO 9-TM Qe— - -- --CE*blS 517E o r-- - H men rnlves s• o,.._ 1�w o1 6 IJiILITIGO' z.1 .'PNITW,Y�=2Y40116 WILL.E[..�XNNPLiED • : HIHT A no 0 J19uww rnu`rC—_ ___--_ _ _N N T 60+, I•MIPCt]'T* ,,,,EN... r,0T NeP ON Ore • yTG HI 1.1E1t w�LL. AND METOU-7 IN NJ N.152 SCH Ch lard NEON MH•952 PP10ECf N0. 82 I6 T NO. • I OOPYPoOIT©to JO*: ASSOCIATESC LEDSON MO ASSOCIATES PS,P . ' ' ' ..,, , . .,-., . m g. i . -;;:,! • ; . . . I Mir*1 ... '4. 1 •,ti '4. g . • \ , 1. 11111r1111i1M1111111111111111111 i:o I lit; . o Lin-f---H IELETV 3p ig 7.0 • Q.< F . > I !! . 0--1 am' 141-Eli , I:'14 i , . 1 i1,111M11111111111111111ETTIITIMP. , ,, ' 41/ J . . . .. . . MIMI L . 1 . , 1.1 . . ! 1 IMMO .! . 11:1111167110= , ..1i .1 I 1.31111511r1j.--11 I I I . , . •:i I„I 1 III ! • , 1 LI i i 'Fr I . 1------- 1--- , 1 _ , ,_, ,•:, L , = U— •! • i . , 9 III - I :i t.., I 1 1111111' IIIIIIIIIII fl-- . . . .i ,.: • ,... .. A`TT-T7F1 UM] • . .; ..........,•,... • .---- C „.... .. ___ II _ ---- . ., 1.1_ i_l q6 i • _ 7 r' ',r --- . 1 R .1._ .,., ,,, - ::- '-' .--'•, IILIIII:IIIIIIIFI EIT 'If'. ... ! 26 IlL111111 1 11 HI ! )' I • .ry .s •t•'. ':'.. .:—.1.` •. ' ..• ii ..ur.,,.. .Eni,o7_, 2.211361110m2 8 F_ ,—_ ,.., .. .• -:t. ,1--- -, i ----- c, i z ••_, I_ ,,, ....., ... ., , , _,....... ... ,• • .,.. muzga j =a= P J L _ . ...---: ) , • iiiiiilil . 11 •.. ;, .....f . ,?.,.• - ,', • (.:•:-1- ..... '. ITT I E — • ! 1) f",',0 0 .,.:', t•-•,r . , ..--- Id i 1 ---iw„,a a.-----, ,::-..-.i •• ' i 4311 1.. i•Allilfrigi . ..... 1._._. ;f"1:1 i. iiii- ''''''... . III Elifilil H L , . -- '•,: .::, , ..),I , , .1 I 1. —0 - - 1 .„i IP, • tag c:z . j--i lifull n: --II iiiim 11101.¢1Mpl ...----„•, •I I' I I , • '9..51i i I OT1=10113 i 1 1 1 emu I.,. Ili___111 ----ri-r---7....10. 1111,-.111ii 'I. I IlIlllIIi1 r • 1IFIT7fIrlifill FIT-71[11M ' • • _ Eli imil ,., _ii.„ . . .. ,, , , , . . - - - - /: - 0 z . , 1 , , • . . ... autitim., _IN in i • zo'-';',.. ______ , , J . ., . . . . . 1 1 g WILDING A-ie.,a P I TY/SIC:Mt 0,1_1/•LIrT FACI ff IC DATE JOHN ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES PS. INC. • 2.„zi.C.t DkJ`) YILL-1,Gt PPAhTMEN-1.5 APCHB7EC78 A:ID 11q01(...Al EL, • 10620 11 t.Pt • tarn(1182111,41•8 MI • 12061 ISOM . • , . . .. • • . . • 1 .r . ill E : . • , , , . . i @ I i 1 1. g 1.1 6 . . ..t, • . . .. . . _ •, • 4]. —I \ 1 • 1 1I ' 11 a- .._, -__ - A I e.,.1 \ \ • , 1 1 ,\ [ 4 — [ — = 1 1 CA ; • 1 I 1 • , I. .__. ..___. . , 1 1 n•Rxt. 1 1\ 1 . . L 14, I I 1 • IMISMILIII , . , .U11111rini • '''' Wjg ' ANA F1.-- G., Al L.- '\ 1 \ . i 1 ,\ I , 1 • \ 1 ; 1---k g • \ 1 1 111111f ' \ Al•-- :1. . . I • • . I . . ' . OME if./..1.6-.L;I.-1(3,.i t'i f.0 EA-if"rc...-.) ?..1.(3.L..rlyi1C,IFFI.ic..Ar frir rie N.75 JOHN ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES PS. INC. 1-21••ed 6 5 PCHOVIECTS 6 . ,om it 1. • Went WetliVel inI • QM<3.110111 ..'. . ‘..,AI-E.. li=100.01 % • . . ,