Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA96-010
CH JY OF RENTON ..LL ' \ Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner',Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator CITY CLERK(2) CITY OF RENTON June 18, 1997 JUN 2 41997 RECEVED CITY C ERKI S OFFICE SUBJECT: ADDRESS CHANGE AT : ORCHARDS SECTOR E & F TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please see the attached plat map and note the following address corrections: OLD NEW LOT # 563 Chelan Ct NE 4605 NE 5th Ct 58 567 Chelan Ct NE 4603 NE 5th Ct 59 555 Chelan Ct NE 4606 NE 5th PI 56 559 Chelan Ct NE 4610 NE 5th PI 57 These are model homes being built in a new plat that isn't recorded yet so these addresses may not be in your system yet. Sincerely, 67)1-/(4 Jan Conklin Development Services Representative Development Services Division Telephone: 277-6176 #1 :utilltr 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 `RI . i7" .1 .v-. .... c, L. • ' l i N�•eb'D1yj - ..�. !/�''' TR4CT C a'EN' 0.S� ft.+eosm •` NE 6TN STREET -_ .. — t 97d i: _ p R. 30' a; I '�.I ^ 'rp 1.. 1 // l' t`7.� I •Ibm 5a sa s;, 0 �'. a, r i. 1 �( `V`y� I tj, i u • I M1 yn ^ •.19 1 ]i 1 I`I' , 1 24 i [3 < A .�"� I '1, ��""✓✓� u • r I 3A 1/- 1':a` _ I �- r 1Q !! L_ .r - .r .as:.` � 3 a 1 :3e•2.' I a2 a . J. ; �• r�\ �� 5 a + / !6 J IIR' / 96 •• , cl 1 n I7� � r o c 31 1 � 1l3f.Iko ,i li I v I 3.56• -tr b� i r--- I. Il 1 y 3:.5' • [ r 35',.l I I . 1 n I 3 I — -- 1 Is.___,,--_ �I 'm I Is � b �'i I I • ` ]e f 4 - I 6 I I— i 1 3650.f1� ,1 ,� PARK ., I 58 „ ! I -5p -,]---11 5 I •__ 3b5a 3656.r 1 n ,'1'�1 p �-f1 • II p ! 2. a 3` C \N OPEN SPACE /-(} yI } I ! f �-- e p l ��Y .. I -1i ��l'{9.1.l i `/ j �l', 11 I-__'�C I_�; d 1 )e, '- ': "!1 Li \\\� m 36rj5=so 1im I 3J65b. r 1 !!0:.f /y ; (1 „1 ' n I 34 �?-3 ) I —', L- -� I 0 I r V _I I ' R --- 11 I' 3 9.r ! _6.7 '. 1 1 11 1. 1 t' 6b /� \ L-lp- it r . I 3i 7.r I ------ 3 C I r_ iii L- np n.I 36 (� l LI, , irrr1I 3' l a l IJ r Q ^I alis L. ] S4a`�- t1 ,-_ , f_ _7__ -r I• � __--_e,__ r____- I Ir, �I I 3'I I ` _o-- i iu i ! 3657.r I 2 V ..1 I r•_-S,t I I� `,•r(/�,7 _ P..H_r L�LE, .1 1 . V 'l I ,Qi I 14 `U Z I✓_,3- - 1- r-�-...7 r-31•� r _ 31 ________ _ lJ I". 3:^.sr n I 1 1907.f `ly I._ _. _I ]e I I •• I I I I . 1 r� _.I J . N I ..r-- -- - Tv I T'i71 I �i I 38 I _ 1 , , I I 1 I I .I I I I O. "O'4a- - -1 !' .e I �IT . Q i 5 I i' I t I I I I 1" 7:: .: �,I 13 t, i139 u14mo14: c14Y 43c1 44 �. _ _ k1 �H'1 • I ) ., ]7 13' ;3.', 3771./J I])59 I r L-,]- 4 1'�; -1 tk`� tj7 p '�\(��,1(1 t'`x` \� 1 Ir. I-- -- a, 112 I 3 j \ ��` I i �1 I�(Pl61 I �ki I��c�� D�1, I +:5:.. J65:sr . I 3o 57. 'I ' s. I 1 1 8 G 10 I al 11 ' ,_ I 1 3bS:. :05:• i I 365:.r 'I 1 .ov . ' a..5:. . ... . a+0c8.r I 50 1 ii53. N69'01'15'W t SD -_ `'0 1 !: r S G ORSE $ F 1././//'! EJ1QT" reNMENII4 r, o / ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION , PROJECT NAME: THE ORCHARDS,SECTORS E,F 6 G PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-96.010,SA,PP,ECF Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE end consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments end commercial use, under the current proposal,Sector's FJF would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes,which would orient toward a small private park. Public • streets and alleys would serve the homes,with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved • for apartments.The applicant proposes to develop 57 attached townhomes,each on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced,enlarged and restored as part of an approved wetland mitigation plan.Location:Duvall Ave NE&NE 6th St • - - THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE(ERC)HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. IXXXI YOU MAY COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM ON JULY 22,1998 OR APPEAL THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM,JULY 22,1996. THE COMMENT AND APPEAL PERIODS WILL RUN CONCURRENTLY. ,,.... 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 JULY 23,1996 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE SITE APPROVAL AND PRELIMINARY PLAT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED,THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. ----- ---- - -• - - •-- u iriJiME 1111 m rNE 4-tr St fl11■ III ■i iM■■■ ■■■■i. .mm.... • FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT 235-2550. - DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please Include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file Identification. " CERTIFICATION • I, SC`' u)& tYCY1 , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document . were posted b me in 5 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on (4t C2 l9q.fv • Signed:SU/GILA (1 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) • certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ,Tr ' Gd41 signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free -nd voluntary''a0f 31 e,;uses • and purposes mentioned in the instrument. 4° .;• �.a 06 c Dated: 7/5jt Iu J/. , ArA • i_ _ _• �Notary P :tic in a • for the State cif.WA krlr . " Notary (Print) iK41 /r!` ! : , My appointment expires: skim ,,,,._I NOTARY,DOC No_ fl . _, ) . ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: THE ORCHARDS,SECTORS E,F&G PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes,which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 57 attached townhomes,each on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of an approved wetland mitigation plan. Location:Duvall Ave NE&NE 6th St THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. XXX YOU MAY COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM ON JULY 22, 1996 OR APPEAL THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM, JULY 22, 1996. THE COMMENT AND APPEAL PERIODS WILL RUN CONCURRENTLY. 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 JULY 23, 1996 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE SITE APPROVAL AND PRELIMINARY PLAT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. LL 't ri„-„----1 1 • . . . ..• . , . _ ___ _ _____ _ 1 1 . • �_ /, /� ////A / f'`�'r.> • •.1"vim of// .,:: . , ice y% i :..t.— ,i-/AS;y715P4' igi!'.',;::'"i = E 4tr St -I Jii I I T1 I1 ► i i I FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION 'PI easeincludeallei p.rojectNUMBER:wheri callin ':for: ro '...... .. .. .:.. ..... J prop WOO cattorl., i . l4$ St' CIT -. OF RENTON. Planning/Building/Public Works Department • Jesse Tanner,Mayor _ , ' • Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator," June 11, 1996 - :R CEIVED ' - _ - ;. • JUN 12 '96 Superintendent's Office • - • .' • OFF:CE �r .I r,. Renton School District#403 SUPERI"re"oE` •435 Main Avenue South , . - ' Renton, WA 98055 . ' '. - r The City of Renton Development Services Division has received'an application for a Preliminary Plat to be located on.approximately 18 acres of vacant land in the Residential -,24 Dwelling Units per Acre (R- ' _ ,24) Zone. One-half of the,property - Sector E/F (approximately 9 acres) is located on the west side of DuvallAvenue NE, while the other one-half- Sector;G (also.approximately 9 acres) is located on the, east side of Duvall Avenue.NE. The applicant is proposing to develop 63 small platted,lots suitable for' -. the construction of single family residential•homes on Sectors OF. Sector G would be platted for 57 ' townhomes, each,on its.own lot. , In order to`process this application, the. Development Services Division needs to know.which Renton " schools would be attended by children-living`in residences at the location indicated above. Would you , • .. . please fill in the appropriate schools on the`list below and return this letter to the Development Services , Division, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055, or send via facsimile to ,(206)277-4455 by June 18, 1996. , • Elementary:School`''. Maplewood 'and. Highlands, Middle School: McKnight ' High.School: L Hazen • - , ' Will the schools you have indicated be able to handle the impact,of,the additional students estimated to, : ' come from the,proposed development? , . Yes X No - _ • ' : Any,Coments Highlands 'servi'ce, area is 'highlighted in pink; Maplewood ood is highlighted in ;yellow. The two service areas are divided by a red line. '.Thank you for providing this important information. ,Should you,have any questions please-feel free to - contact me at 277-6186..' s ., DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF nrNTo N Sincerely, JUN 1995 ECEIVED ennifer oth Henning Project Manager: • . • - 200 Mill Avenue,South -.Renton,'Washington 98055 :- - 1 1 SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N., ROE 5 E. W.M. — — — ' .. C— — .._...__.. — _ 1 , • • // M.C. ' ... _ . _ r . ___ - - ___ -• ,. I r — — • w 1 ne.ce c T1 ...•.. \ ,ter e I )• I9 ` or '01. 0 e j ._� s11�l�• �_. . �If�r .......___, ; . 1 rill ;,-- . ---- .--,..--ARPREibtal‘ : HIGHLANDS - i ■ '�L: (�D, 1 I ��• , . 1� � I -. en — 0; 88 ._.,,, „ lialli,.. ,,, , ■ err riot , , I : . 1 I II ' I �� 1 : ri ; ' I t� I. ,r, \ �� ' �� _ WV Zp4, sill At ; - . le ,i, „ • 34/ el i PIIIIR III tiiiii I II I I 1 ( AO '''''.t..3.4 S1r :__,.. ._ . ,. . ,. ._ . , • i ; I f it 03 I 1 _ .,- - 1 1 M t 4. . AliP i au it ®• t116111 � CC jMP1Iq2i • - ea , r:—� 1111141111 . l • W V C9 ¢g _ _.. _ 1 , , \. . . :....;,---c:',011N, a 'Sill!i * co Qb 0 .rw MAPLEWOOD SECTORS I F SECTOR G ~• a,,.�'w a• V k- NV f r.:�,' 3 2W Z, I ISLEGAL DESCRIPTION eeow a•e.• ti W 2 igippoly-ww ,.. [ . a,. .-w-...`T�. OwIeNDeveloper Englneer/Pt4.0 Surveyor y..ra.... ....-..r....«... ..-.....rap- o..44.12 � (�......r T•.1bMN[r.. r1.r•....-...w Y•� MO...O.n 1..M!.M.tb )p.IMN♦ ![.a WM!•..1.11 w!w.,1.«.Ow.,Is W.•r-..f!.. f�.«.,1. O Olt, W YOOi K.o[sue.w Arrn!NwM.«.r►...... lot 004•L1-N. -ILCa..- [..g- .l�G/wQ101 ...I.rir ..O.ibYl ar w.r-.N r.Yu.N p.•• iM•ip• 49-L1-[v..ys = N• _ $'•_ aSITS LEGAL DESCRIPTION ecclor•0u,1..-e...[.IO.w....-.a.-r1�.•w««.+1- STATISTICAL SUMMARY mu) r..•-.�..on-r.....1,.tsar+..,Monk • [w.»..lal r..11.-w-W r qM Arena M1F4tQ!!.. _2[S_�4 tOt�•4_--- ' lSCALE: 1' >• 50' ...wa..a.............r..•.. : rs.in�.x t.w n•« fu.wyn...,..« ,x.»yn..•n.., we».�n.rao.r« Vol DO / • .-....r.-ry«••••M...-.y.,N-..A...• ,..r.lr.1,•.r.gw.I r.N •-1. l...OM•OCI.....OM.1 fee..-.r..MM....a{[r F.....1+....'i.y 0.1. ..100.1.0.1 4 ` I. r •-".•/r..a.'•Cwwya..M.•.-...•.�r.l[w�r.M M.M Y. WI00•I.C.rlt? .•/O0.1•...ro. W.q..•i�•\r w..!.u. i - VICINITY MAP .R Y► w•c.0 95054 CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 27, 1996 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Jennifer Toth Henning(X 6186) SUBJECT: The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G(File No. LUA-96- 010,SA,PP,ECF) The public hearing to consider the Site Plan and Preliminary Plat for The Orchards - Sectors E, F and G was scheduled for last Tuesday, June 25, 1996. On June 14th an appeal of mitigation measures from the Threshold Environmental Determination was filed with the Hearing Examiner, and the appeal was scheduled to be heard as part of the June 25th public hearing, consistent with the State Regulatory Reform Act (1724). At the public hearing, the applicant requested in writing that the matter be remanded back to the Environmental Review Committee (ERC). The applicant had submitted new materials that modified their proposal for Sector G, and that may respond to ERC concerns regarding guest parking and emergency access. Two mitigation measures have been appealed, with the applicant stating that they believe these conditions are better suited for the preliminary plat/site plan approval process before the Hearing Examiner and City Council. Mitigation Measure#4 states: "4. In order to mitigate the potential life safety impacts, the applicant will need to either: 1) widen the private street to 28 feet within Sector G to provide parking on one side and a 20 foot travel lane; or, 2)provide fire sprinklers within each unit in sector G, and provide adequate guest parking aprons (minimum length of 18 feet from garage to back of curb) in front of garages for each units." In response, the applicant has revised plans for Sector G to widen the street to 28 feet to provide additional on-street parking spaces in all areas not constrained by driveway curb cuts. The three areas being widened would provide additional guest parking as parallel parking for 9 vehicles. The result is that a total of 20 guest parking spaces are now provided on the street to serve 57 units. An additional 49 guest vehicles would be accommodated on garage aprons. With garage parking, guest aprons and on-street parking, the total number of parking spaces for Sector G would be 134 spaces, or 2.4 per dwelling unit. Other modifications to the site plan include a revision to the proposal to eliminate the use of reinforced grass concrete and to instead propose paving, unless an alternative material is approved by the fire chief prior to building permit issuance. Staff is requesting direction from the ERC as to whether the applicant has responded to ERC's concerns for additional parking and improved access in Sector G. June 27, 1996 Page 2 On another item, Staff is requesting that ERC clearly state that the applicable Mitigation Measures from the previously adopted Mitigation document still apply to the revised project. Staff will provide a memo and list of all applicable Mitigation Measures at the July 2, 1996 ERC meeting. ercmm.doc/ CITY OF'RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 2C day of 1u.-e. , 1996, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope cohtaining 'tea-Y,vi E M.t.r av,d cl�da� documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing C VrtLeiw (pad p of cootf-or ro .4 Evvo�y�ecvs C'"_ l VwCYkkvlo G•tvtrti Hoed V e)4‘e.5A Ame- —1-%W6vtt— Amnv-e.t4L t-t tc.,k..s �a h L• Scatfi ZeVe1OrmeZ:-. -- 2 \c L . \Al0.aL,w. Pvopert (Signature of Sender) -P" e,V444i et Th 464144 � /.4 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) J ` SS COUNTY OF KING ) i I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that T f/ 44A)/l/A4Signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the ulesvanqupurposes mentioned in the instrument. A` Dated: 62/c) o/q ih/U/144.Lt-ed Cc���a�: .3°G,njNotary Pc in an. the State of Washanvt Notary Print y rl/f / a- My appointment expires: (o/9/ A' Project Name: orcv‘avds Secv)S Project Number. 96 _0%0 5Pt ti)P. EC t NOTARY.DOC City of Renton PUBLIC Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date June 25, 1996 Project Name The Orchards--Sectors E,F and G Applicant/ Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, Inc) Address 4205 148th Avenue NE, Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98007 Owner/ Northward Properties Address 1560 140th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98005 File Number LUA-096-010,SA,PP,ECF Project Manager Jennifer Toth Henning Project Description Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 57 attached townhomes, each on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of an approved wetland mitigation plan. Project Location East and west of Duvall Avenue NE at NE 6th-Street B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record Northward Properties 2. Zoning Designation Residential -24 du/ac(R-24) 3. Comprehensive Plan Residential - Planned Neighborhood (RPN) Land Use Designation 4. Existing Site Use Vacant City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen. - Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 25, 1996 Page 2 of 22 S. Neighborhood Characteristics North E/F: The Orchards 63 townhomes (Peachtree) and single family residential homes (Division 1 and 2) G: Proposed as a 200-unit townhome development (Forrest Creste) East E/F: Sector G G: Large lots with homes and vacant South E/F: Daycare G: Vacant, proposed and zoned for commercial uses West E/F: Windsor Apartments G: Duvall Avenue NE and Sectors E/F 6 Access Sector E/F: NE 6th Street via Duvall Avenue NE and Bremerton Avenue NE Sector G: NE 6th Street via Duvall Avenue NE 7. Site Area Sector E/F: 8.83 acres Sector G: 9.17 acres Total: 18 acres C. HISTORICALBACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Annexation-E/F 2290 11/21/66 Annexation-G 3553 6/8/81 Rezone LUA-138-90,R,PP, 4361 8/10/92 SA,ECF Demonstration Ord 4450 8/21/95 Comprehensive Plan 4498 10/17/94 Zoning Code 4405 2/20/95 D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities Water A 12-inch water line is located in Bremerton Avenue NE and water lines are located in Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street. (These water lines were constructed by the developer) Sewer An existing sanitary sewer is located in Bremerton Avenue NE and extension to the East Renton interceptor is located in Duvall Avenue NE Surface Water/Storm Water Existing facilities are installed in Duvall and NE 6th Street. 2. Fire Protection Provided by City of Renton 3. Transit Metro Transit provided service along NE 4th Street. Routes 111 (peak-hour commuter only).and 147 (weekdays) operate on NE 4th Street. Sectors E/F are also within the area served by Metro's Dial-A-Ride program. ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen6`- - Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G L UA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 25, 1996 Page 3 of 22 4. Schools Maplewood Heights Elementary School, Highlands Elementary School, McKnight Middle School, and Hazen High School are within one mile of the site. Renton Technical College is within 3/4 miles of the site. 5. Recreation Cedar River Community Park, Liberty Park, Coulon Beach Park, Kiwanis Park, Windsor Hills Park, Maplewood Golf Course, Highlands Park and Community Center and Heather Downs Park are within 3 miles of the site. 6. Other Site is within Aquifer Protection Zone 2. E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Section 9-12, Subdivision Ordinance 2. Section 4-34, Street Improvements 3. Section 4-31-7, Residential-24 dwelling units/acre (R-24) 4. Section 4-31-19,-Administration; Interpretation and Permits F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Element, Housing Element 2. Supporting Comprehensive Plan Policies: Housing Element: Policy H-10. Encourage small lot single family development. Policy H-13. Allow single family development to comprise up to 100% of new units in Single Family/Multi-Family Mix areas. Limit multi-family development to 50% of the total project units. Residential Options and Residential Planned Neighborhood: Objective LU-K: Create new residential neighborhoods in areas mapped as Residential Options (RO) and Residential Planned Neighborhood (RPN) in a "traditional neighborhood" development style while at the same time supporting affordable housing, infill development, transit service, and the efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. Policy LU-42. A range and variety of lot sizes should be encouraged. Policy LU-43. The dwelling types should be mixed throughout the project to create a neighborhood which functions on the traditional neighborhood development model. Policy LU-44. Provision of small lot single family detached unit types and owner occupied townhouses are encouraged provided that density standards can be met. Policy LU-45. A maximum of 50% of units allowed within an individual development may consist of multi-family units. ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department' - Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 25, 1996 Page 4 of 22 Policy LU-48. Central place public amenities should function as a focal point within the development and should include features such as a public square, park, or commercial center. The central place should include passive amenities such as benches and fountains, and be unified by a design motif or common theme. Residential Planned Neighborhood: Policy LU-60. The City should allow development of planned neighborhoods at 10-24 dwelling units per acre in areas mapped Residential Planned Neighborhood on the Land Use Map where the site meets the following criteria: a. adjacent to major arterial(s); b. adjacent to employment area and/or Centers center; c. project size over 20 acres (acreage may be in separate ownerships); d. site is buffered from single family areas or other existing incompatible uses; and e. a SF50%-MF50% mix is achievable. Policy LU-62. Developments in the Residential Planned Neighborhood category should be subject to the following additional criteria. 1. Projects of 20 acres or more: a. Master Plan is required. b. Residential density of 24 dwelling units per acre is allowed. c. Multi-family buildings may be 12-plexes or smaller. 2. Projects of 5-19 acres: a. If a Master Plan is approved: i) Density may reach 22 dwelling units per acre. ii) Multi-family buildings may be 10-plexes or smaller. b. If a Master Plan is not approved or desired by the applicant: i) Density may reach 18 dwelling units per acre. ii) Multi-family building may be 8-plexes or smaller. 3. Projects of less than 5 acres. a. Density may reach 10 dwelling units per acre. b. Multi-family buildings may be four-plexes or smaller. Policy LU-63. Projects in a Residential Planned Neighborhood designation should have no more than 50% multi-family development. The single family may be attached, detached, or a mixture of both styles and may be met by zero lot line development and townhouses with attached outdoor open space. Residential Streets Policy LU-70. Streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths in a neighborhood development should be arranged as an interconnecting network. Cul-de-sacs should be limited to areas where natural barriers occur. Grid pattern streets are preferable to connect adjacent and future development. ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen6 Preliminary Report to the Hewing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 25, 1996 Page 5 of 22 Policy LU-72. Access to and from individual residences should be restricted along arterial streets. In such areas, residential site design should ensure primary access to residences comes from collector streets. Policy LU-73. To discourage vehicles from exceeding speeds safe for pedestrians, residential streets should be connected to the narrowest widths (distance from curb to curb) feasible without impeding emergency vehicle access. Policy LU-74. Parking should be allowed along one or both sides of,streets both to serve as a safety buffer between pedestrians and moving vehicles and to reduce the need for on-site parking. Policy LU-75. Intersections should be designed to minimize pedestrian crossing distance. Policy LU-76. To visually improve the public streetscape and the safety of perimeter sidewalks and facilitate off street-parking, construction of alleys providing-rear,access to service -entries and garages should be encouraged. Policy LU-77. Sidewalks should be provided along both sides of residential streets. Sidewalk width should be ample to safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrian traffic. Policy LU-78. Trees should be planted along residential streets. Subdivision of Land Objective LU-O: Create a neighborhood development pattern consistent with Renton's older neighborhoods and an interconnected road network. Policy LU-79. Land should generally be subdivided and blocks sized to minimize walking distances and provide convenient routes between destination points. Policy LU-80. Land should be arranged in blocks divided into lots with all lots required to front on a public street or a park. G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking Site Plan Approval and Preliminary Plat approval for the development of two approximate 9-acre parcels of The Orchards. The parcels are known as Sectors E and F, located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE, and Sector G located on the east side of Duvall. A site plan was previously approved by the Hearing Examiner in May, 1992 to permit development of 108 apartments in Sector E, 28,000 square feet of commercial development in Sector F, and 105 apartments in Sector G. The current proposal is to combine the Sector E and F parcels for the platting and construction of 63 detached single family homes, and to plat Sector G to accommodate 57 townhomes. Both sites have been cleared and graded as part of the previous development approvals and within the constraints of construction permits that have been issued thus far. The project description and analysis of the proposal will be discussed by sector below. Sectors E and F will be combined to Sector E/F, and Sector G will be analyzed separately. Sectors E/F. The development of the 8.83 acres that comprises Sectors E/F would feature 63 small residential lots suitable for detached single family residential development and a one-half acre park. Lots#1 through#38 are located on the perimeter of the proposed Sector E/F plat and ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department - Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 25, 1996 Page 6 of 22 would be developed on somewhat larger lots with traditional homes. Lots#39 through#63 would be smaller and narrower than the traditional home lots and would be developed with cottage homes that would be accessible from a public street and/or an alley. The lots in Sectors E/F would range in size from 3,000 square feet to 4,638 square feet. Traditional home lots (#1 -#38) would be 50 feet in width and 79 feet in length. Cottage home lots would be 37 feet in width for interior lots and 42 feet in width for corner lots, with a uniform depth of 87 feet. Access would be from the public street system and from access tracts in the case of Lots#29 and#30 (access from Tract B), and Lots#10 and#11 (access from Tract E). Cottage homes would be located in the center of Sectors E/F and would generally have access from the public street system and from alleys. Lots #57.'and #58 would have driveway/garage access from the 20-foot wide alley (with 16 feet of pavement) and would front on the common open space. A sidewalk/walkway would provide separation from the park and lead to the front yards of lots #56 through #59. Sidewalks for Sectors E/F would be located on one side of the street only, on the perimeter of the cottage home lots. Proposed homes would be two-stories in height and would transition down along the street resulting in appropriate residential scale and massing. The cottage homes would feature reduced front and rear yard setbacks. Front yard setbacks would be 10 feet and rear yard setbacks would-be-reduced to 5 feet. Both the traditional-and cottage homes are proposed as "zero-lot line" homes where useable side yards are created through reciprocal use easements. This configuration would result in thecreation of private yard areas for cottage homes that would otherwise have no useable private outdoor yard due to the reduced setbacks being proposed. Lot coverage would-be approximately 35% for the traditional homes and-40% for the cottage homes. The individual size of parcels within Sectors E/F would be as follows: Lot#1: 4,638 sf Lot#22: 3,829 sf Lot#43: 3,146 sf Lot#2: 3,952 sf Lot#23: 4,062 sf Lot#44: 3,117 sf Lot#3: 3,952 sf Lot#24: 4,052 sf Lot#45: 3,108 sf Lot#4: 3,952 sf Lot#25: 3,951 sf Lot#46: 3,000 sf Lot#5: 3,952 sf Lot#26: 3,951 sf Lot#47: 3,000 sf Lot#6: 3,952 sf Lot#27: 3,671 sf Lot#48: 3,000 sf* Lot#7: 3,952 sf Lot#28: 4,243 sf Lot#49: 3,187 sf* Lot#8: 3,952 sf Lot#29: 5,061 sf Lot#50: 3,096 sf* Lot#9: 4,034 sf Lot#30: 3,950 sf Lot#51: 3,146 sf* Lot#10: 3,868 sf Lot#31: 3,850 sf Lot#52: 3,528 sf* Lot#11: 4,402 sf Lot#32: 3,950 sf Lot#53: 2,828 sf* Lot#12: 3,975 sf Lot#33: 3,950 sf Lot#54: 3,146 sf* Lot#13: 3,005 sf Lot#34: 3,950 sf Lot#55: 3,261 sf* Lot#14: 2,607 sf Lot#35: 3,950 sf Lot#56: 3,242 sf* Lot#15: 4,202 sf Lot#36: 3,950 sf Lot#57: 3,000 sf* Lot#16: 4,202 sf Lot#37: 3,950 sf Lot#58: 3,000 sf* Lot#17: 4,202 sf Lot#38: 3,943 sf Lot#59: 3,404 sr Lot#18: 4,202 sf Lot#39: 3,280 sf* Lot#60: 3,325 sf* Lot# 19: 3,952 sf Lot#40: 3,146 sr Lot#61: 3,000 sf* Lot#20: 3,444 sf Lot#41: 3,146 sf* Lot#62: 3,000 sf* Lot#21: 4,612 sf Lot#42: 3,146 sf* Lot#63: 3,242 sf* (*denotes Cottage Home Lots) Net density of the development on Sector E/F would be 11.7 dwelling units per acre. Access to Sectors E/F would be from NE 6th Street (via Duvall Avenue NE) and from Bremerton Avenue NE. Street names have been identified for the proposed road grid and are as follows: ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen, Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 25, 1996 Page 7 of 22 Chelan Avenue NE (north/south entrance road from NE 6th Street), NE 5th Court (east/west public street), Bremerton Place NE (north/south public street on west side of plat), Chelan Court NE (north/south alley serving cottage homes), NE 5th Place (east/west street in center of plat), NE 5th Street (east/west street on south portion of plat), and Chelan Place NE (north/south street on east side of plat). Public streets within the plat (Chelan Ave NE, NE 5th Court, NE 5th Place, NE 5th Street, Bremerton Place NE and Chelan Place NE) would have a 38-foot right-of-way (with 28-feet paved) and would feature sidewalks on one side. Streets within:E/F.would feature 8-foot deep planter.islands and sidewalks on one side, and a landscape strip on the opposite side. The applicant proposes the use of landscaped "neckdowns" at the:intersections to reduce the hard surfacenand to.provide.a tree'canopy. -The combination of - •neckdowns and planter islands would create defined.on-street parking spaces and reduce the width of the travel lane to 20 feet. Rolled curbs have been used by the applicant elsewhere within.The Orchards and are proposed by the applicant for Sectors E/F. Resident parking would be provided for in one- and two-car garages. Guest parking would be accommodated on driveway aprons, and through on-street parking. The applicant has proposed 239 parking spaces as follows: 76 traditional home garage spaces (in attached two-car garages), 76 off-street parking spaces on garage aprons of traditional homes, 50 cottage garage spaces (in attached -two-car garages), and 37 on-street guest parking spaces. This would result in 3.8 parking spaces per each dwelling unit in E/F. Sector G ---The 9.17.acre Sector G.would.be developed for attached single family townhomes - on individual platted•lots. .:The units would be attached.nin groupings of two, three and four units. A private=streetsystem.of,20-foot paved streets:would.serve.the plat. Proposed lots would vary in width and depth, but would average 33 feet in width and 80 feet in depth. The average lot size would be 2,640 square feet in size. The size of individual lots within Sector G is as follows: Lot#1: 3,992 sf Lot#20: 1,869 sf Lot#39: 3,790 sf Lot#2: 4,094 sf Lot#21: 2,845 sf Lot#40: 3,322 sf Lot#3: 2,983 sf Lot#22: 3,491 sf Lot#41: 2,832 sf Lot#4: 2,263 sf Lot#23: 2,791 sf Lot#42: 3,945 sf Lot#5: 4,008 sf Lot#24: 3,652 sf Lot#43: 5,523 sf Lot#6: 2,529 sf Lot#25: 3,069 sf Lot#44: 4,193 sf Lot#7: 2,151 sf Lot#26: 2,310 sf Lot#45: 3,260 sf Lot#8: 2,211 sf Lot#27: 2,002 sf Lot#46: 2,208 sf Lot#9: 3,483 sf Lot#28: 5,312 sf Lot#47: 2,208 sf Lot#10: 3,066 sf Lot#29: 3,339 sf Lot#48: 2,558 sf Lot#11: 2,209 sf Lot#30: 2,671 sf Lot#49: 3,569 sf Lot#12: 2,187 sf Lot#31: 3,012 sf Lot#50: 2,207 sf Lot#13: 3,062 sf Lot#32: 4,032 sf Lot#51: 2,207 sf Lot#14: 2,596 sf Lot#33: 4,113 sf Lot#52: 3,741 sf Lot#15: 2,192 sf Lot#34: 3,277 sf Lot#53: 2,911 sf Lot#16: 2,341 sf Lot#35: 2,728 sf Lot#54: 2,463 sf Lot#17: 3,897 sf Lot#36: 3,445 sf Lot#55: 2,332 sf Lot#18: 2,852 sf Lot#37: 2,809 sf Lot#56: 1,991 sf Lot#19: 1,952 sf Lot#38: 2,446 sf Lot#57: 2,756 sf The net development density would be approximately 15.9 dwelling units per acre. A large wetland (106,722 sf) is located on the west half of Sector G, south of NE 6th Street and adjacent to Duvall Avenue NE. This wetland is referred to as Wetland #7 in the mitigation document for the overall Orchards project. Previous approvals for site development recognize the applicant's intent to retain this wetland and to allow filling of a small segment of the north end of the wetland for the extension of NE 6th Street, and expansion of the wetland on the south to ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen. Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 25, 1996 Page 8 of 22 create an open water component. The wetland would provide for wildlife habitat and also would function as a large detention pond for surface water runoff during wet seasons of the year. The applicant has proposed to meet the mitigation requirement for a wetland buffer. A 50-foot average buffer is required around the defined edge of the wetland, with a minimum buffer width of 20 feet. The mitigation document provides for narrower buffers to be approved by the City next to Duvall and NE 6th Street if necessary. Buildings within Sector G would be two-stories in height and would feature pitched roofs. The architectural:style would be similar to large single family.•residential homes. Proposed site landscaping includes native and ornamental plantings surrounding-the structures, and individual courtyard trees associated with driveways. The applicant is proposing a private gated road system.for.Sector G. •The streets would be NE 5th Court, Elma Avenue NE, Elma Place NE, and NE 5th Street. City standards presently do not -allow private road systems that serve more than four lots not fronting on a public road. Under the Demonstration Ordinance, the applicant is proposing a 30-foot wide private entrance road with 20-foot wide travel lane, vertical curbing, and a five-foot sidewalk at Elma Avenue NE, and a 26-foot private road tract featuring a 20-foot travel lane, rolled curbs and a 5-foot sidewalk on one side throughout the remainder of the plat. The roads would be widened to 28 feet in order to accommodate a total of nine parallel guest parking spaces in three areas (northwest corner of Elma Avenue NE and NE 5th Court, northeast'corner.of.NE.5th..Court and Elma Place NE, and west side of Elma Place NE near the southern boundary of the site).•.Additional guest parking for 11 vehicles would be provided in three parking bays near the center of the site, and on individual garage aprons. Secondary.emergency.access is:in the form of a paved 20-foot vehicle access lane from Duvall at the southeast corner of the property to the interior of the site. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to.the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on May 28, 1996, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated for the Proposal. The environmental determination was issued with the understanding that the previously adopted Mitigation Document for The Orchards Mixed Use Development would still apply. And those Mitigation Measures were recognized by the applicant to govern this proposal as well. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES The applicant shall pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee for the proposed project. The fee is assessed based on $75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project, and is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Generation manual. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. Compliance: The applicant will be required to pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee prior to the recording of the final plat, rather than prior to the issuance of the building permits. 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee for the project. The fee is based on$488 per each new single family dwelling unit, and is estimated to be$58,560.00. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of a building permit. Compliance: The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate mitigation fee prior to the issuance of the building permits for each sector. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay the applicable Parks Mitigation Fee for the proposal. The fee is estimated to be $530.76 per single family unit and$354.51 per each new multi-family unit. In addition, credit may be given to reduce the fee if the applicant provides the required bicycle paths along Duvall Avenue NE as mandated by the previous ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B✓PW Departmen' • Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 25, 1996 Page 9 of 22 environmental determination. The Parks Mitigation Fee is due prior to the issuance of the building permit. Compliance: The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate mitigation fee prior to recording of the final plat, rather than prior to the issuance of the building permits. 4. In order to mitigate the potential life safety impacts, the applicant will need to either: 1) widen the private street to 28 feet within Sector G to provide parking on one side and a 20 foot travel lane; or, 2) provide fire sprinklers within each unit in Sector G, and provide adequate guest parking aprons (minimum length of 18 feet from garage to back of curb) in front of garages for each unit. Compliance: The'applicant has appealed Mitigation•Measure No.:4•and the appeal will be heard on the same day as the public hearing. As part.of revisions to the Site Plan, the applicant has increased the width of the road within Sector G.to 28 feet in.three places in order to accommodate nine additional guest parking spaces. 5. In order to mitigate the potential life safety impacts, the applicant will need to provide adequate guest parking aprons (minimum length of 18 feet from garage to back of curb) in front of garages for each of Lots#56, 57, 58, and#59 in Sectors E/F. Compliance: . The applicant has appealed Mitigation Measure No. 5 and the appeal will be heard on the same day as the public hearing. 6. The applicant is required to revise the Site Plan to specify a hard surface (asphalt or concrete) emergency vehicle access lane from Duvall:Avenue=NE'to'Sector G (reinforced • -grass paving will not be allowed). The emergency secondary.access will need to be a minimum of.20 feet in width and marked and signed.per..the Renton Fire..Code. Compliance: The applicant will be required to comply.with.this'mitigation measure. The Site Plan has been revised to reflect the changes. 7. The applicant shall include in the Codes, Covenants and Restrictions(CC&R's) for Sector G, a provision authorizing the City of Renton to enforce the parking section of the CC&R's, but at the expense (including attorney's fees) of the applicant. The City would be permitted to utilize this authorization only upon a written finding by the Police Chief or Fire Chief or their designee(s) that a public safety problem is presented by lack of or inability of the owner to enforce the parking section of the CC&R's. Compliance: The applicant will need to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division that this Mitigation Measure is being met. The applicant will need to provide a letter stating that they will meet the requirements of Mitigation Measure#7. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various City departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. DEMONSTRATION ORDINANCE The City Council determined that The Orchards, Sectors E/F and G was a suitable project to be considered as a Demonstration Ordinance in the R-24 Zone. Council will allow up to one project per zone in order to permit development of a project within the zone that varies from the standards of the Zone. This is permitted in order to determine the best way to amend a given zone, in this case, the R-24 Zone. Council determined that the R-24 Zone as presently drafted is internally inconsistent and so rigid as to prohibit, as a practical matter, development within that zone that complies with the relevant policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmern -- Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 25, 1996 Page 10 of 22 The Orchards is one of three undeveloped sites located within the City that is zoned R-24. The results of the Demonstration Ordinance will be utilized to determine proposed changes in the R- 24 Zone so as to permit development consistent with the Comprehensive restrictions on the remaining R-24 properties. A further purpose of the Demonstration Ordinance is to provide a residential development which meets the City's land use development goals to create new residential neighborhoods on large parcels of land in a neighborhood development style and create high quality infill development that increases density while maintaining the residential character of the existing neighborhood. :'.The Hearing Examiner is designated as the official for theconduct of public hearings. The City `..Council maintains final administrative authority with respect to.action concerning subdivision and land use.approvals-under the Demonstration Ordinance. The Development Objectives of the Demonstration Ordinance are: a) to permitflexibility in development of a residential complex that exhibits the following characteristics, while maintaining compatibility with the underlying character of existing Renton residential neighborhoods: (i) sufficient density to meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan; (ii) physical feasibility given the underlying property features; (iii) economic feasibility; (iv) pride of ownership • b)• -- to provide increased .availability of-residential:development to meet the intent of the •....City's Comprehensive Plan and the State-of:Washington•.Growth.Management Act. c) : to=,allow°the City Council to:determine .whether introduction of.flexible -development standards will enable the creation of residential developments in the R-24 Zone which address the City's-development objectives. Regulatory Objectives: a) The Demonstration Ordinance creates a residential development which provides and opportunity to: (i) evaluate new types of subdivision and development standards in the R-24 Zone, prior to codifying those standards in the City's development ordinances; (ii) evaluate existing Code provisions and modify those provisions, as appropriate, to meet the City's objectives for residential development in the R-24 Zone; (iii) evaluate compatibility between the City's regulations for residential development in the R-24 zone and existing Comprehensive Plan policies, and refine those documents as necessary to meet City objectives; (iv) evaluate procedural obstacles in the platting and development process for the R-24 zone, and refine/streamline the review process to address those obstacles; (v) advance the City's policy of regulatory reform. b) Provisions of the Demonstration Ordinance shall include the minimum requirements for the protection of the public health, safety welfare and aesthetics, adequate public services, and safe and functional streets and thoroughfares. c) Development would need to be compatible with the underlying character of existing residential neighborhoods and achieve consistency with the stated purposes of the R-24 zone of encouraging coordinated development of new residential neighborhoods, ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen_ Preliminary Report to the Heating Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 25, 1996 Page 11 of 22 following a more traditional urban development pattern and allowing for a mix of single family and small scale attached units. 6. CONSISTENCY WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA Section 4-31-33 (D.) "The Hearing Examiner and City staff shall review and act upon site plans based upon comprehensive planning considerations and the following criteria. These criteria are objectives of good site plans to be aimed for in development within the City of Renton. However, strict compliance with any one or more particular criterion may not be necessary or reasonable. These criteria also provide a frame of reference for the applicant in developing a site, but are not intended to be inflexible standards or to discourage creativity and innovation. The site plan Review criteria include, but are not limited to, the following:" GENERAL CRITERIA: A. ,CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,ITS ELEMENTS 8 POLICIES Sectors E/F: The proposal is generally•consistent:with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential Planned Neighborhood (RPN). Platting of Sectors,E/F would create new residential neighborhoods in_a-.traditional-neighborhood,development style consistent with..Objective LU-K. Lots would range in:size from 3,221 sf to 4,653 sf that would be developed with detached single family."traditional" and "cottage" homes providing for consistent with Policy LU-44. A one-half acre park would serve as a focal point and common open space, meeting the intent of Policy LU- 48. Policy LU-60 would generally be met as Sector E/F is located adjacent to a major arterial (Duvall) and to a center (NE 4th Street). And, the development would function as a traditional single family residential community, although on smaller lots. Densities proposed would be below the maximum allowed 18 dwelling units to the acre per Policy LU-62. Policy LU-63 is met as the proposal would be 100% single family homes. Other policies of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element encouraging small lot single family development would be met (H-10). And Policy H-13 allowing single family development to comprise up to 100% of new units in Single Family/Multi-Family Mix areas would also be met. In addition, policies regarding residential streets would be met. Policy LU-70 states that streets should be arranged as an interconnecting grid. Sectors E/F would not have any dead-end streets consistent with LU-70. Access would be from collector streets and not directly from an arterial in accordance with Policy LU-72. Narrow streets within Sectors E/F would allow for emergency vehicle access but would also address pedestrian safety through the use of neckdowns, consistent with LU-73 and LU-75. Parking would occur on one side of the street and adjacent to the sidewalk consistent with Policy LU-74. Twenty-foot wide alleys or private streets (Chelan Court NE, and an unnamed east/west alley between NE 5th Street and NE 5th Court) would comply with Policy LU-76. Sidewalks would be provided on one side of the street only and would be inconsistent with Policy LU-77. Staff will recommend as a condition of plat approval, that the applicant be required to provide sidewalks on both sides of the street within Sectors E/F. Trees would be planted along residential streets consistent with Policy LU-78. Policies addressing the subdivision of land call for a development pattern consistent with Renton's older neighborhoods (Objective LU-O) and the subdivision of land into blocks and lots that minimize walking distances, and with lots fronting on a public street or park (Policies LU-79 and LU-80). Platting of Sectors E/F would be consistent with the smaller lots and arrangement of ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen_ Preliminary Report to the Heating Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 25, 1996 Page 12 of 22 North Renton. And the plat would be organized into reasonable size blocks and lots would front either on a public street or park, consistent with Policies LU-79 and LU-80. Sector G: The proposal is generally consistent with the RPN land use designation. Platting of the parcel into small lots for attached single family ground-related townhomes would not be considered to be traditional, but the platting of lots and opportunity for owner occupied townhomes would be consistent with Policies LU-42 and LU-44. The large wetland area could be considered to•be a focal point but would not meet the intent of Policy LU-48 unless passive amenities such as benches were incorporated into the buffer area. • Sector G.is located adjacent to.Duvall Avenue NE and is adjacent to the NE 4th Street Suburban Center as designated in the Comprehensive Plan (consistent with'Policy LU-60). Then density would be within the maximum 18 units per acre as stipulated in Policy LU-62. And the proposal would result in 100% single family attached townhomes consistent with Policy LU-63. Platting and development of Sector G would also be consistent with Housing Policies H-4 which encourages small lot single family development, and H-13 with allows single family development to comprise 100% of new units in Single Family/Multi-Family mix areas such as the RPN. Residential streets policies for interconnecting streets.(LU-70) would not be met. The applicant is proposing a system of private-streets with gated access and cul-de-sac for the townhome community. This proposal differs from City standards and is presented as part of the applicant's response to the.,.Demonstration Ordinance. A;:secondary.,means oaf emergency access is provided on the southwest corner of Sector G.=and.connecting to the-.cul-de-sac bulb. The ,proposal for narrow private roads in a platted:.lot=.scenario is not-presently permitted under.City • Code, but-could permitted for-a-condominium.development':rather than a plat. _.Staff supports the reduced'road widths for the site. Access to Sector G would be from NE 6th Street, via Duvall, and would be consistent.with Policy LU-72. Policy LU-73 would 'be partially met through the provision of narrow (average 20-foot width) roads, but the Environmental Review Committee has expressed concern that a lack of guest parking could result in the narrow roads being blocked and impeding emergency access. The applicant has responded by proposing that the road width be expanded to 28-feet of paving in three places within Sector G in order to provide an additional 9 parallel parking spaces. The nine additional parallel parking spaces and the developer's proposal for rolled curbs would result in closer compliance with Policy LU-73. On-street parking would only be provided in limited areas in parallel parking and guest parking bays. A total of 20 guest parking spaces would be provided, and apron parking at individual units would accommodate another 49 guest vehicles. Therefore, Policy LU-74 would only partially be met in Sector G. Policy LU-77 calls for sidewalks on both sides, and Sector G proposes sidewalks for only side of the street only. The proposal would not be in compliance with this policy and staff will recommend that the applicant revise their plan to provide sidewalks on both sides of the street. B. CONFORMANCE WITH EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS The following requirements and development standards contained in Section 4-31-7 Residential - 24 Dwelling Units per Acre Zone (R-24) of the City's Interim Zoning Code (adopted June 1993) requirements and development standards are applicable to this proposal and are summarized below. A thorough discussion of the development standards is included under Section 7 "Consistency with Preliminary Plat Criteria, b) Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Designation"below: 1. SETBACKS Sectors E/F: As discussed in Section 7 below, the applicant has requested that reduced setbacks be allowed for the proposed traditional and cottage homes. Required front yard setbacks in the R-24 Zone are 20 feet, and the applicant proposes 15-foot front yard ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Departmen_ Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 25, 1996 Page 13 of 22 setbacks for the traditional homes (Lots#1 -#38), and 10-foot front yard setbacks for the cottage homes (Lots#39 -#63). The R-24 Zone requires a minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet. Proposed rear yard setbacks are 15 feet for the traditional homes, and 5 feet for the cottage homes. Required 5-foot sideyard setbacks for interior lots would be met by the proposal. Corner setbacks are required to be 15 feet, and the applicant is proposing 10-foot corner side yard setbacks. Sector G: The townhomes would feature 8-foot front yard setbacks and 15-foot rear yard setbacks. Front yard setbacks would not comply with the Code and are being proposed through the provisions of the Demonstration Ordinance. Rear yard setbacks meet the minimum requirement of the Code. Side yard setbacks for the unattached end of the structure is required to be 15 feet.:The applicant is proposing reduced sideyard setbacks of from 5 to 8 feet for the two affected lots: #1 and#48. 2. HEIGHT The R-24 Zone allows building heights of up to three stories or 35 feet. The proposal would feature units that do not exceed two stories. Thus both Sectors E/F and Sector G would be in compliance with this requirement. 3. LOT COVERAGE Sectors E/F: The R-24 Zone permits a maximum lot coverage of 45%. The applicant has proposed building coverage of 35% per lot for the traditional homes and 40% for the cottage homes. Net site coverage for Sectors E/F would be 23%. Sector G: Individual-building lot coverageis proposed to be 45% for Sector G. Net site area building coverage would be 21%. 4. PARKING REQUIREMENTS: Chapter 14, Title IV Sectors E/F: City Code requires single family residential homes to have two parking spaces per dwelling. Tandem parking is allowed. The proposal would comply and would feature 239 parking spaces as follows: 76 parking spaces in traditional home garages, 76 parking spaces on traditional home parking aprons, 50 parking spaces in cottage home garages, and 37 on-street guest parking spaces. Sector G: City Code requires single family residential homes to have two parking spaces per dwelling. Tandem parking is allowed. If the provision for guest parking is required, then 1 guest parking space would be required for every 4 dwelling units, however, since townhomes are considered to be single family attached homes, the guest parking would not be applicable. In any event, the proposal complies with the Code requirements. For the 57 proposed townhomes, 134 parking spaces are proposed, 65 garage spaces, 49 parking spaces on garage aprons, and 20 guest parking spaces. 5. LANDSCAPING There are no specific landscaping requirements noted in the R-24 Zone. Sectors E/F: The applicant has submitted landscape plans for the proposal. The plans have been reviewed by staff and appear to provide adequate landscaping for the site, provided individual homes are landscaped by the occupants. Both the traditional and cottage homes rely on the use of the proposed side yard use easements in order to create usable private yards for residents. The applicant would need to record these easements with the plat, and may need to further define the side yard area by using fences between the units. Staff will recommend this as a condition of Site Plan Approval. Sector G: The applicant has submitted landscape plans for Sector G which provide adequate landscaping of the site. ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department - Preliminary Report to the Heating Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 25, 1996 Page 14 of 22 6. REFUSE AND RECYCLABLES COLLECTION 8 STORAGE Sector E/F: Refuse and recylcables would be stored on individual lots and collected by Waste Management Inc. Sector G: Refuse and recylcables would be stored on individual lots and collected by Waste Management Inc. C. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND USES; Sectors E/F:"The development of Sectors E/F'with detached single family homes on individual lots would impact the surrounding properties during construction as noise, dust and traffic are generated. Additional traffic would be generated once:the project is occupied. Ornamental landscaping would be introduced on the site, the residential population would increase, and noise associated with residential neighborhoods would occur. In addition, the domestic pet population would increase as a result of the new homes. Comments have been received from the day care business that abuts Sectors E/F on the south. Concerns have been expressed about construction impacts and impacts to the children's day care once the project site is occupied. •The applicant's..construction mitigation plans should address dust and traffic impacts, however additional measures may need to be added as a condition of Site Plan Approval, due to past impacts in the construction activity that has occurred on the overall Orchards site. Staff recommends that the Examiner consider an appropriate - fence, wall or other separation device be installed on the south'property line in order to reduce impacts to the adjacent existing day care operation. _ Sector G: The construction and occupancy of the townhomes will increase noise, dust and traffic, introduce additional residential population, vehicles and domestic pets to the area. These .=impacts would not be considered to create undue hardship to surrounding properties since the Forrest Creste site to the north is undeveloped at present, and the commercial site to the south is also undeveloped. Staff recommends that a fence be required along the south, east and north property lines of the homes to create a clear separation of Sector G from other uses. D. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN TO THE SITE; Sector E/F: The proposed site plan would develop a vacant and cleared site with a single family residential neighborhood featuring 63 homes and a one-half acre private park. The design includes innovative features which provide for greater utilization of land in order to provide home ownership opportunities to Renton residents. The previously approved project for the site, which is still valid, would allow for the construction of 108 apartments, 28,000 square feet of commercial development and parking associated with both uses. The current proposal for 63 homes would be expected to result in fewer impacts to the proposed site and is supported by Staff. Sector G: This plat would allow for the construction of 57 townhomes on individual lots, and would represent an opportunity for home ownership for first-time buyers and others. At the same time an existing wetland would be retained and preserved with an average 50 foot buffer. The previously approved project for the site, which is still valid, would allow for the construction of 105 apartment units and associated parking. The current proposal for 57 townhomes would be expected to result in fewer impacts to the proposed site and is supported by Staff. ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA, PP, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 25, 1996 Page 15 of 22 E. CONSERVATION OF AREA-WIDE PROPERTY VALUES; Sector E/F: The proposal would result in a designed community where homes are owned and maintained by owners. The property values in the surrounding area would be conserved and enhanced through development of the 63 new homes and private park. Sector G: The proposal would result in a designed community with townhomes that are owned and maintained by the homeowners or a homeowner's association. The property values in the surrounding area would be conserved and enhanced through'the:development proposal. F. SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY OF VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION; Sectors E/F: Public streets and alleys would be developed within the plat. A 20-foot travel lane would be maintained on the public streets, and 16 feet of the 20 foot alleys would be paved. Lots#57 and #58 would have vehicular access only from a public alley, and guest parking would occur on adjacent public streets. This could affect the efficiency of the alley operation, if residents or guests utilize the alley for parking or loading/unloading. Staff'will recommend as a condition of Site Plan Approval that the public alley serving lots #56 through #63 be widened to 26 feet of right-of-way with 20 feet of paving, or, that Lots #57 and #58 be increased in depth a - sufficient distance.to.accommodate a minimum 18-foot garage apron that provides two guest -parking spaces with sufficient back-out room (minimum 24.feet.which.may include the alley). Planters would define on-street parking bays, and sidewalks would be constructed on one side of the streets Staff does not support sidewalks on one side of the street only, and will recommend as a condition of Site Plan Approval that the applicant be required to redesign the plat to provide sidewalks on both sides of the street. Sector G: The applicant is proposing a private road system within the plat as part of the Demonstration Ordinance. Streets would be 20 feet in width, with three sections of 28-foot road width to accommodate nine parallel parking spaces. The ERC has imposed Mitigation Measure #4 to widen the street to 28 feet throughout Sector G, or to provide adequate guest parking aprons and to sprinkle each unit. This Mitigation Measure is the result of life/safety concerns and is the subject of an appeal by the applicant. Sidewalks are proposed on one side of the Sector G roads which staff does not support. As a condition of Site Plan Approval, staff will recommend that sidewalks be installed on both sides of the street. G. PROVISION OF ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR; Sector E/F: The proposal will result in the construction of two-story homes which would not impede the provision of light or air. The applicant will be required to meet City Code requirements with regard to street lighting. Sector G: The proposal would feature private streets. Staff will recommend that City lighting standards be met unless reduced by the City's Public Works Department. This will be a condition of Site Plan Approval. ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 25, 1996 Page 16 of 22 H. MITIGATION OF NOISE, ODORS AND OTHER HARMFUL OR UNHEALTHY CONDITIONS; Sector E/F: It is anticipated that the greatest number of noise, odor and other potentially harmful impacts would occur during the construction phase of the project. The applicant will be required to submit a construction mitigation plan for review and approval which addresses the construction impacts of the proposal. The existing children's daycare business located on the south side of Sectors E/F would be considered to.a sensitive to construction impacts, and as such, a condition of Site Plan.Approval would be to construct a solid 6-foot high wood.fence - along the common property line prior to the commencement of site construction activities. Sector G: Construction impacts would result in noise, dust and odors. These would be addressed as part of the Code-required construction mitigation plan and do not need to have further conditions attached to the proposal as part of Site Plan Approval. 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND. FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED USE;AND All Sectors: Sewer/Water/Drainage: The applicant has been:advised-of additional,connections and facilities that would be required,for the proposal.--Improvements and-extensions of the-existing City utility system.haveteen accomplished in the vicinity of the projectand'by the applicant in anticipation of site development. Police: City of Renton Police would serve the proposal. Presently,.vandalism has been problematic on the portions of the Orchards being constructed. With occupation of the new homes, crime associated with vandalism would be expected to be reduced. A number of police responses would be expected as with any neighborhood, but would be less than with the previously approved apartment and commercial uses anticipated for Sectors E/F and G. Fire Prevention: The applicant will pay a Fire Mitigation Fee to help alleviate impacts to the City's Fire Department. The construction of 120 new units would be expected to result in fewer calls for service than the previously approved 213 apartment units and 28,000 square feet of commercial uses. Parks and Recreation: The applicant is proposing a private one-half acre common open space park within Sectors E/F for the use of the residents of that sector. The applicant is being required to pay the applicable Parks Mitigation Fee for single family homes for Sectors E/F and G, and to deed right-of-way for the accommodation of a bicycle path. The applicant is also preserving the existing wetland and buffer in Sector G which could result in passive recreational opportunities for Sector G residents. J. PREVENTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD DETERIORATION AND BLIGHT. The proposal would improve the appearance of the area,which has been previously cleared. ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Heating Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 25, 1996 Page 17 of 22 7. CONSISTENCY WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT CRITERIA Approval of a plat is based upon several factors. The following preliminary plat criteria have been established to assist decision makers in the review of the plat: a) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Designation A.thorough':discussion`-of the proposal's consistency.,with..the:Comprehensive.Plan is contained under"6.'.Consistency with Site Plan Review Criteria,,A:,::Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, Its Elements and Policies" above. b) Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Designation The proposal site is designated Residential - 24 Dwelling Units Per Acre (R-24), on the City of Renton Zoning Map. The proposed development would allow for future construction of up to 120 new residential dwelling units. Sectors E/F: Minimum lot size permitted for detached single family homes in the R-24 zone is not specifically_addressed and is therefore assumed to be 4,500 sf. The proposed plat would provide 63 lots for detached homes ranging in size from 3,000 sf to 4,638 sf. All but two lots would be less,than the 4,500 square foot-development:standard, and.this:is one of the features that the applicant is demonstrating as part`of.the.Demonstration Ordinance. Staff supports the proposal for lots of less than 4,500 square feet and as small,as 3,000 feet for detached single family residential dwelling units as proposed for Sectors E/F. (The.City Council on June 17, 1996 adopted the new R-14 Zone which allows for lots of 3,000 square feet for detached single family residences). Density in the R-24 is limited to 18 dwelling units per acre for parcels that are greater than five acres and less than 20 acres. The proposal for Sectors E/F would result in a net density of 11.7 du/ac. The Zoning Code also states that 50% of the dwelling units must be single family and 50% multi-family in structures not to exceed 8 units per structure. However, recent changes in Comprehensive Plan policies are not yet reflected in the Zoning Code, and those changes provide for up to 100% single family units in the RPN land use designation which correlates to the R-24 Zone. Therefore, the proposal demonstrates a modification to the Zoning Code that is not yet in place. Staff supports the applicant's proposal for 100% single family units in Sector E/F. As part of the Demonstration Ordinance, the applicant is requesting reduced front and rear yard setbacks for reduced front and rear yard setbacks for both the traditional home (Lots #1 - #38) and cottage home (Lots#39 - #63). Front yard setbacks for the R-24 are required to be 20 feet and may be reduced to 15 feet or 10 feet with certain provisions. Front yard setbacks for Sectors E/F are proposed to be 15 feet for the traditional homes and 10 feet for the cottage homes. The applicant is demonstrating a reduction from the requirement for 20 foot setbacks as none of the criteria for reduced setbacks as allowed by the R-24 Zone is met. The R-24 Zone also requires that lots adjacent to some other zones including the R-10, shall not have a front yard setback of less than 15 feet. This provision would affect proposed lots#29 -#34 which are adjacent to an R-10 zoned parcel (Windsor Place Apartments). For parcels #29-#34, 15-foot rear yard setbacks are proposed. The R-24 Zone requires a minimum depth of 15 feet for the rear yard setback. The applicant is proposing 15-foot rear yard setbacks for the traditional homes (Lots #1 - #38) and 5-foot rear yard setbacks for the cottage homes (Lots#39 -#63). Staff supports the applicant's proposal for reduced front and rear yard setbacks in the R-24 Zone with limitations. The minimum front yard setbacks of 15 feet for the traditional homes and 10 feet for the cottage homes are acceptable, however 15 foot rear yard setbacks for the traditional homes and 5 foot rear yard setbacks for ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 25, 1996 Page 18 of 22 cottage homes located on alleys are only sufficient if the useable side yard easement is accepted, and if the plat includes fencing or another means of defining the private side yard areas. Staff will recommend that the applicant be required to include fencing or another acceptable means of defining the individual side yard areas. The R-24 Zone requires minimum 5-foot setbacks for interior lots, and 15 feet for corner lots. The applicant is proposing 5-foot interior lot setbacks and 10-foot corner lot setbacks for the traditional homes (Lots#1 -#38), and 5-foot interior lot setbacks and 7.5-foot side yard corner lot -setbacks for the cottage homes (Lots#39 -#63). The applicant is proposing that reciprocal use easements be created between the lots in order to create useable side'yards. Staff is supportive of this concept and for the reduced side yard setbacks. While we cannotrecommend at this time that. the.reduced corner setbacks be adopted as a Code provision, it appears to warrant demonstration. The R-24 Zone requires a minimum lot width of 25 feet for interior lots and 35 feet for corner lots. The applicant's proposal for Sectors E/F complies. Lot depth is required to be a minimum of 50 feet, and once again the proposal meets this requirement. Sector G: The 57 lot townhome proposal would be considered to be attached single family homes based on an interpretation of the R-24 Zone by .the City's Zoning Administrators. Minimum lot:size permitted for attached single family:homes in'the=R-24:Zone is 3,000 sf. The proposed plat would provide 57 lots for townhomes attached in groupings of two,:three and four townhomes. All of the lots would be at least 3,000 square feet in size. Density in the R-24.is limited to 18-dwelling•unitsper-acre-°for°parcels.that are.greater than five °acres and:less than 20 acres. The proposal for Sector G would result in a net density of.15.9 du/ac.' .The Zoning Code also states that 50%'of the dwelling units must be single family and 50% multi-family in structures not to exceed 8 units per.structure. • However, recent changes in Comprehensive Plan policies are not .yet reflected in the Zoning .Code, and those changes provide for up to 100% single'family units,in.the RPN.land.use'designation which correlates to the R-24 Zone. Therefore, the proposal demonstrates a modification to the Zoning Code that is not yet in place. Staff supports the applicant's proposal for 100% single family units in Sector G. As part of the Demonstration Ordinance, the applicant is requesting reduced front and rear yard setbacks. Front yard setbacks for the R-24 are required to be 20 feet and may be reduced to 15 feet or 10 feet with certain provisions. Front yard setbacks for Sector G are proposed to be 8 feet. The applicant is demonstrating a reduction from the requirement for 20 foot setbacks as none of the criteria for reduced setbacks as allowed by the R-24 Zone is met. Rear yard setbacks are required to be 15 feet, and the applicant is complying with this provision of the R-24 Zone. Staff supports the applicant's proposal for reduced front yard setbacks in the R-24 Zone with limitations. The minimum front yard setbacks of 8 feet is acceptable since a parking apron would generally provide additional building setback from the property line. The R-24 Zone requires minimum 5-foot setbacks the unattached side of the structure. Corner lots, however, must have a minimum sideyard setback of 15 feet. Only two corner lots are proposed, Lots#1 and #48, and sideyard setbacks are 5 to 8 feet from the edge of the building envelope to the property line. Staff cannot recommend at this time that the reduced corner setbacks be adopted as a Code provision, it appears to warrant demonstration. The R-24 Zone requires a minimum lot width of 25 feet for interior lots and 35 feet for corner lots. The applicant's proposal for Sector G generally complies with the exception of Lots #9, #10, #18, #36, #38, #43, and #44 which have reduced lot frontage, but which when averaged with the rear yard line meet the minimum requirement except for Lot #38 which would average 23.5 feet in width. Lot depth is required to be a minimum of 50 feet, and the proposal meets this requirement. ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA, PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 25, 1996 Page 19 of 22 c) Compliance with Subdivision Regulations Lot Arrangement: Side lot lines are to be at right angles to street lines, and each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the Street Improvement Ordinance(Code Section 4-34). Sectors E/F: The proposal generally complies with this criteria. Lots #57 and #58 would achieve access from a public alley (Chelan Court NE). Lot#21 is a pipestem lot and would front on a public street, Lots#29 and#30 would achieve access via an access tract (Tract B) and Lots #10 and #11 would achieve access via an access.tract (Tract-E). All of the alleys, tracts and pipestems.would be a minimum width of 20 feet, with pavement'widths per the requirements of the Street Ordinance. Sector G: The proposal complies with this criteria. All lots are configured to be at right angles to the street lines and would access from a private road system. Lots: The size, shape and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Sectors E/F: The applicant is proposing variations from the strict application of the R-24 Zone as permitted by the City Council via the Demonstration Ordinance: The variations in the size of lots and minimum area are discussed under "Compliance with . the: Underlying Zoning Classification" above. Sector G: The applicant generally meets the requirements of the-applicable zone with regard to ' lots. Variations occur in lot width but averaging of front shows that all but Lot#38 complies with the minimum width 'requirements. The variations in the size of lots and 'minimum area are discussed under"Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Classification" above. Property Corners at Intersections: All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way except alleys,shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet(159. The proposed property corners would meet the minimum radius of 15 feet at the corners of the plat where they intersect with dedicated public rights-of-way. d) Reasonableness of Proposed Boundaries Access Sectors E/F: Access to Sectors E/F would be from NE 6th Street via Duvall Avenue NE and from Bremerton Avenue NE. Sector G: Access would be from NE 6th Street. An second emergency-only access would be provided from Duvall Avenue NE at the southwest corner of the plat. Topography Sectors E/F and Sector G: The site is relatively flat with the exception of a steep slope at the eastern edge of Sector G where the site slopes up approximately 28%. Clearing has occurred under previously approved permits. Relationship to Existing Uses Sectors E/F: This parcel is located directly south and adjacent to a 63-unit townhome development that is presently under construction as part of The Orchards -- Sector C (also ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 25, 1996 Page 20 of 22 known as Peachtree). South of the site is an existing children's day care business. To the west are the Windsor Park apartments. Duvall Avenue NE is located on the east. Sector G is located across Duvall to the east. Sector G: The parcel is located south of the proposed Forrest Creste townhome project. While the project has been approved,the site is still vacant. e) Availability and Impact on Public Services(Timeliness) Police and Fire Police and Fire Prevention Bureau staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development, subject to the condition,that:the applicant:provide Code required improvements and fees. Recreation Please see the discussion under Section 6. "Consistency with Site Plan Criteria, I. Availability of Public Services and Facilities to Accommodate the Proposed Use". Schools • .The proposal is located within the Renton School-District:and-:students..would:attend Maplewood Heights Elementary School, Highlands Elementary School,.McKnight Middle.School and Hazen High School. As of October, 1995 enrollment in the schools was as follows: Highlands Elementary 576 Maplewood Heights Elementary 541 McKnight Middle School 850 Hazen High School 1,046 According to materials the applicant has submitted, the School District has indicated that they currently do not have statistics as to the capacity of the schools. Development of Sectors E/F would be expected to generate 27.9 elementary students (0.443 X 63 units), 10.7 middle school students (0.171 X 63 units), and 9.1 high school students (0.145 X 63 units); or, a total of 47.7 students. Development of Sector G would be expected to generate 25 elementary students (0.443 X 57 units), 9.7 middle school students (0.171 X 57 units), and 8.3 high school students (0.145 X 57 units); or, a total of 43 students. A letter of inquiry was sent to the Renton School District, but at the time of the preparation of this report no response had been received. Staff will provide an update at the public hearing. Storm water The applicant will be required to provide stormwater facilities to meet City Code requirements and the King County Surface Water Design Manual with restricted release rates per the original overall site plan for The Orchards. In addition the applicant will need to demonstrate through a revised Wetland Mitigation Plan, that the wetland occupying the west side of Sector G functions as a stormwater detention facility. A System Development Charge will be required to be paid for proposed Sectors E/F and G. The charge is based on the total new impervious surface square footage as reflected in the final design. The charge is determined as$385 per each new single family lot. ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department - -- Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 25, 1996 Page 21 of 22 Water and Sanitary Sewer Utilities Sewer: The proposal is subject to the City's System Development Charges, East Renton Interceptor Special Assessment District, Water: The proposal is subject to the City's System Development Charges, and water mains would need to be sized to meet requirements of the Renton Fire Department. Sector G would require that a 16-inch diameter water line be installed in Duvall Avenue NE. Street Improvements: Sectors E/F: The plat would be expected to generate 10 new vehicular trips per day for each new single family home. _ A traffic mitigation fee.is'assessed for plats, and the fee is $75 per each new average weekday trip, or $750 per each new lot._ This fee is to be paid prior to the recording of the plat. For 63 new homes the fee would be expected to be $47,250. Street lighting is required to City of Renton standards along new streets and streets adjacent to the project site. Minimum lighting levels would need to be.met. The applicant is proposing sidewalks on one side of the.streets only, and City Code requires sidewalks on both sides, with curb and gutter. ' The applicant is,proposing rolled curbs which varies from the City's requirement for vertical curbs. Sector G: The plat..would-be expected to generatel0 new:vehicular.trips;per day for eachnew single,family home. -A-traffic mitigation fee is assessed for plats, and the'.fee.is $75 per each new'average weekday trip, or$750 pereach new lot. This fee'is to be paid prior to the recording of the plat. For 57 new townhomes the fee would be expected to be $42,750. Street lighting is required to City of Renton standards along new streets and'streets adjacent to the project site. Minimum lighting levels would need to be met. The applicant is proposing sidewalks on one side of the streets only, and City Code requires sidewalks on both sides, with curb and gutter. The applicant is proposing rolled curbs which varies from the City's requirement for vertical curbs. H. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommend approval of The Orchards, Sectors E/F and G, file no. LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with ERC Mitigation Measures: The applicant is required to comply with the Mitigation Measures which were required by the Environmental' Review Committee's May 28, 1996 Threshold Determination with modifications as determined to be appropriate by the Hearing Examiner. The applicant is required to continue to comply with the applicable Mitigation Measures of the adopted Mitigation Document for The Orchards Mixed Use Development that would pertain to the current proposal. 2. Sidewalks: The applicant shall be required to revise the Preliminary Plat and Site Plan to provide sidewalks on both sides of streets within the plat. The sidewalk design is subject to the review and approval of the City's Development Services Division. ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 25,.1996 Page 22 of 22 3. Reciprocal Side-Yard Use Easements: The applicant shall record the proposed reciprocal side yard use easements with the plat for Sectors E/F. The easements shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Division and the City Attorney. 4. Side Yard Fence/Wall: The applicant shall install a fence, wall or other suitable means of defining the side yard use area for each unit in Sectors E/F. This shall be shown on the Site Plan and refenced in the recorded easements as noted in Condition#3 above. 5. . Sector E/F-.Perimeter Wall/Fence: The applicant shall be required to construct a 6-foot high solid wall or.solid wood fence on the ,south boundary of Sectors E/F prior to .the• commencement of site construction, in order to diminish impacts on the adjacent'children's daycare and single family homes to the south. 6. Sector G - Perimeter Fence: The applicant shall be required to install'a 6-foot high solid wood fence along the south property line and along the rear yards of proposed lots#28 through#48, and on the north side of proposed Lot #1 in order to provide clear separation/buffering between Sector G and adjacent land uses. 7. Sectors E/F- Garage Aprons: The applicant shall revise the Site Plan and Preliminary Plat to widen the public alley serving Lots#56 -#63 to a minimum of 26 feet with 20 feet-of paving, OR, the applicant shall revise the Site Plan and Preliminary Plat to increase the depth of Lots #57 and #58 in order to accommodate a minimum 18-foot garage apron that provides for two guest'parking spaces with sufficent back-out room (per City Code). 8. Lighting Plan: The applicant shall submit a lighting plan for Sectors.E/F and G subject to the approval of the Development Services Division. The lighting plan-for Sectors E/F shall meet City standards. The lighting plan-for Sector G shall. meet City standards unless reduced by the _City's Public Works Department. 9. Homeowners Association: The applicant shall establish a homeowners association for Sectors E/F and a homeowners association for Sector G in order to maintain common plat improvements including landscaping, private roads and/or access tracts. The homeowner's association shall be established and recorded with the plat. EXPIRATION PERIODS: Preliminary Plats (PP): Three (3)years from final approval date. Site Plan Approvals (SA): Two (2)years from the final approval date. (Extensions may be requested.) ORCHARDS.DOC • • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF APPLICANT: Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers) PROJECT NAME: The Orchards, Sectors E, F and d DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one sideof the street. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section • 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 43:21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. The 15 day comment period and the 14 day appeal period for this project will run concurrently. The comment and appeal periods for this project will end at 5:00 p.m. on June 18, 1996. Appeal procedures and the mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. • PUBLICATION DATE: June 03, 1996 DATE OF DECISION: May 28, 1996 SIGNATURES: I s/ z If/g6 re ZI erma Administrator DATE Depart of Planning/Building/Public Works • Sam Chastain,Administrator DATE Community Service partment Lee er,'Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department DNSMSIG.DOC CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF APPLICANT: Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers) PROJECT NAME: The Orchards, Sectors E, F and G DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 57 attached townhomes, each on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of an approved wetland mitigation plan. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street MITIGATION MEASURES: .1. 4 The applicant shall pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee for the proposed project. The fee is assessed based on $75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project, and is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Generation manual. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee for the project. The fee is based on $488 per each new single family dwelling unit, and is estimated to be $58,560.00. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay the applicable Parks Mitigation Fee for the proposal. The fee is estimated to be $530.76 per single family unit and $354.51 per each new multi-family unit. In addition, credit may be given to reduce the fee if the applicant provides the required bicycle paths along Duvall Avenue NE as mandated by the previous environmental determination. The Parks Mitigation Fee is due prior to the issuance of the building permit. 4. In order to mitigate the potential life safety impacts, the applicant will need to either: 1) widen the private street to 28 feet within Sector G to provide parking on one side and a 20 foot travel lane; or, 2) provide fire sprinklers within each unit in Sector G, and provide adequate guest parking aprons (minimum length of 18 feet from garage to back of curb) in front of garages for each unit. 5. In order to mitigate the potential life safety impacts, the applicant will need to provide adequate guest parking aprons (minimum length of 18 feet from garage to back of curb) in front of garages for each of Lots#56, 57, 58, and#59 in Sectors E/F. 6. The applicant is required to revise the Site Plan to specify a hard.surface (asphalt or concrete) emergency vehicle access lane from Duvall Avenue NE to Sector G (reinforced grass paving will not be allowed). The emergency secondary access will need to be a minimum of 20 feet in width and marked and signed per the Renton Fire Code. 7. The applicant shall include in the Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for Sector G, a provision authorizing the City of Renton to enforce the parking section of the CC&R's, but at the expense (including attorney's fees) of the applicant. The City would be permitted to utilize this authorization only upon a written finding by the Police Chief or Fire Chief or their designee(s) that a public safety problem is presented by lack of or inability of the owner to enforce the parking section of the CC&R's. MITMEAS.DOC/ CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF APPLICANT: Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers) • PROJECT NAME: The Orchards, Sectors E, F and G DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on . the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 57 attached townhomes, each on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of an approved wetland mitigation plan. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. General 1. The applicant shall apply with all applicable City, state, federal and other jurisdictional regulations, codes and policies governing the project and site. 2. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will. require separate submittals prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, according to City of Renton drafting standards. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000, 4% of anything • over $100,000 but less than $200,000; and 3% of anything over $200,000. One-half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. 3. The applicant is required to obtain a Construction Permit in order to accomplish site work and installation of site improvements. 4. The applicant will need to submit construction drawings for street lighting and each utility. These drawings will need to be on individual sheets. 5. Construction plans must comply with the City's Drafting Standards. 6. Temporary Erosion Control measures including, but not limited to dust and mud control, • street cleaning, protection of existing catchbasins, wheel washing and construction entrances shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. • The Orchards,Sectors E,F&G LUA-9 6-010,S A,PP,E CF Advisory Notes (Continued) 7. A construction plan indicating haul route(s) and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. Haul hours shall be restricted between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. 8. Construction hours shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Saturdays shall be as arranged with no hours in excess of the weekday hours, and no Sunday construction. Transportation 9. The City's Transportation Impact Fee will apply to the project as discussed in the mitigation measures above. The applicable fee is $75 per each new average daily trip and is payable prior to the issuance of the building permit. 10. Full frontage improvements are required for Duvall Ave NE including, but not limited to, sidewalks, curb & gutter, pavement, channelization and street lighting. 11. Full street improvements including curb & gutter, street lighting, paving, street signs, and sidewalks are required throughout the project. e12. All street names and numbers shall conform to City of Renton street naming standards. 13. Streets within Sectors E & F shall be a minimum width of 28 feet (except alleys which shall be 20 feet in width),with a 5'sidewalk on both sides of all streets. 14. All roadways in Sector G shall have a minimum 20' wide pavement and sidewalks on both sides. The 20' width minimum shall only be allowed if adequate parking is provided for guests and visitors. 15. Pedestrian linkages shall be provided to facilitate access to public transportation and Duvall Avenue NE. This would be imposed as a condition of Site Plan Approval. Storm Drainage 16. Detention and water quality facilities are required in accordance with the King County Storm Water Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton. 17. The conceptual drainage plan for the project has been reviewed . 18. The Surface Water SDC is assessed based on the total new impervious surface square footage as reflected in the final design. The charge is determined by multiplying the gross square footage of the site area by $0.129, for the multifamily units, or$385 per single family residence. 19. A level two drainage study has been submitted by the applicant. Water quality treatment sized for the new impervious surfaces subject to vehicular access is required, all to King County SWDM Standards. Wastewater 20 There is an existing sanitary sewer in Bremerton Ave. NE, and an extension to the East Renton Interceptor in Duvall Ave. NE. AD VNOTES.DOC/ The Orchards,Sectors LUA-96-010,S A,PP,ECF Advisory Notes(Continued) 21. The Sanitary Sewer SDC is triggered and will be assessed at a rate of$585, per single family home site and $350, per unit for multifamily sites. 22. Provision for sanitary sewer connections to the neighboring properties shall be required. This may be in the form of stubouts from one or more manholes with accompanying easements, or by full line extension. Water 23. This developer previously constructed a 12- inch diameter water line iri Bremerton Ave. NE and water lines in Duvall Ave. NE and NE 6th Street. 24. The water line in Duvall Ave. NE Shall be required to be extended the full length of the property frontage on Duvall Ave. NE 25. The Water System Development Charge (SDC) is triggered at a rate of $850, per single family unit or$510, per unit for multifamily. • 26. Water service stubouts or extensions are required to the neighboring properties for future possible development, including further possibility of looped systems in the area. These may be provided through easements and extensions or full frontage improvements. ' c Fire Sectors E, F and G: 27. The applicant is required to pay the applicable Fire Mitigation Fee as discussed in the Mitigation Measures above. The fee is applied to Sectors E, F and G at a rate of $488 per each new single family unit. 28. All roadways are required to be painted and signed per City Ordinance to identify them as required Fire Department access roads. Sectors E & F: 29. The preliminary fire flow requirement for Sectors E and F is 1,000 gpm. Fire hydrants with the minimum fire flow are required within 300 feet of all new single family structures. The number of fire hydrants required will depend upon the size of the new single family structures. Sector G: 30. Fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems will be required if the applicant chooses to build stacked flats. However, as the proposal is for attached townhouses, no fire sprinkler or fire alarm systems are required in the townhouse buildings. 31. The preliminary fire flows for the townhouse structures is 2,500 gpm. One hydrant is required within 150 feet and two hydrants are required within 300 feet of each structure. 32. All Fire Department roadways shall be paved to the entire 20-foot of required width. Reinforced grass paving will not be accepted for fire access or emergency access. 33. Access roads can be gated if made with a Fire Department approved method of opening the gate. Bollards are not acceptable. The applicant is encouraged to contact Renton Fire Prevention to determine an appropriate solution to the access gate. ADVNOTES.DOC/ The Orchards,Sectors E,F&G LUA-9 6-010,S A,PP,E CF Advisory Notes(Continued) Police Services 34. The applicant is advised to coordinate with Renton Police Crime Prevention for recommendations to reduce possibility of vandalism/crime during construction and operation of the facility. Building Construction 35. The applicant's soils engineer shall approve the footing excavations prior to placement of any concrete. 36. The applicant will be required to follow the recommendations of the soils engineer in the geotechnical report. Wetlands 37. The wetlands shall be monitored by a wetland specialist for the duration of construction. Reports shall be submitted by this specialist to the Development Services Division monthly. All work within the wetland or buffer shall be inspected and approved by the wetland specialist. Solid Waste 38. Garbage and recyclable deposit areas and collection points shall be easily and safely accessible to hauling trucks. • Parks 39. As discussed in the Mitigation Measures above,the project is subject to the applicable Parks Mitigation Fee. The fee would be applied at the rate of $530.76 per single family home and $354.51 per multi-family unit. 40. The proposed open space to be located within Sector E/F does not meet the standards established by the City for open space and could not be counted toward a reduction in the Parks Mitigation Fee. Parks Department does recommend that a four-foot wide striped bicycle lane to be located on the west side of Duvall which is consistent with the previous development proposals for the site. The appropriate percentage of the estimated cost of this bicycle lane could apply toward a reduction in the Parks Mitigation Fee. 42. The applicant will be required to revise the •landscape plan to replace proposed Acer pseudoplatanus with an appropriate substitute tree. • ADVNOTES.DOC/ ti�Y o CITY OF RENTON o �, FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: February 28, 1996 TO: Jennifer Henning, Senior Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Code Related Comments for Orchards, Sectors E, F and G Sector E and F: 1 . Fire hydrants with a minimum fire flow of 1,000 gpm are required within 300-feet of all new single family structures. The number of fire hydrants required depends upon the size of the proposed structures. 2. A fire mitigation fee of $488 is required for each new single family structure. 3. All roadways are required to be painted per City Ordinance to identify them as required Fire Department access roads. Sector G: 1 . The fire mitigation fees for the single family attached townhouses are $488 per unit and $388 per unit for the multi-family stacked flat units. 2. Fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems are required to be installed in all of the stacked flat buildings. No fire sprinkler or fire alarm systems are required in the townhouse buildings. 3. The preliminary fire flows for the stacked flat buildings are 1,750 gpm. One hydrant is required within 150-feet and one hydrant is required within 300-feet of each building. 4. The preliminary fire flows for the townhouse buildings are 2,500 gpm. One hydrant is required within 150-feet and two hydrants are required within 300-feet of each structure. 5. All roadways are required to be painted per City Ordinance to identify them as required Fire Department access roads. 6. All Fire Department access roads shall be paved to their entire 20-feet of required width Reinforced grass paving is not acceptable. Reinforced grass paving was allowed on your previous project on a one-time-only trial basis and is still subject to review. 7. Access roads can be gated if made with a Fire Department approved method of opening the gate. Bollards are not acceptable. CWT:js Orchards way of Renton Department of Planning/Building I Public.r✓„(S ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Pt COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 4, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-010,PP,SA,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 21,1996 APPLICANT: DODDS ENGINEERS(CRAIG KRUEGER) PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNING PROJECT TITLE: ORCHARDS SECTIONS E,F,AND G WORK ORDER NO: 78052 LOCATION: 6TH STREET AND DUVALL AVENUE NE SITE AREA: Approx.18 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal,Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes,which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes,with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 59 attached townhomes,each located on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced,enlarged and restored as part of an approved mitigation plan. Sectors E/F would would be accessed via NE 6th Street,and from Bremerton Avenue NE;while Sector G would be accessed by a private road system from Duvall Avenue NE via NE 6th Street. An emergency access would be provided along the southern boundary out to Duvall.Garages,aprons and guest parking would be provided for the homes and townhomes. This proposal is being reviewed as a demonstration project under City Council Ordinance 4550. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Envirwunant Probable Minor Probable Major More Element of the Environment •. Probable Minor Probable Major Mon Impacts Impacts Information Impacts impacts Information Necessary Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics . Water LightGlare - Plants Recreation Land/Shc.eline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic.CulturalPreservation Natural Resources r1/0 ,tzvit*-0-cria j6u) arl';'2') B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS et o d l'z sere zagg. h h / a/7,C Q'oaa ��me e O z''' /� �tlyll�hl� /�O�,6d. (5 0 7 P6 3 /n maize.)a�'lt�'e'3�/ s20 > 5fz�i�Glaf' rd7ficrn �d/'i G �o Tzecrc ids ,�Ge�,o'he,•?sirre, //(4,0-e a a� ee'�T .'r e 7 cr f/an ).,The are- /70 maer i�-,da/&.`- I 7 ectecif�t or /f�jo i _ e X CZ/9� y re7u� src�eur�/ -hid a, /7v f-r�or)s,&e� ter/°/a arm' /ec/-eA,74-�,�J �� d� , / //edge_r)o 7 a tC Y� 1-o„ �C /� I C�/-� ,Ooea//o //1 /e0 � gaL.\-7-.6/c. �, iCCt�e I o src�adope / icti me , . G(J� reco�rr2€ ,oicte,_5-1-np_tyY fr,tirli 1-a it9, Vlif. (2n.: UPTora if tithich4 ricriz3,64-f)+1( 0L-4 C. CODE-RE TED CO ENTS ' yb, `me_. L I nrii0 fia�j, t �o �rtic c i� ce -k R-� r .,S1 > nlu/T7 bti" i/)c f'181 ar)c/ `�:' . ��' 1�' S/ ;ern, I j Jd Y)� re ornrnv- -I-175e(,.+%lio/a.i--d BLS nG �f.2 /f i'r ' /)4A I✓e We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and Aave identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information Is needed to property assess this proposal. 0775s i/ Signature of'rector or Authorized Representative 1/ p, Dat�C `( DEVAPP.DOC •mil t I `L Ray.10/97 • • City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ' • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:Qp1 .%-tiA >;ek1QV1 SeiutCO-4 COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 4, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-010,PP,SA,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 21,1996 erry APPLICANT: DODDS ENGINEERS(CRAIG KRUEGER) PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNA 1 8CN PROJECT TITLE: ORCHARDS SECTIONS E,F,AND G WORK ORDER NO: 78052 Pep , ! 1996 LOCATION: 6TH STREET AND DUVALL AVENUE NE SITE AREA: Approx.18 acres 1 BUILDING AREA{gross): 8OILU"\i" L SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal,Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes,which would orient toward a small private park.•Public streets and alleys would serve the homes,with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 59 attached townhomes,each located on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced,enlarged and restored as part of an approved mitigation plan. Sectors E/F would would be accessed via NE 6th Street,and from Bremerton Avenue NE;while Sector G would be accessed by a private road system from Duvall Avenue NE via NE 6th Street. An emergency access would be provided along the southern boundary out to Duvall.Garages,aprons and guest parking would be ' provided for the homes and townhomes. This proposal is being reviewed as a demonstration project under City Council Ordinance 4550. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Mkor Probable Moor More Element of the Environment Probable Mkhor Probable Major More Impacts Impacts Information Impacts Impacts information Necessary Necessary Earth ° Housing Ai Aesthetics Water L1ghtnie e Plants Recreation Lard/Shorellne Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Swine Enemy/ Historir.Cuitwal Preservation Natural Resouees • • B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS 5 ( 3L 'lilts [5 il. Pt-fa5 0(4t 6)k[STrAn P 1" POD nsoT A I)tu) Pkc 1 X, Tit. & i o/F1W (GlIgIcticlk&) P11m BOO Ti16 Orr'( GAY( TrQ 6 Waif)f) P g t I IUPrLt2J Pit I be -De lSsoplkc DoiiotIDN 6i3LU) IN1 PrzalinrrS t • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We his mace 'h particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional informalian is _. I IYrpti� app f s 0 , ... 61-1:::).-9(...) Sig •i.- a rector or Authorized Representative Date • City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works . ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: � tce, COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 4, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-010,PP,SA,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 21,1996 APPLICANT: DODDS ENGINEERS(CRAIG KRUEGER) PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNING PROJECT TITLE: ORCHARDS SECTIONS E,F,AND G WORK ORDER NO: 78052 LOCATION: 6TH STREET AND DUVALL AVENUE NE SITE AREA: Approx.18 acres 1 BUILDING AREA gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal,Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes,which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes,with sidewalks 141 provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 59 attached townhomes,each located on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. Awetland within the site would be enhanced,enlarged and restored as part of an approved mitigation plan. Sectors E/F would would be accessed via NE 6th Street,and from Bremerton Avenue NE;while Sector G would be accessed by a private road system from Duvall Avenue NE via NE 6th Street. An emergency access would be provided along the southern boundary out to Duvall.Garages,aprons and guest parking would be provided for the homes and townhomes. This proposal is being reviewed as a demonstration project under City Council Ordinance 4550. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS r1 Eminent EMm EMent of flea Environment probable Mkpor Probable Major More .nt of the Environment Probable Minor 1 LProbable Major More Impacts Impacts lnfonnatlon Impacts Impacts Information Necessary Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Wafer LighlrGlet. Plants Retraction Land/Shareline Use Utilifiee Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historir.CulhsalPreswation Natural Resources • lDO.a futCCQ CAM PlY ser'vicC estulicitke annfc ar) . +o ces `(X)s-r(u.e,i;Dr e Li -1-akkin lC&Ce1. awe_ bC�.u� oeev\ 5ev ra.l )f- �u k t o smc�-to\cos curul Ivu✓ tc.ru s tr e ar ck f� po t ice . : 'u ,u�pGrtvtS1'�+� rum s 6 u),l1 G +o nu m IOe►' o olive CCtILS as Sonrlt (L.r ne► cants axe- ark-Li ci ccio ok • .e c:co•,-Nnenik Se Ci,Ln � �I c rfit r 1a-1 leak_ - 1s w1 r\ not- in Ll e • �c ch Po(1\L uM\ r d. -uolA- tDeks �l',d- care, -enA-elAar ClLxi1 L FV' )cep hoLe5 , ai acl16 else s tactcl Li) r o 119 h-r- - oc u5,_ (\l l ' rs 1j12-a ±0 y Ca, - ASS- l�I I i hi; Cu't&' 6)• a e o1 I ii± eon-l-ca s-rS eletcLLs - -Tilt CottO.O C_ Skti l CW LS uiA,t1 aatvesse ►ate PoDnt c QIJL. h. - c -Okt ✓ear cv l t&Ii -f-Dr SCult-( . (CC�s ti) .. " A s�(Cd-- `9-\+, rg is ank,cf S ltc,l . 2-cc:ct)n O O - l -\-DB 119- au:k 411.Z__ 12_ Cl.eCe, 6b eCturls �� r , - 1cee C ILi GIS � � f.16,.tt D.1 e el. i n 4K.C_ S+r cCts 4- am 4Vt S i(i i.L .11�5 , C i lCk -� � i U� U t-c!i '1 C' C-f e{ ICLce eo_L. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas Mere additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. L ‘dei )1(llgi)e a- JD-% a re or or Representative Date OeVAPP.rxfc rt«.urn Po l cam, CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8, 1996 TO: Green Folder Reviewers FROM: Jennifer Toth Henning (X 6186) �� SUBJECT: The Orchards Sectors E/F and G—Demonstration Ordinance The Orchards review and comment time has been extended since the date the project will go to ERC is rescheduled for March 26th. The applicant will be providing some additional materials including revised site plans,Level 2 drainage study,and additional parking studies. They will be forwarded to you as they become available. Attached to this memo is the addendum to the Supplemental EIS for the project. This should be reviewed by you. If you have any revisions or additions to your previous comments,please submit those me by March 18th. Thank you. ?Le.a.Y- \rave, appl revs-eL pot I ce, co iv)11fS on o-a-a--ot Cod GL cce,h .) . S �� y E 5 n . ed-e_d o cy ru -c Sic ( c of pac po Ikce sery cez . ba%cd, on a 1cl -evaA tka i`Y) . C h,/0 _c 3 ,no lonctr 4rwL. • po1ice, ser\ACe are- milreoN s-t-r e C d 1ockpaca G -t-D Cat 6b Coy1S-I i (A.C-hrD n i Z en.fi S e,c) act- t,U`► t 1 MAY-- a- POo ►OD .9 q I t ea is a art l t l9-m r am ow( m2a(-hounr s ot y tread a off cfis short- G --o ixuL am) t?c)ns- cict7 Dn ) oU n s t . UttialwribifiE CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM jWira DATE: February 28, 1996 PEP 9 TO: Jennifer Toth Henning " .c UEvcc�,,: 96 FROM: Sonja J.Fesserj,()? Cir rw;,.k ReivTON N.4�G SUBJECT: The Orchards, Sectors E,F and G,LUA-96-010-PP Format and Legal Description Review Bob Mac Onie and I have reviewed the above referenced preliminary plat submittal and have the following comments: Note all existing easements of record on the drawing. Note if the properties to the east and south of Sector G are platted(give name of plat and tract/lot no.) or unplatted. Note the names of the streets created by the plat on the drawing. See the attached. The King County Tax Rolls list Gary and Don Merlino as the taxpayers of record for the subject properties. The owner/developer,per the preliminary plat drawing, is Northward Properties. Information needed for final plat approval includes the following: Make ties to the City of Renton Survey Control Network. See attached. The City of Renton's land use action number(LUA-96-010-FP)and the land record number(LND- 10-0307) should be noted on all drawing sheets, preferably in the upper right-hand corner. The type size for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Include a statement of equipment and procedures used,per WAC 332-130-100. Indicate what is to be set at the corners of the proposed lots. Include a basis of bearing,per WAC 332-130-050 1.b.iii. Note the date the existing monuments were visited, per WAC 332-130-050 1.f.iv. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated. Addressing information will be made available for the final plat review. February 22, 1996 Page 2 Note that if there are restrictive covenant(s) as part of this subdivision,they can be recorded concurrently with the plat. The plat drawings and the associated document(s) are to be given to the City Clerk's office as a package. The plat shall have the first recording number. The recording number(s) for the associated document(s)will be referenced on the plat drawings in the appropriate location. Note existing easements and show any created by the plat, including a reference to whom the easements are granted. The property owner's signature needs to be notarized and the signature should be proceeded with a certification and dedication block. Required City of Renton signatures are: the Administrator of Planning/Building/Public Works,the Mayor and the City Clerk. An approval block for the City's Finance Director is also required. Provide plat and lot closure calculations. Provide an updated plat certificate(dated within 45 days of Council action). Complete City of Renton Monument Cards with reference points for new right of way monuments. Because this property is located within Zone 2 of Renton's Aquifer Protection Area, the Aquifer Protection Notice needs to be noted on the drawing. See attached. The surveyor needs to stamp, sign and date the drawings. Fee Review Comments: The Fee Review Sheet for this preliminary review will be available after the City's Waste Water division receives additional information pertaining to the East Renton Interceptor project. This additional information is necessary to provide an accurate fee review. MEMO.DOT/ APPLICANT: },i,v=rr}-1 ls>A i-p -p =4=c-r1 S 'CEIVED FROM 1 F" .2(2/34,_at � JOB ADDRESS: GT14 .STR T I=(= ALrr- -bUVAI 1 .. AY1= LIE - WON 7Ac Zs NATURE OF WORK: I z2. 1_-g (-ri-t -: OR -1-!A'R1-D�) .,=r-1�- 1= ,Tv LND/1 In -n07 PRELIMINARY REVIEW O SUBDIVISION BY LONG PLAT, NEED MORE INFORMATION: 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHORT PLAT,BINDING SITE PLAN,ETC. 0 PID is 0 VICINITY MAP ❑ FINAL REVIEW OF SUBDIVISION,THIS REVIEW REPLACES 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE 0 OTHER PRELIMINARY FEE REVIEW DATED 0 FRONT FOOTAGE -9044 ❑ SUBJECT PROPERTY PARENT PID/1 10.a305-943-4- NEW KING CO.TAX ACCT./1(s)are required when - 9'04-5 assigned by King County. - go6.3 It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below may be applicable to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are potential charges that may be due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e.underground utilities,street improvements,etc.) Triggering mechanisms for the SDC fees will be based on current City ordinances and determined by the applicable Utility Section. Please note that these fees are subject to change without notice. Final fees will be based on rates in effect at time of Building Permit/Construction Permit application. C7 The existing house on SP Lot/f ,addressed as has not previously paid SDC fees,due to connection to City utilities prior to existance of SDC fee Ord. SP Loti will be subject to future SDC fees if triggering mechanisms are touched within current City Ordinances. XWe understand that this subdivision is in the preliminary stage and that we will have the opportunity to review it again before recordation. The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees,side sewer permits,r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF • ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ' DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS OR FEE • Latecomer Agreement(pvt)WATER q I >4 ce:r=r. •-v IF coLI I o L+t d Za FIPIO'14 'f�� THY lt {� 1C'. V. Latecomer Agreement(pvt)WASTEWATER Latecomer Agreement(pvt)OTHER ' Special Assessment District/WATER 4C1=A5"r. LrpI_1. l R 000L ZZ4.5z`U Li,l-r 12 3 $Z7,341.44 Special Assessment District/WASTEWATER Joint Use Agreement(METRO) • Local Improvement District Traffic Benefit Zones $75.00 PER TRIP,CALCULATED BY TRANSPORTATION FUTURE OBLIGATIONS J I I SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-WATER CI Estimated • #OF UNITS/ SDC FEE 0 Pd Prev. ❑Partially Pd(Ltd Exemption) Q Never Pd SQ.FTC. Single family residential$850/unit x 12Z $ I0'5,7ao Mobile home dwelling unit$680/unit in park Apartment,Condo$510/unit not in CD or COR zones x , Commercial/Industrial, $0.113/sq.ft.of property(not less than$850.00)x • Boeing,by Special Agreement/Footprint of Bldg plus 15 ft perimeter(2,800 GPM threshold) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-WASTEWATER 0 Estimated ❑Pd Prev. 0 Partially Pd(Ltd Exemption) a Never Pd Single family residential$585/unit x Me. 6 71 137C5 • Mobile home dwelling unit$468/unit x Apartment,Condo$350/unit not in CD or COR zones x • Commercial/Industrial$0.078/sq.ft.of property x(not less•than$585.00) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-SURFACEWATER 0 Estimated ❑ Pd Prev. ❑ Partially Pd (Ltd Exemption) ( . Never Pd Single family residential and mobile home dwelling unit$385/unit x 12Z E -46,q 70 All other properties$0.129sq ft of new impervious area of property x (not less than$385.00) • PRELIMINARY TOTAL $ 2-49,431 .44 ,a/kn! i . l,gtf npfh.> 17E/9G `t' Sign a of eviewing Authority DAT a ❑ *If subject property is within an LID,it is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept.for paid/un-paid status. 0 ❑ Square footage figures are taken from the King County Assessor's map and are subject to change. o ❑ Current City SDC fee charges apply to �• • c:/template/fecappI/tgb EFFECTIVE July 16, 1995/Ord.Nos.4506,4507,4508,4525,and 4526 c �lFct.)I:Rt L.ITLY ILJ -pt cF 4.- coV .L 15Y ecL)Liel- . City of Renton InterOffice Memo To: Jennifer Henning From: Kayren K. Kittrick Date: April25, 1996 Subject: Orchards, Sectors E,F, & G LUA-96-010,PP, SA,ECF EXISTING CONDITIONS • WATER-A water crossing was supplied in a previous phase of this project. SEWER-A sewer crossing was supplied for this project as part of a previous phase. STORM-due to wetland considerations and flooding observed in the area, a level 2 drainage report is required. Review of the proposed storm facilities depends on a current evaluation of the conditions. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER 1. The System Development Charge will be levied at the rate of$850 per single family site and $510 per multifamily unit. 2. The 16=inch water line shall be constructed to the southern property line for future extension. 3. An easement for the water line shall be provided with a recorded plat document or as separate documents if no plat drawing is required. The easement shall include all hydrants,meters,and vault locations as well as the installed pipe and valves. 4. Separate meters for each single family home and any townhouse style unit is required. The multifamily units may install one meter per structure. SANITARY SEWER 1. The System Development Charge shall be levied at the current rate of$585 per single family site and$350 per multifamily unit. The East Renton Interceptor SAD charge shall be in the amount of$224.52 per single family lot and$0.069 per square foot of the gross property for Sector G. 2. Sewer stubs to adjoining properties south of Sector E/F shall be provided. SURFACE WATER 1. The System Development Charge shall be levied at the current rate of$385 per single family site. The multifamily site shall have a fee determined by the square footage of new impervious surface on the site multiplied by$0.129., 2. There is an existing latecomer's agreement for the improvements in Bremerton by the Windsor Apartments. See fee sheet attached. Orchards, Sectors E,F,& LUA-96-010,PP, SA,ECF 04/25/96 Page 2 STREETS/TRANSPORTATION 1. Full frontage improvements for Duvall Ave.NE are required including, but not limited to, sidewalk, curb &gutter, streetlighting,paving, channelization and planting strips. 2. Dedication of right-of-way for N.E. 6th Street is required on the northern property line of Section G. Half street improvements including curb &gutter, sidewalk,paving, and lighting are also required. 3. Sidewalks are required on both sides of the streets in Sectors E and F. Sidewalk quantity and location are insufficient in Sector G. 4. Full frontage improvements are required along Bremerton Av NE whether constructed with Division 2 of the Orchards plat or with this development. 5. A Traffic Mitigation Fee of$750 per single family home site shall be assessed. The same rate applies to the townhouse/condominium units. PLAN REVIEW- GENERAL 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. • E. 2. A construction permit is required. When plans are complete three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report,a construction estimate and application fee shall be submitted to the fourth floor counter. A fee worksheet is attached. However, it is recommended to call 235-2631 for a fee estimate as generated by the permit system prior to issuing your check. CONDITIONS 1. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. This shall include immediate hydroseeding of all disturbed areas after road grading is complete. 2. A construction plan indicating haul route(s) and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. Haul hours • shall be restricted to 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. 3. Construction hours shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Saturdays may be arranged with no hours in excess of the weekday hours.No Sunday construction is allowed except under emergency conditions.. CC: Neil Watts CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM Date: March 29, 1996 • To: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning From: Kayren K. Kittrick, Plan Review • J� Subject: Orchards Section E, F, and G LUA-96-010, PP, SA, ECF EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER 1. This developer previously constructed a 12- inch diameter water line in Bremerton Ave. NE and water lines in Duvall Ave. NE and NE 6th Street. SEWER 1. There is an existing sanitary sewer in Bremerton Ave. NE, and an extension to the East Renton Interceptor in Duvall Ave. NE. STORM 1. A level two drainage study was required. Water quality treatment sized for the new impervious surfaces subject to vehicular access is required, all to King County SWDM Standards. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER 1. The water line in Duvall Ave. NE shall be required to be extended the full length of the • property frontage on Duvall Ave. NE 2. The Water System Development Charge (SDC) is triggered at a rate of $850, per single family unit or$510, per unit for multifamily. SANITARY SEWER 1. The Sanitary Sewer SDC is triggered and will be assessed at a rate of $585, per single family home site and $350, per unit for multifamily sites. _ SURFACE WATER 1. Detention and water quality facilities are required in accordance with the King County Storm Water Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton. 2. The conceptual drainage plan for the project has been reviewed. Additional information has been requested about the existing drainage conditions and the current status of the wetlands. Approval is pending receiving a Level 2 drainage study and wetland report. ORCEFG2.DOC 3. The Surface Water SDC is assessed based on the total new impervious surface square footage as reflected in the final design. The charge is determined by multiplying the gross square footage of the site area by $0.129, for the multifamily units, or $385 per single family residence. STREETS 1. Full frontage improvements for Duvall Ave NE including, but not limited to, sidewalks, curb & gutter, pavement, channelization and street lighting are required. 2. Full street improvements including curb & gutter, street lighting, paving, street signs, and sidewalks are required throughout the project. 3. All street names and numbers shall conform to City of Renton street naming standards. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. Temporary Erosion Control measures including, but not limited to dust and mud control, street cleaning, protection of existing catchbasins, wheel washing and construction entrances shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. 2. A construction plan indicating haul route(s) and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. Haul hours shall be restricted between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. 3. Construction hours shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m..and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Saturdays shall be as arranged with no hours in excess of the weekday hours, and no Sunday construction. 4. Water service stubouts or extensions are required to the neighboring properties for future possible development, including further possibility of looped systems in the area. These may be provided through easements and extensions or full frontage improvements. 5. Provision for sanitary sewer connections to the neighboring properties shall be required. This may be in the form of stubouts from one or more manholes with accompanying easements, or by full line extension. 6. The wetlands shall be monitored by a wetland specialist for the duration of construction. Reports shall be submitted by this specialist to the Development Services Division monthly. All work within the wetland or buffer shall be inspected and approved by the wetland specialist. 7. All roadways in Sectors E & F shall be a minimum 28' wide, with a 5' sidewalk on both sides of all streets to provide pedestrian amenities. 8. All roadways in Sector G shall have a minimum 20' wide pavement and sidewalks on both sides throughout the area. The 20' minimum shall only be allowed if adequate parking is provided for guests and visitors. ORCEFG2.DOC 9. Pedestrian linkages snail be provided to facilitate access public transportation and Duvall Avenue NE. 10. The Traffic Mitigation fee of $75, per daily average trip shall be assessed prior to issue of the building permit. CC: Neil Watts • • ORCEFG2.DOC • n: _ gal I/ II� . N 'r :19 :;i 7 P3 e�5�1 'I '' I�c,, r9 iii ¢4 i4 a3. IIII I.I *IN/44ftl* ..._ ., , ... \ (./:__\) / : ' € I' / ,........ lig ::, ' \ • /16, . • a 1 — \ D , T .,....--:\-.........' 7-----" • 1 \ 0 $(,,1 ,,5,, • I I I (40 ,,I, 9i ut �qi� i ip1 ) ;' ' 0 I S) 9 1), ,. . o I I :4U 04 111'ø 1' �.. - II 'I CO • / ,7C - _/ \I F ® p , l A j C 31 0 \ V il ii • • ggi 0 44 .•,... J il • ,... , .„..._____________ _..„.... y--: lio xi I _ ....._______,_,..______ , ) . I i . t • ////' / - .. gam / ( % 1 ("--\\ ,,,\ , r. (--r-__—•----awl/ / 1...--'17\\\ \\ / I f 1 SEC. 10, TWP. 29 N., ROE. 5 E., W.M. N D.r[.NAVARr !9% r adxdil tart EX/ST/NG TOPOGRAPHY OF THE ORCHARDS poops eLGItt Ewa, IrNc. 4` b V n D AWN ORNG KRuf(XR SECTORS E F, O CIVIL [N0INCCI,INC !U„V[Y1N0 •CANNING r � �I �94WN T.L.AENOAtj / .70e-14 M I.K.N.C.-SLAM ZOO • q •PPgov[o R.w.aASYr NORTHWARD PROPERTIES OD [[LL[W[.W.WwOTO..06007 V MVO 2RRVCaR I7L0-IUOIN A.['.N.C.,SUITE WOJ P•o.ccr u....a,. ftTLEI(R;w )ao,)re-i[n DA005 ��•.7 SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E., W.M. ;; a . c•DI.pkb - - I'.y» m. ._.}... .our (tr. . TRACT C Mel/ Ø2I L r i I S.1 —23 i I Ii -. .11 inti 4 .• . .. .. '�'"Lam' I �`JYI 7 I 74 ]! 77 71 • I IC11111171131. LI: ,rsii 7I ! E Ti opt ot _ , 8 . pZ r.f1J+ I i 5 P AD' t — • 1WW • Q Z I ;4 C VI ' _ E E ms° ISO' Wi 1 r .----- -- -----— ',-011.- . —11 ' :'-7 _-il ' .1.,E .7...• VIII .7).4444 . ! 41 NOTE.M•.. tlNs o,°.e »a x I• l `-s i I + 4447/4). TYirrar Y 0 z T..0/Ow0. ..DI.2. 3, I: i F p g ,(19is" I� = •VCI,C A.L. .f • ,l- -; N s O o `= Ih 30 • i •0 I I rIII't Ititiv. • i k -.----,Z-I -: I . ��101/1111/3 h 0 • • i 1 • r�_� 77 •73 7. 3, 2 y O'Y'' SECTORS E d F ��• a• .a. r / `L a a 0 0Irs Q o SECTOR G ,s, (5• LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTORS a I 1.South 1?,qua/Ur I.c b�G.i r,r.b])North quarto,• Ill • i..�el}+.EXCEPT Y..e....]r..,,,,�.,r.r D..,.Vie» Owner/Developer Englneer/Plenner/Surveyor y - -ard Cy O..a.�.e.a,.e...ren..a.11..•h... • ,do..e Dean.Eng..,.r U P. x w w ho...rr rr•••v a V.e.w..•r boor*, a .-�^r ',ie.su.nD .],.I.e1..,....N.E. ..... . b.~u.�.y...r or bocrwi b.T.r..y])Mo...Ode III eiM»Y].Do h r - T Ea,PM.EXCEPT v.EA.•}root V..., 134......EZ Dw+• .p >pDO cp.r,.L K.g c..,.eama recce...Nar R....,W. Jbrn Lw-.l♦ ce+.n Gear b•r.L.Ey.� or . ,... I I-aM,U MOO[nZrt er„L.u.*0) r PYh.e. Tel r}W}l•l.h}. A k r T.DrC./..DIN.Im L.P. .VO..•na or pY..at Mai 4Y.y pll-'.......P. .v y y Y '• S ; Y.Paco/OP,Yo.MD.])OXL T.I r]011 PN-,011 , y TM SIT* LEGAL DESCRIPTION 8CCTmwG o .. T.boom,..0 of.,,•........q,....r or Ina e..N....rear STATISTICAL SUMMARY of Po boom,roar*,.+b«la ID.lev*,gl})....I owe,> EXCEPT O.Lt..•]root vr..r for DON Ave..OE r tecTOR>L.• KCTpe 4 ?MM. SCALE: 1• = 50' / » .,r • h4":.m.lr ti' y eo r..o.a.a �a..a w. ,. . b.11.>r ra..rl]YL TwI M.• 0,3 R,I!)Ierr )»•]O q h r>rl.er HpX q,r•bOD•o« • ,boot...*,q..Mr or O.boohoos•I••Mr •'•.v..•a»•erg Lot. >, 00 e. UV,EX T 1..%6•of i r.n u�0 i .• b.r°�"r a�°OO•i° wa• • crammed.oKeg Lamy g a.•a*,•core..urar beer.,No. B• �_ Ire]oo•.root..} ex.ter. VICINITY MAP �a^« rn u)o r• ]oo. •..10, .>Ioo..MC or 4, be.n..rm>.. »..... , ' i K xsle 95054 • • SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E., W.M. • I • - - — ' ;� i- a .. - ' _ `� T --' — —Y ; • 1 ?D.e..,y -�e rr - •ti -- • •I t - _ - -.L..':':i . 'I TIP-ACT C �- _ _ __ _ TRACT�Iw ''''.. . ' - Pr- , w b N v • �� al .. I• Y i El_.F ,. ';e.J{ o ` ] I ]i •' _sw .]i]• , >«i.1✓ L . I 4 e I 544..13iiitr7 - • • • ., + I 1 ,•-_ ---- s , �1 ,�a5, \ 1. .44,, $ i s 1 L� I Y L ? t. fki ZZ $ i 3 I I `\�-- -� L--yy^--�c.Nam- $) Ie,.-J $ I / //// [�r��_ � �f •TI- ,��. x W} VT, 1 ,_____I E pm , • 3 I i___ .. - a— _r-V_1 I = f -.:N _. J/ � •)•/ USI I Y QN _ 3 a Lill '* ;-.-7,-,---....I) ._.,..._, ; A f • . 1-Ark \f.?.. "04, . , , • i •i .3 0 or ■ •■ •■ ■ ® • • ,M J w Orr..D]: • �'°°I ' ' ; ,7 R7 bZ f7 • 71a _ 1 v_� , ' E O> 2 •a IrI - --- e. .-- -- di - ....1 1. -� lY. ,. IY :I \ �� 4i') +. _ -- .R �� « 1 7 • ''- -I, , ', j __ '----0 I • 'I .39 :140 L 1 s, •: 47 l 4J:,u _--^•I'_I^ 2 `_ru,✓J Y p 1 f . ° ' Q I y� a 3✓ I Motri,--k, �. N . 1 r:.o. ISiEfito LEI I101; C7 Q ilik I - I iottil aft W`�$ r • 1ki 1l , , ---, , i r--i r----, r---� r---� r___� __., r_`." r--,, '� 1 �ii f. _ I.ll I��. .._i L"_! I L"V . L„__J I. «•' L"6_.l I.---1 J L,.w✓i 1,0Y_�J _J L f I .,•. -_—�.____.__._.__ _ �. .![rl.��� : ���' a 2 I`CO O`�a SECTORS E d F f :r c . /. �° )' , w r. , N J� Qo► SECTOR G I y W 3 1 3 il; I I 3 Q� �,� I 2cc"ki LEGAL DESCRIPTION LECTORS E•■ O T..............1,a.w,ra.,f....a'•"-..wee.,..«r'� O 41 a w eawe�.q.,.,r a•.a.w.n.Torero>)•.ran W tar NM na.or Ur ell for ..e P e ;, Owner/Developer Enc�ineer/Plamer/Surveyor CO rt 1 ��e..a.mm,.,e.R.�e.g,.a. •la.wra.. r],m.E.L.e.....r_ � :�ve.« �a V.wu.«,q+,.or w fow,.r..*err R•G.«au. ,ie.,.,,e CO ']O°]f>o..��f/L Q ,a.,e or s.a.w..n,Toe..y]a..a.e.R.,g.[ eM,.....NA>.00. Elolw,...0•BOGI jr 1,90 $ ; Ear u[l:IX0[R w GN.]Not u,..er.or 1.e.1,•..•�•G Ncorryr lo NNE Caw,by err roarer*rho Iltoorrs No. �•�, GM1w• .• • Tel flGMl t•1•fV• 6Tyr Y[�rll I'''''...* r p k N Q' I • Th•Prom*Onerre I. N or Nu.•.pogo Parr Tel f]O.1 e•M•TBn r TM M• - SIT LEGAL DESCRIPTION LECTOR66 STATISTICAL S(11 RIARY Q e�Q u: ... Tn•10..n hall a/w..wr..error a w real.«**rho . / of w raw...«q'•'•.a e.a..e b.Tower*])•wn ; �T.�- Err1.ww rxcaf w era a]for roar for lawn Arra ii• •EGip!L•. LICTge G TO"; Q, •,+ ry re .ro ^ •.fN9•rd rd /atilv�L> 4.a rrewob.,.ems 1[mo«g No. Teal M.• b•IC[W N.I[e>,ems a».ai.q M1,V,,w WOY p f•I MOO,ea is SCALE: 1e = 50' r - • .t,�q,,,,ell a re q.w of O.flora[parr Rava•.e••.ems e.Lou .> •1 CO G.Tere.�.I)••L++N w IhrlIc 4r.•.g.Rape! R-]. R-]. q.r.do of 60.1. fry M200✓.WA Anl .. L r.t uut 030ZI i w ur.Al for°roof for DFB•vwr.6L w 'af'[°>Orb faw.ay.e.p Cwg...KEG,a,f.!foram..'O�Irm.C.g Me. ww.Coven., 06200•l.00,1 a[01 •1000•f fM.of G' M[.n•r.].new foul✓,a. VICINITY MAP •.b1 . 40 OULE 95054 • SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N., ROE 5 E., W.M. i II !( . ''- -.I'-'i-•L z•-1 I. 1 . I-. ..1 ?-1, lic 1 f.,p...:3.1 1 i:, 1 11 if L '-'-ri li . '-•• Ali..... - — --- j -. -ate -- - • �. Jslr I.:...3. ' 42. ,a. __ r H VIGINIT7 MAP ; • �9 ivrr.4..,w__,___....... 74-v.::::::..r.0 � POW.. ;;a• • Owner/Developer Engineer/Flamer/Surveyor + d III PO.POO ............'-....:. I :'i' I 30 I I� 76 , 71 IV' 47' nmivT"oro• ra:2.2.•rem Aar .I.- U Z ,, § • I Zz re,.. . litpliiitil iIL ♦` • ILEGEiD n..r•w m�.,ru..,..ys 4�n - I "' LEGAL DESCRIPTION aiu _ .-K3,1 miaow. �� �� !� ' .\ 70 I UT.e..a cc? I /�1, _: T.!•Mm m°V Or M NO Me•T OHRRw P FK some.,LY,ra W f ' } • O nII 'R" oM•w mew coa ew TO 4447umvmn wwra o.r'. ui�.iWQF• 59 11 wrT.'rr.m e.o®r1•cao®uoaw rEcm.n.n..nw. Z 3 '• TI` -.� •.T•r.am•�a o worm war o ne warn.T comma o M•cum..coma m 1• 3 ..i37 II .t19 a TOM na ne•arms•\coreso Tealar r.Tpw�1•moan,m+:ne• Q 0 8 8 • •YT..,oron M MOT.T mat nA0 TM w•T.11Kma•L•• z ikik. 5B ' CATTa`PROM To R,o coma r o®Nocc om uoa recarow maW1I II ' HC I n••.row.11 cooaw uIII � 33 ePII 111111111 [ I ' SO 11 ' � b I I I • I:.'gyp I 34 II \ IfillI T r ro•nucr .Te•°nr r°•remcr Q V 1: '� I�� 6� e''.Il: I Y '. !' 7' rr or v Y °• 7 8 � ilil�_ ,�111 I I I i g• 1 I I 1 y I 1:' 011tritillialaNN Alppir"1:1 ---.1: , . It :III 1 1 ENTRANCEEal: ROADWAY SECT/ON e 8 MO SCIa .I O die yI lipilin ,,, ., .. ) O43 qasl¢p1' waLic?LLe ,., 41 µ [: I r. �•1 2 6 O rY } I � \ IIhI a . •r-•� •' o'er ro• ri 1�1 �1 e4. ����i f f I' I • 1 I ICI I 4 I Qeat •q `I 1� ,. �- p� 3qW il.�, . `+ r: 13 t"• 39 40 41 47 .4/ , 44• •: q I .9e[ne° v.wrc HOC �mc�Tnua n.Te �. 1 • am.) ,ac.a°Of INAN r wrmr am) cr� ,,6 4 \`11-- — ..i I SECTION B-B .i C) _ �I TRACT F TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION . I�.... �a� ��� �'i�l\ Leo cTo. m.xu[ W I �• r '-"ir'. Q I'/h�Ii 1'C I 2 6 1 8 9 .10 I I .. I .._........_.. X..J.,_ $m., rt- "- •I _• NE4V0119V1 _ C kI- ....... W YI Oi`r SECTORS E F .awl' ,r• .r SECT/ON C-C = 1I o el I ; PUBLIC ALLEY SECTION j ,�� / _......-:.... ,9. ¢I I i I 'o of;J. •o scum :•' 6�/ iIII 1i1 SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E., W.M. ,,. I .r.. Amy r .____ SCALE: 1' = 40' r G ' _ ��^� i� VICINITY MAP E�• • '��+d •R4CT B \\ ,,, — _ . �• Owner/Developer Eglneer/Plenner/Surveyor ... 1 N.....m u..Ise u g irAll.]' Wirt)ni Ca...,. ' a !new 0 i . 8 1 �'�7 '' CO UT. LEGAL DESCRIPTION eZ ' z II likmiliklm* ��� 1:.. r _._ m.,wrn,.na.r.wur....q...te au.bw.... Ran,. >` al � � �:�II Wm a.+w.rr.q...v a e.c...n ro.la.v.p]a wmn . W u�� _ rw c encert u..r. n..e.rem'.e.re.r<. ie... W a m TRACT A ' Alli ' r41. wur.wr,evca me wmn..0 a G...ow...q...o.a a..Ga......,+•� Q N _ 1 cpr r.ce a MI MA a 7Z7 .a:71— Ter".w.n..: u c 8 MIT.wDDUE .c lang wq w a�n..wm.v re.r a.g Ma W D eArimos r .MM D ID[cw D,. I 1,0111 1111111111111 ILL'Sjii li i// ,:::" Ora tag .rn tligl \ 3 _ EliN 111 4 1011r 111 0 11. 1, \\, 1p, . %4 X Qi . � � ;r: iatrNLii.....W,yaki1, " ". „ ' ;Wes .4•N 1 10.471111 �' �� titli., 8 arter ccwrera rena nme .41 W 0.`m \ s0; 3.MAW,[0.4-Ir SiDtomul C,3 SECTION A-A e I, e z 1 //� litg ENTRANCE ROAD SECT/ON a k'' li E4 � �W 2ACT F I talreVrAllipplil I ..L, M•PIbY�?NOAD IR..CIfX.MHm„a..—� 14111111VA I •` 'MDi ID' IU' !' ., itilir ill •40•410 .IETL/4.0, 7 ,.... DATA ( ,, ,, _ 111110 a fat aK/.r COMern-NYtCD aws 'zzn Ili''. a 6 n , ... of L ,� S'C!K'n1 COVCFCIC SWCG[R , SECTION B-B V / `E�EK•iE_�_E.YLE55 R U ^ll. ;•:�f^�}a TYPICAL ROAD SECT/ON ; ` N .r f .3•5201 tow i sm�.mr .a sour SECTOR Cz � �� ,,._. ' Da._�. G. 1 1 95054 4 .ko/ s> 7:1at , o. ill.'''. IL: -,i i. - : IgLII ,1�" 11 ', 1 I. 1 1 l'':' - 'sl 14 i II f3 Ili; IQIITMM A ' k!! I •Ii::TT in iriiinnii IIIIIIIIIIII4011111111111111VIt ji IlIIIIIII �JII111 : ' � II -lr ii111 £I I I I I -ir; I '"�� II:* j1I il �I'i�jri�:. I 'LI� I.Ii l� ' 1 I' 11 I I 1'I 1112//_:7,:,.......� Ii1i ' '1.1 'II`iq "1,• 4III I - ' I I 1.%, — if, l i l 1 I.,i 11 I p I I i P -1i`\�„°.� i ,d,1 uuuwum"'r'' I, I I til l ®` 1 1 r I III Iil all i j'1 I I1 �;li;,i dI011�llll%�y,1 j , iiiiiid,j;i,/,g11,..:„L,,,:. t[I �7i ai;£S ud, I 'I I a"'1 III r+riii IIIIIIfiiYllliGliY!'s6. iI I I I 1 • k i '1f11 1I I II I II I \� .£ ! I id it 4 :3.:,,2M JI !I I uI IlIIII . 1€:it. ;?'!'r �21 jig 111 H1N1 f��\\��. I /,> THE THE ORCHARDS G I14O I4O0 AVE.NE NELLEVUE.WA 1.004 1204 141—nu RENTON. WA6HINGTON • • • I l• bti f S : .•l nnuuml w`'`1 II111111 II 1'1 1: 1.9��j • %� 1 i \- ul h !th„,„„,, :,, r -.-- ,, . . ��II l „! , , �r IIIIIIII{:; q,,,• __ _ �' gI11111111Ci ' ' .iv.....,,,,,...,-, IIIIIIIIII� jI II): • jmim ____ IIIIIIIIHI 1` • : ti I • i,, ll vI91 =; • 1�l� / • ` � " ll ii ?`ilnlimo.7o�,4anrI 1.ICI � III g ""1Iy II i/74M Ik r• rl,ii tl i Billy , _ � � ii ii , -� . 111111 d • Iol 1I . ,..I ill ..,.Ilr; ,i:,;::, , ��� . ,r 1d• �� I ' IIIIIIIIIIII �I � • " • 14. 't unuuuuiii 8: '. I. �r ' JI • Ii • . I I r ...:..:: ..::: ::V r liii�""'m', !f Illllllll� I II' I ifil,1 rim„ ; it ' 14 13.` . • 11 'I!1)qi I-117 It ° .li . I� _,.. _ ►IUIIIIIIIL; { IIIIIIIIIII� mnnum i 'II�i11nur I e1I Jr;" IIIIIIIIIIP`==iv . IIII� 'l,`= I'I ■I�..jai,iA MCV • NORTHWARD THE ORCHARDS G ILO HOU AVE.NE BELLEVUE.WA TIOO1 1200141-nu RENTON. WASHINGTON • \�• 1111111111111111111ji ! iiiiiauW . ij] I � 1j1\ ( IM[[ ` " JJJ _ "wkI. _) 0111i ::: i► %1 1 JJJ r IIIIIIIIIIIIII i��� , j IIIIIIIII"'! IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ,i, „_;;; \\ /1 � , ,mn'iiIIIIIL.€ IIIIIIIIIIIIII 2, j]] riM I:r • ii:! liq r AI r.g \, ' iti unr—'X; N' IIIIIWI!I�� I � jiJ ,I I"� 1"I II l I I uuuuumnu i i , rit, 11,111 �,,_ Ilnlllllll,, 11I n,; 4--ao1L ��1i111 - I;' G I 1,,,•„, ,..,,,,,,,,fr: i I +..4 A 1 ,,„. ,„.......,.......:,„n„,„,,,„!:, ,,,,,,,,,,,,.,., 1 i, ®ll�"r I % € . .. (111111 4.,•.::.. vl± �l��� C =,> ,," 1 JII �'A�IIIBIII rr1 alll u I IJJJ 1 ` r., 1.11 jj Isi .) '' JJJis rI II010.. i� ,i:J _ II 1I1 NIMBI; I `- :. • _ i I • , " '17*, .. • • i % _ NORTHWARD T H E ORCHARDS Mf0 MOTH Xi 4Lit 'stops noo TAT-m` RENTON. WABHINGTON >COM.I \ E .N: CING'`�#T..9...... ..Al1A ::.:� • _<: . • :> . D .;: 0 REN.<;.O.N<:: i1NLCIRA' <B. .I[ :I:G >>>>><«<>< C.O..:I�N.C.IL.;C.�tAMB�R.S.;<S�CQN:...: F.�Cy:...:R,.:.::.......:..�..........:IVI:......::...:......:.........:.....:.::.:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.�::::::::::::. >:: e�:a 1 tion s:<:tisfee#::are<::in::::o.cder:::of<:a li.ratio:ninuriilieran1"�and�iiotri:ecessaci["..th ... .. . r. ...wh h.. PROJECT NAME: THE ORCHARDS, SECTORS E, F&G PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes,which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 57 attached townhomes, each on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of an approved wetland mitigation plan. Location: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street. AGNDA.DOC • • • MITIGATION DOCUMENT THE ORCHARDS MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT The Environmental Review Committee for the City of Renton issued a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for The Orchards Mixed-Use Development on August 9, 1991. The Supplemental EIS for this project has identified a number of possible mitigation measures for adverse environmental impacts that were considered to be significant or potentially significant (as defined by quantitative measures whenever such measures were found to exist). In some cases, such measures do not exist and it was left up to the responsible official to determine whether additional mitigation measures, if any, are warranted to protect the environment. A number of chapters of WAC 197-11 speak directly to the imposition of mitigation measures. The relevant chapters are cited below. WAC 197-11-060 Content of Environmental Review states that agencies shall "carefully consider the range of probable impacts, including short-term and long-term effects." Impacts shall include 'those that are likely to arise or exist over the lifetime of a proposal", or, in some cases, even longer. WAC 197-11-330 Threshold Determination Process requires the responsible official to take into account the following when determining whether a proposal has significant adverse impacts: 'The same proposal may have a significant adverse impact in one location but not in another location;" 'The absolute quantitative effects of a proposal are also important, and may result in a significant adverse impact regardless of the nature of the existing environment"; and, "Several marginal impacts when considered together may result in a significant adverse impact." In reaching such a decision, SEPA states that the responsible official shall not balance whether the beneficial aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse impacts, but rather,shall consider whether a proposal has any probable significant adverse environmental impacts under the rules stated above. WAC 197-11-448 Relationship of EIS to'other.considerations states that the general welfare, social, economic,and other requirements and essential considerations of state policy will be taken into account in weighing and balancing alternatives and in making final decisions. . . . The EIS provides a basis upon which the responsible agency and officials can make the balancing judgement mandated by SEPA, because it provides Information on the environmental costs and Impacts. WAC 197-11-660 Substantive Authority and Mitigation requires that mitigation measures be based on policies, plans, rules or regulations formally designated by the agency. It also requires that mitigation measures shall be related to specific adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in an environmental • document on the proposal: "After its decisions, each agency shall make available to the public a document that states the decisions. The document shall state the mitigation measures, if any, that will be implemented as part of the decisions, including any monitoring of environmental impacts." (WAC 197-11- 660 (1)(b)). This document is intended to meet this requirement. - As well as analyzing the environmental impacts, the City of Renton, under its land use provisions, must assess its many objectives and goals and decide how this project furthers or conflicts with them. Some City goals may be internally conflicting. When this occurs, the City believes that the SEPA process, mandates a close environmental analysis to determine priorities. If the priorities are established and the project is able to mitigate its impacts sufficiently, then the City believes it should proceed. This document presents mitigation measures necessary for the ultimate construction of The Orchards Mixed-Use development. THE PROPOSED ACTION Northward Development Company is proposing to develop a 62.3 acre site in East Renton as a mixed-use project consisting of 121 single-family residential lots, 68 townhouse units, 275 apartment units, and 28,000 square feet of combined commercial and office space. The site is located to the north and generally west of the intersection of Duvall Avenue N.E.and N.E.4th Street, and it is currently covered with second growth forest except for two single-family houses. The houses and much of the forest will be removed for the 1 • proposed development. The Windsor Place apartment complex lies to the west and south of the site and the proposed Forrest Creste project site abuts the north edge of part of the site. Honeydew Elementary School and playground also abut the north edge of the project site. , The anticipated population living in the project is 898 persons. On-site infrastructure improvements will include the construction of streets (N.E. 6th Street, N.E. 8th Street, Anacortes Avenue N.E., residential collector streets and internal drives and parking areas), sidewalks, street lighting,and water,fire, and sewer systems. On-site recreational facilities will include a recreation center in the townhouse area consisting of a 900 foot meeting room building and an outdoor pool;and two 3,500 square foot recreation buildings with an outdoor pool, jacuzzi, weight room, meeting room, small kitchen and management offices for the apartment units. The project is contemplated to be constructed in phases and requires rezones, site plan approvals, and demolition, filling, grading, and building permits. The existing zoning consists of R-1, R-2, R-3, and G-1. The project would require that all of the R-2 zone and approximately half of the R-3 zone be changed to R- 1,thereby creating a large R-1 zone for the 121 single-family lots. The other half of the R-3 and virtually all of the R-1 zone would become a Contract R-3 zone for the townhouses and apartments. The remaining portion of the R-1 zone would become a Contract B-1 zone for convenience retail and office space. it A. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 1. Surface Water: The site is split between two drainage basins: a west sub-basin of about 14 acres and an east sub-basin of about 49 acres.1;While some off-site flooding occurs near the site on N.E. 4th Street,the Utility Systems;Division has determined that it is not • attributable to either one of the two drainage basins which overlay the site area. The existing dra rage patterns will be modified onj the site due to development of the residential and commercial areas and of the necessary road improvements.. These modifications do hot have'significant impacts however, as they do not affect flows into the;, two drainage basins. j, - - 'During periods of;construction activity and because of the increased amount of impervious surface in the"completed project, the character and i quality of stormwater runoff will be reduced below what-it Is now on the site in its natural state. The impact however, is not anticipated to be a significant one. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: 1, Al. None are1considered necessary. Because the proposed action must comply with the requirements of the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and because the proposed action will have no off-site surface water impacts which are not addressed by the KCSWDM, mitigation of off-site adverse surface water impacts will be achieved through compliance with the KCSWDM. 2. Groundwater: The project site is located entirely within Aquifer Protection Area Zone 2. Currently, all groundwater recharge is not affected by any Substantial development on the site. With the project,there will be some loss of recharge due to the increased amount of impervious surface (about 41% of the site will be converted to impervious surfaces). Long- term slow surface water flow rates will be changed to rapid short-term flow rates with some accompanying loss of recharge. The contaminants entering the groundwater from the project are expected to be of the type generally found in residential areas and to pose no significant threat to the aquifer. To mitigate the irnpact of the increased amount of impervious surface and of the increased flow rates, the project contains a series of biofiitration swales and detention areas. These are designed to slow down the rate of water flow, to improve water quality, and to provide for infiltration, thereby partially offsetting the loss of groundwater recharge. To reduce 2 • adverse impacts on the aquifer, the project does not propose any uses which involve the large scale storage or production of regulated compounds prohibited in APA Zone 2. Additionally,the project will provide sewer service for all uses on the site. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: A2. None are considered necessary. Because the proposed action must comply with the requirements of the City of Renton Aquifer Protection Area Ordinance, adequate mitigation of potential groundwater impacts will be achieved through compliance with that ordinance, including the restriction on the storage or production of regulated compounds. 3. Storm Drainage: Presently storm water is transported through the two drainage sub- basins by a series of swales, seasonal wetlands and culverts in the wet times of the year. Storm water in the west sub-basin enters a partially disturbed swale/wetland via a manhole at the north end of the drainage basin. (The manhole is the exiting end of a pipe which conveys storm water underneath the playground at Honeydew Elementary School and onto the project site.) The storm water then flows through the swale/wetland; continuing to the adjacent property to the south where it eventually enters a 24" culvert leading to the 24"Union Avenue storm drain. Existing storm water in the east sub-basin collects in seven mostly marginal wetlands during the wet times of the year. It first collects in one large and one small wetland, and ° the flows from both join and flow into a third small wetland. From the third wetland, storm water flows into a ditch along Duvall Avenue and into a fourth small wetland. Water exits this wetland and flows under Duvall via an 18" culvert and into a large, partially disturbed wetland on the east side of the street. From here, the water discharges into a 36" culvert which 'carries it back under Duvall Avenue. Once across.Duvall, the storm water flows onto'the adjacent property and eventually into.the culvert system for Windsor Place apartments. The'two remaining small isolated wetlands serve primarily as detention ponds; overflow from them also enters the Windsor Place drainage system. The applicant is proposing a storm drainage solution, consistent with the KCSWDM, which entails modifying existing wetlands and adding a series of drainage swales. In the west drainage basin, the applicant proposes to fill the disturbed portion of the existing swale/wetland and replace it functionally with a vegetated swale leading into the unfilled portion of the swale/wetland. The wetland would be expanded and enhanced, and a drainage control structure with a restrictor would be installed to control off-site flows. In the east basin, the storm drainage plan also calls for modifications to existing wetlands and the addition of a series of vegetated swales. The configuration of one wetland would be modified and the wetland enlarged and enhanced to create additional detention capacity. A new vegetated drainage swale would connect this large wetland to the large wetland on the east side of Duvall via the culvert running under Duvall Avenue. The second large wetland would be expanded at the south end to provide additional detention capacity. The intervening marginal wetlands would be filled and the lost area replaced by new, restored or enhanced wetlands on the site. 4. Wetlands: To facilitate an understanding of the mitigation measures, a brief description of each of the eight wetlands is presented, followed by the applicant's proposed actions for that wetland, and then followed by recommended mitigation measures. The goals of the wetland mitigation measures are: -To minimize disturbances to existing wetlands that serve a valuable biological or habitat function; -To protect wetlands from adjacent uses when such uses could threaten the biological or habitat value of the wetland; 3 • • i • -To ensure that there is no net loss of wetland acreage on the site; -To replace, restore or enhance the disturbed portions of existing wetlands; li -To improve the quality of surface waters entering wetlands; I. -To improve the quality of surface waters entering the groundwater system; -To ensure the long-term viability of all post-development wetlands; To achieve these mitigation goals, the following ;measures will apply to all existing wetlands and newly-created wetlands and swales: RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: A3. The applicant shall, in order to reduce impacts to post-development wetlands and swales, submit a Wetland Mitigation Plan for all wetlands, wetland buffers, and drainage swales. The Wetland Mitigation Plan shall indicate construction details (including schedule), vegetation plans (except for unchanged wetlands), hydrologic regime, boundary and buffers (as appropriate) for each wetland, wetland buffer, and drainage swale. The Wetland Mitigation Plan shall be approved by the Planning Section of the • Development Services Division priori to the issuance of any site • preparation/building permit. ' A4. . -The applicant shall, in order to.limit the potential disruption'of the functional value of new biofiltration swales, locate these swales away from roads whenever feasible. A5. si ,.The applicant shall,In order to limit the potential disruption of the functional : value of wetlands and swales located adjacent to high activity uses, provide . ,fencing around wetlands and swales as required by the Planning Section of the Development Services Division. _ Note . Note To Applicant: In general,fencing of wetlands and swales is discouraged and should be implemented only when absolutely necessary to ensure the functional and aesthetic value of the wetland or.swale. The applicant shall include;the proposed fencing, including the type and height of fence, in the Wetland Mitigation Plan (see above). A6. The applicant shall, in order to reduce potential adverse impacts to wetlands and swales, provide educational signing concerning the purpose and function of the wetland or swale at appropriate locations. it Note toiAoplicant: Sign locations shall be included on the Wetland Mitigation Plan (see above). A7. The applicant shall, in order to ensure the survival of the wetlands, perform a 5 year Monitoring program. The monitoring program shall be designed and conducted by a consultant approved by the City of. Renton. The applicant shall pay the cost of designing and conducting the monitoring program, including the cost of the consultant. The program shall include the following elements: a. j An initial report completed by the consultant upon completion of the creation, restoration, or enhancement of the first wetland or wetland • buffer. The initial report will identify problems in obtaining materials, differences in sizes of materials than were originally called for in the approved Wetland Mitigation Plan, differences in spacing of materials 4 • than were originally called for in the approved Wetland Mitigation Plan, replacement materials if necessary, and any other conditions that varied from the approved Wetland Mitigation Plan. Major departures from the approved Plan must be approved in advance of planting by the Planning Section of the Development Services Division. b. Twice a year monitoring. Monitoring will be conducted by the consultant in the spring after green-up (approximately May 15th after the vegetation has started to grow but has not reached a height where it would preclude an evaluation of secondary growth at the base of the cattail and larger plant stock material); and in the fall after the growth has ended prior to the dormant season, approximately November 1st to 15th. c. An annual report submitted by the consultant to the Planning Section of the Development Services Division by December 15th of each year. The report will include identification of all plant species, either planted or invading, measurements of relative cover and abundance of each, plant vigor, and plant vitality. Photo documentation will also be provided. . d. Performance standards. The consultant shall propose standards for evaluating the success of the Wetland Mitigation Plan prior to the initiation of the initial report (see "a° above). The standards shall be approved by the Planning Section of the Development Services Division and address the following issues at a minimum: 1) Survival rate for nursery stock shrubs and native dug willows; r° - '.2)y "'`'-Survival rate for evergreens and non-willow deciduous tree species; _ 3) Percent of ground cover, planted or invader species, at the end of the first growing season. e. An evaluation. After the receipt of each monitoring report, the Wetland Mitigation Plan will be evaluated by the consultant and the Planning Section of the Development Services Division to determine if the Plan is functioning as designed. If it is not, modifications will be made to the Plan as agreed to by the'applicant and the Planning Section of the Development Services Division. In assessing the success of the Plan,the performance standards will be applied. For reference,an exhibit showing the location and size of each wetland is attached. All the wetlands are dry during the summer and fall months. Classification of each was on the basis of the standards and procedures in the "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands" (1989): Wetland #1: Approximately 31,800 square feet; Class ill; palustrine scrub/shrub. This wetland is a long, narrow swale fed by seasonal flows emanating from a manhole drain. Much of the north and center of the wetland is barren and portions contain refuse. Vegetation on the non-barren portions of the wetland consists of willow, alder, vine maple, shrub, and slough sedge. Functionally, the wetland serves as a water retention and detention facility:water in the wet times of year is trapped here. Due to the lack of vegetation, the wetland performs little biofiltration function. Only passerine birds inhabit the area, so it does not serve • any special wildlife function. 5 i� • ProposedlAction: Fill the disturbed northern portion, create a new partial drainage swale, expand the southern portion and construct a drainage control structure. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: A8. The applicant shall, in order to limit the potential impacts to water. quality, fill only the disturbed northern portion of the wetland/swale from NE 8th Street southwesterly for approximately 480 feet. I . A9. The applicant shall, in order to reduce the impacts to water quality, replace the filled wetland/swale with a new swale running from the existing manhole drain to the unfilled south portion of the wetland. A10. The applicant shall, in order to reduce the potential impacts to water quality, replace the filled wetland/swale acreage with the same acreage of new wetlands on the site. Alternatively, the applicant can restore or enhance existing wetlands on the site at a ratio of 1.25:1 of restored or enhanced wetland to filled wetland. All. The applicant shall, in order to C limit the adverse impacts of the proposed development on the existing water quality and habitat, provide a 25 foot average buffer) around the defined edge of the wetland,with a minimum buffer width of 20 feet required. 'i Note 1 to Applicant: The swale shall meet the requirements of the KCSWDM. . The swale area that . counts toward fulfilling the replacement area requirement for the filled wetland areas on the site shall be determined during the site!plan approval process. Note 2 to Applicant: The applicant shall provide a drainage control structure for -this wetland .which meets -the requirements of the KCSWDM. Note 3 to Applicant: - The amount of filled and newly-created, enhanced or restored wetland area shall be determined during the site plan approval process. Wetland!#2: 1,307 square feet; Class III; palustrine scrub/shrub. This wetland is also a narrow swale. It is mostly barren and vegetation which does exist consists of a small patch of skunk cabbage. A narrow band of Douglas fir borders a . portion of the wetland. Functionally, it serves only as a water retention and detention pond. Only passerine birds inhabit the area, so no special habitat value accruesIto the wetland. Proposed Action: Fill the entire wetland. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: I ' Al2. 'The applicant shall, in order to mitigate the water quality impacts associated with filling the wetland,replace the filled wetland area with 11,307 square feet of new wetland or 1,634 square feet of restored or enhanced wetland,all on the site. Wetland #3: 67,518 square feet; Class II; palustrine forested scrub/shrub. This wetland has two lobes of approximate equal size which are connected by a narrow jswale. The northern lobe contains vegetation on the north end and is • barren in the center. The vegetation consists of dense western red cedar and red alder wiith an understory of hardhack and slough sedge. The southern lobe is a dense hardhack shrub swamp bordered by willow and red alder. Each lobe has 6 narrow swales protruding from the central portion of the wetland. The swales protruding to the east are small and mostly barren. Based on site visits and the mix of vegetation, the northern lobe appears to have greater functional and aesthetic value than does the southern lobe. Functionally,the wetland serves primarily as a water detention and retention pond. Biofiltration value is limited due to the barren portions of the wetland. A small colony of mountain beaver was identified as were passerine birds, indicating that the wetland provides no unique habitat. Proposed Action: Fill a large portion of the northern lobe and much of three protruding swales; reconfigure the remaining wetland and expand using a benched slope to create an open water component and an emergent marsh. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: A13. The applicant shall, in order to limit the potential impacts to water quality, fill only the two eastern and one northern protrusions and a small segment along the western edge of the wetland. All fills shall • be limited to an area necessary to accommodate the new streets and to accommodate the minimal required residential lot sizes adjacent to the wetland. A14. The applicant shall, in order to reduce the impacts to water quality, replace on the site the filled wetland area at a ratio of 1.25:1 of new wetland area to filled wetland area or enhance or restore existing wetland areas on the site at the ratio of 1.5:1 of restored or enhanced wetland area to filled wetland area. A15. The applicant shall, in order to limit the adverse impacts of the proposed development and streets on the existing water quality and habitat, provide a 50 foot average buffer around the defined edge of the wetland,with a minimum buffer width of 20 feet desired. Narrower .buffers may be approved by the Planning Section of the Development Services ' Division next to the road alignments for Bremerton/Anacortes.Avenue N.E. and a new neighborhood street at the north end of the wetland if necessary to prevent the filling of wetland areas merely to create a buffer between the wetland and the new road alignments. A16. The applicant shall, in order to limit potential water quality and habitat impacts to the existing wetland, not excavate the existing wetland to create an open water component. Note to Applicant: The amount of filled and newly-created, enhanced or restored wetland area shall be determined during the site plan approval process. • Wetland #4: .10,019 square feet; Class Ill; palustrine scrub/shrub. This wetland contains very little vegetation and for that reason, its main functional value is as a water detention and retention pond. As is the case with the other wetlands in this part of the site, passerine birds dominate, so the wetland also has no unusual habitat value. Proposed Action: Fill the entire wetland and replace it with a biofiltration swale connecting Wetland #3 and Wetland #7. 7 4 I RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: A17. The applicant shall, in .order to mitigate potential water quality Impacts associated with filling the wetland, replace the filled wetland area with 10,019 square feet of new wetland or 12,524 square feet of restored or enhanced wetland,all on the site. A18. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate potential water quality impacts associated with the filling of the wetland, provide a biofiltration swale connecting Wetland #3 and Wetland #7. The Swale shall meet the requirementsof Mitigation Measures A3,A4, and A5 above. • Note to Applicant: The new swalel shall meet the requirements of the KCSWDM. The swale area that counts toward fulfilling the replacement area requirement for the filled wetland areas on the site shall be determined during the site plan approval process. Wetland #5: 3,485 square feet; Class III;I ipalustrine scrub/shrub. Vegetation consists Of creeping buttercup, blackberry and Douglas' spirea. Functionally, this rather small wetland collects and'discharges groundwater but does not perform any significant biofiltration purpose. The wetland and small surrounding area provide habitat for passerine birds and a variety of mammals, including mountain beaver, chipmunks and chickaree during thelwet seasons. During this same time period coyote, raccoon, and skunk probably hunt the area for salamanders and o, _ , .Pacific tree frogs. Because of the small size of the wetland and the short duration of the period of standing water,the wildlife habitat is not outstanding. Additionally, no endangered or threatened species were identified. Proposed Action: Fill the entire wetland. - RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: -,-;; •-:;: : , A19. ..The applicant shall,'in'order to mitigate the water quality and habitat impacts associated with filling the wetland,replace the filled wetland area with 3,485 square feet of new wetland or 4,356 square feet of restored or enhanced wetland,all on the site. Wetland #6: 6,534 square feet; Class Ill; palustrine scrub/shrub. This wetland is primarily a drainage channel and vegetation consists of skunk cabbage, slough sedge, and Douglas' spirea. Functionally,'II it serves the same groundwater collection'and discharge purposes as wetland #5. Because of its proximity to wetland#5,the wildlife habitat values are the same as those for wetland #5. ProposedlAction: Fill the entire wetland. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: A20. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate the water quality and habitat impacts associated with filling the wetland, replace the filled wetland area with 6,534 square feet of new wetland or 8,168 square feet of restored or enhanced wetland,all on the site. Wetland #7: 106,722 square feet; Class II; palusirine forested and palustrine scrub/shrub. Stormwater enters this wetland from an 18" culvert running under Duvall Avenue N.E.and exits the wetland through a 36'culvert running west under • . Duvall Avenue N.E. The main function of the wetland is detention during the wet seasons of the year. The northern two-thirds of the wetland is classified palustrine forested because of the dominance of an Oregon ash/alder overstory. Trees in the surrounding vicinity are red alder, western red cedar and Douglas fir. The I , 8 southern one-third is categorized as a palustrine scrub/shrub because of the overstory of alder, black cottonwood and big-leaf maple combined with an understory primarily of hardhack. (Overall, the understory varies greatly throughout the wetland.) The southern portion of the wetland has been disturbed through tree removal and filling and is dominated by off-road vehicle tracks and refuse. Functionally,this wetland serves as a large detention pond for surface water runoff in the wet seasons of the year. It also provides habitat for birds and mammals typically found in urban areas. In the higher elevations on the edge and off the site to the north and east of the northern two-thirds of the wetland, evidence indicates the possible intermittent temporary use of the site by pileated woodpecker and large raptors. Animal species on the site include chickaree, chipmunks, and mountain beaver, coyote, raccoon, and skunk probably hunt the amphibian populations in the area during the wet seasons. • Proposed Action: Fill a small segment of the north end of the wetland for the construction of N.E. 6th Street as recommended by the Transportation Services Division; expand the wetland by excavating to create a deep water component and terracing the side slopes; provide a 25 foot buffer between the wetland and Duvall Avenue N.E. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: A21. The applicant shall, in order to reduce potential adverse impacts on water quality, restore the disturbed southern portion of the wetland by removing the refuse and eliminating the disturbances to the land contours. Similarly, the applicant shall restore the Duvall Avenue ,.:edge of the wetland by removing the debris and improving the vegetative environment. A22.. The applicant shall, in order to limit impacts on the existing water quality and wildlife habitat, provide a 50 foot average buffer around . the the defined edge of the wetland, with a minimum buffer width of 20 feet desired. Narrower buffers may be approved by the Planning Section of the Development Services Division next to Duvall Avenue N.E. and the new N.E. 6th Street if necessary to prevent the filling of wetland merely to create a buffer between the wetland and the streets. A23. The applicant shall, in order to limit potential impacts on water quality and wildlife habitat, not excavate the existing wetland to create an open water component. A24. The applicant shall, in order to reduce impacts on existing water quality,replace on the site the filled wetland area at a ratio of 1.25:1 of new wetland area to filled wetland area or restore or enhance existing wetland areas on the site at a ratio of 1.5:1 of restored or enhanced wetland area to filled wetland area. • Note to Applicant: The amount of filled and newly-created, enhanced or restored wetland area shall be determined during the site plan approval process. Wetland #8: 4,356 square feet; Class III; palustrine scrub/shrub. This wetland is a low, wet depression which is about 80% barren. The edges are bordered by slough sedge, hardhack,willow, and some alder. Functionally, it appears to serve primarily as a detention and retention area for water flowing into the culvert under • Duvall Avenue. Its barren nature provides little biofiltration or wildlife habitat value. 9 . Proposed Action: Fill the entire wetland to accommodate the road alignment of a new N.E. 6th Street as recommended by the Transportation Services Division. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: A25. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate the water quality impacts associated with filling the wetland,replace the filled wetland area with 4,356 square feet of new wetland for 5,445 square feet of restored or enhanced wetland, all on the site. 11 Policy Nexus: WAC 197-11-660; Environmental Review Ordinance, 4-6; King County Surface Water Design Manual; Comprehensive Plan I.B., I.C., I.D., I.E., I.F., I.G., 1.H., III.D., III.E., and VIII.C. it 5. Wildlife: As is apparent from the above discussion of the wetlands on the site, the wildlife community varies widely but contains species generally found in and adjacent to highly urbanized areas lacking unique habitat features. Besides the seasonal wetlands, the wildlife habitat consists primarily of second-growth mixed forest made up of coniferous and deciduous tries, a variety of ground covers, and high and low shrub understories. No wildlife species are found on the site besides those discussed in the wetlands section above. The dominant birds are those found in and near urban areas: no water or wetland- . dependent bird species were identified, and no evidence of extended or heavy use of the site by large raptors was indicated. Mountain beaver lis the dominant mammal on the site, and during the wet seasons of the year raccoon, skunk, and coyotes may hunt the wetland areas for amphibians. Because of the planned removal of most of the existing vegetation, the size and composition of the wildlife community will be changed! Most existing animal communities will migrate to the remaining limited habitat areas .nearby. Urban-tolerant animals will remain on the site; in landscaped areas and where tree cover is maintained or replaced. Conversion of the forested areas into fragmented forests within residential areas will favor edge species of birds. • . • Based on a tree survey of the property and on the proposed site plan,approximately 180 evergreen and deciduous trees of greater than 8-inch diameter at breast height and 88 other trees could be retained. 1 RECOMMENDED(MITIGATION MEASURES: 4 !I A26. The applicant shall, in order to limit the impacts of the development on the wildlife community, prepare a Landscape Plan which retains significant trees on the site and which provides for a variety of landscaping elements. The Plan shall be accompanied by: 1) A tree survey of the property indicating the evergreen and deciduous • trees of greater than 8-inch diameter,at breast height and other trees that could be retained;and I ' 2) Proposed performance and replacement standards for new landscaping elements and retained trees, exclusive of those in wetlands and wetland butters,which shall include provisions for: a) Replacing all retained trees greater than 12 inches in diameter that are more than 15 feet from any structure with 3 new 2- Inch caliper trees; • 10 b) Replacing all retained trees greater than 8 inches but less than 12 inches in diameter that are more than 15 feet from any structure with 2 new 2-inch caliper trees;and c) Submitting a written guarantee that any new landscaping element that dies during the first three years after installation will be replaced. The Landscape Plan, tree survey, and proposed performance and replacement standards shall be submitted to the Planning Section of the Development Services Division for review and approval as part of the site plan approval . process. The Landscape Plan shall contain extensive landscaping around the perimeter of the project area and at other appropriate locations. Specifically, landscape elements around the perimeter of the site shall be planned to establish a consistent overall character for the proposed project or for distinct portions of the project. Landscape elements shall also be of sufficient density, height, and variety to provide year-round screening between commercial and residential uses. Policy Nexus: WAC 197-11-660; Environmental Review Ordinance, 4-6; Comprehensive Plan I.C., I.D., III.C., and III.D; Landscaping Ordinance 4-31-34. 6. Air: The EIS considered the impacts of and possible mitigation measures for air pollution caused by particulates, carbon monoxide, and construction activities. Particulate levels were monitored at the S.E. District Health Center at 12015 N.E. 4th Street, approximately one mile west of the project site. Samples taken in 1985 indicated that the air quality was well within the national primary standard and the national secondary standard. Because the project site is in an area of lower traffic congestion than is the monitoring site, it can be anticipated that air quality is even better at the project site • than at the monitoring site.' On the other hand, particulate emissions from wood stoves = and fireplaces in the residential portions of the project would degrade the air quality in the area. Since the site is in'the City of Renton's no bum"zone,no particulate emissions will be generated by the burning of land clearing debris. No monitoring has been done to confirm actual carbon monoxide levels at the project site. The site is outside a designated carbon monoxide non-attainment area and is within an "unclassifiable area". This means that modeling would likely Indicate that occasional violations of the standard would occur. The increased traffic generated by development of the site will increase the ambient carbon monoxide levels in the area. • Overall, construction activities could adversely impact air quality through the generation of dust from land clearing and grading operations, as well as from the movement of construction vehicles on the site. These impacts will be only temporary in nature however, and are not expected to have a long-term significant impact on ambient air quality. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: A27. The applicant shall, in order to reduce the potential temporary adverse air quality impacts of dust generated by construction activity, prepare a Construction Mitigation Plan. This Plan shall include the following elements: 1) a temporary erosion control plan; 2) a provision for wheel-washing vehicles prior to leaving the site; 3) a provision for. periodic watering of the site to minimize dust generation; 11 I I • � I I 4) a written agreement by the applicant of its obligation to pay to the City a total of up to $5,000 within 30 days of receipt of invoices from the City for street-cleaning costs in the event that the applicant does not complete required street-cleaning activities; 5) written acknowledgement by the 'applicant of its responsibility for repair of damage to the public right-of-way, when such damage is defined by the City as having been caused by construction vehicles serving the project,and with repairs to be provided by the applicant in a'manner which is consistent with City standards; • 6) an educational program for equipment operators which emphasizes procedures and techniques for limiting the impacts associated with the operation of construction equipment. The Construction Mitigation Plan is to be approved by the Development Services Division in advance of issuance of a permit for any element of the proposed action. All elements of the Construction Mitigation Plan'are to remain in force and effect during all site prrparation and construction activities. The acknowledgement for repair of damage to the public right-of-way is to be approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department and the City Attorney in advance of the issuance of a permit for any element of the proposed action. Policy Nexus: j WAC 197-11-660; Environmental. Review Ordinance, 4-6; Mining, Excavating, and Grading Ordinance, 4-10; Comprehensive Plan I.B. B. BUILT ENVIRONMENT 1. Transportation: The traffic study conducted for the EIS estimates:that the project will generate 3,924 daily trips and 412 afternoon peak-hour trips. _When these trips are added to the predicted 1993 traffic volumes'at the six area Intersections analyzed,all intersections • :would continue to operate at Level of Service (LOS) D or.,better. In fact,the project would adversely affect the predicted LOS at only One:Intersection: Duvall Avenue N.E. and Sunset Blvd. N.E.,which would drop from LOS C to LOS D.-Based on City standards, LOS D or better is considered acceptable, so the project would not cause traffic operations to fall below City standards at intersections in the area. Most of the project-generated traffic is projected ,to use either Duvall Avenue N.E. Bremerton Avenue N.E., or N.E.4th Street. This usage pattern is a result of the proposed internal project street system, which consists of a series of dead-end residential streets leading into new neighborhood collector streets (N.E.8th, N.E. 6th east and west of Duvall Avenue, and Bremerton/Anacortes Avenue N.E.), which in turn link to Duvall Avenue N.E. and N.E. 4th Street. To comply with City codes, the applicant must construct all new residential streets and neighborhood collector streets to City standards, which will make them of adequate size to handle predicted volumes. Presently, N.E. 4th Street is a fully developed major arterial. The widening of Duvall Avenue N.E. from 4 to 5 lanes is in the City's Six Year Transportation Improvement Program„with preliminary engineering studies scheduled for 1994. With respect to parking impacts, the project is providing a total of 1,327 on-site parking spaces,which exceeds the City's parking requirements. Consequently, the project would not cause any adverse Impacts on the parking supply in the surrounding area. Truck traffic in the area will increase during the periods of construction activity. Because this traffic will operate prior to the installation of any traffic improvements adjacent to the project site, it could increase the risk of accidents on Duvall Avenue N.E. and Union Avenue N.E. Truck traffic after completion of the project will be minimal, as it will consist only of delivery vehicles and occasional moving vans. 12 Transit service is provided to the project area by Metro routes 111 and 147 on N.E. 4th Street. These routes provide service to downtown Renton, South Bellevue, and downtown Seattle. According to Metro, a proposed service change for 1992 has been proposed for route 240 to serve Coal Creek Parkway, Duvall Avenue N.E., and N.E. 4th Street. This route would operate seven days a week and provide direct service to downtown Bellevue, and offer connections at the South Renton Park and Ride with Metro service to downtown Seattle and South King County destinations. This route would become the main transit service for the proposed project. To mitigate the increased demand placed on transportation facilities by the uses in the proposed project, a variety of transportation mitigation measures are being recommended. They can be grouped into the following categories: a) Physical improvements to mitigate the dependence on single occupancy vehicles by encouraging the use of the proposed new transit service on Duvall Avenue N.E.; b) A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) designed to decrease the dependence of residents on single occupancy vehicles; c) Participation on a "fair share" basis in the NE 3rd/NE 4th Street Traffic Benefit Zone; d) Support of the Duvall Avenue N.E. widening project to mitigate traffic impacts on that street; and e) Facilities to encourage the use of bicycles for commuting thereby mitigating the impacts associated with dependence on automobiles. Additionally, mitigation measures are;proposed to lessen the"impacts of construction traffic on adjacent streets and residential areas. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: B1. The applicant shall, In order to reduce traffic impacts associated with the dependence on single occupancy vehicles, provide direct pedestrian access routes from internal residential streets to Duvall Avenue N.E. to encourage use of the proposed new transit service on Duvall Avenue N.E. Pedestrian routes to Duvall Avenue N.E. must have hard surfaces and adequate pedestrian-level lighting to provide safe use during low light hours. The • pedestrian routes and lighting shall be approved by the Planning Section of the Development Services Division as part of the site plan approval process. B2. The applicant shall, in order to reduce traffic impacts associated with the dependence on single occupancy vehicles, also provide the concrete bases and necessary easements for two transit shelters on Duvall Avenue N.E. to encourage increased use of transit.. Location of the transit shelter bases and easements shall be approved by Metro, the Planning Section of the Development Services Division, and the Transportation Services Division as part of the site plan approval process. B3. The applicant shall, in order to reduce traffic impacts associated with-the dependence on single occupancy vehicles, prepare a Transportation Management Plan (TMP)with its first application for a Building Permit for any element of the project. The TMP must contain at least the following provisions: 1) A transportation coordinator to promote and coordinate the use of public transportation and high occupancy vehicles; 13 1 2) A jee one-month bus pass made available to each new tenant at the time of occupancy(peak hour,two zones); 3) A free one-month bus pass made available to purchasers of new homes (peak hour,two zones); 4) The• distribution of site-appropriate transit and ride sharing information to new tenants and home purchasers, and annually to all tenants; 5) Secure bicycle parking in, or reasonably close to, each multi-family structure; 6) Aln annual transportation survey and monitoring report submitted by the transportation coordinator Ito the Transportation Services Division. B4. The applicant shall, in order to reduce project-generated traffic impacts on N.E. 4th Street,voluntarily contribute a maximum"fair share"traffic mitigation fee for the NE 3rd/NE 4th Transportation Benefit Zone of up to $288.00 per average weekday trip attributable to N.E. 4th Street. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is to be established at the time of application for a Building Permit for any element of the proposed project based on the number of average weekday trips attributable to N.E. 4th Street which are generated by the elements for which a Building Permit is being sought. The fee shall be paid at the time of 0 issuance of a Building Permit. If the applicant cancels the Building Permit in writing, then the unencumbered portion of the fee plus accrued interest will be refunded to the applicant. H B5. The applicant shall, in order to reduce project-generated traffic impacts on Duvall Avenue N.E., deed additional'right of way, if necessary, on Duvall Avenue N.E. prior to widening of the street to 5 lanes. :The applicant shall receive a credit toward the Traffic Mitigation Fee for the value of any street right of way which exceeds that required by City ordinance(s). 136. The applicant shall,in order to reduce traffic impacts on internal project area streets, construct N.E. 6th Street and N.E. 8th Street as full width neighborhood collector streets. The applicant shall receive a credit toward the Traffic Mitigation Fee for the value of any street right of way which exceeds that required by City ordinance(s). The applicant shall be reimbursed through a Latecomers Agreement for the value of any street improvement(s)which exceed that required by City ordinance(s). B7. The applicant shall, in order to reduce traffic impacts on Duvall Avenue N.E. caused ,by construction vehicles, provide temporary traffic control measures on Duvall Avenue N.E. during periods of site preparation and construction. Temporary traffic control measures and any proposed hauling route(s) shall be approved by the Transportation Services Division prior to issuance.of any site preparation/building permit. B8. The applicant shall, in order to reduce noise and safety impacts caused by the operation of construction vehicles on nearby residential streets, limit construction vehicle access to the site!to Duvall Avenue N.E. except for construction of the residential area directly off Union Avenue. B9. The applicant shall, in order to reduce traffic impacts caused at 1-405 and N.E. 4th Street and at 1-405 and Sunset by the operation of construction vehicles during peak hours, restrict hauling activities to the hours of 8:30 AM to 3:30', PM or submit a hauling route for approval which avoids these interchanges. 14 • B10. The applicant shall, in order to reduce the noise impacts on residential areas caused by construction vehicles, restrict construction activity to the hours of 7 AM to 8 PM, Monday through Saturday. No construction activity shall be permitted on New Year's Day, Thanksgiving Day, the day before Christmas and Christmas Day. Policy Nexus: WAC 197-11-660; Environmental Review Ordinance, 4-6; Washington State Second Substitute House.Bill 1671 (SSHB 1671); City of Renton Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program; City of Renton Resolution 2769; Comprehensive Plan I.A., VII.A., VII.B.,VII.C., and VII.H.; Northeast Quadrant Plan. 2. Public Services: The EIS identified a number of potential impacts and possible mitigating measures for police and fire service, schools, and parks and recreational facilities. a. Police: The project is located in District Nine of the Renton Police Department. This zone is primarily in residential use. The response time for emergency calls averages just under three minutes and for non-emergency calls just under ten minutes. This level of service is provided by a force which averages 1.9 officers per 1,000 population. The residential portions of the project are anticipated to generate 400 annual calls for police service and the commercial portion is anticipated to generate 75 annual calls for service. To maintain the current ratio of officers to population, the increased demand placed by the 898 residents and the commercial tenants on the police force could necessitate the addition of 1.7 officers to the Police Department. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: 811. The applicant shall, in order to reduce the potential impacts on the existing police force, voluntarily provide a renewable extraordinary police,services surety device in an amount up to $18,675 to be valid _ .:,.for a ;period of three (3) years,"and to be approved by the Police Department and the City Attorney. . The surety device is to be provided prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first multi-family building. The surety device will be drawn on in the amount of $75 for each multi-family residential police service call that exceeds twice the annual average number of calls per multi-family residential unit in the City of Renton times the number of units for which a Building Permit is being sought. If the surety device is drawn on in an amount less than $18,675 in the first or second year, the amount of the device for the subsequent year shall be reduced accordingly. Policy Nexus: WAC 197-11-660; Environmental Review Ordinance, 4-6. • b. Fire: The project is located on the eastern edge of the Renton Fire Department's first response area. First response fire service would be provided to the project by Fire Station #12 (the Renton Highlands Station), which is located at N.E. 9th Street and Herrington Avenue N.E. Currently, Fire Station #12 is staffed by 5 personnel and is equipped with one engine company and one aid car. The Fire Department estimates that the proposed project would generate approximately 50 additional calls per year based on the average number of calls for projects similar to the proposed project. Response time to the project from this station would range from 5 1/2 to 6 minutes. According to the 1987 Fire Department Master Plan, an acceptable first response time is defined as having 5 • firefighters on the scene in 5 minutes or less. Acceptable emergency aid response time is defined as having an aid car on the scene in 3 minutes or less. 15 • • I y RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: it 1 B12. The applicant shall, in order to reduce the potential adverse impacts on first response time caused by the additional demand placed on the Fire Department by the project, pay;the City of Renton Fire Mitigation Fee in effect at the time of application for a Building Permit for each element of the project. If no fee is in effect at that time,the applicant shall either sprinkle each residential unit or pay a Fire Mitigation Fee of $564 for each unsprinkled single-family residential unit and $433 for each unsprinkled multi-family unit. Note to Applicant: If the applicant cancels the Building Permit in writing, then the unencumbered 'portion of the fee plus accrued interest will be refunded to the applicant. Policy Nexus: WAC 197-11-660; Environmental Review Ordinance, 4-6; Northeast Quadrant Plan. ;' c. Schools: The proposed project is located within Renton School District No. 403. Students in the area attend Maplewood Heights Elementary School, McKnight Middle School, and Hazen High School. Using the Renton School District's student-per-household multipliers, the project would result.in 134 elementary school sttdents, 42 junior high school students, and 37 high,school students. In September of 1990, Maplewood Elementary School was 3 students below capacity, McKnight Middle School was 285 students below capacity, and Hazen High School was 434 students below capacity. Depending on the timing of occupancy of the various residential portions of the project and depending on future enrollment trends,the project could generate a demand for student spaces which exceeds the capacity of the above schools. . RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES:' B13. The applicant shall, In order to``;reduce the potential impacts of -increased demands placed on the'Renton School District by project • residents, pay the City of Renton,School Mitigation Fee, if any, in effect at the time of issuance of a Building Permit for each residential element of the project. If_no fee is in effect at the time, the applicant may voluntarily pay an amount determined by applying the King County School Mitigation Fee for the next closest school district to the project. Note to Applicant: If the applicant cancels the Building Permit in writing, then the unencumbered''portion of the fee plus accrued interest will be refunded to the applicant. Policy Nexus: WAC 197-11-660; Environmental Review Ordinance,4-6. d. Parks and Recreation: The project contains active recreational facilities for the residents1 of the townhouses and apartments. For townhouse residents a • recreation center will be provided which contains an outdoor pool and a 900 square foot cabana/meeting room facility. For apartment residents, two recreation centers will be provided, one at the intersection of the new N.E. 6th Street and Bremerton Avenue N.E and one In the apartment complex east of Duvall Avenue N.E. Each center includes an outdoor pool and a 3,500 square foot facility containing a weight room, meeting room, small kitchen and management offices. The townhouse recreation center will serve the 68 townhouse units, and the two apartment recreation centers will serve the 275 apartment units. 16 Y , • Passive recreational open space in the project includes the wetlands and buffers and the landscaped areas surrounding the townhouses and apartment buildings. Additionally, pedestrian pathways are planned through each of the apartment • areas containing recreational centers. Recreational facilities within a three mile radius Include the playgrounds at Honeydew Elementary School, Kiwanis Park, Windsor Hills Neighborhood Park, Highlands Neighborhood Park and Community Center, Liberty Community Park, Cedar River Community Park, Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park, and the proposed Heather Downs Neighborhood Park. Maplewood Golf course is also near the site. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: B14. The applicant may, in order to reduce the potential impacts on existing park and recreational facilities, incorporate a system of pedestrian and/or bicycle trails in wetland buffers, portions of wetland buffers, or along drainage swales, provided that the trails not hfringe on the inner 20 feet of any buffer. Trails should meet the standards of the Parks Department. The location of trails shall be approved by the Planning Section of the Development Services Division and the Parks Department as part of the site plan approval process and as part of the approval for the Wetland Mitigation Plan. The applicant shall receive a credit toward any parks mitigation fees for the value of recreational trails and facilities constructed. The eligible trails and facilities and the amount of the credit, if any, shall be determined by the Parks Department. B15. The applicant shall, in order to reduce the potential impacts on existing park and recreational facilities, deed an additional right of way, if any, necessary to accommodate a bicycle path on both sides of Duvall Avenue N.E. The applicant shall receive a credit toward any parks mitigation fees for the value of the bike path right(s) of way dedicated. The amount of the credit shall be determined by the Parks Department. B16. The applicant shall, in order to reduce the potential impacts on existing park and recreational facilities, pay a Parks Comprehensive Plan Mitigation Fee in effect at the time of issuance of a Building Permit for each element of the project. If no fee is in effect at that time, the applicant shall pay an off-site Park Mitigation Fee of $180 per multi-family unit and $150 per single-family unit. Note 3 to Applicant: If the applicant cancels the Building Permit in writing, then the unencumbered portion of the fee plus accrued interest will be refunded to the applicant. Policy Nexus: WAC 197-11-660; Environmental Review Ordinance, 4-6; Comprehensive Plan VII.H. and IX.D.; Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan; Bicycle Trails Master Plan. 3. Utilities: The project site presently is not served by water or sewer service. a. Water: Given the proposed uses, the project would generate a water demand of about 89,800 gallons per day. The existing municipal water system has adequate capacity to supply this projected demand. The applicant is proposing to extend • the existing 12-inch water mains located in Union Avenue N.E. and Anacortes Avenue N.E. to the site. The on-site distribution system consists of 12-inch mains serving 10-inch mains looping through the multi-family developments with 8-inch 17 41, • „ , • • . branches where necessary. The single-family lots would be served by 8-inch mains. Fire flow at•the site is estimated at 3,000 gpm which is considered adequate by the Fire Department. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES:' None are considered necessary. b. Sewer: The project is estimated to generate an estimated peak waste water flow of 180 gpm. Presently, the sanitary sewers in the East Renton area are operating at or near capacity. Since capacity is not available to serve the project site, the applicant is proposing an interim solution which entails an interbasin transfer of flows from ;the Upper Heather Downs basin to,the Lower Maplewood basin. To accomplish this transfer, it is necessary to construct a lift station on the parcel to the south of the project site as well as a force main from this lift station to the Intersection of N.E. 2nd and Monroe Avenue. ;.When the East Renton interceptor line is installed to serve the Upper Heather Downs basin, this temporary solution would no longer be needed. This proposed;solution is in keeping with City of Renton Resolution No. 2764. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES:, None are considered necessary. 1 18 i . • " • - . • • . I. _ ` .„.....____. 1,.., i am sr ,- —i:--•"--- 1 :‹: """-"-:----:-— • —....te..";.... ..:::.,- .. ",.. - ::__.-7-----e-it" ) ....,------- " ----,. ----1 I 1 .1'.';;^;-::n • .p‘1,0. \_ _ ,---,_, // ,7., Wetland 2 r://ii( • • . s ..M. %.."'k •— ..-; ,...„6....„. i. ,.i. ,/ ----, .,.. 4 t /---- . .... ,0.,-• .. , .smik:k.,..:, Q.„,..L_ . .! -, , \VI..: '''-' ------ 1/43.- • • 1 , \• ---.1.0.v" \:.:*:•:::::4§.. 2 :II t\ , ,/)/ 1,.. etland 31 •..,•:... 1.55 acres ;:i;:: . .v ... , I r:•::::::::?:::::211116.:*:.:4'A: 1.. i'T S •b / ,k._ •>70:. , L \r • // /-*K:-,1 / ---/A ___----- -i , mg- w . , , • : 1,_ — .—:-i---, .., - • -i:k)...... — g . 1 ____... ,•--.. ..&,..4, •— • --, \ ...:,:b,.. .s -.)..• o H. \'1:'.\;. . . > D, -1., v ••. \• • 2, -!-----.7" ', ' (, / .'• ...42----..'s .. •..._---• cs\...„:„:„..--.4_,..: .\? .....:_.) j sx...)..),...,..v Wetland 4 ".._''.• •• , \,, . • •-.23 acre t, .. •. . • ..,_____ ,-- i • .10 acr ,, • AjL.... wkts.•..r j 0 /(A .\.. ,. /)i.) . L., •,........-•,,, :A 1 . I • f I I 0 Kit:z•E r)1,in. I ...r'..•••'§ff'n:.. c:J. '.. . —..........- ..i:: . - • .7-.71, --_.•[ 1 ' 1 , :-, :::::::.:::::::::::::::::v„. ...... 3 •• ,,• ,->__,---....„>, _x' ' 'ii,' gi----"n' . .:4:-. i .,1 Iv, stow: Q ‘\, \ __ land.5 ; '-') , •Wet N • i 1,4 ;::::.:i::::::::::::::,::::::,•• • i". •r\_____,- •,..._-)-A !X ii c.., .13\8\ e\ '''I's.,;,.:7; I, • • /'' i t/v?..c.i' - — . ' s't Wetland 6'''•F•.:4";•T: ' . i'::":W. t "'•-• . -,—,---:__Y .15 acre L___/- , . . t•1*--C- rji' L.' - F. , 4 ::::.:V:::::.::::::::•;,..x.:.:::.:::::::: • . • ri. t. ::::::•:•:::i:::::1::::X:::7AM: ,..) ,/i, j c___ -41 Z---."..;,..-, ....::*) • 1 lc ix:i:':::.::.:K::::::::::::::::::::::.:::.,... . q c.....__. A ,i 1,.;,. , I, .. \•A___ ,_- ..a, N • . cCifis . . • : 1 ,•i:K'-P:•:::•:•:•:,::::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.!.. . I .',.:$,-..,1,:•••••:'::::•••:....!..:...... '--- , 1/I' Simi*In Yoe iiMg=6.11111;=1 i a) r., . :$:::*•:•:•:•:•:•:•:,••••: . 0 107 za 1 k , '''-' \ • . . , -----. •..::. . , I 0 I • . The Orchards . . .. • • ; . • , Supplemental Draft EIS. , ' '-• ' . ''`r4W4.". ?"-';'..:0....ti•*.s.lektr,i.coi,a.rei..-..,....,,,,r..,-..2....77:7-7,,,,,,.t., ,...t,it,e-.4.,..askos,w,...,-_.e.PIT.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_ ..,.......—....—..__.......,_—_. fill ..:::::::.:::: 1 t:.:;.!...:::;:iiiii:.W.:....48.....5:7.7..r.:cdrel: CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 4550 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE ORCHARDS (18 .42 ACRES OF PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF N.E. 4TH STREET AND BISECTED BY DUVALL AVENUE N.E./NORTHWARD PROPERTIES) .. SECTION I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE. A. Purpose: The primary purpose for this Demonstration Project Ordinance is to permit development of a project in the R-24 zone which varies the standards of that zone, as , detailed later, in order to determine the best way to amend the R-24 zone. The R-24 zone, as presently drafted, is internally inconsistent and so rigid as to prohibit, as a practical matter, development within that zone that complies with the relevant policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. At present, there are only three R-24 zoned areas within the City, and The Orchards Project is a property with a current development proposal . The results of this Demonstration Project will be utilized to determine proposed changes in the R-24 zone so as to permit development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan guidelines and yet not pose unnecessary development restrictions on the remaining R-24 properties . A further purpose of this Ordinance is to provide a residential development which meets the City' s land use development goals to create new residential neighborhoods on large parcels of land in a neighborhood development style and create high quality infill development that increases density while maintaining the residential character of the existing neighborhood. This Ordinance is intended, also, to encourage better use of common and private 1 1 h ORDINANCE NO. 4550 open space and encourage greater privacy in homes which are more energy and resource efficient . 1 Development under this Ordinance shall protect life safety and create a residential community which is consistent with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and with the purposes of the underlying R-24 zone. 1 . Development Objectives: 'IL a. To permit flexibility in development of a residential complex that exhibits the following characteristics, while maintaining compatibility with the underlying character of existing Renton residential. neighborhoods -1 (i) sufficient density to meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan (ii) physical feasibility given the underlying property features (e.g. natural features, ' accessibility, convenient location, existing improvements) ;iii) economic feasibility (iv) preserves pride of ownership by creating opportunities to live in and purchase more diverse types of quality single-family style residences . b. To provide increased availability. of residential development to meet the intent of the City' s Comprehensive Plan and the State of Washington Growth Management Act . c. To allow the City Council to determine whether introduction of flexible development standards will enable the creation of residential developments in the R-24 zone which address the City' s development objectives . 2 • ORDINANCE NO. 4550 2 . Regulatory Objectives : a. This Ordinance creates a Demonstration Residential Development which provides an opportunity to: (i) evaluate new types of subdivision and development standards in the R-24 zone, prior to codifying those standards in the City' s development ordinances; (ii) evaluate existing Code provisions and modify those provisions, as appropriate, to meet the City' s objectives for residential development in the R-24 zone; (iii) evaluate compatibility between the City' s regulations for residential development in the R-24 zone and existing Comprehensive Plan policies, and refine those documents as necessary to meet City objectives; (iv) evaluate procedural obstacles in the platting and development process for the R-24 zone, and refine/streamline the review process to address those obstacles; (v) advance the City' s policy of regulatory reform, pursuant to local, state and federal guidelines (e.g. HR 1724) . b. Provisions of this Demonstration Project Ordinance shall include the minimum requirements for the protection of the public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics, and such provisions are intended to provide for wholesome environmental conditions in the community, adequate public services, and safe and functional streets and thoroughfares . c. Development permitted under this Ordinance would need to be compatible with the underlying character of existing residential neighborhoods and achieve consistency with the stated 3 110 • ORDINANCE NO. 4550 purposes of the R-24 ,zone of encouraging coordinated development of new residential neighborhoods, following a more traditional urban development pattern 'and allowing for a mix of single-family and small scale attached units . B. Scope: This Demonstration Project Ordinance shall apply exclusively to the following lands referred to as The Orchards, under the ownership of G.M. Associates, in this Commitment and described as follows : The property, approximately 18 .42 acres, is located north of N.E. 4th Street and bisected by Duvall Avenue N.E. The legal description for The Orchards is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein as if fully set forth. I Where this Demonstration Project Ordinance imposes different restrictions, standards or review provisions upon the subdivision or development of land than the Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 9- 12; the Zoning Ordinance, section 4-31-7';i the Street Improvements 1 Ordinance, section 4-34; and the Variance Ordinance, section 4-31- h 19, the provisions of this Demonstration Project Ordinance shall prevail . This Ordinancle shall not adversely affect restrictive covenants placed upon the property. SECTION II. AUTHORITY. The Hearing Examiner is designated as the official for the conduct of public hearings . The Planning/Building/Public Works Department is responsible for the general administration and coordination of this Ordinance. The City Council maintains final administrative authority with respect to action concerning subdivision and land use approvals under this Ordinance. 4 -- ORDINANCE NO. 4550 SECTION III. DECISION MAKING PROCESS FOR A PLAT. A. Preliminary Plat: Decision-making action with respect to a subdivision application for The Orchards will be administered by the . Hearing Examiner, as described_ herein: 1 . The_ Hearing Examiner shall review the preliminary plat for the Demonstration . Residential Development to assure conformance with the general purposes of the. .Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards . 2 . The subdivision review shall occur at a public meeting for which public notification has been provided as stipulated in section . 9-17 . 1-5 (B) (3) of the Demonstration Project Ordinance. . . 3 . The Hearing Examiner shall make a recommendation as to the preliminary plat and any conditions therefore and the Council shall render the final decision on the preliminary plat. B. Required Plat Improvements : The following matters shall be addressed in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and the Street Improvements Ordinance: 1 . Creating and paving of streets and alleys . 2 . Installation of curbs, gutters and sidewalks . 3 . Installation of monuments . 4 . Installation of utilities such as sanitary sewer, storm drainage and water. 5 . Installation of street lights . 6 . Installation of street signs . 7 . Inspection, approval and fees . 5 411• ORDINANCE NO. 4550 . C. Special Improvements : The following improvements shall be provided to the standards and specifications to be established by the Hearing Examiner, at the time of plat review, in order to protect life safety, provide standards for design and installation, and to create a plat which is consistent with the applicable policies of the City' s Comprehensive Plan Specific improvement requirements and restrictions will be established by Hearing Examiner and/or City Council at the time of action upon the preliminary and/or final plat : 1 . General Design Standards (Standards and Specifications for Off-site Improvements) a. Streets (dimensions, ,;grades, curves, access, intersection offsets, paving) I I b. Sidewalks (dimensions,i grades, offsets, paving) c. Street Lighting d. Street Signage e. Public Use and Service Areas f . Specific Residential Street Standards (On-site Improvements) g. ; Streets and alleys (dimensions, public and private rights-of-way, reserve strips, turn-arounds and street . ends, curves and grades, curb radius, tangents) h. Sidewalks and curbs (dimensions, grades, offsets, paving) i . Planting Strips j . ' Street Lighting 6 • ORDINANCE NO. 4550 k. Blocks (length and width) 1 . Interior and Corner Lots (arrangement, size, dimensions) m. Pipestem Lots 2 . Deferred Improvements 3 . Waived Improvements SECTION IV. DEVELOPMENT: PROCEDURES, REQUIREMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS . A. Submission and Filing of Land Use Development Application (Abbreviated Master Plan) : In conjunction with the application for subdivision for The Orchards property, an abbreviated master plan (expanded site plan) application shall be provided to the Planning/Building/Public Works Department, including the following environmental review documents and abbreviated master plan materials : 1. Narrative description of the proposed use and a generalized conceptual site plan including: (a) a description of site characteristics and constraints (e.g. significant natural features, contour map) ; (b) proposed siting of uses, proposed building forms/massing; (d) site coverage; (e) amount of open space; (f) special amenities; (g) screening and buffering; (h) estimated number of parking spaces and/or other transportation related requirements; and (i) public improvements/facilities, if any, needed to support the proposed development . 2 . Description of characteristics of surrounding sites, such as land uses, building forms, circulation patterns, views, 7 ORDINANCE NO. 4550 environmental constraints, which could be affected by or could r impact the proposed Orchards demonstration, development . 3 . Environmental analysis documents (e.g. existing Environmental ImpactiStatement [EIS] , Addendum to existing EIS, or Supplement to existing EIS, or a project specific new checklist) which includes information deemed necessary to analyze the proposed development (such as a transportation study, drainage study) . These ,materials must address requirements established under SEPA Rules and the City Environmental Review Ordinance (4-6) . The applicant (shall provide these 'narrative materials and plans, as prescribed by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department. Appllication materials shall state fully all substantiating facts and evidence pertinent to the request . B. Decision Making Process for Abbreviated Master Plan: The final decision for the development application for. The Orchards shall be mide by the City Council following recommendation by the Hearing Examiner, simultaneously with and under the same procedures as required for the subdivision of the site. C. Decision Criteria/Required Improvements : This section !of the Residential Development Demonstration Project Ordinance replaces City Code section 4-31-7 (R-24) , for the purposes of permitting development of the demonstration property. 1 . Standards and specifications to implement the purpose of this Ordinance are to be established by the Hearing Examiner, in the below delineated areas : a. ' Permitted Residential Uses (Primary uses, secondary uses, accessory uses, conditional uses) 8 • ORDINANCE NO. 4550 b. Dwelling Unit Mix and Density Requirements (Single-family detached, single-family attached units) c. Development Standards for Primary and Accessory Structures d. Number of Residential Structures Per Lot e. Lot Area/Size, Shape and Dimensions (width and depth) f . Setbacks/Yard Frontage (Primary structures, attached and detached accessory structures, projections into setback) g. Use Easements h. Lot Coverage i . Lot Access j . Street Design k. Street Ownership Patterns 1 . Special Amenities (Recreational facilities, open spaces, landscaping) 2 . In addition the provisions of the following ordinances shall generally apply to The Orchards for purposes of review process and development standards EXCEPT THAT where the Hearing Examiner, under this Demonstration Project Ordinance, imposes different restrictions and standards upon the review process and development standards than are established under these ordinances, then the provisions of this Demonstration Project Ordinance shall prevail : a. Comprehensive Plan (Chapters 1 - 8) 9 • ORDINANCE NO. 4550 4 b. Site Plan Review Ordinance: See Chapter 31-33 , Title IV of the City, Code. c. Landscaping. Ordinance: See Chapter 31-34, Title IV of the City Code. d. Parking and Loading Ordinance: See Chapter 14, Title IV of the City Code. e . Signs : See Chapter 20, Title IV of the City Code. f . Sensitive Areas: See City Code Chapter 31, Title IV, section 4-31-34; specific improvement requirements and restrictions will be established by the City Council at the time of action upon the subdivision and the abbreviated master plan. 3 . Future Improvements : Any future change of use or additional use or exterior structural: change which is not specifically permitted by the Hearing Examiner in conjunction with the Demonstration Project (The Orchards) , or which is not permitted under the then existing Zoning Code provisions, will require review and approval by the City. The application for such change to use or structure shall state and fully substantiate all facts and evidence pertinent to the request. i f SECTION V. EXCEPTIONS, MODIFICATIONS AND VARIATIONS . A. The Hearing Examiner may grant an exception, modification and/or variation from the requirements of this Demonstration Project Ordinance, when, in the Examiner;' s opinion, the intent of the Demonstration Project Ordinance to provide for flexible interpretation of development standards may be placed in jeopardy as a result of strict compliance with the. provisions of each or any 10 ORDINANCE NO. 4550 of these other ordinances . Exceptions, modifications and/or variations may be granted only when the Hearing Examiner finds that the criteria listed below have been achieved: 1 . That there are special circumstances or conditions resulting from strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance, or related ordinances, which would deprive the applicant of the ability to fulfill the established purposes of the Demonstration Project Ordinance. 2 . That the exception(s) and/or modification(s) proposed are consistent with the intent of the established purposes of the Demonstration Project Ordinance. 3 . That the exception(s) , modification (s) and/or variation(s) , if granted, will result in development which ensures the following, through its form and function: a. The protection of the natural environment on the site and on surrounding properties . b. Compatibility with the built environment on properties in the vicinity of the site. 4 . That the granting of the exceptions (s) , modification(s) and/or variation(s) will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. B. In granting any exception, modification or variation, the Hearing Examiner may prescribe conditions that he deems necessary to or desirable for the public interest. C. Application for any exception, modification, and/or variation shall be submitted in writing by the applicant at the time the preliminary plat and abbreviated master plan application 11 III ORDINANCE NO. 455° 111 . is submitted to the Planning/Building/Public Works Department . The application shall state and fully substantiate all facts and evidence pertinent to the request. SECTION VI . DISPLAY RESIDENCES . A. Number of Display Residences : In the event that the preliminary plait and the master plan are approved by the Hearing Examiner/Council, tthen the applicant could be permitted to develop up to a maximum Of four [4] display homes for Parcels E/F, and a maximum of four [4]I, display homes for Parcel I G. These homes shall be designed and sited in a manner which is consistent with the provisions of the Demonstration Project Ordinance and the applicable City Codes . B. Removal of Display Residences: ' In the event that the final plat .for The Orchards is not approved and/or The Orchards is not developed for any cause, then the display homes must either: a) be upgraded if necessary to address all applicable standard City ordinance requirements; or b) demolished or relocated to an approved site away from the subject property. Upgrading would need to be completed within six months of denial of the final plat and/or withdrawal of the demonstration development plan; removal would need to be completed within three months of denial iof the final plat and/or withdrawal of the demonstration development plan. SECTION VII. ; TERMINATION OF ORDINANCE. A complete development application under this Ordinance shall be submitted within six months of the effective date of this Ordinance or this Ordinance shall be terminated at that point . At 12 { • - ORDINANCE NO. 4550 completion of the Demonstration Project or in the event that the Demonstration Project is withdrawn, this Ordinance shall be terminated immediately thereupon. SECTION VIII. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 21stday of August , 1995 . Marily . Petersen, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 21st day of August , 1995 . (KL E 1 Clymer, Mael21(r9ik Approved to leg l form: Lawrence J. Warrek City Attorney Date of Publication: August 25, 1995 ORD. 499 : 8/17/95 :as . 13 Renton Municipal Code Cha ter 9-17.1 Residential Development Demotion Ordinance 08/16/95 • LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE ORCHARDS AREA E-That portion of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter AND of the south 30 feet of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 10, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington, described as follows: I 1, II Beginning at the southeast corner of said northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter, thence N881 07' 16" W, along the south line thereof, 362.02 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of the herein described property; thence continuing N88° 07' 16" W, along said south line, 286.01 feet to the so 6 thwest corner thereof; thence NOO° 08't6"W, along the west line of said northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter, 657.39 feet to the northwest corner thereof; thence N01° 48' 28" E 30.00 feet to an intersection with a line parallel with and 30 feet northerly, as measured at right angles, from the north line of said northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter, said point being the beginning of a 450.00 foot radius circular curve to the right from which the center bears S 01° 48' 28"W; thence easterly, along said curve, an arc distance of 63.43 feet through a central angle of 08° 04' 35"; thence S 80° 06' 57" E 150.00 feet to a point of tangency with a 450.00 foot radius circular curve to the left;thence easterly, along said curve, an arc distance of 63.43 feet through a central angle of 08° 04' 35"to an intersection with said north line of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter;thence S 88° 11',32"E, along said north line, 374.69 feet to the northeast corner thereof; thence SOO° 00'26"W, along the east line thereof, 353.14 feet; thence N 88° 07' 15" W 312.02 feet; thence S 49° 03' 21" W 66.17 feet; thence SOO° 00' 26" W 260.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. , 1 LESS the easterly 42.00 feet thereof for Duvall Ave. N.E(AKA 138th Ave. S.E.) (Contains 306,608 square feet, more or less, or approximately 7.039 acres.) Situate in the County)of King, State of Washington AREA F-That portion of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 10, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of,Renton, King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said subdivision; thence N88° 07' 16"W, along the south line thereof, 362.02 feet;thence N 00° 00'26" E, 260.00 feet; thence N 49° 03'21" E 66.17 feet; thence S 88° 07' 15" E 312.02 feet to an intersection with the east line of said subdivision;thence S 00° 00'26"W, along said east line, 305.00 feet to thei POINT OF BEGINNING. ,I LESS the easterly 42.00 feet thereof for Duvall Ave. N.E. (AKA 138th Ave. S.E.) (Contains 96,424 square feet, more or less, or approximately 2.214 acres.) Situate in the County of King, State of Washington AREA G-The northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 10, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King,County, Washington, EXCEPT the west 42.00 feet thereof for Duvall Ave. N.E. (AKA 138th Ave. S.E.). (Contains 399,428 square feet, more or less, or approximately 9.170 acres.) Situate in the County of King, State of Washington , L. L �- tal � < �� i CD s - _ mu ........ . -Err -1-ilifil 1 , I A j_)'/. .."Mill i ).4 •t.1 • •• •• •• - . •• : - .• • . . _ NE • th PI r,,/, /,/y/t/,-/4-. ./r ..:.:-'..i:70:77:77.7.77, 77771 NE ""'''':',''...5%V%::',::'gA-M10'5 :; ;':.; ;,...,:::. ;:,.51:,,,,ii,,,,,.. .;_:i. ,:t:...,i. .:,. .,,,,,i;niv,,,:, ;. 5th S• n i . -N E 4t1.- St • . i n --f os 0,�, Long Range Planning The Orchards � .= + Pkanning/Bu�c ng/PubIc Works Jemifer Toth-Menning �4. 24 August 1995 0 200 400 1:4.600 ®�= DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING June 18, 1996 DEI Project No. 95054 • Ms. Jennifer Toth-Henning per: pi.,� ,. .:, Building/Planning/Public Works Department R E n, City of Renton JUIV 1 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 -BUILDING DI I api Subject: The Orchards, Sectors E/F and G. LUA-96-010, SA, PP, ECF, Dear Ms. Henning: Per the ERC mitigation measures and staff comments, we are submitting three (3) copies of our revised preliminary plat for Sectors E/F and G. You will note the following revisions: 1. The perimeter lots in Sectors E/F have been made 6' deeper (from 73' to 79') to accommodate full 18 foot aprons in front of the garages and a 15' rear yard. 2. The alley lots in Sectors E/F have been reduced somewhat (to accommodate the deeper perimeter lots)with a minimum width of 37 feet and a maximum depth of 81 feet (3,000 square feet). 3. The side setback for the alley corner lots has been noted as a minimum of 7.5 feet adjacent to the right-of-way. This side setback will average 10 feet in width. 4. The emergency access in Sector G has been noted as paved (not reinforced grass paving) unless an alternative material is approved by the fire chief prior to building permit issuance. 5. We have added 9 parallel guest parking spaces in Sector G and widened the private street section in these areas to 28 feet. We did not widen all the streets to 28 feet per the ERC since the townhouse driveways would preclude on-street parking in many instances. 6. We have indicated the setbacks for Sector E/F and G to indicate the front, side and rear setbacks as well as the building separations in Sector G. Please let me know if you have nay comments or questions. Thank you. Sincerely, DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. C�22� �JCJ Craig J. Krueger Vice President - Planning 4205 148TH AVE: N.E., SUITE 200 - BELLEVUE, WA 98007 (206) 885-7877 FAX: (206) 885-7963 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 June 25, 1996 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the following petitions: THE ORCHARDS, SECTORS E, F&G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park.' Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 57 attached townhomes, each on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of an approved wetland mitigation plan. Location: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th St. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing to express their opinions. HEXMAIL.DOC Fletcher Wendall TIBBOTT PROPERTIES LLC . Michael J Hertel 380 E 4450 N 17003 NE 28th P1 14012 SE 126th St Provo UT 84604 Bellevue WA 98008 Renton WA 98059 Gary Merlino Dean W & Anne- 0 Tibbott ' Gary Merlino 9125 10th Ave S 17003 NE 28th P1 9125 10th Ave S Seattle WA 98108 Bellevue WA 98008 Seattle WA 98108 Robert E Dykeman Raymond A La Blanc LEBARRON HOMES INC 14029 SE 124th St 11621 SE 47th P1 25710 212th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 Bellevue WA 98006 Maple Valley WA 98038 Robert E Dykeman Henry L Mead Sylvia L Wood 14029 SE 124th St 12424 142nd Ave SE 12255 142nd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 • • Lyle L & Susie A Bush Annette Hicks RIBERA-BALKO ENTERPRISES 14030 SE 126th St 20548 SE 159th St 1 13740 'SE 246th St Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 ; . Kent WA 98042 Se-V& v t k.una fRo caeAl OW Ine.VS :: .,.. 0 . _ DEVELOPMENT PLAN' King County CITY OF RENTON' • Metro Transit Division gg �g Design and Construction Section, eA�9t� 4 1� ' Environmental Planning and Real Estate Department of Transportation ®� 821 Second Avenue M.S.122 RECEIVE Seattle,WA 98104-1598 (206)684-1418 (206) 684-1900 FAX June 13, 1996 City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Jennifer Toth Henning, Project Manager 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Mitigated DNS, The Orchards, Sectors E,F and G, LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF Dear Ms. Henning: King County Transit Division staff have reviewed this proposal and have the following comments. The environmental checklist incorrectly states that there is current transit service on Duvall Ave. NE. The closest service is on NE 4th St., a couple of blocks south of the site, where Routes 111 and 147 operate. Route 111 is a peak-hour commuter route only and Route 147 operates all day on weekdays. A major service change is scheduled to take place in the Renton area this September. A revised route 111 will continue to operate as a peak-hour commuter route. Route 908, a combination of scheduled route deviation and demand-responsive service will operate primarily on NE 4th St. but will be available to transit riders west of Duvall Ave. NE as far north as NE 10th St. This service would be available on weekdays and on Saturdays. If the proposal involves constructing a recreational or community building associated with Sector G, the proponent should use those facilities for posting transit and ridesharing information for residents. If you have any questions, please call Liz Gotterer, Transit Planner, at 684-1647. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Sincerely, kiiiPAN-4 GarbKriedt, Environmental Planner i , . . , . ., 1, . . . . . . ; . . . . • ; . . . . _:. , .. . . , . . . . ... .. . . . . , . . , . . . . , . . . . . ., , . . , . (ity ____._._____ Washington State Northwest Region WO Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North Sid Morrison P.O. Box 330310 Seattle,WA 98133-9710 Secretary of Transportation (206)440-4000 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DATE: June 7,1996 CITY OF aFNITntu TO: Jennifer Toth Henning JUN 1 1 1995 City of Renton, Project Manager • 200 Mill Avenue South RECEIVED Renton WA 98055 Subject: SR 900 MP 14.31 CS 1713 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance-The Orchards Sectors E,F, & G-63 Traditional & Cottage Homes 6n � j File No. LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF C14FROM: Robert A. Josephson,PE,Manager of Planning&Local Coordination Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North, MS 122 P. O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 • Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review project, which is located at Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street. Our response is checked below: We have reviewed this subject document and have no further comments. The project will have no significant impact on the state highway system. X The State recommends that a traffic study be prepared to analyze the state intersections that are impacted by ten or more of the project's generated peak hour trips and also determine what mitigation measures, if any would be required. If you have any questions, please contact Don Hurter at 440-4664 or Vickie Erickson at 440-4915 of my Developer Services section VEE:vee File Name • �: ' " '• CITY ,JF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator June 5, 1996 • SUBJECT: " THE ORCHARDS SECTORS E/F & G-- NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (FILE NO. LUA-96=010,SA,PP,ECF) Dear Applicant, Owner and Parties of Record: The Notice of Environmental Determination for The Orchards - Sectors E/F and G did not include the description of the development proposal ,for Sector,G. The Notice of Environmental Determination has been revised and will be republished in the Valley Daily News. A copy of the revised Notice of Determination is attached to this letter. Should you have any questions regarding this letter or the above-referenced project, please contact me at 277-6186, Sincerely;. - • ennifer Toth Henning Project Manager attachment ' 200.Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 :__ --- AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Jessica Borg , being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant pro- VALLEY DAILY NEWS poses to develop 57 attached town- homes, each on its own lot. Private 600 S. Washington Kent, WA. 98032 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL road tracts would serve the develop- a daily newspaper published six (6) times week. Said newspaper is a legal DETERMINATION woment. A wetland within the site newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE restored ed as part of an approved wet- RENTON, d be enhanced, enlarged t-WASHINGTON land months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the The Environmental Review Committee Aven miplan. 6th Location:Duvall English language continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Wash- (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non- The 15 day comment and 14 day appeal ington. The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal newspaper by order Significance - Mitigated for the following periods for this project will run concurrently f the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. project under the authority of Renton Munic- and end at 5:00 p.m. on June 18, 1996. ipal Code. The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Valley Daily News THE ORCHARDS, SECTORS Appeal procedures and the mitigation mea- (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers LUA sures imposed by the City of Renton's Envi- ronmental Review Committee are available during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Applicant proposes a new site plan Floor,at the MDevelopment entBuilding,Services Renton,Division, T Third Washing- for portions of The Orchards. Sec- ton 98055. Phone:235-2550.You should be Notice of E n V D e t tors E and F are located on the west prepared to make specific factual objec- side of Duvall Avenue NE and con- tions. sist of an approximate 9-acre parcel A Public Hearing will be held by the that was previously approved for Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular apartments and commercial use. meeting in the Council Chambers on the was published on 6—10—9 6 Under the current proposal, Sector's second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washing- E/F would be subdivided into 63 tra- ton,on June 25, 1996 at 9:00 AM to consid- The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing ublication is the sum of wool al and cottage homes, which er the Site Approval and Preliminary Plat. If 9 9 9 (�, would orient toward a small private the Environmental Determination is • park. Public streets and alleys would appealed, the appeal will be heard as part $ vi 78 . 6 1 serve the homes,with sidewalks pro- of this public hearing. vided on one side of the street. Published in the Valley Daily News June The approximate 9-acre Sector G 10, 1996. 1677 i L a C erk, alley Daily Nevis ubscribed and sworn before me this al 4--t day of ----A--"-.4-- 19 Cf 42,*>av d40,,,,...........,..„. aildtt Th-M F ��� }0 \�:`...ON *- '/P�` Notary Public or the State of Washington II/Q 4- �'O�i,��'�, residing at Auhaur}- + -c o` 0 A R Y (cn 1 % King County, Washington --- : 1 1, q P AeJlse i 9 c..ciZ/}1 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 ORCHARDS,SECTORS E,F&G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes,with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 57 attached townhomes, each on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of an approved wetland mitigation plan. Location: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th St. The 15 day comment/14 day appeal periods for this project will run concurrently and end at 5:00 p.m. on June 18, 1996. Appeal procedures and the mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. 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 June 25, 1996 at 9:00 AM to consider the Site Approval and Preliminary Plat. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Publication Date: June 10, 1996 Account No. 51067 dnsmpub.dot • P0l r,H t l t, • • ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION • POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: THE ORCHARDS,SECTORS E.F 8 G PROJECT NUMBER:LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF Applicant proposes-a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F aro located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal,Sectors ElF would be subdivided into 63 traditional and collage homes,which would orient toward a small private park.Public streets and alleys would serve the homes,with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 57 attached townhomes,each on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced, enlarged and restored as pad of an approved wetland mitigation plan. Location:Duvall Ave NE 8 NE 61h St • • THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE(ERC)HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. IXXX I YOU MAY COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM ON JUNE 18,1996 OR APPEAL, THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM,JUNE 18,1996. THE COMMENT AND APPEAL PERIODS WILL RUN CONCURRENTLY. • 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 JUNE 25,1996 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE SITE APPROVAL AND PRELIMINARY PLAT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED,THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. LJ_ • Q • • ' 9,.Ci f s• \ \\. 99fYd lYQ' 1• • IN q 1 Negri' • A/E 7h. 677 Fa FURTHER INFORMAL ION,PLEASE GUN I Al;I I Ht_GI I Y Ur REN I UN,UtVELLI'IvltN I SERVICES DIVISION AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. ' CERTIFICATION • I, c'ul.4 ,'Jacksrm , hereby certify that 5 copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on .__J11r, Signed: .-V01/1a-( -. LA;��11401 STATE OF WASHINGTON • ) U SS COUNTY OF KING ) • I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that S--(4-r.db signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and vdCuntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. • ';`" 15alediv J.4",e, 19' (,e Q ' Ott 0..4' . Notary Publi and for the State of hin ton • ali -.=� Notary (Print) WI ,� 9�,4 r�•.0 '�-� 4 61 l q ,�t My appointment expire'(&- aq --95 Op g a itoc ,,:i ;,' ,,,:::... :,‘.. • - • ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: THE ORCHARDS,SECTORS E,F&G PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF Applicant proposes-a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes,which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes,with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 57 attached townhomes, each on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of an approved wetland mitigation plan. Location: Duvall Ave NE & NE 6th St THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. XXX YOU MAY COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM ON JUNE 18, 1996 OR APPEAL THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM, JUNE 18, 1996. THE COMMENT AND APPEAL PERIODS WILL RUN CONCURRENTLY. 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 JUNE 25, 1996 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE SITE APPROVAL AND PRELIMINARY PLAT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. NE PI • . • w ' I. I ‘C 'y%'''%� _ N E 5th S . %//%/ Z I NoR7if [NE 4t1- St H LA, A/ FO�FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE GUN I O I t -I I Y or tN FON, DtvhLUNiVILN I SERVICES DIVISION AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE OSOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION j!': `'::':': >'>>P leasincudehe roJet NUMBER when calling for:proper.fi.le:.dent,f.cation; .: :.:;: .>` >:<1 CURRENT PLANNING ovisioNAFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE B?MAILING iiiiimusimmongovammiiiimagueig On the 31— .day of , 1996, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope conralin l ACL.11/.7VIS documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Qef5r ec_ooci flu Ctve, LitkaVvR_ ltunti 416/einem 'David t GE Rolu•AILL'Re.soiariem 061",4*-Kon cf —riray‘srcAitirtr‘ Su-e. -1;Zu.xvNe.yi Cal of Sea--14e_ • T:tvxuairntsL kvsd‘an 12ock 41sInevIes 6u.c.k.lesLet Ttlar.1" (Signature of Sender) it • Se-men.=.fr--. STATE OF WASHINGTON • ) SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 51-70 Dg4-- k. signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for thp:•':41A7.15gicp$rposes mentioned in the instrument. UT.) • Dated: .51-3 Notary Public• and forf State of Wa'sNrIgipriv.if;:‘-‘,! Notary(Prin 472F La/A7€_ My appointment expires: (0/1/9 6 • Project Name: ovrjesalas ses.,,ktvis e F Project Number. cito 0(01 5/4c.‘ NOTARY.DOC 411 - • CIT' JF RENTON ;ea. a' Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator • May 30, 1996 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section • PO Box 47703 Olympia,WA 98504-7703 SUBJECT: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination and Environmental Checklist for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee on May 28, 1996: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED THE ORCHARDS, SECTORS E,F& G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. =Location: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th St. . • . The 15 day comment'period and the 14 day appeal period for this project will run concurrently. The comment/appeal period will end at 5:00 PM on June 18, 1996. Following the end of the comment and appeal period, the City will finalize its Determination unless comments received require a• reevaluation. Appeal procedures and the mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. 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 June 25, 1996 at 9:00 AM to consider the Site Approval and Preliminary Plat. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. If you have questions, please call me at (206) 277-6186. For the Environmental Review Committee, Jennifer Toth Henning Project Manager cc: King County Water Pollution Control Division, Metro Department of Wildlife Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources ' Don Hurter, Department of Transportation Sue Rumery,City of Seattle Duwamish Tribal Office ' Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Rita Perstac, Puget Power AGNCYLTR.DOC - 200 Mill Avenue South -.Renton, Washington 98055 - CITY 4$ i _IF RENTON "LL • Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator May 30, 1996 Mr. Craig Krueger Dodds Engineers, Inc. 4205- 148th Avenue NE, Suite 200 • Bellevue, WA 98007 SUBJECT: The Orchards, Sectors E, F& G Project No. LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF Dear Mr. Krueger: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee and is to inform you that they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. The Committee,on May 28, 1996, decided that your project may be issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with the following conditions: See enclosed Mitigation Measures document. - • Becausd the Environmental Review Committee imposed specific mitigation measures rather tban issue a Determination - -of Significance; there is a required 15 day comment period during which comments are solicited from various agencies, jurisdictions or individuals-(including the applicant) who may have an interest in the Committee's decision. The required 14 day appeal period will run concurrently with the comment period.: The comment/appeal period will end at 5:00 PM on June 18, 1996. Following the end of the comment/appeal period, the City will finalize its Determination, unless comments received require a reevaluation. : ; . - WAC.197-11-660 states that the responsibility for implementation measures may be imposed upon an applicant only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse impacts of the imposed action. Since an environmental impact statement has not been prepared for this project, any mitigation measure established by the ERC not directly attributable to an identified adverse impact is deemed to be voluntarily accepted by the applicant. Staff urges you to contact the"various City representatives, as appropriate, (e:g., the Public Works Division) as soon as possible, to obtain more information concerning specific mitigation elements recommended for this project, if you have specific questions. This information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and will enable you to exercise your appeal rights,more fully, if you choose to do so. - . , • - Appeal procedures.and mitigation measures imposed by the CO of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055.. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections.. " 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 June 25, 1996 at 9:00 AM to consider the Site Approval and Preliminary Plat. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (206) 277-6186. For the Environmental Review Committee, - • VVI'\ e To enning Project Manager. 'cc: : - Northward Properties;Mr. Gary Merlino;Ms.Ann Tibbott; Ms.'Annette Hicks; John L. Scott Land Development; Mr. Ronald Knight/Washington State Properties DNSMLTR.DOC - 200 Mill Avenue South =Renton, Washington 98055 . - Thie nennr nnnl�inc S/10/rnn..nlnri...nleri�l 7Co/nn�1 nnnc.,rner • ' CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES • APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF APPLICANT: Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers) PROJECT NAME: The Orchards, Sectors Ej,F and G DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee for the proposed project The fee is assessed based on $75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project, and is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Generation manual. The Traffic Mitigation Fee,is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. _The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee for the project. The'fee is based on $488 per each new single family dwelling unit, and is estimated Ito be $58,560.00. ' The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of a building-permit..' 3. The applicant shall be required to pay the applicable Parks Mitigation Fee for the proposal. The feeds estimated to be $530.76 per single family unit and $354.51 per each new multi-family unit. In addition, " credit may be given to reduce the fee if the applicant provides the required bicycle paths along Duvall Avenue NE as mandated by the previous environmental determination. The Parks Mitigation Fee is due prior to the issuance of the building permit. 11 - I • 4. In order to mitigate the potential life safety impacts,-the applicant will need to either 1) widen the private street to 28 feet within'Sector G to provide parking on one side and a 20 foot travel lane; or, 2) provide fire sprinklers within each unit in Sector G, and provide-adequate guest parking aprons (minimum length of 18 feet from garage to back of curb) in front of garages for each unit. • 5. . In order to mitigate the potential life safety impacts, the applicant will need to provide adequate guest • parking aprons (minimum length of 18 feet from garage to back of curb) in front of garages for each of Lots#56, 57, 58, and#59 in Sectors E/F. 6. The applicant is required to revise the Site Plan to specify a hard surface (asphalt or concrete) emergency vehicle access lane from Duvall Avenue NE to Sector G (reinforced grass paving will not be allowed). The emergency s econdary access will need to be a minimum of 20 feet in width and marked and signed per the Renton Fire Code. . ' 7. The applicant shall include in the Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for Sector G, a provision authorizing the City of Renton to enforce the parking section of the CC&R's, but at the expense (including attomey's fees) of the applicant. The City would be permitted to utilize this authorization only upon a written'fnding by the Police Chief or .Fire Chief,or:their designee(s) that a public'safety problem is • presented by lack of or inability of the owner:to enforce the parking section of the CC&R's. • MITMEAS.DOC/ . • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF APPLICANT: Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers) PROJECT NAME: The Orchards, Sectors E, F and G DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under • the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street Advisory Notes to Applicant: • The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are - not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. General 1. ' The applicant shall apply with all applicable City,:state, federal and other jurisdictional regulations, codes and policies governing the project and site. - 2. • All required utility, drainage and street improvements will ,require separate submittals prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, according to City of Renton drafting standards. Permit application must include an itemized,cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000, 4% of anything over $100,000 but,less than $200,000; and 3% of anything over $200,000. One-half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued.. • . 3. The applicant is required to obtain a_Construction Permit in order to accomplish site work and installation of site improvements. 4. The applicant will need to submit construction drawings for street lighting and each utility. These drawings will need to be-on individual sheets. 5. ,. Construction plans must comply with the City's Drafting'Standards. 6. Temporary Erosion Control measures including, but not limited to dust and mud control, street cleaning, protection of existing catchbasins, wheel washing and construction entrances shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of.the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. The Orchards,Sectors E,F&G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF Advisory Notes(Continued) 7. A construction plan indicating haul route(s) and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. Haul hours shall be restricted between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. 8. Construction hours shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Saturdays shall be as arranged with no hours in excess of the weekday hours, and no Sunday construction. Transportation 9. The City's Transportation Impact Fee will apply to the project as discussed in the mitigation measures above. The applicable fee is $75 per each new average daily trip and is payable - prior to the issuance of the building permit. 10. Full frontage improvements are required for Duvaill Ave NE including, but not limited to, sidewalks, curb &gutter, pavement, channelization and street lighting. • 11. , Full street improvements including curb & gutter, street lighting, paving, street signs, and sidewalks are required throughout the project. . . • 12. All street names and numbers shall conform to City of Renton street naming standards. 13. Streets within Sectors E &F shall be a minimum width of 28 feet(except alleys which shall be 20 feet in width),with a 5'sidewalk on both sides of all streets. 14.' All roadways in Sector G shall have a minimum 20' wide pavement and sidewalks on both sides. ..The 20' width minimum shall only be allowed if adequate parking is provided for guests and'visitors. 15. Pedestrian linkages shall be provided to facilitate access to public transportation and Duvall • Avenue NE. This would be imposed as a condition of Site Plan Approval. Storm Drainage II 16. Detention and water quality facilities are required in accordance with the King County Storm • Water Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton. . 17. The conceptual drainage plan for the project has been reviewed . 18. -The Surface Water SDC is assessed based on the total new impervious surface square footage as reflected in the final design. The charge is determined by multiplying the gross square footage of the site area by $0.129, for the multifamily units, or$385,per single family residence. • 19. A level two drainage study has been submitted by the applicant. Water quality treatment sized for the new impervious surfaces 'subject to vehicular access is required, all to King County.SWDM Standards. Wastewater • 20 There is an existing sanitary sewer in Bremerton Ave. NE, and an extension to the East Renton Interceptor in Duvall Ave. NE. - • • ADVNOTES.DOC/ • I r The Orchards,Sectors E,F&G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF Advisory Notes(Continued) • • 21. The Sanitary Sewer SDC is triggered and will be assessed at a rate of$585, per single family home site and $350, per unit for multifamily sites. 22. Provision for sanitary sewer connections to the neighboring properties shall be required. This may be in the form of stubouts from one or more manholes with accompanying easements, or by full line extension. Water 23. This developer previously constructed a 12- inch diameter water line iri Bremerton Ave. NE and water lines in Duvall Ave. NE and NE 6th Street. 24. The water line in Duvall Ave. NE shall be required to be extended the full length of the property frontage on Duvall Ave. NE 25. The Water System Development Charge (SDC) is triggered at a rate of $850, per single family unit or$510, per unit for multifamily. • 26. Water service stubouts or extensions are required to the neighboring properties for future possible development, including further possibility of looped systems in the area. These may be provided through easements and extensions or full frontage improvements. Fire Sectors E,F and G•. 27. The applicant is required to pay the applicable Fire Mitigation Fee as discussed in the Mitigation Measures above. The fee is applied to Sectors E, F and. G at a rate of $488 per each new single family unit. 28. All roadways are required to be painted and signed per City Ordinance to identify them as required Fire Department access roads. • Sectors E& F• 29. The preliminary fire flow requirement for Sectors E and.F is 1,000 gpm.. Fire hydrants with the minimum fire flow are required within 300 feet of all new single family structures. The number of fire hydrants required will depend upon the size of the new single family structures. - Sector G: 30. Fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems will be required if the applicant chooses to build . stacked flats. However, as the proposal is for attached townhouses,.no fire sprinkler or fire alarm systems are required in the townhouse buildings. 31. The preliminary fire flows for the townhouse structures is 2,500 gpm..One hydrant is required •within 150 feet and two hydrants are required within 300 feet of each structure. 32. All Fire Department roadways shall be •paved 'to the entire 20-foot•of required width. Reinforced grass paving will not be accepted for fire access or emergency access. 33. Access roads can be gated if made with a Fire Department approved method of opening the gate. ;_.Bollards are not acceptable. The applicant'is encouraged.to contact Renton Fire _ Prevention to determine an appropriate solution to the access gate. ADVNOTES.DOC/ • • The Orchards,Sectors LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF • Advisory Notes(Continued) Police Services ' 34. The applicant. is advised to coordinate •with (Renton Police Crime Prevention for recommendations to reduce possibility of vandalism/crime during construction and operation of the facility. Building Construction 35. The applicant's soils engineer shall approve the.footing excavations prior to placement of any concrete. 36. The applicant will be required to follow the recommendations of the soils engineer in the geotechnical report. Wetlands 37. Ts .y . spe for duration of construction. Reports shall'beshall submittedbemonitored by this'specialistbawetland to the'Developmentcialist the SeMcesDivision monthly. • All work within the wetland or buffer shall be inspected and approved by. the wetland specialist. 'Solid Waste 38. Garbage and recyclable deposit.areas and collection points shall be easily and safely accessible to hauling trucks. _ . _ •Parks . - �•. . . 1 - . ; �I •:; -. _. 39. As discussed in the Mitigation Measures above, the project is subject to the applicable Parks Mitigation Fee. The fee would be applied at the rate of$530.76 per'single family home and - -$354.51 per multi-family unit. " 40. . The proposed open space to be located within Sector ElF does not meet the standards . established by the City for open space and could net be counted toward a reduction in the Parks Mitigation ,Fee. Parks Department does recommend that a four-foot wide striped ' bicycle lane to be located on the west side of Duvall which is consistent with the previous development proposals for the site. The appropriate percentage of the estimated cost of this bicycle lane could apply toward a reduction in the Parks Mitigation Fee. • 42. The applicant will be required to revise the landscape plan to replace• proposed Acer pseudoplatanus with an appropriate substitute tree. • • • F , , ADVNOTES.DOC/ • � I AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Jessica Borg , being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the VALLEY DAILY NEWS mental Heview Lommittee are avduduie di 600 S. Washington Kent, WA. 98032 the Development Services Division, Third a daily newspaper published six (6) times week. Said newspaper is a legal Floor, Municipal Building, Renton,Washing- newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six ton 98055.Phone:235-2550.You should be months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the prepared to make specific factual objec- English language continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Wash- A Public hearing will be held by the Ren- ington. The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal newspaper by order ton Hearing Examiner at his regular meet- ing in the Council Chambers on the second of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Valley Daily News DETERMINATION June 25, 1996 at 9:00 AM to consider the (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Site Approval and Preliminary Plat. If the RENTON, WASHINGTON Environmental Determination is appealed during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a The Environmental Review Committee the appeal will be heard as part of this (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non- public hearing. Notice of Env D e t Significance - Mitigated for the following Published in the galley Daily News June project under the authority of the Renton 3, 1996. 1644 Municipal Code. THE ORCHARDS,SECTORS E,F&G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF was published on 6-3-96 Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Ave- The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing p blication is the sum of nue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved 61 . 76 for apartments and commercial use. Under $ 6r\ ^ the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small i Le I Clerk, Valley Daily News private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. Location: Duvall �r Avenue NE and NE 6th St. Subscribed and sworn before me this a-y` y of f- 1 ft- The 15 day commenUl4 day appeal peri- ods for this project will run concurrently and end at 5:00 p.m. on June 18, 1996.Appeal procedures and the mitigation measures (4/2/-7,-N�,>y,�p��— .. imposed by the City of Renton's Environ- ii°BEN M•FEti� �\,•.�S`pt4 f ry/,t:t, Notary Public or the State of Washington '��•�� x��;(,�= residing at Aaburin (2.a—"7/N-e r.-•/11 :Q �0T AR 1. `N•.`j' King County, Washington * • R,jp, N!litt �R?���.��I ` e••.31•.•.•\V 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 ORCHARDS,SECTORS E,F&G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. Location: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th St. The 15 day comment/14 day appeal periods for this project will run concurrently and end at 5:00 p.m. on June 18, 1996. Appeal procedures and the mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. 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 June 25, 1996 at 9:00 AM to consider the Site Approval and Preliminary Plat. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Publication Date: June 03, 1996 Account No. 51067 dnsmpub.dot - ` CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF APPLICANT: Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers) PROJECT NAME: The Orchards, Sectors E, F and G DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section 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 43.21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. The 15 day comment period and the 14 day appeal period for this project will run concurrently. The comment and appeal periods for this project will end at 5:00 p.m. on June 18, 1996. Appeal procedures and the mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. PUBLICATION DATE: June 03, 1996 DATE OF DECISION: May 28, 1996 SIGNATURES: 4 ....-, 2.11/q16 Gregg Zi, lerma , Administrator DAT Departm-rat of Planning/Building/Public Works Sam Chastain,Administrator DATE Community Service partment Lee a er, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department DNSMSIG.DOC CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF APPLICANT: Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers) PROJECT NAME: The Orchards, Sectors E, F and G DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 57 attached townhomes, each on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of an approved wetland mitigation plan. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee for the proposed project. The fee is assessed based on $75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project, and is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Generation manual. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee for the project. The fee is based on $488 per each new single family dwelling unit, and is estimated to be $58,560.00. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay the applicable Parks Mitigation Fee for the proposal. The fee is estimated to be $530.76 per single family unit and $354.51 per each new multi-family unit. In addition, credit may be given to reduce the fee if the applicant provides the required bicycle paths along Duvall Avenue NE as mandated by the previous environmental determination. The Parks Mitigation Fee is due prior to the issuance of the building permit. 4. In order to mitigate the potential life safety impacts, the applicant will need to either: 1) widen the private street to 28 feet within Sector G to provide parking on one side and a 20 foot travel lane; or, 2) provide fire sprinklers within each unit in Sector G, and provide adequate guest parking aprons (minimum length of 18 feet from garage to back of curb) in front of garages for each unit. 5. In order to mitigate the potential life safety impacts, the applicant will need to provide adequate guest parking aprons (minimum length of 18 feet from garage to back of curb) in front of garages for each of Lots#56, 57, 58, and#59 in Sectors E/F. 6. The applicant is required to revise the Site Plan to specify a hard surface (asphalt or concrete) emergency vehicle access lane from Duvall Avenue NE to Sector G (reinforced grass paving will not be allowed). The emergency secondary access will need to be a minimum of 20 feet in width and marked and signed per the Renton Fire Code. 7. The applicant shall include in the Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for Sector G, a provision authorizing the City of Renton to enforce the parking section of the CC&R's, but at the expense (including attorney's fees) of the applicant. The City would be permitted to utilize this authorization only upon a written finding by the Police Chief or Fire Chief or their designee(s) that a public safety problem is presented by lack of or inability of the owner to enforce the parking section of the CC&R's. MITMEAS.DOC/ • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF APPLICANT: Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers) PROJECT NAME: The Orchards, Sectors E, F and G DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 57 attached townhomes, each on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of an approved wetland mitigation plan. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. General 1. The applicant shall apply with all applicable City, state, federal and other jurisdictional regulations, codes and policies governing the project and site. 2. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate submittals prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, according to City of Renton drafting standards. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000, 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000; and 3% of anything over $200,000. One-half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. 3. The applicant is required to obtain a Construction Permit in order to accomplish site work and installation of site improvements. 4. The applicant will need to submit construction drawings for street lighting and each utility. These drawings will need to be on individual sheets. 5. Construction plans must comply with the City's Drafting Standards. 6. Temporary Erosion Control measures including, but not limited to dust and mud control, street cleaning, protection of existing catchbasins, wheel washing and construction entrances shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. The Orchards,Sectors E,F&G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF Advisory Notes(Continued) 7. A construction plan indicating haul route(s) and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. Haul hours shall be restricted between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. 8. Construction hours shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Saturdays shall be as arranged with no hours in excess of the weekday hours, and no Sunday construction. Transportation 9. The City's Transportation Impact Fee will apply to the project as discussed in the mitigation measures above. The applicable fee is $75 per each new average daily trip and is payable prior to the issuance of the building permit. 10. Full frontage improvements are required for Duvall Ave NE including, but not limited to, sidewalks, curb &gutter, pavement, channelization and street lighting. 11. Full street improvements including curb & gutter, street lighting, paving, street signs, and sidewalks are required throughout the project. 12. All street names and numbers shall conform to City of Renton street naming standards. 13. Streets within Sectors E & F shall be a minimum width of 28 feet (except alleys which shall be 20 feet in width), with a 5'sidewalk on both sides of all streets. 14. All roadways in Sector G shall have a minimum 20' wide pavement and sidewalks on both sides. The 20' width minimum shall only be allowed if adequate parking is provided for guests and visitors. 15. Pedestrian linkages shall be provided to facilitate access to public transportation and Duvall Avenue NE. This would be imposed as a condition of Site Plan Approval. Storm Drainage 16. Detention and water quality facilities are required in accordance with the King County Storm Water Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton. 17. The conceptual drainage plan for the project has been reviewed . 18. The Surface Water SDC is assessed based on the total new impervious surface square footage as reflected in the final design. The charge is determined by multiplying the gross square footage of the site area by $0.129, for the multifamily units, or $385 per single family residence. 19. A level two drainage study has been submitted by the applicant. Water quality treatment sized for the new impervious surfaces subject to vehicular access is required, all to King County SWDM Standards. Wastewater 20 There is an existing sanitary sewer in Bremerton Ave. NE, and an extension to the East Renton Interceptor in Duvall Ave. NE. ADVNOTES.DOC/ The Orchards,Sectors E,F&G LUA-96-010,S A,PP,ECF Advisory Notes(Continued) 21. The Sanitary Sewer SDC is triggered and will be assessed at a rate of$585, per single family home site and $350, per unit for multifamily sites. 22. Provision for sanitary sewer connections to the neighboring properties shall be required. This may be in the form of stubouts from one or more manholes with accompanying easements, or by full line extension. Water 23. This developer previously constructed a 12- inch diameter water line in Bremerton Ave. NE and water lines in Duvall Ave. NE and NE 6th Street. 24. The water line in Duvall Ave. NE shall be required to be extended the full length of the property frontage on Duvall Ave. NE 25. The Water System Development Charge (SDC) is triggered at a rate of $850, per single family unit or$510, per unit for multifamily. 26. Water service stubouts or extensions are required to the neighboring properties for future possible development, including further possibility of looped systems in the area. These may be provided through easements and extensions or full frontage improvements. Fire Sectors E, F and G: 27. The applicant is required to pay the applicable Fire Mitigation Fee as discussed in the Mitigation Measures above. The fee is applied to Sectors E, F and G at a rate of $488 per each new single family unit. 28. All roadways are required to be painted and signed per City Ordinance to identify them as required Fire Department access roads. Sectors E & F: 29. The preliminary fire flow requirement for Sectors E and F is 1,000 gpm. Fire hydrants with the minimum fire flow are required within 300 feet of all new single family structures. The number of fire hydrants required will depend upon the size of the new single family structures. Sector G: 30. Fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems will be required if the applicant chooses to build stacked flats. However, as the proposal is for attached townhouses, no fire sprinkler or fire alarm systems are required in the townhouse buildings. 31. The preliminary fire flows for the townhouse structures is 2,500 gpm. One hydrant is required within 150 feet and two hydrants are required within 300 feet of each structure. 32. All Fire Department roadways shall be paved to the entire 20-foot of required width. Reinforced grass paving will not be accepted for fire access or emergency access. 33. Access roads can be gated if made with a Fire Department approved method of opening the gate. Bollards are not acceptable. The applicant is encouraged to contact Renton Fire Prevention to determine an appropriate solution to the access gate. ADVNOTES.DOC/ • ' ' The Orchards,Sectors E,F&G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF Advisory Notes(Continued) Police Services 34. The applicant is advised to coordinate with Renton Police Crime Prevention for recommendations to reduce possibility of vandalism/crime during construction and operation of the facility. Building Construction 35. The applicant's soils engineer shall approve the footing excavations prior to placement of any concrete. 36. The applicant will be required to follow the recommendations of the soils engineer in the geotechnical report. Wetlands 37. The wetlands shall be monitored by a wetland specialist for the duration of construction. Reports shall be submitted by this specialist to the Development Services Division monthly. All work within the wetland or buffer shall be inspected and approved by the wetland specialist. Solid Waste 38. Garbage and recyclable deposit areas and collection points shall be easily and safely accessible to hauling trucks. ' Parks 39. As discussed in the Mitigation Measures above, the project is subject to the applicable Parks Mitigation Fee. The fee would be applied at the rate of $530.76 per single family home and $354.51 per multi-family unit. 40. The proposed open space to be located within Sector E/F does not meet the standards established by the City for open space and could not be counted toward a reduction in the Parks Mitigation Fee. Parks Department does recommend that a four-foot wide striped bicycle lane to be located on the west side of Duvall which is consistent with the previous development proposals for the site. The appropriate percentage of the estimated cost of this bicycle lane could apply toward a reduction in the Parks Mitigation Fee. 42. The applicant will be required to revise the landscape plan to replace proposed Acer pseudoplatanus with an appropriate substitute tree. ADVNOTES.DOC/ ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: THE ORCHARDS„SECTORS E,F&O • PROJECT NUMBER:LUA-96.010,SA,PP,ECF Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal,Sector's Elf would be subdivided Into 63 traditional and collage homes,which would orient toward a small private park.Public streets and alleys would serve the homes,with sidewalks provided an one side of the street. Location: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 61h Street. • THE OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITITE (ERC1 HAS DETERMINED THAT T!E TY PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. . AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. IXXX I YOU MAY COMMENT ON THIS 0 PM ON JUNE 18,1996 OR APPEAL THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM,JUNE 118N1996.BY 0 THE COMMENT AND APPEAL PERIODS WILL RUN CONCURRENTLY. 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 JUNE 25,1996 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE SITE APPROVAL AND PRELIMINARY HEARD ARYPLAT. IF FT THIS PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED,THE APPEAL WILL BE ... , w J1H _ P' I1 U. C FE ' .`\ mil lI';' i' IR1j , HaItIH 7. .i L I I Hi • 11 A. 1 1 ICI ( I I I I 1 I r FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT • SERVICES DIVISION AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION .• Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file Identification. - I CERTIFICATION I, {,ftkol.td t JGLCavn , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were postedJby me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on Mat, . (, /9 a(D Signed: EC(-!i \jaj, ./M STATE OF WASHINGTON ) • • SS COUNTY OF KING ) ,rrr I certify that I know or have satisfac{ory evidence that Ti9 '' ���� signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntaci ertP a§es and purposes mentioned in the instrumen . •,�6_s'.a•'•.'�► Dated: �31 lq (ri LAG �(ti • ` Notary PG tic in and o the State of L-,!asitYdk9`�1.1 c `g Notary rint) /61- 6---A EJ.- r. -1-1,-/lf2 My appointment expires: NOTARY.DOC 14011-111 (C41E ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: THE ORCHARDS,SECTORS E,F&G PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes,which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes,with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. Location: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. XXX YOU MAY COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM ON JUNE 18, 1996 OR APPEAL THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM, JUNE 18, 1996. THE COMMENT AND APPEAL PERIODS WILL RUN CONCURRENTLY. 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 JUNE 25, 1996 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE SITE APPROVAL AND PRELIMINARY PLAT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. NE th PI . . : w - I. I • • • NE 5th S . 49,"y,o. /' —y� I —o I `r E 4t1- St Nc girtr a� LI I III II 11I I1 1 11 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION :: :<<<:< r:>s.::Please:include:the: ro'ect:NUMB .:.id _ , ca.ion:p:;:;;:::;.:.«:::_;::;::> for.:proper:#ile;:�dettttfic�tiorl<:».>:>;:: ::;.>.:=I .............................. To: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Sa Chastain, Community Services Administrator Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief From: Jim Hanson & Mike Kattermann 9•:i;:no..0.0trigiyax:OimiiinwpeagaNqivilpr Agenda listed below. Rubber Ducky Derby(New) (Rosen/2719) • LUA-96-059,SM,ECF The City of Renton seeks a five (5) year annual Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM) for the Rubber Ducky Derby as part of Renton River Days. Approximately 10,000 to 12,000 small rubber ducks would be released into the Cedar River, at the Houser Way Bridge. Environmental booms will be set at the finish line at Logan Avenue Bridge to catch all floating ducks. Location: Cedar River between Houser Way Bridge and Logan Avenue Bridge. The Orchards,Sectors E,F&G(New) (Henning/6186) LUA-9 6-010,SA,PP,ECF Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 59 attached townhomes, each located on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of an approved mitigation plan. Sectors E/F would be accessed via NE 6th Street, and from Bremerton Avenue NE; while Sector G would be accessed by a private road system from Duvall Avenue NE via NE 6th Street. An emergency access would be provided along the southern boundary out to Duvall. Garages, aprons and guest parking would be provided for the homes and townhomes. This proposal is being reviewed as a demonstration project under City Council Ordinance 4550. Location: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street. cc: J.Covington,Executive Assistant to TE1 Mayor AGENDA.DOC L.Warren,City Attorney (R) F.Kaufman,Hearing Examiner S.Carlson,Economic Development Director (R) J.Gray,Fire Prevention A.Larson,Fire (R) P.Pierce,P/B/PW Admin MAY 24 '96 02:49PM DODDS ENGINEERS, INC P. 1/1 DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING May 24, 1996 • DEI Project No. 95054 Ms. Jana Huerter Land Use Review Supervisor /p City of Renton 200 Renton, WA 98055 1 Avenue South °�VFtU� � v96 c/i.);04,4„ov t FR ro�41% Subject: The Orchards, Sectors EN and G Dear Jana: Per our conversation today, the wetland to the east of Duvall Avenue in Sector G of The Orchards (Wetland#7)will be planted in late summer, 1996. This will allow time for the plants to get established before significant storm events occur next winter. The wetland mitigation plan created by Terra Associates will be revised to reflect the proposed site plan for Sector G. These revisions are very minor with a shifting of the wetland planting in the southeast corner to maintain an average buffer of 50' and a minimum buffer width of 20'. If you have any additional questions or comments, please call. Thank you. Sincerely, DODDS ENGINEERS,INC. 614/75(i Craig J. Krueger Vice President -Planning cc: Dick Gilroy, Northward Garet Munger, Terra Associates 4205 148TH AVE. N.E., SUITE 200-BELLEVUE. WA 28007 (206J 885-7877 FAX; [206) 885-7883 CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: May 22, 1996 • TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Jennifer Toth Henning rill SUBJECT: The Orchards, Sectors E/F and G The applicant has provided the attached letter in order in response to concerns regarding garage setbacks, sidewalks on both sides, parking aprons, and private road width. Staff has received the requested drainage information and is reviewing it. MEMO.DOT/ • • • _,, = _ DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING SIURVEYING PLANNING DEVELOPMENT PLANNING C ITY nr R ENI qN 1 Ms. Jennifer Toth-Henning Ay 2 �995 May 20, 1996 Planning Department DEI Project No. 95054 City of Renton RECEIVED 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 . Subject: The Orchards,I Sector E/F& G Dear Jennifer: Per our conversation on Friday, I am writing in response to staff comments on the site plan for Sector EN and Gas part of the ERC committee review. Our response is as follows: Sectors E/F 1: Garage setbacks - Our intent, from the onset, has been to provide parking aprons in front of the attached garages of the homes along the perimeter(the alley homes have no aprons per the current city code.) The homes have been designed to take advantage of the reduced front 'setbacks to create porches and extensions that will lessen the visual impact of the garages. The parking aprons will be.atleast 1 9.feet deep from the-garage door to the back of walk or back of curb (if there is no sidewalk). 2. Sidewalks on both sides - Our proposal, per the Housing Demonstration Ordinance, has been to provide an attached walk on only one side of the internal public streets. This sidewalk will be placed on the same side of the street as the on-street parking. The elimination of the sidewalk on one side will create a more attractive streetscape with our proposed street tree plan and will reduce the housing costs for the future homeowners. We would like to present this concept to the Hearing Examiner and City.Council for demonstration purposes for these 63 homes. Our Midis that this additional sidewalk,is not necessarily due to the internal road pattern with no through traffic. • Sector G 1. Private road width - Per our initial conversations with City Staff and our early site plans, our concept for Sector G has been to provide fee simple townhouses (on individual lots) accessed by way of a private street. We envisioned a neighborhood very similar to Sector C (Peachtree Townhouses) except that the homes would. be sold as fee .simple homes instead of condominiums. -Our presentation was that Sector G would look and function exactly the same as Sector C, except that the homeowners would benefit from the less restrictive financing and sales requirements for a fee simple plat. We would like.the opportunity.to present this concept to the Hearing Examiner and City Council, with the same street width as provided in Sector C. The alternative is to withdraw the preliminary plat and construct the townhomes as condominiums. The townhouses in Sector C are selling and are obviously meeting the needs of the City's housing market. 4205 148TH AVE. N.E., SUITE 200-BELLEVUE, WA 98007 (206) 885-7877 • FAX: (206) 885-7963 05/20/96 Ms. Jennifer Toth-Henning Page 2 2. Parking aprons - Just as in Sector C, our site plan for Sector G calls for a mix of townhouses, some with parking aprons in front of the garages, some with no aprons. The townhouses will feature both one and two car garages, again to meet the needs of the housing market. To provide adequate parking (which exceeds city codes) throughout the neighborhood, the townhouses without aprons will provide a two car garage and will be located close to off street guest parking spaces as shown on the site plan. The homes with one car garages will always include a parking apron that is at least 19 feet deep from the garage door to the back of sidewalk or back of curb when there is no sidewalk. I do hope that this adequately addresses the comments from the ERC Committee and, when packaged with the downstream drainage report that includes the Safeway and Winsor Apartments, allows the committee to approve our plans for Sectors E/F and G. Please call, as soon as convenient,with any comments or questions regarding this information. Thank you. Sincerely, . DODDS ENGINEERS,INC. , (-4/to Craig J. Krueger Vice President -Planning cc: Dick Gilroy-Northward • ',a-� . R f • STAFF City of Renton REPORT Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE May 28, 1996 Project Name The Orchards, Sectors E, F and G Applicant Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers) File Number LUA=096-010,SA,ECF Project Manager Jennifer Toth — Henning _ - i�.. .... _ - ' • '• —` — III NE tth PI qt • • . 4 . 1 / //y/�/ i;/a I• i } , /,'. , /, , /to ::...,, -, ,.G .:. ,- ;....:,.; NE 5th S- %,4,/r�.D � w; ' -------------- ,,,,,/;,4-s 0.4.r. ..:: ., . i, „....-:, , . -,..,\ ,/,/,,,,,,,:,,,,,,, . . , i.. : .. . . ,,,, .7,-,„67,14t. . .. ,... , .. . . ,,.. .. / �y � _ • I W -- --- -o I 111. Negri N E 4tr St — 1-• _ ii I II 11 1 1_ 1 , F--1I • Project Location Map ERCRPT.DOC (illy of Renton PB/PW Department En mental Review Committee Staff Report ' The Orchards-Sectors E,F and G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF • REPORT AND DECISION OFMay 28,1996 Page2 of 11 Project Description The Orchards is an approximate 62 acre site in East Renton that was approved for mixed-use residential and limited commercial development. The Site Plan was approved in phases, and single family homes and townhomes in Sectors A, B and C are presently under construction. Sector D was approved for 63 apartments, and Sector E/F/G were approved for 212 apartment units and 28,000 square feet of commercial development. Since the project was initially approved, Sectors C through G have been rezoned to R-24, and the applicant has discussed alternative ways of developing Sectors E, F and G. The applicant entered into an agreement with the City via a Demonstration Ordinance in order to propose development for Sectors E, F and G that generally meets the criteria for the R-24, but which demonstrates flexible development standards to enable the creation of residential developments in the R-24 Zone which address the City's development objectives. The applicant proposes to combine Sectors E and F and plat 63 lots suitable for the development of detached single family homes. Sector G would also be platted, but would develop townhouses on 57 lots. Separate access would be provided to the single family and townhome developments, with no interconnection. Access would be from NE 6th Street and from Bremerton Avenue NE for the single family homes and from NE 6th Street via Duvall Avenue NE for the townhomes. A secondary emergency only access would be developed on the southwest corner of Sector G for the townhomes. , Development of Sectors E/F would create a neo-traditional neighborhood with a total of 63 traditional and cottage homes with a small private park as a focal point near the center of the community. Traditional homes would be built on lots that average 3,650 square feet in size, while cottage homes would be constructed on lots that average 3,250 square feet. Both types of housing style would be designed as zero lot line homes where useable side yards are created through reciprocal use easements, thus providing for private yards on the smaller lots. Attached two-car garages would be constructed and guest parking would be accommodated on driveway aprons. The proposal features grid streets and alleys for access. Trees would be planted on both sides of the streets and sidewalks would be provided on one side. Landscaped "neckdowns" are being proposed at intersections to reduce the hard surface and to provide a tree canopy. Sector G would feature townhomes in buildings that feature from two to four units in each structure. Private 20-foot wide streets would be developed in Sector G as part of the demonstration project. Attached one- or two-car garages would serve each unit, with guest parking accommodated on most of driveway aprons and in parking bays. Building heights would not exceed 35 feet. A large wetland which occupies the western one-half of the site would be retained and enhanced. The proposal would include a wetland buffer and would feature a trail within the buffer area. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Mitigation Document was previously issued for The Orchards. As part of this application, an Addendum to the Supplemental EIS for The Orchards Residential Development was submitted. The Mitigation Document is not superseded by this action and still applies to the proposal, unless specific measures are modified or eliminated by the Environmental Review Committee, or if the mitigation measures were attached to the development of apartments and would not be applicable to the homes . The proposal requires Preliminary Plat Approval and Site Plan Approval, with a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner to the City Council. Variations from Code requirements are being considered as part of the Demonstration Project Ordinance and will be decided during Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review processes. The project site is located in Zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area. ERCRPT.DOC City of.2enton PB/PWDepartment En mental Review Committee Staff Report ' The Orchards-Sectors E,F and G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF May 28,1996 Page3 of 11 Project Location Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall; Sector G is located on the east side of Duvall Exist. Bldg. Area gsf Vacant Proposed New Bldg. Area gsf 63 sgl fam homes 57 townhomes Site Area Approximately 18 acres Total Building Area gsf RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommend that the.Environmental.Review.Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF X DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. X Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 da A.•eal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period Issue DNS-M.with:15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The applicant shall pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee for the proposed project. The fee is assessed based on $75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project, and is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Generation manual. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee for the project. The fee is based on $488 per each new single family dwelling unit, and is estimated to be $58,560.00. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay the applicable Parks Mitigation Fee for the proposal. The fee is estimated to be $530.76 per single family unit and $354.51 per each new multi-family unit. In addition, credit may be given to reduce the fee if the applicant provides the required bicycle paths along Duvall Avenue NE as mandated by the previous environmental determination. The Parks Mitigation Fee is due prior to the issuance off the building permit. 4. In order to mitigate the potential life safety impacts, the applicant will need to either: 1) widen the private street to 28 feet within Sector G to provide parking on one side and a 20 foot travel lane; or, 2) provide fire sprinklers within each unit in Sector G, and provide adequate guest parking aprons (minimum length of 18 feet from garage to back of curb) in front of garages for each unit. 5. In order to mitigate the potential life safety impacts, the applicant will need to provide adequate guest parking aprons (minimum length of 18 feet from garage to back of curb) in front of garages for each of Lots#56, 57, 58, and#59 in Sectors E/F. ERCRPT.DOC • City of Renton P/B/PW Department 1 En, mental Review Committee Staff Report Tie Orchards-Sectors E,F and G L UA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF May 28,1996 Page4 of I I 6. The applicant is required to revise the Site Plan to specify a hard surface (asphalt or concrete) emergency vehicle access lane from Duvall Avenue NE to Sector G (reinforced grass paving will not be allowed). The emergency secondary access will need to be a minimum of 20 feet in width and marked and signed per the Renton Fire Code. 7. The applicant shall include in the Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for Sector G, a provision authorizing the City of Renton to enforce the parking section of the CC&R's, but at the expense (including attorney's fees) of the applicant. The City would be permitted to utilize this authorization only upon a written finding by the Police Chief or Fire Chief or their designee(s) that a public safety problem is presented by lack of or inability of the owner to enforce the parking section of the CC&R's. Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. General 1. The applicant shall apply with all applicable City, state, federal and other jurisdictional regulations, codes and policies governing the project and site. 2. All required utility,..drainage and street improvements will require separate submittals prepared by a registered -Civil Engineer,__according to-City of Renton drafting standards.='Permit-application must include an itemized cost estimate for these.improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000, 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000; and 3% of anything over $200,000. One-half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and'construction-permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. 3. The applicant is required to obtain a Construction Permit in order to accomplish site work and installation of site improvements. 4. The applicant will need to submit construction drawings for street lighting and each utility. These drawings will need to be on individual sheets. 5. Construction plans must comply with the City's Drafting Standards. 6. Temporary Erosion Control measures including, but not limited to dust and mud control, street cleaning, protection of existing catchbasins, wheel washing and construction entrances shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. 7. A construction plan indicating haul route(s) and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. Haul hours shall be restricted between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. 8. Construction hours shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Saturdays shall be as arranged with no hours in excess of the weekday hours, and no Sunday construction. Transportation 9. The City's Transportation Impact Fee will apply to the project as discussed in the mitigation measures above. The applicable fee is $75 per each new average daily trip and is payable prior to the issuance of the building permit. ERCRPT.DOC • City of Renton PB/PW Department ( Er mental Review Committee Staff Report ' The Orchards-Sectors E,Fand G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF • REPORT AND DECISION OF May 28,1996 PageS of 11 10. Full frontage improvements are required for Duvall Ave NE including, but not limited to, sidewalks, curb & gutter, pavement, channelization and street lighting. 11. Full street improvements including curb & gutter, street lighting, paving, street signs, and sidewalks are required throughout the project. 12. All street names and numbers shall conform to City of Renton street naming standards. 13. Streets within Sectors E & F shall be a minimum width of 28 feet.(except alleys which shall be 20 feet in width), with a 5' sidewalk on both sides of all streets. 14.. All roadways in Sector G shall have a minimum 20' wide pavement and sidewalks on both sides. The 20' width minimum shall only be allowed if adequate parking is provided for guests and visitors. 15. Pedestrian linkages shall be provided to facilitate access to public transportation and Duvall Avenue NE. This would be imposed as a condition of Site Plan Approval. Storm Drainage 16. . Detention and water quality facilities are required in.accordance with the King County Storm.Water Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton. 17.. The conceptual drainage plan for the project has been reviewed . 18.., .. The Surface Water SDC is assessed based on the total new impervious surface square footage as reflected in the.final design. The charge.is°determined by multiplying the gross square footage .of the site area,by. $0.129, for the multifamily units, or$385 per single family residence. 19. A level two drainage study has been submitted by the applicant. Water quality treatment sized for the new impervious surfaces subject to vehicular access is required, all to King County SWDM Standards. Wastewater 20 There is an existing sanitary sewer in Bremerton Ave. NE, and an extension to the East Renton Interceptor in Duvall Ave. NE. • 21. The Sanitary Sewer SDC is triggered and will be assessed at a rate of$585, per single family home site and $350, per unit for multifamily sites. 22. Provision for sanitary sewer connections to the neighboring properties shall be required. This may be in the form of stubouts from one or more manholes with accompanying easements, or by full line extension. Water 23. This developer previously constructed a 12- inch diameter water line in Bremerton Ave. NE and water lines in Duvall Ave. NE and NE 6th Street. 24. The water line in Duvall Ave. NE shall be required to be extended the full length of the property frontage on Duvall Ave. NE 25. The Water System Development Charge (SDC) is triggered at a rate of$850, per single family unit or $510, per unit for multifamily. 26. Water service stubouts or extensions are required to the neighboring properties for future possible development, including further possibility of looped systems in the area. These may be provided through easements and extensions or full frontage improvements. ERCRPT.DOC • City of Renton PB/PWDepartment Er. •mental Review Committee Staff Report The Orchards-Sectors E,F and G L UA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF • REPORT AND DECISION OF May 28,1996 Page6 of 11 Fire Sectors E, F and G: 27. The applicant is required to pay the applicable Fire Mitigation Fee as discussed in the Mitigation Measures above. The fee is applied to Sectors E, F and G at a rate of$488 per each new single family unit. 28. All roadways are required to be painted and signed per City Ordinance to identify them as required Fire Department access roads. Sectors E & F: 29. The preliminary fire flow requirement for Sectors E and F is 1,000 gpm. Fire hydrants with the minimum fire flow are required within 300 feet of all new single family structures. The number of fire hydrants required will depend upon the size of the new single family structures. Sector G: 30. Fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems will be required if the applicant chooses to build stacked flats. However, as the proposal is for attached townhouses, no fire sprinkler or fire alarm systems are required in the townhouse buildings. 31. The preliminary fire flows for the townhouse structures is 2,500 gpm. One hydrant is required within 150 feet and two hydrants are required within 300 feet of each structure. 32. All Fire Department roadways shall be paved to the entire 20-foot of required width. Reinforced grass paving will not be accepted for fire access or emergency access. 33. Access roads can be gated if made with a Fire Department approved method of opening the gate. Bollards are not acceptable. The applicant is encouraged to contact Renton Fire Prevention to determine an appropriate solution to the access gate. Police Services 34. The applicant is advised to coordinate with Renton Police Crime Prevention for recommendations to reduce possibility of vandalism/crime during construction and operation of the facility. Building Construction 35. The applicant's soils engineer shall approve the footing excavations prior to placement of any concrete. 36. The applicant will be required to follow the recommendations of the soils engineer in the geotechnical report. Wetlands 37. The wetlands shall be monitored by a wetland specialist for the duration of construction. Reports shall be submitted by this specialist to the Development Services Division monthly. All work within the wetland or buffer shall be inspected and approved by the wetland specialist. Solid Waste 38. Garbage and recyclable deposit areas and collection points shall be easily and safely accessible to hauling trucks. ERCRPT.DOC • City of Renton PB/PWDepartment ( Er, <'rmental Review Committee Staff Report The Orchards-Sectors E,Fand G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF May 28,1996 Page7 of 11 Parks 39. As discussed in the Mitigation Measures above, the project is subject to the applicable Parks Mitigation Fee. The fee would be applied at the rate of$530.76 per single family home and $354.51 per multi-family unit. 40. 'The proposed open space to be located within Sector E/F does not meet the standards established by the City for open space and could not be counted toward a reduction in the Parks Mitigation Fee. Parks Department does recommend that a four-foot wide striped bicycle lane to be located on the west side of Duvall which is consistent with the previous development proposals for the.site. ,The appropriate percentage of the estimated cost of this bicycle lane could apply toward a reduction in the Parks Mitigation Fee. 42. The applicant will be required to revise the landscape plan to replace.:proposed Acer pseudoplatanus with an appropriate substitute tree. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development? 1. Surface Water/Groundwater Impacts:--Surface water impacts have beenpreviously considered in the.EIS.and subsequent Mitigation Document. However, the applicant was required to submit additional drainage analysis for this proposal, and that is the basis of the_following.discussion. -The proposal would change the character..and quality of stormwater runoff. During construction, :silt and other sediments could be washed from the site downstream unless.:construction -mitigation measures are in-place. :Run-off from Sectors E/F would be collected in catch basins and piped to-oil/water separators prior to discharge. The runoff would be routed through a grass-lined biofiltration swale. Runoff from the off-site drainage in this basin bypasses the storm drainage system in Sectors E/F and G through a separate tight-lined drainage system. Discharge from Sectors E/F and G would be directed to the enhanced wetland areas in the southwestern corner of Sector G that would also function as the stormwater retention and treatment basin. Since the existing wetland is fed and supported by surface water runoff, the loss of storm water or surface water through development of the proposal would eliminate the only water source available to the wetland. Surface water treatment through biofiltration is considered to meet or exceed surface water removal expectations if the water is retained over a distance of 200 linear feet and the slope is no greater than 2 to 3 percent. The applicant's biofiltration swales were designed to provide treatment prior to discharge of the waters into the wetlands. The project site is located entirely within Zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area. Development has and will result in an increased amount of impervious surfaces and of increased flow rates, and a decrease in groundwater recharge to the aquifer. To mitigate, the applicant is proposing a series of biofiltration swales and detention areas. These features would slow the rate of water flow, improve water quality, and provide for infiltration, thereby partially offsetting the loss of groundwater recharge. Existing Mitigation Measures adopted as part of the previous Mitigation Document for the project site would still apply. Specifically, Measure Al and A2 state that compliance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual and the requirements of the City's Aquifer Protection Area Ordinance, do not necessitate further mitigation. Mitigation Measures: None required beyond those already imposed by The Orchards Mitigation Document and applicable Codes. Nexus: Not Applicable. 2. Wetlands Impacts: Sectors E, F and G included three delineated wetland areas: Wetlands #5, #6 and #7. Wetland #5 is a Class III wetland 3,485 square feet in size; Wetland #6 is a Class III wetland 6,534 square feet in size; and Wetland #7 is a Class II 106,722 square feet in size. The previous environmental documents considered proposal to fill Wetlands#5 and #6 and to fill a segment of the north end of Wetland #7 and expand the wetland to the south. The ERCRPT.DOC • City of Renton PB/PW Department Er',- mental Review Committee Staff Report The Orchards-Sectors E,Fand G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF • REPORT AND DECISION OF May 28,1996 Page8 of 11 Wetland Mitigation Document considered these actions and required replacement with new, restored or enhanced wetlands on the site in order to mitigate for the filling of Wetlands #5 and #6. Those wetlands were subsequently filled. Mitigation for Wetland #7 included restoration of the disturbed southern portion and western edge of the wetland; provision of a buffer; limitation of excavation within the wetland, replacement of filled wetland areas at specified ratios. The applicant is required to meet Mitigation Measures A19 through A24 with regard to the referenced wetlands. Mitigation Measures: None required beyond those already imposed by The.Orchards Mitigation Document and applicable Codes. Nexus: Not Applicable. 3. Transportation . Impacts: The revised site plan for Sectors E/F and G of the Orchards will generate an estimated 1,034 daily trips and 104 afternoon peak hour trips. This represents a reduction from the traffic study conducted for the 1991 Draft Supplemental EIS which estimated that Sectors E/F and G would generate 1,821 daily trips and 200 afternoon peak- hour trips.. The effect on six area intersections does not adversely affect the expected level of service except in one case, the predicted Level of Service (LOS) at Duvall Avenue NE and Sunset Boulevard NE would drop from LOS C to LOS D. (Note: LOS D or better is considered acceptable based on City standards). Proposed development of Sectors E/F and G would result in increased traffic-during construction and occupancy of the project.. .These impacts include, resident traffic, construction traffic, noise and safety. Mitigation Measures B1 through B10-adopted for the previous project would continue to apply for this revised proposal with one exception. -:Measure B4.would be replaced for this proposal, by a requirement to pay the City's recently adopted Traffic Mitigation Fee. The fee is charged at a rate.of $75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project. The fee is due prior to the issuance of building permits. Mitigation.Measures: The applicant shall pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee for the proposed project. The fee is assessed based on $75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project, and is based on the Institute of - Transportation Engineers Traffic Generation manual. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. Nexus: Traffic Mitigation Fee Resolution and adopting Ordinance; SEPA 4. Fire Prevention Impacts: Development of the proposed 120 new residential units would result in additional impacts to the Fire protection services in the area. As a means of off-setting these impacts, the City has imposed a Fire Mitigation Fee on all new development within the City. The proposal would be subject to the single family residential fees of $488 per each new unit. The fee is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee for the project. The fee is based on $488 per each new single family dwelling unit, and is estimated to be $58,560.00. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of a building permit. Nexus: Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution and adopting Ordinance; SEPA. 5. Parks Impacts: The proposal for Sectors E/F and G would generate approximately 200+ residents. This added population would contribute to the demand for both private and public recreational facilities. However, this proposal result in less impact than the 360 residents that would be anticipated for the previously approved 212 apartments in this area. The applicant has proposed to construct a one-half acre neighborhood park for both passive and active recreation in Sectors E/F. In addition, portions of Sector G would be retained as wetland and wetland buffer. Landscaped paths to these active and passive areas would be provided. ERCRPT.DOC City of Renton PB/PWDepartment Er',, (mental Review Committee Staff Report The Orchards-Sectors E,F and G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF May 28,1996 Page9 of 11 The project is subject to the Mitigation Measures as previously adopted for The Orchards. Mitigation Measures B14 through B16 applied to the project and required a system of pedestrian and/or bicycle trails in wetland buffers, the deeding of additional right-of-way in order to accommodate a bicycle path on both sides of Duvall Avenue NE, and to pay a Park Mitigation Fee. The Parks Mitigation Fee is currently charged at a rate of$530.76 per each new detached single family unit and $354.51 per each new multi-family unit. The applicant would also be required to provide a four- foot wide striped bicycle path on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE. The estimated cost could be deducted from the total Parks Mitigation Fee applicable to the project. The proposed neighborhood park does not meet City standards - for.neighborhood parks (5 to 10 acres in size) and could not be counted toward reducing the Park Mitigation Fee. :...: Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall be required to pay the applicable Parks Mitigation Fee for the proposal.. The fee is estimated to be $530.76 per single family-unit and $354.51 per each new multi-family unit. In addition, • •credit may be given to reduce the fee if the applicant provides the required bicycle paths along Duvall Avenue NE as .• • mandated by the previous environmental determination. The Parks Mitigation.Fee is-due prior to the issuance of the building permit. Nexus:' Parks Mitigation Fee Resolution and adopting Ordinance; SEPA 6. Police Impacts: The addition of 120 residential units would impact police services by increased annual calls for service. The previous Mitigation Measures document requested a surety device:for?thelmulti=family.-buildings to be valid for a period of three years. -..Since-this proposal:would.result in a different number and.type.of,dwellings' (single family homes and townhomes instead of-apartments) than previously approved, the recommendation for a surety device may or may not still apply. :Mitigation-Measures:..-None=required-beyond those already imposed by The Orchards Mitigation•Document and applicable Codes. Nexus: N/A 7. Air Impacts: The proposed development would affect air quality through the generation of dust during construction, and from the operation of construction equipment and vehicles. These impacts are considered to be temporary in nature and were considered during the previous environmental review. Mitigation Measure A27 was adopted to reduce impacts to air quality and required construction mitigation that are also mandated by City Codes. Mitigation Measures: None required beyond those already imposed by The Orchards Mitigation Document and applicable Codes. Nexus: N/A 8. Private Streets- Life Safety Impacts: Private streets proposed within Sector G would be 20 feet in width, and would not allow for guest parking on the street. Guest parking would occur on garage aprons and parking for 11 vehicles would be accommodated in three parking bays. Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street border Sector G on the west and north respectively, but neither of these public streets would provide for guest/service parking, therefore all non-resident parking would need to occur within Sector G. If the 11 guest parking spaces were occupied, and overflow guest/service vehicles were parked on the street, emergency vehicles (especially fire trucks) would have trouble reaching the townhome units. In order to mitigate the potential life safety impacts, the applicant will need to either: 1) widen the private street to 28 feet within Sector G to provide parking on one side and a 20 foot travel lane; or, 2) provide fire sprinklers within each unit in Sector G, and provide adequate guest parking aprons (minimum length of 18 feet from garage to back of curb) in front of garages for each unit. Mitigation Measures:. In order to mitigate the potential life safety impacts, the applicant will need to either: 1) widen the private street to 28 feet within Sector G to provide parking on one side and a.20 foot travel lane; or, 2) ERCRPT.DOC • • City of Renton PB/PWDepartment Er.. .;rmental Review Committee Staff Report The Orchards-Sectors E,F and G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFMay 28,1996 Pagel of 11 provide fire sprinklers within each unit in Sector G, and provide adequate guest parking aprons (minimum length of 18 feet from garage to back of curb) in front of garages for each unit. Nexus: SEPA 9. Access/Life Safety Impacts: Proposed Lots #56, 57, 58, and 59 in Sectors E/F would be accessed from a 20-foot wide private street/alley and would front on private park. Lot's #56 and 59 would also have access from public streets within the development, but Lots#57'and 58 would have sole access from the alley. Garage aprons for.Lots#56 through 59 are not of a sufficient length to accommodate guest/service vehicle parking (the minimum required depth is 18 feet from the garage to the back of the curb). If overflow guest/service vehicles were -parked in the alley/private street, emergency vehicles would have trouble reaching the homes. In order to mitigate the potential life safety impacts, the applicant will need to provide adequate guest parking aprons (minimum length of 18 feet from garage to back of curb) • in front of garages for each.of Lots#56, 57, 58, and #59 in Sectors E/F.. Adequate parking aprons could be provided if the homes on Lots #56 - 59 were shifted to the west. The applicant would need to reduce the size of the private park and increase the lot sizes for Lots #56, #57, #58, and #59 in order to provide the parking aprons and meet building setback requirements. Mitigation Measures: In order to mitigate the potential life safety impacts, the applicant will need to provide adequate guest parking aprons (minimum length of 18 feet from garage_.to::back,ofcurb).in,front.of-garages for each of Lots#56, 57, 58, and#59 in Sectors E/F. Nexus: SEPA 10. Secondary Emergency Access-Sector G Impacts: The proposed emergency vehicle access to Sector G would consist of a 20-foot wide paved lane from Duvall Avenue NE at the southwest corner of Sector G. Approximately one-quarter of the emergency access lane would be located adjacent to and between townhome units #21 and #22, and this section is proposed as reinforced • grass paving or "grass-crete". Bollards would be placed between the edge of the reinforced grass paving and the private street. City Fire Codes do not allow the use of reinforced grass paving for emergency access lanes, although the Renton Fire Department recently granted permission for a demonstration of this type of surface as an emergency access fire lane in another phase of The Orchards (Sector C- Peachtree). The Fire Department has not permitted the use of reinforced grass paving in other projects within the City. Emergency access to Sector G via an all-weather driving surface (asphalt or concrete)will be required. The emergency secondary access will need to be a minimum of 20 feet in width and marked and signed per the Renton Fire Code. Mitigation Measures: The applicant is required to revise the Site Plan to specify a hard surface (asphalt or concrete) emergency vehicle access lane from Duvall Avenue NE to Sector G (reinforced grass paving will not be allowed). The emergency secondary access will need to be a minimum of 20 feet in width and marked and signed per the Renton Fire Code. Nexus: SEPA 11. Parking/Emergency Access Impacts: Traffic flow on the proposed narrow private street within Sector G could be impeded or blocked if vehicles are parked along the street. This impact is of particular concern with regard to emergency access. Mitigation Measures. The applicant shall include in the Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for Sector G, a provision authorizing the City of Renton to enforce the parking section of the CC&R's, but at the expense (including attorney's fees) of the applicant. The City would be permitted to utilize this authorization only upon a written finding by the Police Chief or Fire Chief or their designee(s) that a public safety problem is presented by lack of or inability of the owner to enforce the parking section of the CC&R's. Nexus: SEPA ERCRPT.DOC • City of Renton PB/PW Department Er mental Review Committee Staff Report The Orchards-Sectors E,F and G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF May 28,1996 Pagel I of 11 E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report.. ERCRPT.DOC SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E., W.M. J� .. ; - mb'46• .,��e 7i 6T]6TIattT _ _ a I•� ._t )' St TRAera a. - - \ rar♦ANI.1 ; ,I 6m4 I T r _ 1 >„ • ,�- -�• a�v 4v L • TRACT C -. biuT IR I 3.0. __i IIf)— 12,i.r 11...e.=?:..I,.- .f 9; ,I, �� '8• vz._ .. 7 .- - ...- _• 4� �� __J` '6 MRsl�JJIIOLSYI //��yy��//((//// •r..„. R N -� —L — 70 r I. l 1 7 e _ y l ta � `, �' I r e � _ •a SI` _ rr{ it ` TRACT I a �� `iil�CrC�ilii ` I s 11 I 7rt of .L' trI .: . 5 60sr 1 I ',>, {' // am.eP/6 Y, e t 1 r �♦V o r R L131--Jr^ - r __ L__-a•___1' _ R ,:w- I R % ....—.r - 1„ I -5140 it V Z ry LpLtry ` h A ,, PAW ^I ■ „61.r le » r__,a_ a ZZ »' _ OPENBP4CE .(W L_. �._� ! k , ����� • Milroy L� J a 5 I R „ \ :i ray7 __I � R i J R /// // �������������;��'''���'''�����C= riarEN-Ircli.I :,g N ,t '1%-$ 111 III IR I I ! - ;I� 't� ■� I -• �:.. L. I AI-.Jr., I A .I, I I I /�� l p��VA �'- I Zp i ; IR >.3a5i.S�i .— -_—._s3'-----— — A 4# • • L!HI R • ni I''1 .II 11 'I mm 1 p O 1-1 1N Orchard,Dv 1. flu I.A \I-_ _.I (- -_ L"_ � _ n/.° -e,--J 'J i_-L_i i• ICI , /• I � � I ,}��' s. \ = NI Z.-, I for 1 SIC...ET ill I''' 4 _\,„ I1,... R I _lam_ i R I I I I, �� . __�J_X£- Do "° tt t\ u { ll \ 1 __ II 4 _ » i�.i ==i i III 1 r :I r� j\ -- ----1 />, r---J a L. I'i /1: �a� .'is � (---- -- , h ,. .• Ill I I • - '•39 •a 140 a 141 a 147 6 43 II.144 I L;__'_'�-_Je R .»I3 1'8 " a CC Q Ir 1 i 1 '4"-A' , �I y�j L_� LNG L_,I'L I L_ ,� '� I^ r---- I i • / �wo.✓ __ .`. 04 / � ff -___ _ I t'_—__ // ♦I 7 ,: R I1rn cTava T F �1N' eauc.Rr�\ \/�� 41 Q /F�'. l, I 'Ad C• - P! .. le6.r� // \ S� ,m V i I �' � - O tb 11 ' I I r---� r-- l 1 1 o r 't,'; ":c - - / Qr�_7 r 'iw 'I ~1�,1`rQO�'` 11 •% » x...I 4..L I f.."I 6, :I T : I S :11 9 1 10 l a 1, 9.' 1 1 Nrr » i tv I„ •, 1„ l„ r l L.oro.r j l.. .r j , I /d. .. .i. g m L .,f SECTORSE F f ��'�w .6»41T 21 „ r. m N Q 3 SECTORCx MA...N. ..r.oe y V W ,..°i. e II I , I 3 ItN.CO i. o: I Q Cc• o 4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTOR'!E a F n,.6aM r:elr of..Norms.apart/or u.6.Wr.,Mar. V W P ��a of Ui°o 1.`TNone,.. . fo.O'°"`or MON KNOT Owner/Developer er En Ineer tanner/5urve(or E. n, P E.or Al4]frt 1.Toc for N.. Avo,.r.oge 5 p : y h a. convoyed by Wed R.rcrdeg No.64n46e. Nmerd n�.vr coed.Ergb.o,., I T.North hat gmnef or N.6wNr.t quarto, %O-taPN NE.Sulu b0 ]O!-NMI,Av..,.NE. h b.To..w Norm.R. df�, 'rad66O°6 e'en tO°WA EY T Y I of Ob Yobbos.Ewa,WHr EXCER U+Ewt 4l fro,No,rol rerpU6Newue BE w tar 61Y.rYY6:n.eo, Keg e..e r.�.a.e a.•g ro. T.I.r:oa�i.i-nie-AAA GegS5.. �PeelaE,� 2 �;_'portion of NE 6N platted F .tY4 LtePLR.-Bo, ? u� 1. won I.e.recorded In Velma n!of Plea,at pag. TeL!]061066-,1,.e X,M e,P ,6.wme.emy Sul 730965 a �' �I�a t SE Ow W a�Q3 d-F5ii LEGAL DESCRIPTION 9ECTOR90 Tne 6rvm.1,at/.r,r:.Nwe.a.t apart°er w eooNsad gor. STATISTICAL SUMMART Q tt e ° uo'N or W BeuV..rl qwr.of 6rotlu b.Tov.nlp]!NdU.Raq•9 - T Ea.S WFL EXLEP tie V)s.t 4]fM turrof for nDN Avo,.n dE w TOF� a F RECTOR 4 OiAL 6 rcmw,.tl xq / 6TMrT.l and e4nlyfi m`y tl�'�r�e� dlrg to Total bu 36a<oe e¢tt.,ee!dew 3m.+]6 q.fr.,.Ln our ,uPl6 p!.I MOO,ew �I 1 0 SCALE: 1" = 50' r+ape.e N4w of Lou 6! • !, N° , of U.6 y.,,wlr of quartos 04 if apa..of tt,.6.IW..r quarter r, ]!NeM 6MMINE Zwmg.E.M1rmg,Repe..e R-74 R-], H /0 25 50 Noa, eat.UN,EXCEPT No o Nod 47 Irt l'o,wl for INN Ave.6E.w Mlle RIgFr-or.uay p.d• b)00.f 10,.1 Ac I cw 1ed to KYg foxy by Ord recorded redo,...OE No. 6n.Cevo,ag. 64n461 6vwt Arr: b!)00.1.l30a of E?1 66e°o e!rb.of G! I6een.r.CNN or total WWI VICINITY MAP NO 6045E 95054 • SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E., W.M. - 1 1 II I I a. I�•\ ' i1"s.1 I I r I " l�.:f.,� L Ill, IIiiII )1 IJ . If I�� I - II ag n ' 1 it , I L...I.. I . , 1_._.- I j ..I'.. .aD. •‘ fl SITIP ~ i 4,. �]' K.u �� I /II �_ • — I a. i)E-''' /._ x.... .... SCALE: 1N = 40' / l /q TRACT��'� M_ R.Aep. Ni&TN ST. - - ti e. R N V, tr/ �' a' d - t •W--_____—_---....taro -- _ -_—_—��T 1'....,,. VICINITY MAP (1:0117\ i�I i . ' — :x Nm SCALE . 1PL ! I 1 iirr...„,„,,r,...........'.I { -•fE°'A°:gh. Owner/Developer Engineer/Planner/Surveyor d.- 1 !II zB T1 �'� `Ir \ ► �-- m,, I Nau...e nop� aea+rew�..K } I 'Npr'I! / E.m_I.mOraza.6yubm NOS-I MA�rNG 76 75 24 23-'Ob �77 21 I A]• I A]' n°o..;ii ini°619D ....:° V z g • w�.r ....: ......'. Y 30 E • .I ter," .,.ems neg.� Z= r e.. I•E I • F .E kik _ �r�I \.�_ • 5 I! I LECiETlfl nal ee wul �...y r'u.-a..•yo. Q m • , r__ I I . .� D.T��N LEGAL DESCRIPTION f�i N A yy� 70 i 1 ' V y M SDTI NAIJ Q fit ND1[TWlST OLLEER Q TIC SONTIlIST CLUITp! W W < ; n+-O I I I eAT� Q TI!OOIRMIIST a4RIFR Q SELTIDN,.TOYNb1T U NORM IUIOd a W, J' `I • • PH ldST,YW CXCTTT 1K CAST N TELT T4ETQQ PGS DSTN A.tHE S!b R O 59 60 -a-- °xuraRr eeueRrEm DT D®scam®UoeR I¢ralm.G NO rATMee Z m S u .j' T 137` I TIE NmIEN NAV Q M NDRNO[ST alAR,R Q TM,lameAST aua,n 0 I - 1111., 1- 19 9 SS rW QTNeH.EXCEPT 11.MET FEESECTITNON b,T,NCR D]S NaEU OE S z OD W 8 • W lAST.NH.IX�rt TIE EbT A]FEET TIlIRQ NCR OS1N AVENUE OE AS Z i ! 1 I 59 Sol I I,n EXISTS.CONTOUR ACONvETED TO KEG COACT Err DEED mecomeD Imes RECC:ONO NO. W Q m PAPX U PrueN GRADE asrtcve m 11 I 33 ' �BPACE m ' I, f 0? II.I� 1 \ �., 5� c a 67 � "4 I �w �(i I g I ' l I 0' IIU Ir-� , 10'MALT b'ai]. IS'MALT 0 U I� 34 e I.� 1 ' �_� u �� 6� • • / .�,I, : Ill s , 1V �- 11d� '�J. l s l 11 2 y 1 _ m, _ 1 CO 1 I �_ �,L' .� I� s� r �iwTmia 01,,) y —�r.: I a' r`i W W I. I • . II SECT/ON A—A w • "=;^ i l i`'' I 49 111 ENTRANCE ROADWAY SECTION Q 8 __>ee. / 1 i I. 55' 54 ' 53 52 i :� 1 6.11 W J• NO SCALE ALB I Ns __ 4I I I _/ :i I b'a/Y O q COP a i 6 $ -••� 111111111- PUBLIC• EY ` .l 14 I I Z - J 2 ti Q N a I --� •1l I< Ur i � r _ Qg3 P=,,...> III ,I I.E. l DIa. 1' q I ''' :�. �u Q� 3W �1 1 3e i • I'', , l <iI 39 40 41 47 4? -E44+ 13 s cave cmc aauo aas 1. c . �i 1 f> 1 �^ ♦GYMS,fTml R ~ I' i ���°`/ —. I 4 i I; I` SECTION B-B 2 RAN "K i 0 II I • — tE! ]mA 17 ITRACTF TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION �� NO SCALE cc k Amur ;Ill .' '...r _ • - . , 'or, 1 • ��r; 1 I� 1 1 2 1 • I3 4 5 6 '7 19 \ .10 11 I - 1.T I -W I _^ a om > l I I bmrml' I ., SECT/ON C-C o s I I 'SECTORS E k F "I f]' ' 42' PUBLIC ALLEY SECTION o r 6 I I NO scat D❑ • • ��,'Y.. P II SI.CCT aOF 11 I 1 222 .i I I 1 / 1 SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E., W.M. Mr. 1 I � . _ WA rill , ., ice' 47 L IN .. SCALE 40' / Apr .r • _ � R i s,�.— 1 ;'-~� • '' VICINITY MAP � °/ � � --- I. -TRACT B \\ nBee E ynif....• • a - 1(E a Owner/Develot�er E�g Eneer/Planner/Surveyor✓o A:• �; nag l,- -- 111.M_ 1jiP*4)ii �� Wter _arl..low cI�G� HE. 2 F. SS. Pv� ZZ m a`. 2 LEGEND r]me] Wi via.-&'V� I a l ,�II ',�I.�i lip,,� ;l a�N LEGAL DESCRIPTION �Z ` a +— of Ow re A l ,r�I � I'.ill FA e.n,zl .,:r..nly Tro South half of tto RwB.,.r qunr�of d•P.Rac quarto. W j i' 3 - \ WAilR Bouuv, I Buc,lm 10,Tau.uN ]3 NwN R, \ E .]fen Vvrr rn IBBIt.A+..r 6! . I�> t wn,ExcE �by e""e r.vese vve�Rraa.y ra Z p m II TRACT A f !� ' (C 41 ,I -- em ewm BEveR a lhonofSeTV23NQmppEN SPACE I f1210 iQ n e BouB.rt qu,ns of bctvm b.io.rvnlp]3 rbut Fe•ge 9o// I 1 Y - n.Ea King...on,]foal Barr for wear Avarua BE e. i m `. / ilin 1 r S EKIBTRG CONTOUR B wLUti.,o King Cwny by Ore rrcreue W>Rcwevg a W R W �'I 4O \\\\ FIMBN GRADE CONTOUR p v1 m c\ 1 I �� �1�. 04 _-rl.l��, \ ;Mow • J E.RfSEnEu ( ,,„,,„gal.• li OJ � 1 ,Ifu,, t 1110 1 fatilkumesil .,,L-44461111 LISA , ia I. ,tip � �;► Willi . o 4 J 11.1 WS frw- ����l I 1 „ 1 I s o a \4. TRAC.T E W OIt.� cow ago(040 �" m CEMENT 5'CONCRETE OWN vERRCALCONCRE CURB U Su b ` 9 5'CEYEN)COxCREA SOCWALK O h Q C T I \ SECT/ON A-A 2~ Q�3 i. \11 1 Vitsall* ENTRANCE ROAD SECTION ¢a .T I• / r NO SCALE ].CC L I \ ,11IOFT, Ilk 31 ` Q Z Q I. et4'it)......11114., \410., FACT F 1 - � r .4 e ]•..f CiiLt N �lnm6Ri� Stir4�.,- Lik, - 16'PRIVATE ROAD TACT W Q. _r C II , . SO'WETLAND 6, dfFER—� / .v � : • CEMENT CPVCYJC][ROLLED[ORB UI W•m I W,i se, � �. brill. 3'[CYCN/COVEFCIC 9OEWAlK wI 1 I k ._ / ErEGSVCr vE•3CEE ACCESS u �. all � SECT/ON B-B ` /—+-/yEli .I V Ur �'i3'. 'u2:y"„ TYPICAL ROAD SECTION A]• NBB'01'159U / 606IDI' NO SCALE •I i I'. 1 SECTOR Ca FEm E�«AR,B ; . a'AZ PAvIN� „1 i 1 I I 95054 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE • MAY 28, 1995 To: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Sa Chastain, Community Services Administrator Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief From: Jim Hanson & Mike Kattermann MeetingDate: > Tuesda May28,' >1996 y 9:00AM Location: Third Floor Conference Room Agenda listed below. Rubber Ducky Derby(New) (Rosen/2719) LUA-96-059,SM,ECF The City of Renton seeks a five (5) year annual Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM) for the Rubber Ducky Derby as part of Renton River Days. Approximately 10,000 to 12,000 small rubber ducks would be released into the Cedar River, at the Houser Way Bridge. Environmental booms will be set at the finish line at Logan Avenue Bridge to catch all floating ducks. Location: Cedar River between Houser Way Bridge and Logan Avenue Bridge. The Orchards,Sectors E,F&G (New) (Henning/6186) LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 59 attached townhomes, each located on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of an approved mitigation plan. Sectors E/F would be accessed via NE 6th Street, and from Bremerton Avenue NE; while Sector G would be accessed by a private road system from Duvall Avenue NE via NE 6th Street. An emergency access would be provided along the southern boundary out to Duvall. Garages, aprons and guest parking would be provided for the homes and townhomes. This proposal is being reviewed as a demonstration project under City Council Ordinance 4550. Location: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street. cc: J.Covington, Executive Assistant to tAe Mayor AGENDA.DOC L.Warren,City Attorney (R) F.Kaufman,Hearing Examiner S.Carlson, Economic Development Director (R) J.Gray,Fire Prevention A. Larson,Fire (R) P.Pierce, P/B/PW Admin MAY 24 '96 02:49PM DODDS ENGINEERS, INC P.1/1 DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING May 24, 1996 DEI Project No. 95054 Ms. Jana Huerter Use Review Supervisor City of Renton k200 ��� Renton WA 98055venue uth o4176.. ? 1996 itfroPvip ATO�N�NG Subject: The Orchards, Sectors E/F and G Dear Jana: Per our conversation today, the wetland to the east of Duvall Avenue in Sector G of The Orchards (Wetland#7)wilt be planted in late summer, 1996. This will allow time for the plants to get established before significant storm events occur next winter. The wetland mitigation plan created by Terra Associates will be revised to reflect the proposed site plan for Sector G. These revisions are very minor with a shifting of the wetland planting in the southeast corner to maintain an average buffer of 50'and a minimum buffer width of 20'. If you have any additional questions or comments, please call. Thank you. Sincerely, DODDS ENGINEERS,INC. 6/Ltd Craig J. Krueger Vice President -Planning cc: Dick Gilroy,Northward Garet Munger, Terra Associates 4205 148TH AVE. N.E., SUITE 200-BELLEVUE. WA 26007 (206) 685-7877 FAX: (206) 065-7963 MAY-23-96 17.06 FROM=TERRA ASSOCIATES ID:2068214334 PAGE .- 2/3 ' ;.{:. :::'1..4 \.‘\ -� ":I 'lR•RA'ASSOC IATES--• I•nc. `' ., Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology. • and ' . Environmental Earth Sciences • • • May 23, 1996 • • •' • ' • • ..Project NO.T-2566-I' . . . , •• .' Mr;Dick Gilroy ' ' Northward•Construcxioni Company • •• • . • . • • • ' 1560-140th Avenue NE;Suite.100 • , . . . Bellevue,Washington 98005 • • i •Subject:' ,;•• 'Wetland Mitigation inspection . , .. :' • • ,' The Orchards . • . • ' • Renton,Washington ' , • • , • • • •, ,• • • • . Dear Mr.Gilroy: •, . . ' . ... . • As requested; we visited'the subject site on'May 22, 1996 to conduct an inspection of the wetland • ' ' ' mitigation.areas for the•'project. The areas we,examined included Wetland 1on•the west side of the ' • project, Wetland 3 in the middle of.the project, and the:detention pond area near Duvall.Avenue. The • wetland 'mitigation in.Wetland .7, on the east side.of Duvall'Avenue, has not been completed_ Our • • , observations are summarized below. . . .•• ' .. , • • „ . . • Wetlandl t • is . The wetland'and buffer plantings were installed during the winter.Of 1996. The plant materials.are ' • ' • • surviving and show signs of new growth this spring_. There is'also'natural establishment of red alder,' • black cottonwood, and willow which will supplement the nutsery stock. Scots broom'and Himalayan , ..blackberry are becoming established in the buffer areas: These invasive species,should,be removed. : . • • ' •It appears that the overflow culvert from the•area has been•blocked by debris so that•the water level,has. • : • • , ' • been Maintained at a higher.level-than designed. As'a result,some of the vegetation in the southern half • ' •of the area has died. Red alder and western red cedar trees, and the vine maple, in the area are now • dead. , Black cottonwood and Oregon ash trees are surviving_ There has, been some'natural . . • • , establishment•of willow. • • . • • • • 12525 Willows Road,Suite 101•; Kirkland, Washington 98034•• Phone(206).821-7777 ' • • . MAY-23-86 17:07 FROM:TERRA 7"'.73OCIATES ID.:206E12' '34 PAGE 3/3 '• , . -Mr.Dick Gilroy .r. • • r; May 23,1996 , . i;r,:. ' We recommend•that.the culvert outfall be inspected periodically and cleaned as necessary. ;The dead • 'trees can be`replaced with black'cottonwood and Oregon ash,•which survive in•wet conditions. The • • ' • ' ' • area should ;;be. reexamined. in early summer to•evaluate whether',additional willow or other shrubs. - • should be replanted to supplement natural revegetation in the area. • • • Weiland 3• • ; • • Plantings in the mitigation area for this wetland were installed during the winter of 1996: The installed • • plant materials are surviving and•show signs of new growth.• There is natural•revegetation of willow and black cottonwood,which will supplement the nursery stock. Grading work•for Anacortes Avenue •• • ' 'at the north end of the wetland has not been completed and the buffer plantings have not been installed: •• • -No additiona• l work is recommended for this Mitigation area at this time:' Yt •• • t Detention Pond piu • Plantings for the detention pond were installed during the winter of 1996..•These plant materials are • • • surviving and show signs of new growth.•No additional work is•tecommended in this area.at this time. :• . .. •• • If you have any questions or need additional information,•please call. • • • ' - . • . • • ' . • • Sincerely yours, • •• . ' .• • • • 12A A OCIATES,INC. • .. ;' • • ' :: .. . .i&k../* 9 9.);21.24'::P-,- . . .. ' • .. • ' : . .. . • . , .. . • Garet,P:Munger • • • • • . . Project Scief'ntist •GPM:eb • •• • cc;. Mr.Craig Krueger,Dodds Engineers,Inc. ' • • . • • . • •.Project No:T-2566-1. • , • • Page•No.•2 . . b fi CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: May 22, 1996 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Jennifer Toth Henning rfl SUBJECT: The Orchards, Sectors E/F and G The applicant has provided the attached letter in order in response to concerns regarding garage setbacks, sidewalks on both sides, parking aprons, and private road width. Staff has received the requested drainage information and is reviewing it. MEMO.DOT/ • = e= DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RF�,rT+fl ! Ms. Jennifer Toth-Henning IAY 21 1995j, May 20, 1996 Planning Department DEI Project No. 95054 City of Renton RECEIVED 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Subject: The Orchards, Sector E/F& G i Dear Jennifer: Per our conversation on Friday, I am writing in response to staff comments on the site plan for Sector E/F and G as part of the ERC committee review. Our response is as follows: I , Sectors E/F 1: Garage setbacks - Our intent, from the onset, has been to provide parking aprons in front of the attached garages of the homes along the perimeter(the alley homes have no aprons.per the current city code.) The homes have been designed t;o.take advantage of the reduced front setbacks to create pc rches and extensions that will lessen the visual impact of:the garages. ; The parking aprons will beat.least 19.feetdeep from the-garage door to the back of walk or back of curb (if there is no sidewalk). 2. Sidewalks on both sides - Our proposal, per the Housing Demonstration Ordinance, has been to provide an attached walk on only one side of the internal public streets. This sidewalk will be placed on the sane side of the street as the on-street parking. The elimination of the sidewalk on one side'will create a more attractive streetscape with our proposed street tree plan and will reduce the housing costs for the future homeowners. We would like to present this concept to the Hearing Examiner and City.Council for demonstration purposes for these 63 homes. Our belief is that this additional sidewalk,is not necessarily due to the internal road pattern with no through traffic. • • Sector G 1. Private road width - Per our initial conversations with City Staff and our early site plans, our concept for Sector G''has been to provide fee simple townhouses (on individual lots) accessed by way of a private street. We envisioned a neighborhood very similar to Sector C (Peachtree Townhouses) .except: that the homes .would be sold as. fee :simple homes instead of condominiums. Our presentation was that Sector G would look and function exactly the same as Sector C, except that the homeowners would benefit from the less restrictive f nancing and sales requirements for a fee simple plat. We would like .the opportunity.to present this concept to the Hearing Examiner and City Council, with the same street width as provided in Sector C. The alternative is to withdraw the preliminary plat and construct the townhomes as condominiums. The townhouses in Sector C are selling and are obviously meeting the needs of the City's housing market. 4205 148TH AVE. N.E., SUITE 200-BELLEVUE, WA 98007 (206) 885-7877 -- FAX: (206) 885-7963 05/20/96 Ms. Jennifer Toth-Henning Page 2 2.. Parking aprons - Just as in Sector C, our site plan for Sector G calls for a mix of townhouses, some with parking aprons in front of the garages, some with no aprons. The townhouses will feature both one and two car garages, again to meet the needs of the housing market. To provide adequate parking (which exceeds city codes) throughout the neighborhood, the townhouses without aprons will provide a two car garage and will be located close to off street guest parking spaces as shown on the site plan. The homes with one car garages will always include a parking apron that is at least 19 feet deep from the garage door to the back of sidewalk or back of curb when there is no sidewalk. I do hope that this adequately addresses the comments from the ERC Committee and, when packaged with the downstream drainage report that includes the Safeway and Winsor Apartments, allows the committee to approve our plans for Sectors E/F and G. Please call, as .soon as convenient, with any comments or questions regarding this.information. Thank you. Sincerely, DODDS ENGINEERS,INC. ' (-11-6G .1(448----- Craig J. Krueger Vice President-Planning cc: Dick Gilroy-Northward , = e= DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF PFNI1 % Ms. Jennifer Toth-Henning MAY 9995 May 20, 1996 Planning Department RECEIVED DEI Project No. 95054 City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Subject: The Orchards, Sector E/F & G Dear Jennifer: Per our conversation on Friday, I am writing in response to staff comments on the site plan for Sector E/F and G as part of the ERC committee review. Our response is as follows: Sectors E/F 1. Garage setbacks - Our intent, from the onset, has been to provide parking aprons in front of the attached garages of the homes along the perimeter(the alley homes have no aprons per the current city code.) The homes have been designed to take advantage of the reduced front setbacks to create porches and extensions that will lessen the visual impact of the garages. The parking aprons will be at least 19 feet deep from the garage door to the back of walk or back of curb (if there is no sidewalk). 2. Sidewalks on both sides - Our proposal, per the Housing Demonstration Ordinance, has been to provide an attached walk on only one side of the internal public streets. This sidewalk will be placed on the same side of the street as the on-street parking. The elimination of the sidewalk on one side will create a more attractive streetscape with our proposed street tree plan and will reduce the housing costs for the future homeowners. We would like to present this concept to the Hearing Examiner and City Council for demonstration purposes for these 63 homes. Our belief is that this additional sidewalk is not necessarily due to the internal road pattern with no through traffic. Sector G 1. Private road width - Per our initial conversations with City Staff and our early site plans, our concept for Sector G has been to provide fee simple townhouses (on individual lots) accessed by way of a private street. We envisioned a neighborhood very similar to Sector C (Peachtree Townhouses) except that the homes would be sold as fee simple homes instead of condominiums. Our presentation was that Sector G would look and function exactly the same as Sector C, except that the homeowners would benefit from the less restrictive financing and sales requirements for a fee simple plat. We would like the opportunity to present this concept to the Hearing Examiner and City Council, with the same street width as provided in Sector C. The alternative is to withdraw the preliminary plat and construct the townhomes as condominiums. The townhouses in Sector C are selling and are obviously meeting the needs of the City's housing market. 4205 148TH AVE. N.E., SUITE 200-BELLEVUE, WA 98007 (206) 885-7877 FAX: (206) 885-7963 =;t 05/20/96 Ms. Jennifer Toth-Henning Page 2 2. Parking aprons - Just as in Sector C, our site plan for Sector G calls for a mix of townhouses, some with parking aprons in front of the garages, some with no aprons. The townhouses will feature both one and two car garages, again to meet the needs of the housing market. To provide adequate parking (which exceeds city codes) throughout the neighborhood, the townhouses without aprons will provide a two car garage and will be located close to off street guest parking spaces as shown on the site plan. The homes with one car garages will always include a parking apron that is at least 19 feet deep from the garage door to the back of sidewalk or back of curb when there is no sidewalk. I do hope that this adequately addresses the comments from the ERC Committee and, when packaged with the downstream drainage report that includes the Safeway and Winsor Apartments, allows the committee to approve our plans for Sectors E/F and G. Please call, as soon as convenient, with any comments or questions regarding this information. Thank you. Sincerely, DODDS ENGINEERS,INC. 1--1/66 7(4/146-- Craig J. Krueger Vice President -Planning cc: Dick Gilroy-Northward = �= DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING DEVELOPMENT PLANNING May 6, 1996 CITY OF RENTON DEI Project No. 95054 Iv"iAY 0 ! 1995 Ms. Jennifer Toth-Henning RECEIVED Planning Department City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Subject: The Orchards, Sectors E/F & G Dear Jennifer: I am writing in response to our conversation last week regarding the ERC (Environmental Review Committee) review of our preliminary plat and site plan for Sector G. My understanding is that the Fire Marshall is withholding his ERC approval due to the perceived narrow private streets, unless we agree to install fire sprinklers in all the buildings. I do want to point out that the proposed street section in Sector G is exactly the same as that currently being built in Sector C of The Orchards. Both sectors contain townhouse type structures as well. While we appreciate the Fire Marshall's concern regarding life safety issues for all development in the City of Renton, we do not believe that the width of proposed streets is a SEPA issue requiring special mitigation measures beyond city codes. We are willing to review this matter with City Staff, the Hearing Examiner and the City Council as a site planning or building permit issue, per City codes and ordinances. It is our belief that the streets widths are a site planning issue, not an environmental issue and any special conditions or constraints regarding street widths should be - part of our site plan approval, not part of our SEPA threshold determination. Please call with any comments or questions. Thank you. Sincerely, DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. a4A( . lA/P..?"6.1,„ Craig J. Krueger Director of Planning 4205 '148TH AVE. N.E., SUITE 200-BELLEVUE, WA 98007 (206) 885-7877 FAX: (206) 885-7963 - i °ti 7 ,69 CITY OF RENTON °i �,, . ,9L, PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS °PR�AN MEMORANDUM °��'tic DATE: April 17, 1996 TO: Jennifer Toth Henning FROM: Sonja J. Fesser SUBJECT: The Orchards, Sectors E,F and G,LUA-96-010-PP Fee Review Sheet In a review memo dated February 28, 1996,Property Services noted that the preliminary fee review for the above referenced long plat would be available after the City's Waste Water division received additional information regarding the East Renton Interceptor project. That information has been received and used in determining the project's preliminary fee,which is noted in the attached Fee Review sheet. I hope this delay did not cause a problem for you or the applicant. If you have any questions,please call me on Ext. 4412. MEMO.DOT/ PROPERTY SERVICES FEE REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISIONS No. 96 - c3.1 . APPLICANT': IJar -r1-4 _ __JCEIVED FROM S.JP- 2.(2139 at JOB ADDRESS: -t 4 .ST EiiY )51-1-1 WO# 7Ra5- NATURE OF WORK: 122, )ems(? ( lam opsc-7.►-r r)�J %c-1 LND# Io -n�o7 PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF SUBDIVISION BY LONG PLAT, NEED MORE ORMATION: 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHORT PLAT,BINDING SITE PLAN,ETC. 0 PID#'s 0 VICINITY MAP ❑ FINAL REVIEW OF SUBDIVISION,THIS REVIEW REPLACES 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE ❑ OTHER PRELIMINARY FEE REVIEW DATED 0 FRONT FOOTAGE -aa44 ❑ SUBJECT PROPERTY PARENT PID# lo,Z3cn5- NEW KING CO.TAX ACCT.#(s)are required when - q04_ assigned by King County. - as It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below may be applicable to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are potential charges that may be due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e.underground utilities,street improvements,etc.) Triggering mechanisms for the SDC fees will be based on current City ordinances and determined by the applicable Utility Section. Please note that these fees are subject to change without notice. Final fees will be based on rates in effect at time of Building Permit/Construction Permit application. Cr The existing house on SP Lot# ,addressed as has not previously paid SDC fees,due to connection to City utilities prior to existance of SDC fee Ord. SP Lot# will be subject to future SDC fees if triggering mechanisms are touched within current City Ordinances. XWe understand that this subdivision is in the preliminary stage and that we will have the opportunity to review it again before recordation. The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees, side sewer permits,r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF • ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS OR FEE Latecomer Agreement(pvt)WATER q I oA-- ci-ll1t=C1- {ksi 1 o tea.- �i Latecomer Agreement(pvt)WASTEWATER rrIC�✓I c>�U B Y t u l�.:troor i G1= /1.5.Sc�.- 1/. Latecomer Agreement(pvt)OTHER Special Assessment District/WATER +5�- Ra✓I1r'oIJ I x�c jz�'R 000Z.__ ek, ZZA.52/QUIT I22 z7,5(41.44 Special Assessment District/WASTEWATER Joint Use Agreement(METRO) Local Improvement District • * Traffic Benefit Zones $75.00 PER TRIP,CALCULATED BY TRANSPORTATION FUTURE OBLIGATIONS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-WATER ❑ Estimated #OF UNITS/ SDC FEE ❑Pd Prey. 0 Partially Pd(Ltd Exemption) (i, Never Pd SQ.FTG. Single family residential$850/unit x 122 $ 10'5,-7do Mobile home dwelling unit$680/unit in park Apartment,Condo$510/unit not in CD or COR zones x Commercial/Industrial, $0.113/sq.ft.of property(not less than$850.00)x Boeing,by Special Agreement/Footprint of Bldg plus 15 ft perimeter(2,800 GPM threshold) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-WASTEWATER 0 Estimated ❑Pd Prey. 0 Partially Pd(Ltd Exemption) It Never Pd Single family residential$585/unit x th -r I )370 Mobile home dwelling unit$468/unit x Apartment,Condo$350/unit not in CD or COR zones x Commercial/Industrial$0.078/sq.ft.of property x(not less than$585.00) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-SURFACEWATER 0 Estimated ❑Pd Prey. 0 Partially Pd(Ltd Exemption) a, Never Pd Single family residential and mobile home dwelling unit$385/unit.x 12 2 ��)q 7© All other properties$0.129sq ft of new impervious area of property x (not less than$385.00) PRELIMINARY TOTAL $ ,a. 4,4.3 .44 �l�(a) � . Lg2E.n-0fJJ 4/I- aG SignaXulre of eviewing Authority DATE " ❑ *If subject property is within an LID,it is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept.for paid/un-paid status. ❑ Square footage figures are taken from the King County Assessor's map and are subject to change. .� to ❑ Current City SDC fee charges apply to �. • c:/template/feeappl/tgb EFFECTIVE July 16, 1995/Ord.Nos.4506,4507,4508,4525,and 4526 4c}7.-T— aV4... - 151.y TERRA- ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering„Geology and "EnvironmentalEarth:Sciences DEVELOPMENTPLANNING R G April 5.,'1996 . 'Project'No::T-2566-1 Northward Construction Company , • . ' 1560-140th Avenue NE, Suite 100 Bellevue,Washington.98005 . Subject:'- Wetland-Mitigation Review • -' .Preliminary Plat Sector G The Orchards. Renton,Washington Dear Mr. Gilroy: As requested, we have reviewed preliminary grading and utilities plans,for the preliminary plat of Sector G, The Orchards, with respect to compliance with the approved Mitigation.Plan for'the overall.,development:-; We prepared a mitigation plan for the project dated'April 18,- 1994,.,which provided;niitigation for:the filling of approximately'one acre Of the site wetlands. That; mitigation plan involved;,;wetland• creation ,and/or enhancement at four locations, within the:project, Mitigation-work in'Wetlands '1 and.3 and Detention Pond:C'on'the'west,side of Duvall'Avenue.' has been • completed. Final,plantings were installed for these three areas'during,this past winter: _'This work was;completed in accordance with the mitigation design plan:: The plant materials,were.in�good,condition at the time of planting. No,additional work is necessaryin these areas to satisfy the mitigation,design\requirements`at'this;time.. ,These.:'- areas'will be monitored as'required to determine the success of the project,m establishing the desired wetland plant = communities: The majority of die mitigation for- The Orchards development is within Sector G.- Grading work;for the mitigation area was'completed' during late: summer 1995,_ although'the plant materials, have not!been installed: 'The' , mitigation design for Wetland,7 7in Tract-A involves the creation'of.new Wetland area along with enhancement of the existing,wetland. Approximately 32,050'square feet of the degraded wetland area is to be restored and 7,160 Square'feet of new wetland will be created as shown On the Wetland mitigation plan drawingsfor the,project.. :1/2525:Willows Road,Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034';•_Phone (206) 821'-7,777 Dick Gilroy . _ A r l•.5,, 1996 The preliminary'plat design;;'for'Sector G has.changed the ;boundaries of.Tract A" so`<that,the'building off;,the; ;southeast corner of the:tract;will extend;somewhat further to.'the west and;would°intrude into-the buffer'and:', created wetland area,of the Original;:miti ation design. ="Thisr,will,require redesign `':the miti 'ation' 'lari;'for;this;" , g �? q leg g P section. An':equal area of wetland,can be'created by shifting the:,excavation:.area'to ahe west',as shown on drawings by Dodds;Engineers, Inc: An:average 50-foot wide:buffer:with a minimum of 20''feet.is=tieing provided: for the wetland Within the;Tract'Bounda The. chan iri n,h .r ges;: .te,Tract A limits;will:re require revisions in•the'r;mitigation'plan-for, the,area to.reflect-the new • `;boundary; ,- 'The 'e"Phan- 'reconfi ration°ofahe.created,wetland;area and replanting;of"the'buffer g -area which Was'disturbed=during�the grading'work-last•sum •':iner: 'A new.-mitigation plan'"similar,to our plan.:for the'area dated June..•1•; 1994will be prepared for the ProJect, , , With:aredesi `' of the'miti ation, lan reflecting the,changes iii the,Tract`A"boundaries; it will be:feasible to meet.''',:. � g P _ .5 = the'requirements,of the on i""alMitigation'Document for="the`'; ro ect dated November'27'. 19"9'1. Tlie. r0 osed. design-_changes will 'result in no::additional wetland-impacts beyond-those .accounted'for,.in the•Mitigation .: Document: Anew,mitiation-' lan can be re aredwhen final rading'plans have been,completed: - I f y ou_have any:questions.or need'additiona information;please call: ' Sincerel ours'' l TERRA ASSOCIATES,>I'NC:, Garet P ".Munger Project Scientist PM ; Cc: Crai IKrue er'Dodds."Enineers, Inc: g g. , g ; � . - - - - ,. ~ •,, ice• .- Project No..T-2566-1 ' . Page;No.'2' + �- . �, • City of Renton DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Development Services CITY OF RENTON • 200 Mill Avenue South APR ® 1 Renton, WA 98055 1996 ATTENTION Jennifer Henning, Senior Planner RECEIVED RE: Project Name; Orchards Sectors E, F, and C. Project # LUA96-010,SA,PP,ECF Park Place Children's Junction Inc., Located at 483 Duvall Ave. N.E. and the owner of the building, Annette Hicks would appreciate it if you would take the following concerns into consideration when approving the above named project's site plan and building permit. Equipment, truck and construction noise during pre-school hours 9 to 11:15, but especially during nap time; 12:00 to 2:30. Equipment, trucks, construction workers and city vehicles using our small parking lot of eight sites to park in and droop their equipment and supplies in; leaving our clients no place to park, dangerous condition for children using.parking lot to get on and off of school buses, and unnecessary wear on our parking lot, (Holes and stress cracks in asphalt.) Blocking of our ingress and egress to the parking lot, business and our mailbox by the above mentioned vehicles. . Construction workers and their foremen using loud and offensive language.during their work and arguments which teachers and children hear during pre-school and outdoor play. Rocks and dirt left on road in front of day care center, which sends dust clouds in our front door when cars-drive through it and accumulates in-our parking lot, causing clientele to track it in the building, leaving us with damaged floor and rugs. Existing mountains of dirt being added to or removed. Leaving us with toxic exhaust fumes from equipment and dump trucks to be breathed in by the children, parents and teachers while in the classrooms and on the playground. When using bulldozers next to our playground to grade land and fill dump trucks up for removing existing mountains of dirt, and having dump trucks drive in and out of this adjacent lot, causes huge clouds of dust and dirt to be hurled on top of children, teachers and parents while on the-playgrounds. Leaving them literally choking on the dust, having to wash dirt out of their eyes, playground equipment and day care building left coated in a thick layer of dirt and dust. . Loss of power, heat, lights and phones again. Due to disconnecting of services to hook up new services, trucks backing into power poles, back hoes and other equipment breaking gas lines and cutting phone cables. New homes backyards backing up to our'playgrounds. New neighbors could have dogs that will bite children when they poke their fingers through the existing fence. Dogs could . dig under the fence and get the children. Dogs might bark at the children the whole time they're playing.on playground and scare them. Cats will climb the fence and use our three sand boxes. Cats are considered to carry serious diseases and are recommended by health specialists not to have them around young children. Neighbor's children are known to climb fences and use day care equipment when the center is closed during evenings and weekends. Even when asked not to and no trespassing signs are posted. Equipment and children do get damaged or hurt and we will be held liable and left fixing the.damage. We have one child who is literally scared to death to go outside and play now. She cries and screams, "The truck is going to get me." Under our State Regulations we have to go outside every day. The State would make an exception for a child who is as terrified as this one is. But under the State Regulations, we can't leave any children unattended, and we can't afford to hire a teacher to sit in the building with the scared children. More flooding of our playgrounds, damage to our mailbox, fence and property due to their construction. These are legitimate concerns. Ones that we have already experienced fran the ongoing Orchards construction for the past two years, are still experiencing and are nowj.;being asked to re-experience again this Spring and Sumner. And for their next project across the street fran us after that. Our business has been greatly impacted from the Orchards Project. It has done nothing but caused us severe hardships. We ask that the City take a hard look at the impact on,our day care and the children enrolled here when considering the proposed site and the process of how the construction companies will be allowed to build it, if approved. Please keep in mind the following while making your decisions; Would you enroll your baby in a center that is to hard to get in and out of, no place to park, so noisy with equipment you can't hear the teacher talk to you or teach pre-school, being woke up form naps fran equipment and construction noise and building shaking, having to take them home for a bath during the summer, because the dirt clouds stuck"to their warm bodies while playing outside? 'Would you want your child choking on dirt and getting dirt in their eyes while playing outside or sitting in a classroom? If your child has allergies or asthma, don't bring them here. The dirt will make them very sickly. If you owned this family day care business, would you of been able to stay in business under these conditions? Having to pay for consent loss of business, property damage and dirt wear and tear out of your own pocket for three years. Avery concerned citizen and business owner, Annette Hicks, President 228-6510 . 32 R n n1-1-e-- -, UA • —E_ l..5-q 5 )— , • ---„..-.,\I Anemone LE. i, , _ z ...„----, _. p„,....,., ----- .1T-iirrw 1 05-7 sA,..-?' p -V c,) I , R ri 11)11( Iix /61-- 6 _ , ri 2 9 MAR ' . /sqS - . 0 -r- keil /7)/7 0.e v c ier,111 0,-I— S'Cri./t`Ce15 cp_a 0 nA ,-1 i li-v-e-- se-v-i-k p,,, -i-v11( (4,-4— '7 .96— • 41.:,[dpinuid.i.ludw..i.................... 3.6 ri,s'a r Pi a. n kle I^ ( er/Y- ' e - = DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING March 20, 1996 DEI Project No: 95054 Ms. Jennifer Henning Planning Department RECEIVED City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South a'�' 1996 Renton, WA 98055 ' ' DEVELOPMENTPLANNING Subject: The Orchards Sectors E/F and G CITY OF RENTON Dear Jennifer: Attached please find the revised site plan for Sector G at The Orchards. The plan now calls for 57 townhouses (a reduction from the original 59) and includes a 30 foot wide right-of-way for the potential future extension of N.E. 6th Street along the northern property line. In response to comments from Neil Watts regarding the parking calculations for Sectors E/F and G, we have prepared the following tabulations: Sectors E/F Garage Spaces (2/home) 126 Garage Aprons (2/traditional home) 76 On-Street Guest Parking 37 Total Spaces: 239 Ratio: 3.8:1 If the proposed landscape "neckdowns" were removed, the number of on street guest parking spaces would be increased to 44, resulting in a parking radio of 3.9:1. Since the City code calls for only 2.25 spaces per single family home, it is our belief that these landscaped "neckdowns", and their impact on the streetscape, are justified and supportable. Sector G Garage Spaces (assume 50% 1-car) 86 Garage Aprons (assume 2-car) 100 Guest Parking Spaces 11 Total Spaces:l97 Ratio: 3.5:1 4205 148TH AVE. N.E., SUITE 200-BELLEVUE, WA 98007 (206) 885-7877 FAX: (206) 885-7963 03/20/96 Ms. Jennifer Henning Pg: 2 The road section and pattern for Sector G are the same as currently constructed in Sector C (at the Northwest corner of Duvall and N.E. 6th Street). Sector C also includes townhouse designs, except they are being sold as condominiums instead of fee simple lots as proposed for Sector G. We believe that the road section proposed for Sector G is supportable for the following reasons: 1. The 20 foot width conforms to and meets the requirements of the fire department, since this was approved for Sector C. 2. The parking ratio for Sector G is 3.5:1, while City Codes only require 1.75:1 and Sector C provides a radio of 2.5:1 per the Hearing Examiner's decision. 3. The only difference between Sectors C and G is the form of ownership. Our participation in the Demonstration Ordinance was to show the benefits of fee simple ownership to the ultimate homeowners through the platting process, while the appearance and functioning of the neighborhood is the same as if it were developed as condominiums. The added expense of fire sprinkler systems should not be imposed on the future homeowners in Sector G only because of the form of ownership. As a clarification, please also note that the 1 car garage plans for Sector G will only be placed in locations where there are 2 apron spaces available. Where the aprons are not deep enough for parking, the townhouses will include a 2 car garage. In response to the questions raised regarding the stormwater management system, I have enclosed the Routing Summary Table (April 4, 1994) for your reference. As you recall the system has been designed to significantly improve the overall drainage within The Orchards. Specifically, the 100 year storm peak flow release rates are dramatically improved from the pre- developed conditions. I hope these plans adequately address the comments received from the different departments and allow you to proceed to the ERC during the week of April 1. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Thank you. Sincerely, DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. Craig J. Krueger Director of Planning E. ONSITE DETENTION CALCULATIONS ROUTING SUMMARY A summary table of the resultant peak flows is attached below. .........................................................:..::.:. THE ORCHARDS DEI PROJECT NO. 88008 4-Apr-94 WEST EAST BASIN BASIN EX. 1/2 2 YR PEAK FLOW RATE 1.7 cfs 2.2 cfs DEV. 2 YR PEAK RELEASE RATE 1.7 cfs 2.2 cfs EX. 2 YR PEAK FLOW RATE 3.4 cfs 4.1 cfs DEV. 10 YR PEAK RELEASE RATE 3.4 cfs 4.0 cfs EX. 100 YR, 24 HR PEAK FLOW RATE 16.1 cfs 23.3 cfs DEV. 100 YR, 24 HR PEAK RELEASE RATE 12.3 cfs 14.6 cfs EX. 100 YR, 7 DAY PEAK FLOW RATE 13.4 cfs 19.5 cfs DEV. 100 YR, 7 DAY PEAK RELEASE RAT 12.5 cfs 18.4 cfs 2 YR DETENTION VOLUME (cu-ft) 21,166 221,309 10 YR DETENTION VOLUME (cu-ft) 35,644 342,702 100 YR, 24 HR DETENTION VOLUME (cu-ft 62,390 428,100 100 YR, 7 DAY DETENTION VOLUME (cu-f 63,508 450,568 CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 22, 1996 TO: Green Folder Reviewers FROM: Jennifer Toth Henning(X6186) 3111 SUBJECT: The Orchards—Sections E,F and G — LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF • The applicant has submitted revisions to the site plan. As you will note,the project description for Sector G has changed so that 57 townhouses are now proposed. The reduction in townhouses (from 59)is due to the City's requirement to provide a 30-foot wide right-of-way dedication along the north part of the property for the extension of NE 6th Street. The applicant has also provided information about parking. Please complete your review and return the comments to Sandi Seeger. I would appreciate a response from reviewers by March 29th at 5:00 pm. Thank you. RFr'''MgVEDD MEMO.DOT/ i 1996 DEllE��,-,�.�, PLANNING CITY OF RENTON �O aw or oman90 u ac- or) pot ice (4 VtCQ• • OsAJL._) fi Pates CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 22, 1996 TO: Green Folder Reviewers FROM: Jennifer Toth Henning(X6186) 3111 SUBJECT: The Orchards—Sections E,F and G -- LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF The applicant has submitted revisions to the site plan. As you will note,the project description for Sector G has changed so that 57 townhouses are now proposed. The reduction in townhouses(from 59)is due to the City's requirement to provide a 30-foot wide right-of-way dedication along the north part of the property for the extension of NE 6th Street. The applicant has also provided information about parking. Please complete your review and return the comments to Sandi Seeger. I would appreciate a response from reviewers by March 29th at 5:00 pm. Thank you. MEMO.DOT/ 3 /41W 16{ 1/1.1-'t eir0,404_,/47,--/ /617(74'4ZV/ /0?ft-) 06661(1L) loaA6 /;ram colvimukty $EkvicEs a. City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ` COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 4, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-010,PP,SA,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 21,1996 APPLICANT: DODDS ENGINEERS(CRAIG KRUEGER) PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNING PROJECT TITLE: ORCHARDS SECTIONS E,F,AND G WORK ORDER NO: 78052 LOCATION: 6TH STREET AND DUVALL AVENUE NE SITE AREA: Approx.18 acres l BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal,Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes,which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes,with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 59 attached townhomes,each located on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced,enlarged and restored as part of an approved mitigation plan. Sectors E/F would would be accessed via NE 6th Street,and from Bremerton Avenue NE;while Sector G would be accessed by a private road system from Duvall Avenue NE via NE 6th Street. An emergency access would be provided along the southem boundary out to Duvall.Garages,aprons and guest parking would be provided for the homes and townhomes. This proposal is being reviewed as a demonstration project under City Council Ordinance 4550. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Probable Major More Element of the Environment Probable Minor Probable Major More Impacts Impacts Information Impacts Impacts Information Necessary Necessary Earth -- Housing Air --- Aesthetics Water --- Light/Glare Plants --- Recreation Land/Shoreline Use -- Utilities Animals --- Transportation Environmental Health -- Public Services Energy/ --- Historic/Cultural Preservation Natural Resources 116"1— B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS //JIj:' � oil a/ f'0 a(J' / I -/ /'7eCc/y'�,C Q/Ov 2 �mee-t-yf 0 ov) � "� ;a62,I,C4_, l5 -/o C ott /n 5ize��'�t�eU/// i �r,1ul o� /--aibr) �er? dr- rwrG 77o Tlecrcda�-id� ! (Ca-m hers. //«A,_(.Q/ a3 Cory G/�ri f'/dn )E?ham /7o / e.�i c1shC� /3 ;#1 yh e /a X��> ` ke. re v �rc%C 9//t w hie` �( rev�`"cor)�.o'e�of arm fec/ 077) fr)i i1.1-7.eir) . /7O 771-- C aC i r1 1'1,.)6 cd eu—cy G7'JGJ�Z � � , f ercy7?/3 i, c.)i J'o'«' r/.e 1 a PA 00 V'? SOP OPMYa 1 f IA )hi('h i C.ri'>ZS,�s hr Pi( C. CODE-RE`�TED CO ENTS n mp'Z1 �, oc kc- f—nyn `��t� r0)57... ,c,./ e/90,4n.zo-i. __ —p 12�i�i / I '-10 l�'�l f"i� d�'l GC 5l muih :fri)/c J1 ana 5.2. , -7 r sj �. 1 01i) i tm e.. r p i re omVrz 1-,cr d� rcoet vr/af air r1V ,,e,-2.7n1)63 4+— 57-7 /6, r0ytt9) We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional informant needed to properly assess this proposal. 1 - Signature of rector or Authorized Representative Daatt• C i"j�j DEVAPP.DOC Rev. re- CoacAAft FN, CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 22, 1996 TO: Green Folder Reviewers FROM: Jennifer Toth Henning(X6186) Jill SUBJECT: The Orchards--Sections E,F and G -- LUA-96-010, SA,PP, ECF The applicant has submitted revisions to the site plan. As you will note,the project description for Sector G has changed so that 57 townhouses are now proposed. The reduction in townhouses (from 59) is due to the City's requirement to provide a 30-foot wide right-of-way dedication along the north part of the property for the extension of NE 6th Street. The applicant has also provided information about parking. Please complete your review and return the comments to Sandi Seeger. I would appreciate a response from reviewers by March 29th at 5:00 pm. Thank you. Fire. Com .his a/4� $�nt. e �•Ve A / "G� �Q✓rl(7 MEMO.DOT/ rt.71:1„46, e RENTON FIRE DEFT FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MAR251996 CY o� CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU NTo� MEMORANDUM DATE: February 28, 1996 TO: Jennifer Henning, Senior Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Code Related Comments for Orchards, Sectors E, F and G Sector E and F: 1 . Fire hydrants with a minimum fire flow of 1,000 gpm are required within 300-feet of all new single family structures. The number of fire hydrants required depends upon the size of the proposed structures. 2. A fire mitigation fee of $488 is required for each new single family structure. 3. All roadways are required to be painted per City Ordinance to identify them as required Fire Department access roads. Sector G: 1 . The fire mitigation fees for the single family attached townhouses are $488 per unit and $388 per unit for the multi-family stacked flat units. 2. Fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems are required to be installed in all of the stacked flat buildings. No fire sprinkler or fire alarm systems are required in the townhouse buildings. 3. The preliminary fire flows for the stacked flat buildings are 1,750 gpm. One hydrant is required within 150-feet and one hydrant is required within 300-feet of each building. 4. The preliminary fire flows for the townhouse buildings are 2,500 gpm. One hydrant is required within 150-feet and two hydrants are required within 300-feet of each structure. 5. All roadways are required to be painted per City Ordinance to identify them as required Fire Department access roads. 6. All Fire Department access roads shall be paved to their entire 20-feet of required width Reinforced grass paving is not acceptable. Reinforced grass paving was allowed on your previous project on a one-time-only trial basis and is still subject to review. 7. Access roads can be gated if made with a Fire Department approved method of opening the gate. Bollards are not acceptable. CWT:js Orchards Cov tt,&a! tfn SeA IC J Cfe OF RElO14 FiEOE VE.D MAR ? 96 u„ud Ei d1�96m,�.•n�+ .tee CITY OF RENTON F� PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 22, 1996 TO: Green Folder Reviewers FROM: Jennifer Toth Henning(X6186) erril SUBJECT: The Orchards--Sections E,F and G -- LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF The applicant has submitted revisions to the site plan. As you will note,the project description for Sector G has changed so that 57 townhouses are now proposed. The reduction in townhouses(from 59)is due to the City's requirement to provide a 30-foot wide right-of-way dedication along the north part of the property for the extension of NE 6th Street. The applicant has also provided information about parking. Please complete your review and return the comments to Sandi Seeger. I would appreciate a response from reviewers by March 29th at 5:00 pm. Thank you. MEMO.DOT/ I6Afkh[g it at 1)611L1 On OD Otte Oalt0 1Q,(016u) OP flt 61 Ni(OI L ath3i2th . City of Renton InterOffice Memo To: Jennifer Henning From: Kayren K. Kittrick Date: April 25, 1996 Subject: Orchards,Sectors E,F, & G LUA-96-010,PP,SA,ECF EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER-A water crossing was supplied in a previous phase of this project. SEWER-A sewer crossing was supplied for this project as part of a previous phase. STORM-due to wetland considerations and flooding observed in the area, a level 2 drainage report is required. Review of the proposed storm facilities depends on a current evaluation of the conditions. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER 1. The System Development Charge will be levied at the rate of$850 per single family site and $510 per multifamily unit. 2. The 16-inch water line shall be constructed to the southern property line for future extension. 3. An easement for the water line shall be provided with a recorded plat document or as separate documents if no plat drawing is required. The easement shall include all hydrants,meters, and vault locations as well as the installed pipe and valves. 4. Separate meters for each single family home and any townhouse style unit is required. The multifamily units may install one meter per structure. SANITARY SEWER 1. The System Development Charge shall be levied at the current rate of$585 per single family site and$350 per multifamily unit. The East Renton Interceptor SAD charge shall be in the amount of$224.52 per single family lot and$0.069 per square foot of the gross property for Sector G. 2. Sewer stubs to adjoining properties south of Sector E/F shall be provided. SURFACE WATER 1. The System Development Charge shall be levied at the current rate of$385 per single family site. The multifamily site shall have a fee determined by the square footage of new impervious surface on the site multiplied by$0.129. 2. There is an existing latecomer's agreement for the improvements in Bremerton by the Windsor Apartments. See fee sheet attached. Orchards, Sectors E,F,&GJ. LUA-96-010,PP, SA,ECF 04/25/96 Page 2 STREETS/TRANSPORTATION 1. Full frontage improvements for Duvall Ave.NE are required including,but not limited to, sidewalk, curb &gutter, streetlighting,paving, channelization and planting strips. 2. Dedication of right-of-way for N.E. 6th Street is required on the northern property line of Section G. Half street improvements including curb &gutter, sidewalk,paving, and lighting are also required. 3. Sidewalks are required on both sides of the streets in Sectors E and F. Sidewalk quantity and location are insufficient in Sector G. 4. Full frontage improvements are required along Bremerton Av NE whether constructed with Division 2 of the Orchards plat or with this development. 5. A Traffic Mitigation Fee of$750 per single family home site shall be assessed. The same rate applies to the townhouse/condominium units. PLAN REVIEW- GENERAL 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. A construction permit is required. When plans are complete three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate and application fee shall be submitted to the fourth floor counter. A fee worksheet is attached. However, it is recommended to call 235-2631 for a fee estimate as generated by the permit system prior to issuing your check. CONDITIONS 1. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. This shall include immediate hydroseeding of all disturbed areas after road grading is complete. 2. A construction plan indicating haul route(s) and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. Haul hours shall be restricted to 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. 3. Construction hours shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Saturdays may be arranged with no hours in excess of the weekday hours.No Sunday construction is allowed except under emergency conditions.. CC: Neil Watts • , . , '711.1 • . • 111111111111117 ' 1 . 1 .. 1 ' 1 . 1 . - • • •A, c.4 • to 1 . \ w ••••• " ' • ' 1111 . li !ii Itillg!ill/ ilii/111 itillit- z_ am.........ai ilLta i., IS a P' • -,, ,.. g it • -Ylii[ ,.; i P3IJI 1 Ir.-11 1 .1.016.0. "91 .„•:711 23 N. ' Ali I 1 1 If I I iiii4 m I i;•;Al.., i -..! I ___. . ._... ..___ ____ ___ - - •• - _.-:71:_r.,,, ..- - _ _-----N . 7--- ,.• .01 -fe•,. I ,- -...--- ••...;„ • ,...----:-ompoprol•moRao.N.- --/- ----..- -,,-= - -°-(14- -\ ''. ,c, -..-. - -• - •--- - rrn- -7/. • \.ii I- Nit VI 4 • --111= ...._•.• ,., -,--- . -_-_.,..., -.MEIMIll‘ . .,,..0,.. , 1-r-ff / PS"- -"U" _ 12r"" --12. ••/ , \ . tit t - .P. •‘ \•.(.... 7 .1 1"•7. I W\ I r ,„ , r----1 r----1 r- it a-7 , r--14i 1, 11.- '• s ..... ,q-, I% •,.. A • ; k-- ; • '(. Irt ' 1 ' 'i 1.-c.14-1 . '"1 ' 4 " ILI 1 1 Z"I 1 :' I, , 1"\•••', )b) t':.rt--'' 1.--ii: tel , ...-1:1 -• ....< s ; -13--•-1 4 ,_ .-.......J t,„."-:--/1---_ J 1.---J L---J -_-J ' X% I I i " 1 • '' LI, . 5 Al • --- ..., - Wi 4 ---1 i %.- 1 • -- . ,-' • .. I i .. 4...... .... ----... ., r ,i - 6 --.. -, =.-- ..I '. 1 a.. ii,g • ., • - A• 4". ti 1 R. A 4 -----. ,' -,..._........••• ., ,,,oroip- laws , . ii i . - • ii g 1 v oli . --A, I.1---"--7-,j‘• 01,-.I-.__ 30 __ •___ • a „04...... • \ // , ka' f a I 1 il -- • „ ' ' L 1 i 1 4 IP?:if d I g ,,,j tui.. -1, y ---17 il 111.171.....•' • 47YO i i usal AV. NI -- '.iists i g i J, L- -_ I I I -0 2 ' 1 4 ..--I- I'-1_. t-'•'--'..:1 L : -J \ ' •V' s' ft I ---st r..,,,5 3 ,..,„ \\I . 1, ,.... lirli -, ,f T ' 1 • r - 1 i'i : . fir,' ! • I. . r 1 , . • =. . r L__e•-•_.• ___I\ 10 .••. t••• 2 i . 1 T„ k„r< 0 ri /m 111P4 '.. ;. . ii :!ii• 0 ; v. ; 1. ,1_._ __J I ti. b.,_t_ _ n1 r-/ ,., '---- . .,.• 1; a tp ; v r I I , AO 1 1 % 1 3 1 11' - F1 /.4_11W.--411TIC7.11111b--141 ••s (.._.._I -J 0. 1-117-__ -I IL-t- i 0 ,,m.-• --10-7- ..1 . . • !!! „ 43 • • • ' -- ---1 1 6, 1 :.I ••• o'....., • g I 1 r- .V-, r---1 r---__I I I 1 Ii (P 0 II 1r iii • ----11--N L-,-r-L-•--/, -"'". . ---/ /IL I t_al r-lit 1-111...,-,N-1, ici7LEAL1-/-1::ryLli.:71.-1Alti- , 11 Li4-1' d III ils'il , '1111. 1:i'llit.....: • • -, si 1 i.-' i.., 1 1,. -4 - IA I \••--...4,--- jI r--1 i 1 ict 1 ,i' ) -.,.' i e I ' ,),11; tirti t4Ft 1- Yliti‘i 1 r t i r I ig I . . g 4 . ,/ 4 ... 5 11 a i til. 11$ 11 Nil T. L_„__J Ka ' '• • .11111 v r, •• q „gR _,E r ilit,6R• i al i r -F-__, / 1 I 1 i, 1 I 1 r ...-; ir-_-....ti pp r,-.. , , ,_ r----i, ,.. ,,....: -,,n, P , „ , I, . ,g ?I: I il I I II 1f 1't ti 1'k U ii ili -;._. ; 1........; ,; .1 ; r, /i I '''.. -I---. i I i I .' 1 10 I .--i 1 ,. 1 1 i I ll 1- F211 OFilim fi ilit i:12 m v ; 4 ; , 1 L_,,-Jr' 1 ,,,.•"1 1 11,, 1 N<1 1 1, 1 1 i Ig . ,if as. I 1 r. , il II I 1 / .4. , t--.: I t _. 13.5 f 5 rl ---- tivo.-1 7-14o 09! -- -1 1 1 i R liql °Cc Jell Suil . I- --i ;,", 1‘ 1 I •. •1 I ''. 1 I• .i . 11 I -7"- J.A1 J..% -as V1,2•4% 2..9. 70 .. 1 1 i 1 1. 1 1 1 1 / . ( 1 1 t) ; 1- 41 II . II / P a s t, m 6* I'll IFie=5 .-1111' 14' I 1 i 1 i --/ i 1§I 1 It --1 " " g " cp I L_t \ L. --.-1 t---1 L---1 . ,.- •- \:... ....11 31 VI ' 3 33 _411:4:-I il '6--j' L:r7i -1 L----. /a 40• 3• • • i 31 / 31 73 . g70.7./ . my 'mow ..,,ow• 1 -,,,w, .... ' I % L 1 •' 1 ' I. . I I I/ ---.41F, ,, ),(1 i. li ),..ii. illi / „ I it, 13 . 9. f(v-itz ,, -.% 1(,-.% Z . -,. ,/ § t 7 - - _____ . I ', %.: II I! ----=, -kl II i I: • k• so - ,4 : , ,y ..../..__ -1 r--z..--1 ---, 1----, ,-- • . c n r--''...q r- • p_sk Iglu' . liu.: ailful 1.41 .. / r--ss---i .. I 1 I wii'l I 1 . -I 1 4 I I vli. e•I i I 11) I r 1 f• ` C't 1- 7 Il ii f 1 g.r. .. .I - I 1 a I ' FIN', (I g,',v..... I d_fig'':'I.kij•If ;•,.:I ii.ic.......:,:.,1 I. :.,'. I gas,-; d IN ) --1.E.,..,,•t;,,-.„1;e , 1 . , id14;,,,A1...;... .,- . Ills. ills . 1.1 i 1?. '11 1 s 'F'ii'..4 ', •,, ;.•:,;,..--;..Z.,;.•liz.--#6i. '-.0t-g,-14 :.16t4:::;1.' ',..14.3irlij Pi0.4i-4,1frai:',I'gt, $11,1140 ,'"-i -.,'Aillli;',.1.fAtiliid .i,1 :140,1.,''.,,,,ZZh';'','..•:4'•1'-`e4'-': ill a I t 2 , ...-• .. ., . • • dl co & il 4i 0 - .t.,(14 ,,k1 i • '...:-_-_-.... :-.1.,:., nElli,,,M7=Z4,_. - .. '"'".41. 1.10EPlinallin.1161.1111Milpinl=11....._:LAIRM11111110.1111"Ig".... .. .. 5' .'_.. ' 0 I:. ". GI -."-..-.•-•• •.--•- /i Xin 11 M s. - ....=.0101111661.111110111 ........•t...•i 7.-imm.iiiill11===e1Fr"•4.1"..%• -- -- ---' --.."•1"rer,4- • -- _ -:-- - - C\ . - . • 11 • 4 lipL - k • 4 ill . \II,. •• ...• 0 .... .V.i , • 1 IRs 1 - - - • . i DUVALL AVII HI MTH AVINLIII WU 1'111'4 I \ • , 4 I ,N. 4.,. ' -II-.....•-,.... t: ' rtl • ___. 417- • --.12--- --, -- ---,7,r0.14114-"ti .2_ --- . "- -.,. 110.0 I il .. \••• \ . . • • 1 „ . .,:. ‘ • ' - ' ' , . ..I ;I: ... ..1ri, . . . • 4' ) '''',.........,-. ............. .....r...0'4•74•1r_pl.r11.41kl•iiir".11..300Prri44113.••3 %.,...,./.°'.". ... "6"1 t ir •, „,,„ • . • :,,s , ..... • . • ( / • .3 3, • . •.3 . 1 i• • . . . --- I . 0 1. 1! , , --- --...-vGIV"---, .."- a . • • . . . . € I I 9 ..• . .. . Vli ) . / . - \\ . _---- . . . 61 _ 1 \ li ,\, . \\ = 11.). 0 Ifill 1 l 'Hi' ? . 70 i . • ( ,,,,,\,.... -- .......;...\....., \ ) „., ."j. 1 • 1 . ) r -. I I • _, . , . .\ ,,/, 0 / 1 . t I _ial rp- oi: \2 D I / \ l . I . \ X, c• . . • ig. . 0-1, , iialli 6., 0 < . //' --_-,--) r 0. I i r 0 . . 4. ......„ , .. ... ..- . ?I i .1 ...i,!:•::.i.i.ltliz:.71. :,r..,1::_'.,.:_.."-.' , .....:1-:., - 'Iv'''''''..--1.. ,-,,,,,,., 7„...... .4 :::::-;„"„. :- : ....::-..‘ Cit\l'"A..::"..',::::',.:7.11'):1:9.''''..'7‘.:,...1:'31---.:,,.. :..1.1:-.:1.11', .'• :1 l'i,4/4,..i''..1.:1'•••r•I''' 1 :•:4 4. •-•'' 1 , < ... .1° 8 v i 1, e / 1//(1 !a • ; .....,,,_.....-• ..; • . g ,,, ii r. ; -( 11. ittl? gi „ :11-... .1..5 f.1 .,gi-,,' , --' .,,,s,-- , , T. ,, , c-c....„: • ti • -I . :. • I . . 's 1.-' r? ' P „A.... . ...r.,- `44C -.-.:..... /0 ‘ .6 R. •L -,: , •-'• ‘ /1-1 V 1 ‘ - / t,-' / -, ____.17___ _., __ ._ '72. _ _ 'f,_.l;-- ../:::4•..1 ,.„ /. •\'i,:•-v.::'-'.. ----r- .1--- --,;.-- ' - - s,.//' --.1, • ,''N -7 - g __ --- ,-.- 1 • . ' g ' .i -- fat Ti 4------ •_517:-2 I 1- -;••••-4.,...,-.ri....- - .6;iif.::ft x. .10.1.,:...‘4, ,,,,Lrit.6,,,,...i. „.....1...,.. :: . ..,,,,,I....r,i-usai-,7,.,:,.,,.,•,:,...,.7......; . ..4.4.,t,,,,.. .., ,,,,,..i:,,, ,,,,,.,,,;,:r...,.,....,,..r.,,,...,1, . . . iI> e- f 3 g Iliti I-A- 1 I tri -• -.. . • •,i.';','..•,, it; •.R. •••.1Y •.-•• . o ,Ir.. i•,.12 VII INF, ;:-/111111 / NUR 1 ' 1 • ;.is f ,- ‘ R • s a r 1 2: ig i z,,) • ,. I, , ., , . 1 if g / t. item is ? •. . , ,, ..4 •• „ e. ,. . , , , , , i 1 (1 c . 3..1_ .__. , T11%.34.•4 . .. 1 14` ' % i t 1 .., I; , .., 1 •/ , rt____.......... ,1 1 ,, • -1- 1,. ..___. .... e 1 . ' i ' .•r-- - .... .... 4 r / . LT'l 1-7.-• .'••••• .."--- - -.-1...H 'r-4-. ---7.-_, 7, • / I I .. •, 2 t S i 4 ., 1 1 . r / / ii ,p• -7.r...-- _ .' ...j. _its rit.„..,.--g---• 1 ,. , . I/ 444mm a -, 1 1 :!...., L-*It ti Pt ' . I I I k. •• I . Igt: '... , ...1../. 'I,.1 -% .1 i %-....• - --- ::.11 4::::•••••.:: .•**. •,..-...,.:.:t t-t, .. ,,• . -1 i t I ,...... -,..I.1_____ •-•__, _,-1 -- -3 .....i- -,.:1 4 •""'" " I i , • . • • ' /_ (1 . , . \i-, \ , . / i / ./. 4, ., . i - . SEC. lo, TWP. 23 N., ROE. 5 E., W.M. • ,,4' • .• . FkvisioNs IDATL v in DATE JANUARY 1996 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE ORCHARDS DODDS EN GIN EER S. IN C. fro..?:44,41k, 04 1 r, DESIGNED CRAIG J. KRUEGER CIVIL.ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING ifil;'•,II:.'''.:•• - ill n -. DRAWN 11K, IRS . • SECTORS E, F & 0 1 1, C:3 . -• --, 4205-1481H AVE. N.E.- SUITE 200 .•,..ii, V; ,,: I 01 z APPROVED R.W. aASSEY NORTHWARD PROPERTIES ,-- -_ D,---- BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON 9E1007 • k - 0., , • ' to*,,JAL CRAIG J. KRUEGER 1560 - 14081 All. N.E., SURE WO -.,- 1206)805-7077 41 I./.. In - PROJECT MANAGER BELLEW& WA 98005 . 1 1` 1, CITY OF RENTON c`°�, 199g► PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS 7. / MEMORANDUM °� tic DATE: April 17, 1996 TO: Jennifer Toth Henning FROM: Sonja J.Fesser SUBJECT: The Orchards,Sectors E,F and G,LUA-96-010-PP Fee Review Sheet In a review memo dated February 28, 1996,Property Services noted that the preliminary fee review for the above referenced long plat would be available after the City's Waste Water division received additional information regarding the East Renton Interceptor project. That information has been received and used in determining the project's preliminary fee,which is noted in the attached Fee Review sheet. I hope this delay did not cause a problem for you or the applicant. If you have any questions,please call me on Ext.4412. MEMO.DOT/ rlt.JrrJlcl x rxtVll.r.,7 rt,tr ICE.V1r.VY rUri. DUDillV101,0110 1W1U. 7V - UIC, • APPLICANT: kle-31=r•1..1 t 04.1=11:7> =t=7,1'"I S :CEIVED FROM 1,1 p (dat JOB ADDRESS: -bDVAIt_ 1 ' IJ1= WO# 7Rcs NATURE OF WORK: 122, II-sr-7 (tflp• alarms- rD )St_Grnt=sS �� - 7 LND# la -n.5o7 pi PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF SUBDIVISION BY LONG PLAT, NEED MORE INFORMATION: 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHORT PLAT,BINDING SITE PLAN,ETC. 0 PID#'s 0 VICINITY MAP 0 FINAL REVIEW OF SUBDIVISION,THIS REVIEW REPLACES 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE 0 OTHER PRELIMINARY FEE REVIEW DATED 0 FRONT FOOTAGE -9044- ❑ SUBJECT PROPERTY PARENT PID# 10.e305-qc 4 NEW KING CO.TAX ACCT.#(s)are required when - q'o4.9 assigned by King County. - It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below may be applicable to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are potential charges that may be due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e.underground utilities,street improvements,etc.) Triggering mechanisms for the SDC fees will be based on current City ordinances and determined by the applicable Utility Section. Please note that these fees are subject to change without notice. Final fees will be based on rates in effect at time of Building Permit/Construction Permit application. Cf The existing house on SP Lot# ,addressed as has not previously paid SDC fees,due to connection to City utilities prior to existance of SDC fee Ord. SP Lot# will be subject to future SDC fees if triggering mechanisms are touched within current City Ordinances. XWe understand that this subdivision is in the preliminary stage and that we will have the opportunity to review it again before recordation. The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees, side sewer permits, r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF • ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ' DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS OR FEE Latecomer Agreement(pvt)WATER q 10<i-- �U tF �� � -To w'a'�E�'' Latecomer Agreement(pvt)WASTEWATER 1-11.4G rrIavt rs1> BY 101 u R� c>= Latecomer Agreement(pvt)OTHER Special Assessment District/WATER c srt- Rute)Li iLr c.--pTz,l , o 'c - 3 zz.A.52-/UuIT I Z.2 $Z7,341.44 Special Assessment District/WASTEWATER Joint Use Agreement(METRO) • Local Improvement District * Traffic Benefit Zones $75.00 PER TRIP,CALCULATED BY TRANSPORTATION FUTURE OBLIGATIONS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-WATER 0 Estimated #OF UNITS/ SDC FEE ❑Pd Prey. 0 Partially Pd(Ltd Exemption) r. Never Pd SQ.FTG. Single family residential$850/unit x I ZZd $ I03,7a0 Mobile home dwelling unit$680/unit in park Apartment,Condo$5 10/unit not in CD or COR zones x Commercial/Industrial, $0.113/sq.ft.of property(not less than$850.00)x Boeing,by Special Agreement/Footprint of Bldg plus 15 ft perimeter(2,800 GPM threshold) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-WASTEWATER 0 Estimated 0 Pd Prey. 0 Partially Pd(Ltd Exemption) a Never Pd Single family residential$585/unit x I z Z $ 7 I )37,!: Mobile home dwelling unit$468/unit x Apartment,Condo$350/unit not in CD or COR zones x • Commercial/Industrial$0.078/sq.ft.of property x(not less than$585.00) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-SURFACEWATER ❑ Estimated ❑ Pd Prey. 0 Partially Pd(Ltd Exemption) t, Never Pd Single family residential and mobile home dwelling unit$385/unit x 12.Z- cT 70 All other properties$0.129sq ft of new impervious area of property x (not less than$385.00) Q PRELIMINARY TOTAL $ z4 R,43 I .44 L(Al b7�(a) �� . 1 l f�n pPIJ `7 I79G `c �o Signalt}'re of eviewing Authority DATE2 a o j*If subject property is within an LID,it is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept.for paid/un-paid status. Cl ❑ Square footage figures are taken from the King County Assessor's map and are subject to change. co.� ❑i Current City SDC fee charges apply to I � c:/template/feeappl/tgb EFFECTIVE July 16, 1995/Ord.Nos.4506,4507,4508,4525,and 4526 iIE RR✓1_11LY ILl cF 4.F4R0/A•1- Y GaU1JG11- . CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM Date: March 29, 1996 • To: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning From: Kayren K. Kittrick, Plan Review JO Subject: Orchards Section E, F, and G LUA-96-010, PP, SA, ECF EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER 1. This developer previously constructed a 12- inch diameter water line in Bremerton Ave. NE and water lines in Duvall Ave. NE and NE 6th Street. SEWER 1. There is an existing sanitary sewer in Bremerton Ave. NE, and an extension to the East Renton Interceptor in Duvall Ave. NE. STORM 1. A level two drainage study was required. Water quality treatment sized for the new impervious surfaces subject to vehicular access is required, all to King County SWDM Standards. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER 1. The water line in Duvall Ave. NE shall be required to be extended the full length of the property frontage on Duvall Ave. NE 2. The Water System Development Charge (SDC) is triggered at a rate of $850, per single family unit or$510, per unit for multifamily. SANITARY SEWER 1. The Sanitary Sewer SDC is triggered and will be assessed at a rate of $585, per single family home site and $350, per unit for multifamily sites. SURFACE WATER 1. Detention and water quality facilities are required in accordance with the King County Storm Water Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton. 2. The conceptual drainage plan for the project has been reviewed. Additional information has been requested about the existing drainage conditions and the current status of the wetlands. Approval is pending receiving a Level 2 drainage study and wetland report. ORCEFG2.DOC f Y I • I 3. The Surface Water SDC is assessed based on the total new impervious surface square footage as reflected in the final design. The charge is determined by multiplying the gross square footage of the site area by $0.129, for the multifamily units, or $385 per single family residence. STREETS 1. Full frontage improvements for Duvall Ave NE including, but not limited to, sidewalks, curb & gutter, pavement, channelization and street lighting are required. 2. Full street improvements including curb & gutter, street lighting, paving, street signs, and sidewalks are required throughout the project. 3. All street names and numbers shall conform to City of Renton street naming standards. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. Temporary Erosion Control measures including, but not limited to dust and mud control, street cleaning, protection of existing catchbasins, wheel washing and construction entrances shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. 2. A construction plan indicating haul route(s) and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. Haul hours shall be restricted between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. 3. Construction hours shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Saturdays shall be as arranged with no hours in excess of the weekday hours, and no Sunday construction. 4. Water service stubouts or extensions are required to the neighboring properties for future possible development, including further possibility of looped systems in the area. These may be provided through easements and extensions or full frontage improvements. 5. Provision for sanitary sewer connections to the neighboring properties shall be required. This may be in the form of stubouts from one or more manholes with accompanying easements, or by full line extension. 6. The wetlands shall be monitored by a wetland specialist for the duration of construction. Reports shall be submitted by this specialist to the Development Services Division monthly. All work within the wetland or buffer shall be inspected and approved by the wetland specialist. 7. All roadways in Sectors E & F shall be a minimum 28' wide, with a 5' sidewalk on both sides of all streets to provide pedestrian amenities. 8. All roadways in Sector G shall have a minimum 20' wide pavement and sidewalks on both sides throughout the area. The 20' minimum shall only be allowed if adequate parking is provided for guests and visitors. ORCEFG2.DOC p 9. Pedestrian linkages Snail be provided to facilitate access to public transportation and Duvall Avenue NE. 10. The Traffic Mitigation fee of $75, per daily average trip shall be assessed prior to issue of the building permit. CC: Neil Watts • ORCEFG2.DOC City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 5`l� � � - COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 4, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-010,PP,SA, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 21,1996 APPLICANT: DODDS ENGINEERS(CRAIG KRUEGER) PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENEtitry OF e C?STOci PROJECT TITLE: ORCHARDS SECTIONS E,F,AND G WORK ORDER NO: 78052 PCC,Pfar/P t LOCATION: 6TH STREET AND DUVALL AVENUE NE FFR 9 / 1996 SITE AREA: Approx.18 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): y SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are locatedVrilheitsj' of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposall, eet'ctr($IF..IFJ Id be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes,which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes,with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 59 attached townhomes,each located on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced,enlarged and restored as part of an approved mitigation plan. Sectors E/F would would be accessed via NE 6th Street,and from Bremerton Avenue NE;while Sector G would be accessed by a private road system from Duvall Avenue NE via NE 6th Street. An emergency access would be provided along the southem boundary out to Duvall.Garages,aprons and guest parking would be provided for the homes and townhomes. This proposal is being reviewed as a demonstration project under City Council Ordinance 4550. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Probable Major More Element of the Environment Probable Minor Probable Mfor More Impacts Impacts Information Impacts Impacts Information Necessary Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water LightA Tare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic Culturel Preservation Natural Resources B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS & /no/1461e', i�e;� r� 4 G� � We have reviewed this applic�tparticular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas ofprobable impact needed to property assess this P or areas where additional information is �/'!�/ Proposal. ia Si of Director let A Representative Date s �p. % DEVMX Rev.tde] City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:T i ,6 COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 4, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-010,PP,SA,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 21,1996 APPLICANT: DODDS ENGINEERS(CRAIG KRUEGER) PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH41-~NN lc-iit PROJECT TITLE: ORCHARDS SECTIONS E,F,AND G WORK ORDER NO: 78052 ' R' ir!'l-t z.soH - LOCATION: 6TH STREET AND DUVALL AVENUE NE FED pp tt tt SITE AREA: Approx.18 acres 1 BUILDING AREA(gross): lJ96 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F areriritAt pQ west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the ccu`Frel rap 114 -iiiF would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes,which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the horn= ,'"4 h sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 59 attached townhomes,each located on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced,enlarged and restored as part of an approved mitigation plan. Sectors E/F would would be accessed via NE 6th Street,and from Bremerton Avenue NE;while Sector G would be accessed by a private road system from Duvall Avenue NE via NE 6th Street. An emergency access would be provided along the southern boundary out to Duvall.Garages,aprons and guest parking would be provided for the homes and townhomes. This proposal is being reviewed as a demonstration project under City Council Ordinance 4550. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Probable Major More Element of the Environment Probable Minor Probable Major More Impacts Impacts Information Impacts Impacts Information Necessary Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water LightiGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic Cultural Preservation Natural Resources B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS ' C'6i,fre~ s q• COOl r ,de..e, /1. 0144) fr- We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Vf6 Sign to Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP. Nev.10,9.7 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ?i i pu•te .�' COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 4, 1996 • APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-010,PP,SA,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 2c,4160F RENTON APPLICANT: DODDS ENGINEERS(CRAIG KRUEGER) PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNING Rd PROJECT TITLE: ORCHARDS SECTIONS E,F,AND G WORK ORDER NO: 78052 hFE... 2 8 1996 • I LOCATION: 6TH STREET AND DUVALL AVENUE NE SITE AREA: Approx.18 acres ] BUILDING AREA(gross): m.� +`4 idIIvbslON SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal,Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes,which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes,with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 59 attached townhomes,each located on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced,enlarged and restored as part of an approved mitigation plan. Sectors E/F would would be accessed via NE 6th Street,and from Bremerton Avenue NE;while Sector G would be accessed by a private road system from Duvall Avenue NE via NE 6th Street. An emergency access would be provided along the southem boundary out to Duvall.Garages,aprons and guest parking would be provided for the homes and townhomes. This proposal is being reviewed as a demonstration project under City Council Ordinance 4550. I ' A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS lElement of the Environment Probable Minor Probable Major Mora Element of the Environment Probable Minor Probable Major Mon Impacts Impacts Information Impacts Impacts Information Necessary Necessary 'Earth Housing As Aesthetics Water LighbGlate 'Plants Recreation 'Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic,Gulturai Preservation 'Natural Resources • B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS fee#10 ✓✓✓v L'!y1?.ati0-sc.oQ-S S6 t✓'a/44 ,.. ..._ . We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.101D3 CD w5kiAA-4Len CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8, 1996 CITY of RE TO: Green Folder Reviewers AEO ,ldv N FROM: Jennifer Toth Henning QC6186) j� BU ®0 f996 DING SUBJECT: The Orchards Sectors E/F and G—Demonstration Ordinance Di 1✓roroiv The Orchards review and comment time has been extended since the date the project will go to ERC is rescheduled for March 26th. The applicant will be providing some additional materials including revised site plans,Level 2 drainage study, and additional parking studies. They will be forwarded to you as they become available. j Attached to this memo is the addendum to the Supplemental EIS for the project. This should be reviewed by you. If you have any revisions or additions to your previous comments,please submit those me by March 18th. Thank you. MEMO.DOT/ 3 - 8-q fr RENTON FIRE' r)FPT. IRE PREVENTION ,;;.:r.,..AU CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8, 1996 TO: Green Folder Reviewers FROM: Jennifer Toth Henning(X 6186) ftlA SUBJECT: The Orchards Sectors E/F and G--Demonstration Ordinance The Orchards review and comment time has been extended since the date the project will go to ERC is rescheduled for March 26th. The applicant will be providing some additional materials including revised site plans,Level 2 drainage study, and additional parking studies. They will be forwarded to you as they become available. Attached to this memo is the addendum to the Supplemental EIS for the project. This should be reviewed by you. If you have any revisions or additions to your previous comments,please submit those me by March 18th. Thank you. Mo MEMO.DOT/ CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 8, 1996 TO: Green Folder Reviewers FROM: Jennifer Toth Henning(X 6186) tellA SUBJECT: The Orchards Sectors EN and G--Demonstration Ordinance The Orchards review and comment time has been extended since the date the project will go to ERC is rescheduled for March 26th. The applicant will be providing some additional materials including revised site plans,Level 2 drainage study, and additional parking studies. They will be forwarded to you as they become available. Attached to this memo is the addendum to the Supplemental EIS for the project. This should be reviewed by you. If you have any revisions or additions to your previous comments,please submit those me by March 18th. Thank you. 3--1 I- l c VIa\i-C Vl Cciu(-1-- r e, \-etia t Con-)n t-S MaLtt on ,D-a D--Ot Le, CLehta ,) „ --rktA/3 S 3 - ° O • G Se, tfr , r g'1.Cd - fXropaGOLJ s,n ' & pec ed o fvtra S icr\c-Ft C ,u t m pad- o -E 5 o \Dn r �/I(l�L • f 0 c-e ��i�'\/�Ce� �'� C1.�1�1�eG�1r1 �1 UaloacA bki)Le_ 0ca 6b JAL R-Q-Li b)nS--Thr (,,C-HDn e±i)n. S oo )cLeYa- p C--d ci c c )0o - 0 aan Lka 1 Lur ofr\c, Olt( G c (hfyLe_r 5 atread,ki Df c-ers S ho(f juk 4\132. aws+ruCti Dn l o i n s 4 . A CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 28, 1996 ° io V TO: Jennifer Toth Henning . 8 1906 FROM: Sonja J. Fesser pF Fl y,;NT t NAI,// �G SUBJECT: The Orchards, Sectors E,F and G,LUA-96-010-PP Format and Legal Description Review Bob Mac Onie and I have reviewed the above referenced preliminary plat submittal and have the following comments: Note all existing easements of record on the drawing. Note if the properties to the east and south of Sector G are platted(give name of plat and tract/lot no.) or unplatted. Note the names of the streets created by the plat on the drawing. See the attached. The King County Tax Rolls list Gary and Don Merlino as the taxpayers of record for the subject properties. The owner/developer,per the preliminary plat drawing, is Northward Properties. Information needed for final plat approval includes the following: Make ties to the City of Renton Survey Control Network. See attached. The City of Renton's land use action number(LUA-96-010-FP) and the land record number(LND- 10-0307) should be noted on all drawing sheets, preferably in the upper right-hand corner. The type size for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Include a statement of equipment and procedures used,per WAC 332-130-100. Indicate what is to be set at the corners of the proposed lots. Include a basis of bearing,per WAC 332-130-050 1.b.iii. Note the date the existing monuments were visited, per WAC 332-130-050 1.f.iv. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated. Addressing information will be made available for the final plat review. February 22, 1996 Page 2 Note that if there are restrictive covenant(s) as part of this subdivision,they can be recorded concurrently with the plat. The plat drawings and the associated document(s) are to be given to the City Clerk's office as a package. The plat shall have the first recording number. The recording number(s)for the associated document(s)will be referenced on the plat drawings in the appropriate location. Note existing easements and show any created by the plat, including a reference to whom the easements are granted. The property owner's signature needs to be notarized and the signature should be proceeded with a certification and dedication block. Required City of Renton signatures are:the Administrator of Planning/Building/Public Works,the Mayor and the City Clerk. An approval block for the City's Finance Director is also required. Provide plat and lot closure calculations. Provide an updated plat certificate(dated within 45 days of Council action). Complete City of Renton Monument Cards with reference points for new right of way monuments. Because this property is located within Zone 2 of Renton's Aquifer Protection Area,the Aquifer Protection Notice needs to be noted on the drawing. See attached. The surveyor needs to stamp, sign and date the drawings. Fee Review Comments: The Fee Review Sheet for this preliminary review will be available after the City's Waste Water division receives additional information pertaining to the East Renton Interceptor project. This additional information is necessary to provide an accurate fee review. MEMO.DOT/ �I r-.t=-L�I 1--JA1-ii ATT grin-} ..Ji , .t . TRACT B N84:11' 2"w *':' I OPEN SPACE / 60162:. ! 1310 of 21 --21.. • 1 . • I I �,�'� NTRY 81GtJ �- 43 81 22 118 mRUPfENT •� r' m r : - ��. }:�'' ' \a 6 12558'sr 220E sf 2208 of 3260`e� I II 45 • . `r,3992 Of ' �` e' l I f. 4193 of �� I . 5523 er A `� 2 � .' 2 21 6 z-/ - - —�� T,a \'...„4 094 of, �g -- r — • L- :s4_-- -IE a �� — 17 21 J_21 25 - --- '... 3 r —j \ 39..5 of e ) 1 3 1 . 103 w I 2983 sf IM / • 85 / I I 42 Nilor I e. �r I 4 �'3� 52 - 51 - 50 �' z 0 sr TRACT A I 2263 of 1,94 / 3141 sf 2,201 er 2201 ar 3569 sr r • I BI " I 41 OPEN SPACE " . - J� ''1 3380 s f H ' 165050 of e I 5 I • 52 21 21 .... A 46 n' "W7 " -T0.i1- 4008ef I Ar.-- — 1 r- - _ --,___ • 1 -� r --- • 40. \ __ 4 �1 I 1 59 I n�n AI 3480 dr I /� s 1_—- _— —\ 4 1 3 89 of I 1 z506I r JII .1pq r` — 13 I N 20' I m - w I 1 6 1 N . ,4 1 I 1 20948sr 1, 39 N +�. 2611 of / INOS 1 25199E ; �1 2341 55eF 1 J 1 -113 � �\ GP I in N 1 IA \- - - 1 51 1' • , iP I i // I 11 19 1 of `� TRACT C 1 115S1ef 24 ar \ `828 sr o %SPACE 1 1 9© e L 8 \ a- 0" 31 3 :1 2211 of V ,1@ i / / ''�� I 3rJ'6 of I • 1r,11 I• • 3492 of 1 ? \ II' 1 / l I _ 1— : 1 1 �34 eF / `��` / •' \ TRACTD Tf- -- -- 7 i / J ors N I 36 I ,. . .. ., \ / 1 8 Igo _ \ �J 0 3559 sr Pi v 94 10rory '� 3' WAL `b/ rJ' s,` V... 066 of II ,// lTYPJ 2 30of • -OA, �� 2209 eft '.12, I/' ,9 I I 1 3! �, 2181efco 13 �/ O ' N4 " ?) 8 3662 sr / TRACT E 34 • J' OPEN SPACE 3282 eF Ill e f0o 7) 1' ?q\�� \® 3j 2360 er ^1 I7 i • i / ?•a, 7 - 38386 0r I 0 / , m P ��• ti^ /• 1 -102 J A I / �'2596 eri, - I / m15.. `or 32 at / '2192 ef'-. J 399E of I I} ` a f ' r \ 3891 of 31 I "iI \ G1 68 3012 of I \ 9,� - 102 • T 8 0 '4. " •II I 2852 of \\\\� \'l 1 2611 of WETLAND 7T > 9 /. g9 J BOUNDARY N '" 19 i \•• I I I I I• I 1952 of 6 m'� I i i i m 29 -v •6g / �p i i I .; I J� 3339 eF /• " / 20 IV \\ �� L . ST 4� • 50'WETLAND , 1569 of / ' ?0 3 r I. / 69 • / —1 r_ ' a I i BUFFER INcv 1 1 J l 21 1 ' I I I m ,t I 2845 of , I ,� __J// / 22 23 0 24 1 25 m 26 21 r" 28 Fs s-- — +7�4.� 3491 eF 2191 of 3652 eF 13069 sF 1 / EMERGENCY vENICLE ACCESS ������������ �� � 5312 e r ������������� I 2310 of 2002 sr .I 354 �.�i��� ����y./' a--- -- - - -J L -- J _ 31 21 43 35 1 1 I N88'01'15"W 606.01' 1 SECTORG REINFORCED ' GRASS PAVING BOLLARDS I • Owner/Developer Ene ineer/Planner/surveyor Northward Propperties Dodds Engineers, Inc. ir,e.n _ 14nth A`�.. N G 0r.4. inn 49CO5 - 148th Avwnl,ek N F 1 - , R.420.00 L•5920 /.ryy TRgcT OpE.. "1a0 ' .. - .- _Rede0 ---•.... - NE bTN STREET - - S ' i 0 50 d346 of !/ I. . ... __._._ __ .._. 32"W. .- • �0' i 46552 of I . m i- -- - 9D- �\ \ 50 S0 rn so 50 50 I f- '-':., � r- -- -1 r- -- _' ._ --1 L— 93- -- J 1 (- • t zm, 28 I 21 I :•f' ', , I 1',I I 'I'' I .1 ... .. I 1 I- 1 I i -I I 4215 sF 3642 of 9 m • I ' K 4 T. I I y 1 26 r I 25 r m 24 m I 23 •.: m m • .:22 I ,n I 30 V o J L—— J 3645 or 1 3902 of II 4052 orii, 1 4056 or I I 3B18 or 11-.4 • 1 3668br I': qml��`' t ‘ 1L_--I L--_J L - - - 1 L _ I I J L LL _ _. J c4 F `iP Z6' 2O 39 \\ y d 41 — J - i 'L� _ 50 50 40 ! L. �pN r 1 s N , 5'im • at-. IQ I . 3941 eFI ah: 1ilk- 1 n • Lam'' - J q� 124 0 \ - i ' y-t-8,--- 20 6B 0 � - - - --i I 59 1 60 1 r - m I 32 I L _3656 of ---1 v 3511 sr I I 3650sf i 81 - } L__ _ _8l- -J P. o 1 38' �- - - -_1 w 1 - 1 3 L -l3 - —I: t r 1 58 r I 61'.'' 3 L ._ I- - --- PARl� 3656 of I�, m. 3656 e'f:w s I " - I 33 I o ' OPEN SPACE • „ L- -Bl = - J U r J I 'n I 3652 of I '� • 94 sr r 1 m 1 0 in�. I r L - -I • `� 1' 3656 er 51 m 3�6 of I s 2 I • - a � 34 ;� � • imi r r ;3 " 1 1. 1 i fil f• i 3�6.,ef Ij a 1A ' la) ` L - J 'L 356 u? Q l3 - 1- -. 8l 20 - --� „y • I 3 2e 1 i 66 11 1 cfl ii , 4 , i 0 35. • i ' 0 , a, 1 3652 sr ' 1 O I I 1 3ti 21 31 31 , �'41 - • 9 L- ---13- II j , 1- " -, 1- -1 r—'. 3, 20 68 I 3' i I 0'' 36 I • I . 1 I v 34mef I U i - '"' I 3652 sr I 0 IYa� 55 54 w 53 52 51 I - - - 81- J N I f'+ 3563 sr, 3221 sr' l I 3221 of I I �� I - r L _-13-_J I I 3221 of I 3221 eF i 34,6..0[. r 1 I 3. i --- � • 4Z J L. J L 1(, 1 ' '^ 348 221 r I m -- I L - o'. 3� I 3�� L -1 L`3� J ��1iii L ` -81-- J 1. - . lal I 3652 of I P. PUBLIC ,1 r l I I .ALLEY.,' o 4'1 e, I --13- = J r�-1 r�31 31 m 1 r 38'' I 'l ,.r '�1'" 31 3� L - -. 3221 sr m 1 3, r - - - � I ..;.I_ _, . 1 r- -ems -al- - L- r. d . 0 I 38 I e - I I I I 1 I `'',-,,.!,4,: 1i .1 P r' i 1 r 3652 or 'I m 135 ' m 40 41 ' 11 ) I ;I I ^ 3 6 f I 38' Im it . L J 45�1 of { 3z21 of l I I ie ,I 4 I i 1 -I-:1--'\1 Pi ;1 1 -\13'.,i '.. 1', I 92�{of i '.322r eft 1 13991 of 1 13359 df -_ _ - I 3fc TRACT IA r L_J L :I I I r '_ - �si 3i J' L:- 711c:,.w;' J L_ I 4 N 23 • 31 "� �3 I - ('- 41 20:'1,. 6� �ry ' • V I .. • /6 �' 35! 1 . 1.1E 5fi11 . $�". ' 9 I .....- s — �,Q �4 • �� 39 50 50 50 • / , r _ _1 - _ _ 50 50 50 � d 0 • • �I ,I^ I 2 �, I 3` i I ; I I I. j I • I �- —�; r - --; I �I 4290.of I I 3652 eF I I r I 4 I 5 ,;, 1. 6 I I I 1 I ' 1 L - J L-_ _J L 3652 of J L 3652 of I I 3652 sr I 1 3652 eF 1 , I 8 m ,l 9 m 1 10 m 60 i 50 - L-____J L_ 3652 of I I 3652 sf I I�''3691 sf I 1 4008 sF i • �o So 50 L _ J _ 111,50 N88'01'15"W ' , 50 50 606 01' • ' SECTORS E 4 F i • • :t • • • • • • • The South half of the Northweet quarter of the Soul of the Southwest quarter of Section 10, Township 2: I I I ^1 ,,, Its. I Eaet, WM.; EXCEPT the Eaet 42 feet thereof for 132 • • • • • • • N. • SECTION 10 T23N R5E W.M. 18-May-95 Horizontal: NAD 1983/91 Meters Vertical: NAVD 1988 Meters 159 NW Corner 10 T23N R5E Location: Found a 1-1/2"flat brass disc with a punch mark on a 4"x4" concrete post monument down 0.6' in a monument case at the constructed intersection of • NE 12th Street& Union Avenue NE. Monument: 1-1/2 IN DISC W/PUNCH ON 4 IN CONC MON, IN CASE, DN. 0.6' NORTHING: EASTING: ELEVATION: 126.782 • • 806 Location: Found 2"disc with punch mark on a 4"x 4"concrete monument case at intersection of NE 10th St. and Union Ave NE Monument: 2 IN BRASS, PUNCHED DISC ON 4 IN X 4 IN POST 0.25' BELOW RIM OF 10 IN MON. CASE • NORTHING: 56389.156 EASTING: 399705.708 ELEVATION: I - 1503 NW Corner 15 T23N R5E Location: Found a 1/8"copper pin in a concrete post monument down 0.7' in a monument case at the constructed intersection of NE 4th Street& Union Avenue NE. Monument: 1/8 IN CU PIN ON CONC MON, IN CASE, DN. 0.7' NORTHING: 55189.601 EASTING: 399714.506 ELEVATION: 122.231 1845 NW Corner 11 T23N R5E Location: Found a 1/2" diameter bronze plug and a punch mark on a 3" diameter concrete post monument down 1.3' in a monument case at the constructed intersection of SE 112th Street& 148th Avenue SE. Monument: 1/2 IN BRONZE PLUG W/PUNCH ON CONC MON, IN CASE, DN. 1.3' NORTHING: 56744.950 EASTING: 401312.014 ELEVATION: 142.573 5310-1 • 1848 Location: Found a 11/2"flat brass disc with a punch mark on a 4"x4"concrete post monument down 0.4' in a monument case at the constructed intersection of NE 8th Court& Union Avenue NE. Monument: 1-1/2 IN BRASS DISC W/PUNCH ON 4 INX4 IN CONC MON, IN CASE, DN. 0.4' NORTHING: 55989.266 EASTING: 399708.634 ELEVATION: 125.359 1849 Location,: Found a 2"flat brass disc with a punch mark on a 4"x4"concrete post monument down 0.2' in the constructed centerline of 140th Avenue SE at the SW corner of the Mormonument church property. Monument: 2 IN BRASS DISC W/PUNCH ON 4 INX4 IN CONC MON, IN CASE, DN. 0.2' NORTHING 55966.118 EASTING: 400504.233 ELEVATION: 1851 Location: Found a 3-1/2"domed brass disc with a punch mark on concrete street surface at the constructed intersection of NE 4th Street(SE 128th Street) & 140th Avenue SE. Monument!, 3-1/2 IN BRASS DOME W/PUNCH ON CONC ST. SURFACE NORTHING: 55162.396 EASTING: 400507.882 ELEVATION: 121.478 1852 NW Corner 14 T23N R5E Location:,I Found a 3" flat brass disc on concrete street surface at the constructed intersection of NE 4th Street (SE 128th Street) & 148th Avenue SE. Monument: 3 IN BRASS DISC ON CONC ST. SURFACE NORTHING: 55139.675 EASTING: 401307.305 ELEVATION: 138.614 • 5310-2 A " 4' 1894 Location: Found 6" monument case at intersection of NE Sunset Blvd. and Union Ave NE Monument: MON. IN CASE NORTHING: 56890.539 EASTING: 399704.559 ELEVATION: 1907 Location: Chiseled sq. S.E. corner of concrete base for mailboxes on west side of 142nd Ave. SE (Hoquiam Avenue NE) opposite House No. 12014. Monument: CHISELED SQ SE COR MAILBOX CONC BASE NORTHING: EASTING: ELEVATION: 144.070 1937 Location: Scribed "X" in back of concrete walk marked "ESM 1411", north side of N.E. 4th Street at west boundary of Windsor Apts. Monument: SCRIBED [X] BACK OF CONC WALK NORTHING: EASTING: ELEVATION: 123.055 2090 Location: 2" brass surface monument at centerline P.T. 138th Avenue S.E. approx. 1500' north of intersection of 138th Avenue South and S.E. 128th Street. Monument: BRASS SURFACE DISC NORTHING: .EASTING: ELEVATION: 122.342 5310-3 .'T • „• .. j 2101 Location: Found a 1/8"copper pin in a concrete post monument down 1.5' in a monument case at the constructed intersection of SE 120th Street& 148th I I Avenue SE. • • Monument: 1/8 IN CU PIN ON CONC MON, IN CASE, DN. 1.5' NORTHING: EASTING: ELEVATION: 156.060 2119 • Location: Found brass disk in road surface at the intersection of SE 128th St. & 142nd Ave. SE . Monument: BRASS SURFACE DISC NORTHING: EASTING: ELEVATION: 129.972 . I 5310-4 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: PO k COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 4, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-010,PP,SA,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 21,1996 APPLICANT: DODDS ENGINEERS(CRAIG KRUEGER) PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNING PROJECT TITLE: ORCHARDS SECTIONS E,F,AND G WORK ORDER NO: 78052 LOCATION: 6TH STREET AND DUVALL AVENUE NE SITE AREA: Approx.18 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal,Sector's E/F would be kit subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes,which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes,with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 59 attached townhomes,each located on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced,enlarged and restored as part of an approved mitigation plan. Sectors E/F would would be accessed via NE 6th Street,and from Bremerton Avenue NE;while Sector G would be accessed by a private road system from Duvall Avenue NE via NE 6th Street. An emergency access would be provided along the southern boundary out to Duvall.Garages,aprons and guest parking would be provided for the homes and townhomes. This proposal is being reviewed as a demonstration project under City Council Ordinance 4550. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS ,n(lC" ' Element o/the Environment Probable Minor Probable Major More Element of the Environment Probable Minor r Probable Major More Impacts Impacts Information Impacts Impacts Information Necessary Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light, lace Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals _Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Histaric,Cuttunal Preservation Natural Resources IOC)*CA I7uliCQ CCLR5 -C v1c( se( ce fstu1mcL w i- +0 c cenl ion S1,(u. bD 0.vrea clLi -\-a_Kyn lCkCe a,re. Lisa-- aeer\ �evtrcL4 Df- bu:� l OJ� pact✓- )cds Ou t c.I\ALr la_ria s ire aiteck .D po l ice . 71i s vleu0 l o 1 kSiD (Jim civoLt +o o Q RwtY foef of- poi ce WAS £ S simi Vk ne l c n f are_ anti ei /)cctc 04 . .eLm-eno�e_o seUL0 iNg ��� I. c .ng oa er\c(-t s xtr1 A-Do is i fir\ n0i- n the- • ---POLICr RELATED COMMENTS- JI N.00lt ti'\ ct 6%oti-UJ01.-\- 4DCS , 9D4\d- 0c_ fit -eY W1 c1c 15 u Th Rae p hogs f an& cktvaresses p lac-ec1 Lu cu X cx li cg - I-40uke_.. I (,urn rs 1,ua -Uct_s - l2" aao ob GZ e \o1 Oeut Lon+fasIS (ins Cblor O} L. Mu-'e r pcx eLLa� is l I•ice \ .{ ,EyvtQ(-Qi. ; e h(cLes -VQ._ Cott 5`- i h.ou�(S l�ti 4\ ram. c -pre,s c s �n bawl jF Cif- �Q-- \i\cu-L cuYX q - ►year -For qrlA-/- ScAnut -REENTED-COMMEN s\-(e- —��gl1 h. r\g t s a. ac-ass i � �(�� 4�1 `�z, aei(e, Oj Seetocls ( -- ) \c ec-19 Ic�ctS c\ /,� r�fc( Qv/ /cL � LA S+rcc-t-s 4,- On s i �Ks , ana ��C..(V 1 & "-1 eY ?�v`-ce [/ i l/1\ We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in{which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to property assess this proposal. a- -%c% a re o ir or or 4utho' Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC ! Ray.10N3 1 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:Cwgil Sertj.tC.zia COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 4, 1996 1 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-010,PP,SA,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 21,1996 C �.,�-. APPLICANT: DODDS ENGINEERS(CRAIG KRUEGER) PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNA �tt•�ON PROJECT TITLE: ORCHARDS SECTIONS E,F,AND G _WORK ORDER NO: 78052 FED) 2 2 ,9n6 LOCATION: 6TH STREET AND DUVALL AVENUE NE i7 SITE AREA: Approx.18 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): kifILijd9@(6 of g py 7r SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of 110M1 L4(v a NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal,Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes,which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes,with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 59 attached townhomes,each located on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced,enlarged and restored as part of an approved mitigation plan. Sectors E/F would would be accessed via NE 6th Street,and from Bremerton Avenue NE;while Sector G would be accessed by a private road system from Duvall Avenue NE via NE 6th Street. An emergency access would be provided along the southern boundary out to Duvall.Garages,aprons and guest parking would be provided for the homes and townhomes. This proposal is being reviewed as a demonstration project under City Council Ordinance 4550. I AL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Probable Major More Element of the Environment Probable Minor Probable Major More Impacts Impacts Information Impacts Impacts information Necessary Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water LightiGiere Plants Recreation LandiShaeline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Eneryy/ HistaririCultu al Preservation Natural Resources a POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS .113 firs 1 61\rgtm6 PALTELT POD nt)T A rotuD P kc 11LX "(R Lik.pro/Fitt/ (L?Iicici peil6 iyi Egillitin i t Ole tfrili, t TTQ 6wtill 8g. GWWpruZJ P210E) tZ Tti l 55OfAk c DGiCott' hoiL0 [4v l21Ul'l ITS t C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS i We i _ . ', 1 his applicat', ii h particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is i I,if ii,v , .. 24;... , Sip :� �� . eirectororAuthonzedRepresentative Date DEV 'P.DOC Rev.lanai City or Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Fb l/V.— `� COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 4, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-010,PP,SA,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 21,1996 APPLICANT: DODDS ENGINEERS(CRAIG KRUEGER) PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNING PROJECT TITLE: ORCHARDS SECTIONS E,F,AND G WORK ORDER NO: 78052 LOCATION: 6TH STREET AND DUVALL AVENUE NE SITE AREA: Approx.18 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal,Sector's EIF would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes,which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes,with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 59 attached townhomes,each located on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced,enlarged and restored as part of an approved mitigation plan. Sectors E!F would would be accessed via NE 6th Street,and from Bremerton Avenue NE;while Sector G would be accessed by a private road system from Duvall Avenue NE via NE 6th Street. An emergency access would be provided along the southern boundary out to Duvall.Garages,aprons and guest parking would be provided for the homes and townhomes. This proposal is being reviewed as a demonstration project under City Council Ordinance 4550. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Probable Major More Element of the Environment Probable Minor Probable Major More Impacts Impacts Information impacts Impacts Information Necessary Necessary Earth --- Housing Air --- Aesthetics Water --- Light/Glare Plants --- Recreation 'Land/Shoreline Use --- Utilities Animals --- Transportation Environmental Health --- Public Services Na --- Historic/Cultural Preservation Natural Resources B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS 66af� ( , pY)G �Gze� 0� aI �h /� / ioa o"ec.O//'/,�Qe 31— a I'r / ,' rd it �Ge �reh ia-e� a//�,v-e d 673 �'��/J� er? , f/'odi'7 )a JT`l a/c. po,�/L, ?act-ea/7� O /rip P /cr G � rejo/;, s�t�/eu // �v hitj ore r>o �e�f / 1 ark d , Srcl�t e, /� ,Oofa/// /72dico �/ cr�icc 4. Ad par_� iica rmc> k t 60x., reCc in€ �' r i✓� aat�� ;t� 1,0101_„,-/-nped J r ( c . l-aAA on e , tPT Vba I1 I,l thirinA rt /s-kioP/,c )i -I,� C. CODE-REf TED COMMENTS / rt.)) utc,ue 1 t90 m -rj�j� -j,-�� � Cos-- C& . bGlet oci i'2'Cj'I'3� ! e.'74a pr-skA 1?�irhef-7-) I --Toat k a � 4' _ j��o_/ , M i e lc rr)c>/ ,3O ,�� ►� j man-)ih ` > -d� +L>a inp rn- n / zrpseudopA t � or- ----- - - dos no /)(� b) ini://74 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and Jtave identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. /// ////.7/Z, Mr -a Signature of rector or Authorized Representative Data� at DEVAPP.DOC 1 L I /II Rev.10/93 maim f UM 1-NE DEPT: FIRE PREVENTIOt`I BUREAU -- City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works FE 2 2 i'rl ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET El a "s;.. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: wt. G "kt COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 4, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-010,PP,SA,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 21,1996 APPLICANT: DODDS ENGINEERS(CRAIG KRUEGER) PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNING PROJECT TITLE: ORCHARDS SECTIONS E,F,AND G WORK ORDER NO: 78052 LOCATION: 6TH STREET AND DUVALL AVENUE NE SITE AREA: Approx.18 acres I BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal,Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes,which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes,with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. . The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 59 attached townhomes,each located on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced,enlarged and restored as part of an approved mitigation plan. Sectors E/F would would be accessed via NE 6th Street,and from Bremerton Avenue NE;while Sector G would be accessed by a private road system from Duvall Avenue NE via NE 6th Street. An emergency access would be provided along the southem boundary out to Duvall.Garages,aprons and guest parking would be provided for the homes and townhomes. This proposal is being reviewed as a demonstration project under City Council Ordinance 4550. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Probable Major More Element of the Environment Probable Minor Probable Major More Impacts Impacts Information Impacts impacts Information Necessary Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities • Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic.Cultural Preservation Natural Resources /U07V-e•-, B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS \e-PLA-e211-c&&co( cir-KA- OGI„W 2--I We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we'have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed fo properly assess f • proposal. - Signature of Director or Authonz�'g�presentative Date /9,4 C `� Rev.1M3 DEVAPP.DOC r 1. � ��Y o CITY OF RENTON • O 4 �' FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 4�NTre MEMORANDUM DATE: February 28, 1996 TO: Jennifer Henning, Senior Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Code Related Comments for Orchards, Sectors E, F and G Sector E and F: 1 . Fire hydrants with a minimum fire flow of 1,000 gpm are required within 300-feet of all new single family structures. The number of fire hydrants required depends upon the size of the proposed structures. 2. A fire mitigation fee of $488 is required for each new single family structure. 3. All roadways are required to be painted per City Ordinance to identify them as required Fire Department access roads. Sector 'G: 1 . The fire mitigation fees for the single family attached townhouses are $488 per unit and $388 per unit for the multi-family stacked flat units. 2. Fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems are required to be installed in all of the stacked flat buildings. No fire sprinkler or fire alarm systems are required in the townhouse buildings. 3. The preliminary fire flows for the stacked flat buildings are 1,750 gpm. One hydrant is required within 150-feet and one hydrant is required within 300-feet of each building. 4. The preliminary fire flows for the townhouse buildings are 2,500 gpm. One hydrant is required within 150-feet and two hydrants are required within 300-feet of each structure. 5. All roadways are required to be painted per City Ordinance to identify them as required Fire Department access roads. 6. All Fire Department access roads shall be paved to their entire 20-feet of required width Reinforced grass paving is not acceptable. Reinforced grass paving was allowed on your previous project on a one-time-only trial basis and is still subject to review. 7. Access roads can be gated if made with a Fire Department approved method of opening the gate. Bollards are not acceptable. CWT:js Orchards 4 Jl ADDENDUM TO SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT PLANN�N(1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT _ for RELL.0 , m THE ORCHARDS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department Prepared in Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 Chapter 43.21 Revised Code of Washington Date of Issue Prepared by: Dodds Engineers,Inc. 4205 148th Avenue N.E. Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98007 (206) 885-7877 PREFACE This document is an Addendum to the 1982 Draft Environmental Impact Statement,, Northward Rezone and Development and the 1991 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, The Orchards Mixed Use Development. As described in the 1984 State Environmental Policy Act Rules, WAC 197-11-706, "... an Addendum is used to provide additional information of analysis that does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in the existing document." The proposal described in this Addendum includes a portion of the residential acreage analyzed in the 1982 Draft EIS and 1991 Draft Supplemental EIS. Additional information and analysis is provided in this Addendum for the following elements of the environment; unique physical features, water(drainage), wetlands, transportation, schools, parks and recreation, sewer, and water supply. li . 95054A-1.DOC;02/09/96; Page:1 1 FACT SHEET This Addendum to the October 1982 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Northward Rezone and Development and,the April 1991 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, The Orchards Mixed Use Development has been prepared pursuant to the provisions set forth in WAC 197-11-600 and 197-11-625. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proponent, Northward Properties, is proposing a residential development of 59 townhomes and 63 single family homes on an 18 acre site. The project's overall density would be 6.8 residential,units per acre. Approximately 55 percent of the residential area would be retained in open space. The site is located in the northeast portion of the City of Renton, south of the intersection of Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street. There are no structures currently on-site. Grading and clearing of most of the on-site vegetation has already taken place under_a previous permit. Existing zoning on the site is R-24. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL Environmental,Review Committee City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Contact person for questions, comments and information: Jennifer Toth Henning Senior Planner Planning/Building/Public Works Department • 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 (206) 235-2550 Permits and Approvals identified to date include: • Rezone - City of Renton • Site plan approval - City of Renton • Clearing and grading permits - City of Renton • Building permits - City of Renton 95054addendum.doc;02/26/96; Page:2 AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS ADDENDUM This Addendum was authored by Dodds Engineers, Inc., Bellevue, Washington, under the direction of the responsible official. Principal.contributors to this document are identified below: Author/Contributor Resonsibility Dodds Engineers, Inc. Drainage, Utilities 4205 148th Avenue NE, Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98007 IES Associates Plants and Animals 1514 Muirhead Avenue .. (Wetlands) Olympia, WA 985.02 The Transpo Group Transportation 14715 Bel-Red Road, Suite 100 . Bellevue, WA 98007 Terra Associates Wetland Mitigation 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101 Kirkland, WA 98034 DATE OF ISSUE LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND BACKGROUND DATA • Technical reports (i.e., transportation, wetlands and sewer studies), the October 1982 Draft and February 1983 Final Environmental Impact Statements, and background data(i.e., the Environmental Impact Checklist, the October 1989 Residential Development Application, the April 1991 Draft Supplemental EIS, the August 1991 Final Supplemental EIS and the November 1991 Mitigation Document), pertaining to this project are available at the following location: Cityof Renton Planning/Building/Public Works De artment P 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 ADDENDUM COST $ + tax. 95054A-1.DOC;02/09/96; Page:3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The environmental documents directly related to this proposal are listed in chronological order below. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Northward Rezone and Development City of Renton, ,October 1982 Final,Environmental Impact Statement Northward Rezone and Development City of Renton, February 1983 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study Geotech Consultants, Inc., May 1988 Expanded Environmental Checklist;Renton East City of Renton, June, 1989 Biological Evaluation, Wetlands Delineation and Wetland Enhancement Plan and Retention/Detention Pond Revegetation Plan IES Associates, June 1989. Storm Drainage Study, Renton East Dodds Engineers, Inc., June 1989 II Traffic Impact Analysis for the Renton East Residential Development The Transpo Group, June 1989 The Orchards Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis The Transpo Group, June 1989 The Orchards Residential Development Application Northward Properties, October, 1989 i Sanitary Sewer Study for Interim Sewerage Improvements To Service "The Orchards" Development in East Renton Dodds Engineers, Inc., November 1989 The Preliminary Design Report for the Upper Heather Downs Basin to the Lower,Maplewood Basin Dodds Engineers, Inc., May 1990 95054A-4.DOC;02/09/96; Page:4 I '. (11 • Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement The Orchards,Mixed Use Development City of Renton, April 1991 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement The Orchards Mixed Use Development City of Renton, August 1991 Mitigation Document The Orchards Mixed Use Development City of Renton,November 1991 Wetland Mitigation Plan The Orchards Terra Associates, April 13, 1994 These documents are available for review at the following location: City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 95054A-1.DOC;02/09/96; Page:5 2. Odor Not reviewed; proposal not E__r_cted to generate significant impacts beyond those described in the 1982 DEIS, June 1989 Expanded Environmental Checklist, and 1991 DSEIS. 3. Climate Not reviewed; proposal not expected to generate significant impacts beyond those described in the 1982 DEIS and 1991 DSEIS C. Water 1. Surface water Reviewed in this Addendum. Movement/quantity/ quality 2. Runoff/absorption Reviewed in this Addendum. 3. Floods Not reviewed; not applicable to site. 4. Ground water move- Not reviewed; proposal not expected to generate ment/quantity/ significant impacts beyond those describe d,in the quality 1982 DEIS and 1991 DSEIS. 5. Public water Not reviewed; proposal not expected to generate supply significant impacts beyond those described in the 1982 DEIS and 1991 DSEIS. D. Plants and Animals 1. Habitat Reviewed in this Addendum. 2. Unique Species Not reviewed; none reasonably expected to exist on-site. 3. Fish or wildlife Not reviewed; not applicable to site. Migration routes E. Energy and Natural Resources 1. Amount required/ Not reviewed; proposal not expected to generate rate of use/ significant impacts beyond those described in the 1982 efficiency DEIS, June 1989 Expanded Environmental Checklist, and 1991 DSEIS. 2. Source/availability Not reviewed; proposal not expected to generate rate of use/ significant impacts beyond those described in the 1982 efficiency DEIS, June 1989 Expanded Environmental Checklist, and 1991 DSEIS. 95054A-1.DOC;02/09/96; Page:7 3. Nonrenewable - Not reviewed;proposal not f . . cted to generate resources significant impacts beyond those described in the 1982 DEIS, June 1989 Expanded Environmental Checklist, and 1991 DSEIS. 4. Conservation and Not reviewed; proposal not expected to generate renewable resources significant impacts beyond those described in the 1982 DEIS, June 1989 Expanded Environmental Checklist, and 1991 DSEIS. 5. Scenic resources Not reviewed; addressed under AESTHETICS section in June, 1989 Expanded Environmental Checklist. II. Built Environment A. Environmental Health 1. Noise „ Not reviewed; proposal not expected to generate significant impacts beyond those described in the 1982 DEIS and 1991 DSEIS. 2. Risk of explosion Not reviewed; proposal not expected to generate significant impacts. 3. Releases or potential Not reviewed; no releases likely. releases to the envir- onment affecting public health, such as toxic or hazardous materials B. Land and Shoreline Use 1. Relationship to exist- Reviewed in this Addendum. ing land use plans and to estimated population • 2. Housing Reviewed in this Addendum. 3. Light and glare Not reviewed; proposal not expected to generate significant impacts beyond those described in the 1982 DEIS and 1991 DSEIS. 4. Aesthetics Not reviewed; addressed under AESTHETICS section in June 1989 Environmental Checklist. 5. Recreation Reviewed in this Addendum. 6. Historic and cultural Not reviewed; proposal not expected to generate preservation. significant impacts beyond those described in the 1982 DEIS and 1991 DSEIS. 7. Agricultural crops Not reviewed; not applicable to site. 95054A-1.DOC;02/09/96; Page:8 C. Transportatic 1. Transportation Reviewed in this Addendum. systems 2. Vehicular traffic. Reviewed in this Addendum. 3. Waterborne, rail, Not reviewed; not applicable to use on-site and air traffic 4. Parking Reviewed in this Addendum. 5. Movement/circula- Reviewed in this Addendum.- tion of people or goods 6. Traffic hazards Not reviewed; proposal not expected to generate significant impacts beyond those described in the 1982 DEIS and 1991 DSEIS. D. Public Services and Utilities 1. Fire Not reviewed; proposal not expected to generate significant impacts beyond those described in'the 1982 DEIS, June 1989 Expanded Environmental Checklist, and 1991 DSEIS. Mitigation measures established in 1991 Mitigation Document for The Orchards. 2. Police Not reviewed; proposal not expected to generate significant impacts beyond those described in the 1982 DEIS, June 1989 Expanded Environmental Checklist, and 1991 DSEIS. Mitigation measures established in 1991 Mitigation Document.for The Orchards. 3. Schools Reviewed in this Addendum. 4. Parks or other Reviewed in this Addendum. recreational facilities 5. Maintenance Not reviewed; proposal's impacts expected to be typical of new buildings. 6. Communications Not reviewed; proposal not expected to generate significant impacts beyond those described in the 1982 DEIS and 1991 DSEIS. 7. Water/Stormwater Reviewed in this Addendum. 8. Sewer/Solid Waste Reviewed in this Addendum. 9. Other governmental Not reviewed; proposal not expected to generate services or utilities significant impacts beyond those described in the 1982 DEIS and 1991 DSEIS. 95054A'-1.DOC;02/09/96; Page;9 CHAPTER 2 • DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION INTRODUCTION This Chapter contains a description of the proposed action, and a history of development proposals for the site since the 1991 Supplemental EIS: Chapter 3 provides a detailed description of key elements of the affected environment, as well as the environmental impacts, mitigating measures, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the project. NAME OF PROPOSAL AND SPONSOR The name of the proposal is The Orchards Sector E/F and G. The project sponsor is Northward Properties located in 1560 - 140th Avenue N.E., Suite 100, Bellevue, WA 98005. PROJECT LOCATION The 18 acre site is located in northeast Renton, south of the intersection of Duvall Avenue NE and the right-of-way of NE E 6th Street. The site is located in Section 10, Township 23 N., Range 5E, W.M. See Figure 1 and Figure 2. PROJECT HISTORY In 1982, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Northward Rezone and Development was issued followed by a Supplemental EIS in October 1991. The Supplemental EIS addressed the proposal for a site approximately 62 acres in size, which included all of the residential acreage• identified as the current site in this Addendum. Table 1 • Comparison of 1991 and 1996 Proposals Acres 1991 Proposed Action 1991 Alternative 2 1996 Addendum Single-family 0 0 18.0 Multifamily 15.9 13.3 0 Office/Comm. 2.1 4.7 0 Total 18.0 Ac. 18.0 Ac. 18.0 Ac. 95054A 1.DOC;02/09/96; Page:10 • • BOTHELL ; POULSBO _ U . I •• ; • u • ',` 11 REDMOND • 1 I •-.-...-• :.,,: :11`. '• BELLEVUE• • '_' -• • o SAT LE LAXE ' J� • �• ,WASNINGTON•',• ' BREMERTON .. • QJv I '' PORT . ORCHARD •• • I9pr .�� :ii • ISSAOUAH ' • • I:s' . '..I CIE.SITE • is .- 1. • RENTON • • _ VASHON ' / 18 ISLAND `.` tetI 'ts7 .•. : • • MAURY� /KENT I • • .' ISLAND 1 GIG • • • 'HARBOR 1.s �' 516 -� 0 I, 1I I • 16 • co FEDERAL ( AUBURN ' + 4� WAY I + \.. o�c • - \ • l is i 169 • FOX+ —16• — • ISLAND • 161 MCNEIL ': -' 167 ' •LAKE) ISLAND TACOMA : •; LTAP E SUMNER �p 164 1 • • • ANDERSON BONNEY LAKE ISLAND LAKEWOOD _ • PUYALLUP siz 41' -- ., BUCKLEY . ':.. .. . .7' . . tsz• .. 1's 161 • ' • • • • REGIONAL CONTEXT FIGURE 1 • • • II ; 711 ....... ..�.���.� ... ,,.. ...Lea Ac. -.....,�!,310_-... rr, ... A ... Gilbert Lesh .- 501 Ac. III 1 ' tll.r r'I ! �. O ,.l Y 1! 11 j • [ A N E. '[� -Ur- r. ] ^ 40 30 ] CLN ]C0.10 n1,e I O II mac-- n-L1,e -r-'_['°-S,J--- ---- ---- Yo a f-''g4rn] .er.N ,. rv_at"',L �,.p� C)r _r 011 ,,a ,. 7 � .Y'dui'1141 Ac 0.46A4 200).[°•onr,O :1' 1i :') I I '. o,A 0 y., S. •a 0 .r, I ' [ © © @ @ wn� .111134 he D i O� °Ra a.9 A • r,. ,r•,.., (('��fR.(L,JI•WI 5 4 I'1 2 I 11 -11• ,NA,. 4 ou..9 1 v ' ,,... S•a 1 0.4 } Q ^" "n,Y I M;CLAdf ®ti1Ia45AC ®n�1 Y4°,®IJn.1 r I® ''',t� - , ,I "o I tY I, ° 1�.. s treat ol,,.,[r 4s1 9.A1 AC. o�.1 eh 2 ,rtc ?/$T ST, a ,_3 S.E. IrLIST -%Tee n'e 41 -II .� F I,u. ]M Y°a• n r la�Ti:!it!' !al'r �ii�lU�1? .1.10.„�..tI ],lY,,�, } Van ,Iii '2II i I. 'y w,Il,am J Bonds Sr. 4.6e Ac ra" t•fjj ,` t ©'; tl0 6 l•C"• A, 2 O.Ia.C, � I I • :Li " [ „ a CC.Mdh1d] 7 Fran. JIJ ® ( • ®,. M.11.1.0•Coleman•0 ilp•1 ® 0 e Q IAe. '' I i J UNION 6T0 elr!!. 1„•] [±,'I-�T+� c 11.1! Ac. u ] ] r •,�1) ] 1• • -,11 CONDOMINIUM s..nr Narrl, m Ui '- a. l• . n I°t!]C y 10 ,q °'1`Schaal 01,1,41 405 C m o4 Z t A 1.45 Ac. . o o ; 121 • �I� osu[ 1.15A� 7 a ] U . • • )Y.en Yo.1 w„ ;: ,WI ,;_, y 0UAt. ❑I 1A71700! 0]IAqE ui � School On,rnl 40] F I ,� - 1..-.421 c A „ 3.16 Ac'. i ifl CI 2 tool Sono lh 5 ; °� 1• 2.61AG - Omar. n �n II a(b e. _ Bemis Craig .! ,�tifJ 31 • • -.iy•-/--___... 1,.• -__�.r-_ 71L .4�_•__-f., _" NP/lu.O [, [r11 of .-i 1 ® .-IYY ° �.r - ,III]� E • , „a ,N.It a It _ _ ,e❑ 4th Y • 7.11 C Iln�d v A Ion,el4]- ',:, //// aitp. F�N 1 _ © 'NI AG. OB9 '121 7t(_. ZI O p { Ot1Ar I L^[n -Q ® - O.r Ru r v .S! AG l 45 A, Oa7 Ac I N �ttrl' !2= : 111 �,°.....-.-....------ III CBJ r' y „ / ' O. _I 8,n 2 11 - .,o�C.WJII non, r„•= „GI))^ •; q " J A; �'I11 ,lI /71 )�I; i� \.y, ) , G� ,'"A,� '��• (Ir t..n°nr I ot7�IJ :. II Irl LU. •�tY! ''Jn`, ,6:52 �I' __a.__.. _-r -.. _ - _- _ - - -_ - _ -_ - - - . . ! 1 1 b .1 I A E 5rH ST, ,' • A(SI tic tt� r I'J I r ie :A ; •L IU !1�' I5phlY, !EN fAG 9. e. n --- w0,f•,Prr•[ • 1 ._j II�" 1_n1,�� 1• FORES!{ Q �' 6 Ac O u. rl on. 1 c 2 °Crt 1.67 AC. r • I _ , ona o u I er'j1M1f1:., ] i 7.6).[ j' - - W ` 3`ry-{tom r4IIFrrf'.1 r-, 0}1."/A0II 9 0.40A ©i a1, '!±'iI_--J 'i. , , • _ -Ti I [ e � •!�� ,n[ n� n•e 1 `,'p aiGn-s-';�:.•-.[n.rt8li�]' I „ 1 ar 1}rI J Oar14 J 0l64 I� - a + Y /. L• .�!'"1' •,v i I 9.70 Ac. IN .fir ° r• 'I,:.'n ,- : ^ � •t1 , ', r . Y...,-.,,A: Ill y - ,t Ir [ (r� w ,,1iil,�11.'' I tl �II•©� a �2 ti Z rrr.. d) ) n],�O.U'® 011a123 o,L.� ti I o4�� N A-Wmn W ] wu° • tCUi7I I art �p a a o-yo-= ©. J 0 W s o'La$ti" � ,, r _ a �: a , W - , oar 4 0„ I j A i. = ,i O11A,0 r ir • w ter Ar. J a OS[C ' d 1 « 1 • • I, • Y, 1,..o d 7o n ®O.IS A<. -m- O a °21 a 1- ,,,•° ' �o m y.ao�.l I .Y,{ I G O O • •;,. , ,c r,.., !I1 nN€rW* '1IST " EET ' ®hjV....10. °,t.[. e .i!?!-3 .E:l 4TH tJ+Itr ST.n 1�_ 1 t t� �<. � -.�.• 'Ar - - °, 0-4 I i .em n10 .a_.._..12Q1-H- pp rrr <S T.4� y+r mi°"' :ay';�,f--i..=�..�,<z �--I.._ .l�I 111n(,I ,,, ,. Ill T. 11.11 by, �•! f"' • � !a'�1y�1 7 7 Ill.1 ' I [J O n1 ki [ 11 Oj t ], _ I:n1la y ^ ®• I, -° j,p _ _ ; ,,.2 3 i r.�i, IL J ,.t�; Ie,.l Gl b0 ,� •1 .l q =" �J� t 1 1 x Tc r� n,l,,,` sa v t L qn I I[Inrl ,p ;t't:121 '°"F s I121 .Ir z ox o tn.! -'•�. A(16 Co 'c 'moo =�- ti I M4r4: 1•. La - 1.16 MI li-Y,l, 171 P. I , lr10190ri9 "VA Ira .JO In,. u�� ,,, ��ry Ury I. H G4 i ,-_ , IY•1_. mail (� () -j „tor I Mu) n a© �?I a "i li) SP 0e4.1Y 11' v)_-4 !crlo d'6 ao _n-�,. , L �) _t� .r I al g x I I -...... Nyland, rn�t -- . Z 7 :r.r_ ,`a, T'� '� "I W .A.eun^ r 1 .1, ? A.,!., C^m,nvarel _mil,'' r 1[ 7.45 Ac. a 4,74 Ac. ] Lorne. C Meissner 4 76 Ac :,• ACRE TRACTS TI 3aata[a['•77 I�vv,�]i al ., � -� YI - Inrr I Y nIn nn.n, R NlON 8I l.. L k:QAf , 3 �_� 31T- ..ram-e 11!UV U.t -5�o+!•.Ire6a11J!S!L.!1... 1±At �. 1.s.n'ir.♦i'i1 . -!4 [peso rj -[L'`, Q I I...� • rl� l,aa20a! ..:1_ i!i aHc I I 1.11 A,-lio..... - 'c. I)1 �S III I I 1 }�,TI Ac. LOCATION MAP I Z FIGURE 2 • _ .__ _ SEC. 10, TV/P. 23 N., RGE 5 E, W.M. , I , . ,- . • • , \ \ , ,-, ! I .... --,-_-_.:.-- ../ 1 ! 42' 42' I.._, -..2.--.::::; --\', .,. __ .. .;i AZ _________. .;.fig,' -.,• m_ -....• - _ s ......., • , ,,,,, _.,_ i •,-. - ,._ ...„....,,,,_,, 1-4rue --------- , - --- ,....... ..- - ' • 4; ,_. . . ., _ .... __ __ __ __ __ , ,_ 7 t • - 7, . ' ..,---- l'i•!. , ( 71.VICT c ....t- -' .4iXe"............,...._ - . 79------ 0.-lo.,eroCe • 5 • 1 ! ' ! 1 .0142. L30 m• L&I ' -O.eve LITLUTT, '{ tv ..' '. • = --*1-r-40.6. 31. I-._ ,,..... ........,...• ' • , - - - - ---- ---..--'. -3'• -,--- . Ct . .........„..., -- ___ • . • . - 0...E63vEGNE66 um-T. ..--•, I.,' '.,, _ • •---_.„ ....._ ... CNC.NEC.NO.5•122510 ,,,,..53_, ',A - ... .,,,t....q, ..,..._....___AZI.... ...........:_-•,...........,,,..,......„ _.„....,...,.....r.............-- ; . 11VM 1 1 ; 1. • • ffrectED REG.NO :-.74....,,,2 ,••1.. ,, :7:Ill . I A-loo,.-,-- . Ir.:Larri . „...-..' 6 _______ -•••• ...--, `,...11k,' Ito211. I . 1 .. ./- - "-- '‘,"..--ogilliligak \• ' M '•r r --Iir - •••-•••• CIE 4023,5., ' I ,.,;I VI-• , I: I ' ' , ., 60 60 • .... 1 10 .6:5• - A ne . 1 1 ',4112N . . I 14. . It ci, . • 1 t 1 .• afttill p I . i '• 1 ! : 21 \ 11--7_ir ; T.-) -,-,_,7_1.._,,,, 7,. , , 42' 42' .F.,' El . s\-•,..... l• . . . • ___,.... . ,_____...___________ alb I,i 40e7..._.:_,;,_.) , - . WII-IDSCIII PLACE APARTI-IENTS j , :I • • 2 1- '11., flik. ..., Ili. 1 14:-. -,......, ... , \ '''!-- ce. 1-2, • , - - \V2 . - --.., i 1 i) \, i 2(30i$,IN --,,x . J , ...aililats/ \\...' ..... ....ye / SD1-11• ."-- I I' . 1 IIIIAINI R,.,o...E. 1ii r , .........„, ,,..,E aatt.:,N.E•Ir) 1 • ,•-•-•-•... ,....,, _ \ iporwhil i , 7,4\ .... , i -,------------, -, ,._ • _, ,. 1, _„_ • ..,, 3331 e i " • ' -4. I • . 1 ).1%. TRACT A ,.------..,...... .,. ' 1 . IBM, _., 41'.7 l• ' ; I ' 3.1.5e: 1- • ..I ,., ' . • 1 '----L---" j ^ . - 1 1'3 1 ‘. . 1 . . , I I OPEN SPACE ' '-2: t WI L__ illst.-.. J --. •0 o I • Fir-E__•-,'`7-1.I LI , - , 1 3.54,e 1 , ., al Z 2 H 2 L_ \ \ \\ 1-1. 1111, 11311":__"=„„7-1371-ji,•11/.i 1..:: 1...1 --1 \...--- oLL % ' i,- s.. 52 IOW - ' ...„7.1.-.630 I.:., I 513 i •..2 .1 7;,,,s. ,.61 '1 , , r".',----I .14=7. . I _ ',I_ \ \fs'Acwc I 3656• 66 of 1 ,- , i z _ . I 3 r 4 . cra..k.er..t.t:E. • . 7 I' 1_2 i 365 I 1 I- . .,--,;,6 " •-c. ., .\-.,.,,, :7, rilkilli 1,11\ .., 6 • , - 0 Z Z 1, T II VI i • I -'-----i'--j 1 , „ , -__, Arlie,' • 2 . 711-will. ., 1 ir , . i r-\----1-- 11 1 \ 63 1 - I 'La i I ,. , ,: 110111- lit , • , \ • ,, ii :or. ,,. . 1;4 12 , Ai 1 ---,AMIN, ' ' I i ;* I L . . 1 3ssi...r , ‘.. ' I k,tii I . II ,! 1 \ 11#117V-400 • ma. • t I Li I ,il • I IL__ gel. . 0.. , -• _ 3•AM• of I 20 g 7 66 P " !- ii!t'_;,,M.J g ii:1 ,,i VII '1- -----, % IP\ •' / t , Ilk% 110 . i Z S it; If, ' I • .....'" / ,k -. .,. 711:111;14\2\rt. ' V/„' .k., r-riistili • ,1 ,/ 17.71/40, 3.,.,„.r r„on 7 ,,, .0 ,_.., •----V1,-1-, I F. 1 . ( ' I. 1 1 35 0 4., ",.- -31 4 31 • 31 ; i \ 31 I 3.42 of 1 il. 5lo '1,UN bib / 36, • I i W E 20 77--5.-Th . 1 1 . • -13 -I '. '-1 -1 , W EDI-. ' ... 1 icr le ,-V---,,, .,, I ir-`. ,-- .__ ,s5,____".---,..f• .1 1 , 116 i o f I 1.,-,..._ _ , :.• 1 , 1, I i 0 z i ar,,,,a 4-7.pant...... • 1, .5.1.sa.T.u.;, ,, y .. t 1 ,,,,,., 1 , I.11Pwil* 1 : .;';.: • 1 -2 %Al- ..., ,_____Br:leri 2, 1 ,,,n., i.,2 ' 1 , •2 . , ROTE,Eant.hor or 95,-....e.SW'''' • • , v 1 I 1 \ !!,1 i _ . Awd,4443 NE to de dedica at i /1.--13----I/ 1 1 / 1 mi. 1 , tutth the recording or .1 2 '. 1 III 1 , 1 Mi , \ 3.721. .`I I-- ' ••• I 4.#81/1 a Ld••.., Cre.1 trAti 1 ..--,_44 at iu t i 33.1 a ; Rift 0-j 721 , ' I I ! \ -ss- , `,.3 C -'V- -1 36357 of'... 1 .... 6 • .•-•61'"'.. . ael \ __ '.,t N41 2 1 14 LI : I. I ; • ; # 1 ,, 1,.,_::-..- ..'.-'*----..sia.: , F1-150C,ALLEV-- ,,---- `, 4,TA. I., : ,` ' ti 1_\ i/i'". I 1-' \ I ?to;•f.--1 , •. , --. „.-- l ', 55, '-'2-71 1-&1--' r`--1 '-1.-,'-1 , - - --e --j -ler'=----, e , lir rElL.5„...... ! , L _,___, I / I , .---T, , , 1 , i , , , i . 1. ge / I i 1 1 . , ' I •._ i 1 1 1 • ; , I 1 ' I '' •.f II ''' :139-.6- 40 6 i 41 1,3, 1 44. 1 4 *'i-, 44;11 1. ' ,.I 2 :-`•;;Lis r.2 '• '' , .. ..., --Ty, „,,,V0C-..• * . ...1:-'.1 e'..1_, 1,1, ,---_,...241,1 - . _ • 3652 of I 1 ! i I 21 I 1 NJ- 1;..- . OM k .r i 3Th.r 1 ;1'Th.,.":j,VrIrri I AZ"-I 1-33. 11r r T-r--1--T- , L-13---11 . 1I. • r 1 i , 1 1 ‘, ,lig.. 74,1= i -." ..-] ''.I- -I.__.L_. 1° / , . 1.-. ir---i I •-.4 i 1 \ 1 1 .1 , : \ . 31 31 in.......,- 2.11e 3, ._. ..__ __ 20 / --. ..? . .., I t2 I ii. , T IF t 6 t IQ I 1 'L.)/ • %V ' ---"- / :AI li, PIM / r . t* all 4S3 1.444 , NW 1W--- , • GfICN . 1E71.4.7. eak41:41er .--- • I\1 , .- / ----i • i ', •tg --- _ - - I 2 . , i i ili .4.4, ott r--1--4to 1 :c„ -br" 5. ... 50 : 60 50 5. 50 5,7 7. ,•..„.../ "c„,..„...f.:, , : 1 , ; I i „. • 1 .1%.* ...". 'i,:!..••-ti_ed I .14•0&"+- '"..1 tti 0 I , -.----- _,.--- r-----1 r-----1 r ---, ' r --- 4 r-1--.1 : '1 7. .!'r. liltIL ) ......7 ., ( i - 1 1 r---7 r-----, :12 i ,0 2 .-. I 3 ,!. i 4 i, 1 5 „ 6 I .1 5. ; 1 s 10--1 ti it.,k 4 1 1 I -..t.,1.-11 ,' r , ..._J .i_ _-.i L-_-_.i L_____, L_-• JL •r j L Ls' I .... I ' I 9' . 1.1' "' I ''':4 .-----..... s 1 5.0.47LI60 ____-.- ------ 21 ii-r - ital-1 11165, ir 0 , , it , rt Li, tA of 1 I 3652 of I- I 36E1 of 7 I 3.52 44 i I 3.52.4 ''''. I - r.. I . Z 14.1 Q. . 1 -mr"--_---------L.....,__...i L_ • 5s5,sr i I 3652 r 7 I "1 , 1 *--,aoare.r ri , ....,.r I , 1•• .,,, ,. ..s, orr.l'aA,. , 22'4' 23 --itr A 11111111t I ... . I 4.40 .3.43 i.0 ' ;"----177.----„, _ J L____,J L__, J r; .1 ...e.e..,-d ,..n. . , .1i • .:iticro-rem 1 ,_ sp ...-.75....-2 1 _,.,__14 / .....:7,-----1 =Li'AFF.46s Wire,•••••••6674`•-•- i ' 7's' '1 - 230 of - . . t.:44.:**M•* '-•- Rt.-.....7.1 . I • 1.06 0! -, %' I A 03 4. cilk Et , : 1 ',,,, ,,.,..P...ie • ( e \y ,,,, ,4 21 2n ,,,. . .SECTORS E F !!;--. - AV , 42' • i!..t.. ' ..„,\ 1458-0115‘11 j c- .6... -„---- -• i , „... . ,t• •i SECTOR G 1 , . RENFGQ.ZED SOLL•LOZI.5 I I PAVING 4., % io,r41,,e, Dgil i 1 k Z rp,14 , 1 . ,.T.•`'" :,II ' ▪ CC CC) cs. ct. v.) _ LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTORS E a F (S 14 •If.Eiceth half or the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quar5.. of ths Scothvoit quarto.of&action 10,Township 23 North.Ranee 5 /4 ..T NC • vr .0„,..,..dEL1E.6.t.U.E:irtr EXExt.dcCEPE:d...athiter.rEa2.:::,..d.rrf:t ti....r. rthreoIRTIcr.„.:134,4h.6.4A:ver:65.LE.aa.s The North half of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast Warta, of th.bouttoost quartr of Sectlon 10,Toarehlp 23 North.Pares,5 cornerd to King Cady Ids aimed recorded under Recording No. . Owner/Developer Nortlearcl 1560-140thrrcrie.Pt.,&Ate 100 -rbellevue,WA 55005 Contacts ItIchard GlIr Eng ind,w1Planner/Surve_yor Dodds Erelnars,Ina 4205-148111 Arena.KE Suite TOO 5511ovue, WA, SS001 CO Coft.. I:t • John Lane-2A Contact. Ea r Jones,PE.-Encloser Lu 2- • '41D' Yll - 64r1490:AL-I30 EXCEf'T that portIon.of NE.6th.etron...••_p_la_ttecl In Tot C206)141-rI26 Creio Krueger-Planer lu Et In 2c 5 - - - .-- - wiz der In The Orchards,Division I,as recorded in Velure ns of Plate,at pace R1Ll GLity,P.L.S.-_Sur.,*sr _ 16,Recorchng Na.5506230261 TaL f206.1bra.-1811 __ _ . •;.„-• /.... T 1 CO < ).... -.K ....., Y ._ . SCALE: la = 50' A. 1 .7 . 6111 OT g I. 4111 IN fr.SIT1Z) • A • LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTCR5 G The ecuth Ill If or If.Norueast quarter Of the bouthseet quarter of the Sonrthannt quortor of&action 10,Toarehep 23 North Range S East.WM EXCEIAT Q.West 42 feet estreor for 1313th Averus B.E.sa con64nexel tod.„KlawLaatty by deed recorded wider Recording No. Th.North hilt of the Northeast cluart..of tn.eot.INeete quartr STATISTICAL SUMMARY ,.....p....,TatAl Area E a F ed.Zoninac....Ext.:9.1.g/Propo•od R36-4276 SECTOR G TOTAL, sq.ft./5133 acre, 399/428 4.44.ft./911 acres 184P36 sq.ft./1500 acres E.' R-2•4 122 Z S ▪ 0 , ° ta C•••'?0 O o 0 < of the Ecuthret quarter or bootIon 10,Tomehip 23 North Rana...5 0 23 52 KC SHEET OF • IMMINOMIMJ East,WM EXCEPT th.,Ulm.42 feet threat for 1302th ANIS..5E.as conveped to King Covey led 41•NO recearcki422 mcler Rec.42rdine No. $treet Area. . 103200 ef.(30.00%of EIF) 691300 4.1.11.500%of OJ 168,61.3 J.(215T/s of total site) 6411469 / 1 VICINITY MAF' FIGURE 3 PROJEC1' NUMBER NO 2CALE .. 95054 • • SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N_IL RGE 5 E., W.M. _i___ ___....:_:--LN_________,:v :fi,..: L..._:-. -- I 1 .. 0,00,7 e.rsee E,rt•T. / (,o + 11CT C -•-_ ✓f �'t-+.+a►-..F` -. re ink�Tr�7 - - = - I I ' -� :•: ::TRACT 13 ONO REC.No.9,x],I0 i lu .�--- i .-` � •.i�- -- J- I, , I1`Ill 1b� 7w I I I I OPpI arACE 5 r�ed'OrED�G NO. E_r,t� ! ( • ► - C I i _cn i - IINE I I I / �r y 31r.'G I 1 r- Jy:T : L WIN �� .- ,� - -- _ \II+ I r Ir. uVi I l 1 I • 2H 2T i \ _ s2, T•. 5. _x6 M I4 I 3•ax w c 26 Y5 ® T4 - 2 0 2T .I TI • n I alai.• f C .r oe•rI a I '4T 42' I \ I r rJ-J L_- I I 31ae=r I I 3,m•r I I ao,x. I bate.r I I sale.f Ir. I k `Q4 `I� !�L- J LII I Ste` ' 'i �' Seas�r�` :�yp i i -- L- J --J rr(■! _ x+ R..I 4933 1 -� _ _ al• 5e L ` 1 j �' `'� •9i` \\_-�1 �'_-L.�- .` -- r.'E<cz::E+ 1 / - ro' �'4 • •` 1 ' \V1 ae,e n\` -�y- �' T� r .rtil:1"-- :di Rm aurae / T1J' - • /r •r--ink ` ( \ I e real., -.� ] 'r / dI I �. 1 L-sr.,r.•r I '`I •• 52 51 __I sbs.z.r I ,I ---t- w -s--J _ I K! I •n oPe+arAce _ 1 �-- -- , I •.s_..;r•,',.', ` •V o I� L- _y "3e (•-- J I , I sa.9o. I _III asc,<o.r I 5 i a] ® r, i-1-_ _ pZ a O \ I 58 �.. -''.-t. 61 Se•' L-v rJ 'aT'I / ,'/ +aura•r 1 K \� `{?AF21G� ^ L-3csc.r 4 ` sasa.r 1 u- F r I� 1 1 �-- --� \.r---` �- qZ co I I C . SPACf2 . -a,-- _ 1/ I Zi ; 1 I 1 n 33 a _1• U IJ--_eY- r-- I 1,.. _�= 'u 1 1 5- 1 1 s r 1 .�'.i1..y Z co �` I I 3rsx•r I - .r am. 1' ^��. li I -- 1 '.5.4 1 1 x906.r 1 I . . - CO a N z /'r 6 I \ - I II \. - // 3?ee.r 1 , c::: J �` N I JF �/ � 13Ire -- Y-Tli , --- -� J ' --- •IIµ < 7 '\ / . 1 :1 (� Z ? 13� I •1r y -1 r T _J I'j I ,1 1 �1 _x3aL�J a I �Z 41 N `� IR I I 'I I .. 1 I r I ;I G �I �/ 1\ 1 xdl.r 1 0l- ',r[ I' ' W} Q a n a1 13..,.. I - ' i �- I 'I 63 I a ' I I •�a _ �� Qel L_ -.r I 36e3 JI �l i // I i 1 » 1 - ,e . W> - m L-• , -� al xc�-1--K �� �3,01.�. I I �I I IS I L I' ' I N n •• I r---� �1 ;�'o !! I I L=e_,J 4 �,(, '• �/ i nan.r � o e 1 3.r .,I s31:r• ...re a m ' 7 I / I ANL ., , ' -__ ee l I�t t I ,1 , I' :r ?• ^I - r - Q N > m >ti n sx sT 31 3x �./ •T-_�16' I '�' !I I 4 ' I -.....R,,, I• 1 sods.r /'i ` TRacr D_ --� Z N w al I yain a I I _ 1 ` i mot'- ,i 13 r- 1 r- r- x. b K 11 2 a-` , -_ ,:`r1 V.."-- I `_✓ 1 r v `\ ,[ i 't+°aerDr 3 9. Id Z r m o EP?, 1 i I - i•1 r%'� -1 -- r-- r �� I I 6 /'i - s9s,.r •{ W� R^t_L' I F r -y I / I I , I I I I I S 19.-�' 'I ' a I��, w :a'W_3^a.a�e, x l N� I I I I 11 I I I spa+ j__ p i----l i I !It U ', - Im `=\ (! •` '+ ' 1 r •t W Fr l. 'S'IE 3,BJ.U1 I ', 177 • I ' NOTE,Eaet half o/Deers m s9B. .. `/' ' 3f e].r _ • 54 153 o 152 o I �" I '`-m $ I',$ I i .s }Odd.r' II I I i //�Z I...�, • I. I »es•• set.� I3n1.r I I snt.r I I - 1 \ / no3.r" 12 - •j I V I .Nh the recording d�.dtra : i L J� // j I �� j I I I I 13a.r I I , -\I ^ _ • L sem.r I I i - , s, xlej.r' 13 = n. I ���� y / �z di • Avarua NE.to los The Orchards,Div 7. -5>r- 'T' S 'I I.r---•'1 .r J !=3T J J \J I "��- ���:t-zzt.r-1�, r-,e-l I I , \ / ' seo].r Rey trACe ]ax.r i• I Q W -ss_ 44 �' IIOo`� 3l I i, / }T ^s_'���-jc,9� _ �' i . �9 3i]s.m.r i I; '• lgll �� I' I I\se9x.rI\I `', o / PUBLIC_ E7� {� `^ I 14 I,�'R I I i \�/� r a. s�/�, .�o, -1 33.r.��_`+�� Q 0 .I':il 9s u. I 1 :L7-1ru %S .. I 3�,.,:i 6 R-1 as =.v--JI r�i r J t I i I 1 /� �� C3e•r `�� I 1 I ' 1 -�a - e,- M-J r I es t4 r �_ _ '1e4---_B'IE 3e55 IN91 I -1' I 1 I _ 1 /. � o - ' I� .� I - .r _ 1I I I I I ' I I �.' E 1 n r` ^ ' �i Ili I -� �; ` , -- 1111:,77 I .,, !I I I ! I I i 3m•r'. I 3e• Io 4. • ,ll , i p. .i�' �� �.\ .�`s,9e.r1 - I I, a9'.e 4m m 141 I 4? 5 43^-�441 L.Ir- �. $ I I'� i• I . 'W I,•,I \L ,_i_. �.r I.t 3n1.r 13rh,.r I I 1�• K I\I-'Ff -ei >.1 _ I 365x•r I I I' o-- • i�n:.r xsa.r7 •.1 �D 1 1_•�.� i ��s� I • I ` l`. L_ -J I 3e,T•r f7 ,3 CO 1 1 t` �la33.3•..A % J _s-J L_ I I I I l I I �,' v I j. I r \3erx+t I .........,/- :: • r o1 it ice%/ --• ` 23 1 31 3r 3, 3� al xo i ", i I I - ' •,! 18 1' / / I 12 I u F 11 x.r \` 'T1/11 1 ].11•r V 11.1 j�%I•� 1II ''i i I v F •_.. / k(4 as,o•IJ''e iii ca•ECTer• i /11 J / 19h ��� 55 r W O I\ SIETLMID • c''. -- so ,o so so ^° /^ • I I .256 sr. 1 1.0 •r /a . e '-� I 3339°r II f tQ 1 CO �Q. !� �-'i r--^� ('---� r---� r---� r---� ��h r- I I /y ^ / 20.r �/ \� na I a __� ! I I I ! I'I I I I r---- r-- { _, I s�untAw / ` / _ •r gat `V • I i~I ,� I 2 I 3• :, I 4 :. I ;, I 1 I I I ,1 "':I_ ar'ee �- i `�' /� --I'r _ I {� Q y • Lx,q•r i I 3.5]••r i I 36,x.r i I 3eex•r i t 5 I 6 I 1 ;, I H 9 I Im :,a h n . 'I I+,/ 1 21 ../ I I "J QC O 1,' ^QQ'' ' _�- _ �•s1.r i I 3rsx.r I 3 e92 .r I ' ..,I er I j•.!00S.r j a•93.r i - , �.••%-, v xe.e,.r ,r�.. .If ,3 ♦� i. O `V� `t Z�O _J L---J L _J L----J L-- 3fr3]•f I I 24 25 cs - - - _ \ . u Y -1� _• �� �. ) 3a91.r TON•r I I 21P 28 °i 6. CO o :Nesmlaw ' I ��- -J •L---J L-=-J •L-� J L--<J L_-_� F, 6 �. vENnE r••�•••• ��' 1 22 23 A3Bs or I{ Ct e o •• r I93r2 of D'E Y:Ic.E' -{.J a S. ..,+ r. r••••••••„••. ,$� -5, .. r SEC 4. F TORS E ��•et -- -- `�`�� Q .. -.0 �I. A. 47. Jl a3 .- �\ l/l N ki SECTOR G ,�1 ,� �a a kik V W jpr t s• .,:. 3 i i • GRABS PdvK. • - o LEGAL DESCRIPTION sECTORs E .F The Sou Fair of tre Nort}n V,.ot quarto-of the Souea.t quart.. • f _1 South of the Soothers quarter of 8•ctlOn b,ToarF,lp 73 North Rim.8 V W I •8• East,11JH.EXCEPT the Eaet 47 feet threof for Bath Avear 8E.a• Owner/Developer Engineer/Planner/Surveyor W qrr conveyed by deed recorded v+dr Ralcordhq Tb.6411486. apart ci) CC Q. 13, •K tffR er The North half of the Norths.et quarter of the BouUeeet quart.. 560-14p14 Avg µE.brit•100 42C75 N t t Averue µE PA __ or the BouUti,•eot goers..or Section b,ToeWvp 23 North Range 8 eellevuet 111q 98005 Bull.7O0 - P Ea•t,WM EXCEPT it.East 47 feet thereof far 13dh avenue 8E as Contacts IEched Giros al4,ne, 21A 1 Ci�ZD " conveyed to KYt9 Covey by-deed recorded thaw.Rcord•ts No. Joan Lan.- lA A eaa,et, Edger.Jar....P9.-E^51rrr W > 6411490,ALSO EXCH.T Vat portion of NE 6th Street as platted N T• C706)141-TQ6 G•Ig Kruegr-Pteret.. J 1u l'"'•Tat R1h.Bayard•,DNafon I,ae recorded ht Velum T13 of Plata.at page RJi1 Glaway PLB.-&�"ellorbkH uSSl6,19ecudY,gNo.9B0G73096tT•I,f706)M8-lBT1qQ "" °' eT SITS LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTORS G '�` STATISTICAL SUMMARY r the Bann half or tee Northeast me rec of the So/thew.Rcquart.. a U o • /� of the Southwest goatee d Bectlon b,Tare/lip 73 Hort)t g /� Ci ' //1 Eeet,WFL EXCKKELL+P+yyT We West 47 feet thereof for 136th Aver a• BEC:T01P8 E a F SECTOR G TOTAL > Z Z > la SCALE. JQ• / K am R 64TI47 .rtd 64f133] y deed retarded war Recording No. r o 3 Tool Area 38abO6 ec}R/823 acres 399;t76 aq.R/911 ace. 18ap36 aq.IL/IBOO aces < w ll d I The North heir of the Northeast quarter of the BaN,eest quarter Proposed Naltar of Lou 63 89 Q7 I t I oI t/e BouVert q'r'^r of Station b,Tarehlp 73 North Re„ge B Iontr g,Ete4tYtg/Propo.ed R-74 R-24 O o O < East,W!'1.EXCEPT tee uJrt 47 lees thereof for L9et),Avrar BP Sao Bite Cov..ag. SHEET OF 64riaeit,to King County t>y dad recorded mole Recording No. format Area. . 109700..f.(3O001t-of'E,F) 69800•f.?Z00%of G1 168,619 cf.f7131s of total CUL/ VICINITY MAP1 1 NO It/C-ALE • FIGURE 4 PRodECr NUMBER 95054 • l 1IIIiI I Jig r+E cf +amB - I ` �' r SECTORc �,.1� SECT. E. wT_ ..f ) i r� ".., r MONP19A s _ RE LTU ST. - - - 9 / /r-Ntew �.s•max.•EKwr - •,.> • INF : -_ I I p^sa i 'C r - t • � roomlr.�rrelraJ A ca- .. _ �'r`'A�tYt��a@IP Y I' ^,.•�n�z,' as�•r o�, O Ow ^',Btu,. 00�%'r0�OQ 7:.{ iol �/ .... . i . „-- •,:..- 44i) # .Ai)1\ • , PA; nisi IN lip )!:,1 1:1. A ,_, ._...,,__ 11.r 6 7Br� 11..1' EI li■ SMELTERI l:��• .. �i/ ` i Off 0 itka,_. _ __e____4—'°' -_ malt •E, m Mk gb ,. (/01/11111111 GATED EN '•= .e . P".4 / . _ -...71.7 77"7.1..-•—,...-..--.---.•-.W.--•---•,---,410 •:.. lit .0..1-......me• ,[:.; / Ate Dh � -♦ - ~ •\'a -' �' •� I • 3'11tZ:D w.IL r'Ef`IGE.u'PPROC '6 � :ear �\ '' % (r-§rsill--- ' � • --- STATE aal�, I(II°• THE•ORCHARDS, ��� 1� I-�.•rznr. PIA>,)5 - p�; ,>:;i O•' ii' __ . 1 -•. SECTORS E t F.`./.•y- ai _ v _� MU - •�` I �' .I�; •/FI: _. } _ _. _ 1,- ` ,40 II `r WAgKTCN �aac C■ —� y oo. 6 aEcs a -- N gig. 4! (�/ !., I ``, • U•'� e.�"`- •O:tnr.*•._Ca LPALSC:�r.�'IITECT l AGE •. r I I T `�_ (�� c_�1 ) It••o•1 l,?�JD 0`' ? �� CI' -cQQ:•te I} w - , ., • t . . 1 0134100\e--..it -12:1:_q.2 . • age et C5i0Y iE W.Rl ,, ',Leta.'• '9•--' ili • LINO re • ./ I 1��� � — — / :�. __ il� -� dt I 'now oma�tiJ- '��' jvlL � m' .ry�'o' o �•L�\' T_ r I .- -; J ' -t i�� I • 5) Fog GLB�KI Nb/6•Q*OI N6 LvW i�"; °' M1 /',%;'•�r/z�- jitiw:::lliklll:;LE:c _ u491 -C —I� _.���r ��i,�"tCA.. S itil._. O •ate ' ( Q vV • 42*,,,,,,,,,_ , ni . . a boil At: ; • OE, 1 z' rtilk k-q1(It , A . li •_ • • 1 _ ifi_ !y wevt`lo E.-,.. CEmel.rr ''gi% `•'u"" '� • _ P'Lo+•f•IlNf.2,�cK TF.�Qd, t lr_ ;- ) Pit ,'aC: �-4 l`VJ1 Si',- .• 1 _ ■ __ )/ 6' "sso e•I s7Es Ft.-N-I-G*lED .. a', .. .', l i�-r killioti t p 414, ..\ �I ��'.,�I rt�ucAiiEr 11�II;. �i _ 'f�,''I:,� RrJ-�_ .-�Oa-O=%40..•zo, t• _..pT • • j '\ 1 I'`i'r �- 4 ' Ct �, Ipil.. \.• t� �/ ,''t� 1i�t �, UM115 ''�:.,, le.� O - =�' � f _`_ - _ ' m - 'fin ,1I Fi D IZ C2. I.;f -= - O 1 a-��--t 1- 1 -.: r :_ ,is ,ii t,f.}>i..•.1 irZ�V. t;f:t. ref..' 7 �— m��77 _ � 1 TI p�p7 If tqf� 71N • • • J` - / ie an= i I-' L• it ,�;MiA I■r�t a1 r 3 aft _¢ _-I� ��� .� hf� f•- r �.p �.�•. t • 1 ' 4: 1 zp is m P ip S ,jr .00 ._ -a —•i�)) • •::: 1 �l; f �C� `O '®. , Ff, j;'f t m° e�� _> r�i;- -�nof;o-:' - © o — ! `�� i ^- s1 ��, .B e r 1 i �• 'h► a' ae ' �� t 4. ei.t '`' �4) I�, i1 �>.. ° 3 • �i �f '� f��; — _._� yy e o *��g __ `� 7: � r.r_.t oa'>�... `/� �S . • r- I �t �l v '— :F.� ,p er ,:�`s�o r•• ,z.. , „, ,�:.1'•. ' risiI -open ` :- s,i o ' �'�>�t •-. • '1td`CT KYiCl[ACCESS ♦ �.0.4 0 a'.�•(t�« s-• . It n ->r l I OO.�fOO�,es.0i0.,s10rOP_ r�.---i•, • • A.�v.s�O�f�O' SECTORS E $ F .a.c B o°o O ccr �oRo_o000000 a 1:. �' IAJPLATTED S E C O R G— �+. o,�• fee CALMS&1,09 CQ1.. • \ _Nam':FF-:Gl..r'.-6 • PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE _ i L\iJ. - L l L,' — 13J) ) . L -LtLK• 1e ,.- __T- 1 � L 1!SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE & CONDITIION SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE & CONDITIION Dale. 1/26/96 • Deciduous Trees- medium/large Min.I-3/A'cal,I0' Large Shrubs Min..r-:- h. ,tread, • Drawn Ely. SRE o� , Ater p•eudopleten..e Sycamore Maple well branched.evenly `� Coto/nee/starlactase Pa mey Coteneeeter Full,buen. E B or container. Che-keci�v. MAW Aces-rubs-.'Red Sunset' Red Sunset Maple belled bet.. -Tht Berber,•17in.Pam' Wn.Penn barberry A to S'o� _,ere massed Zewova serrate Sawlear Zeleove Euoraumru•:slaw.'Compacw' Winged Somdleeuen Pevislcns c`, Accent Deciduous Trees- flowering/fruiting t_ min.9'ht•multl-tr,r>ted. M1prc^?p Rlrododantlron Marls rlcribunda Pierle ricer eireinatum vine Maple well-branched,B•B nahonia aciulrollun Tall Oredon Grape • O Meiu•app. FloweringDom./bed.•aceople,Edible Apple Coma•kpwae Korean D000d / Small Shrubs n 14, .in is - e•screed. _•/.'/ - Alpena g.'Edward Coacher' Edward Goucrer Abele Full t bwrV E'E pr centa.ne, Pva••pp. Flowering r�.,.nirg Cherry Treae - O Narrow Deciduous Trees nin.I-i!1'cal_8'ht. I Berberia bu=lrolie Dwarf Barberry 3 to.t'ee Sr: d w a aonrare manee Aces',drum Coiumar Rea:sole well-branrJv B d d,B' Rlnodendron spp. Low Rhodenarons I Azaleas Pty.calleryana'Redeplre Rad•pire Fiq:ervtg Pear Ilea ceraaa'L'omoecte' Compact Japanese..,oily Junipers.sp. Juniper 0 Evergreen Tress n 0 in.5'- 'ht_full.tt.ertl Pin.made .ago Hugo Pine ih.Ja plicate Western Reo Ceder to base.B•B Potartllla frulticose Shrubby Cinquefoll Pirs.nlgra Austrian Piro P,audot•uge me zie•II Douglas Pr �jj" ,, Qroundcover & Accents .t•cote.-e. :.'oe DR Accent Evergreen Trees • Min.9-ler ht.ape/clans .,.,/ • Arctostaprylos uoa-ursi KimlelumieK i get cans!-ere*axe 30'ow. - Sequoia gigentea Clint Sequoia full to peso.bibC Cotonea•ter demerl Low otonnaeter rSpa C'ng- .a•y_Itn specie>/ LCedes deodara Deodare Cesar P••l oos.uge me zie•11 Douglas Pr Flyp�leaan palyClrun i•lyperlewn Juniper.•p. Juniper - ��m � ' FIGURE rr Lawn and Rough Grass e..SC.., on• �"1 Snuet Pant= • • SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E., W.M. • e o -_ III . •eN e `� I'/ .- 1 !:,L Ii 51 ` I �� 1 f-..• I• V l \ I �' I �--J • 7 illi �e IOTA 1 • -..-0D- 1 E• �: rcrTwm r i • _-- • 1e ant ....illir.. . I ..<411 ,116, . /); `— _ _ - _ _ r- _ly - SCALEi �. 4�' / z _S - Ieitizaaika.... .-- ...... ...ftfth ?,'��- — i K` — _ I ICI I VICINITY MAP i ,p NO SCALE VEG..NO. SDn ,,�. .�SM4 S _ r ��53!�� - I •_ N IR2 E a023 r5 r•5...�3g-Q ' '\ R-nmml 3 4 ' .0 .41 E I I I, • ' i ll 4°eR —= Owner/Developer Eng(neer/Pianner/Surveyor �� • . I I 1i 28 21 A ,A �' • yr Noru„ard Froprtl.. E+gQI`` •\ _ I a6m-N01h Ava NE.Sulu 190 42::-I4EN Aver NE. •\ I' U I P 42' 42'- E.11.r...IU4 ewu 2� U D III 26 25 24 23 22 Q x I I l206)T4T-rT26 Bellows, ILL4 9e0ci ()Z N 0 f \ 30\ 9 contact. Edgar Jones,PE-Ergin.r z w ° }" Craig.Knrgar-Mawr" Z r 4 I I TIE 3ST� \\` 0 �ill I• ( Z ' RILL 4nn..R},P1.B.-8urv.ypr Z n T AcE ?: Ti i:_i•i I I� ` �\ , �._ � a I LEGEND ?we) J ^ z Qln 4035 a I aD Q I OF O'IE 402.1 EJ} _�� fies r • I , - N 0 ' J_ _ � _- 3-- • I u a aa�i LEGAL DESCRIPTION LL z Z = Rs"1 a0a6 RI 3: � -�� "-• ii 20 L 1; o !VIE 4002(NSAi) �� 1 / \ �\ ,, WATER THE SOON HALF OF THE HORNIEST WARIER OF'ME SOUTHEAST O1LARIER W W Q < rs • l/� 'Ott:/1( / �.B I _. ` ,, I OF.TFE SO{1rialE8T OJARTER CF SECTILN Im,TOONSFIIP 23 NORTH,RANG B W J ; m O. \ ` I /, • I, . FA EAST,Whl,EXCEPT T1E EAST 42 FEET THEREOF FOR L9DTHI AVENE SE A8 >f �� y- .,\ \ ',�• j I I CONVEYED eY DEED RECORDED DOER RECOI®RG NO.64r14EE. Z II* 7W ul i I� 59` l 60 l i W.—. m I --"I t _ — C I BANRARY SEWER THE NORTH HALF CR T1E NORTMEST OZARTER OF THE SOUi4EAST a14RTER 0 N I W m 4 . I '1 2 �n \ )_ 19 + e SS FRI CF THE SOlfiH11E8T aIARTER OF SECTI011 10,TOONSFIIP 23 NOR1N,RANGES o w 'o I \ W Ili EAST,WA:EXCEPT THE EAST 42 FEET TFEREOF FOR MOTH AVEI4 E 8E AS -�Z N m II_ 36' \ -j I•-- i 320 8X18TRG CORTO.a¢ CCIcvEYE77 TO KS CO.HTT'BY DEED RECORDED. L3CEle I�CORDING No. a, " I / 58 \ c 61 I 64r,49o. I \ \ '\. U — FM18N C�tADE GONiOl1R W 33 SPACE\ 11illiiiiikh: �, s I I /�I I!�`.I II„ I. �\ �..\ 62 J�`p ei- QwLLi tIu' I` 1 i' .,.YC \ O IIIII 34 .` •'I ��' i' , • ' I 10'TRACT 38'R/WY le 1RACT Q U III!2' 5' 3' 2' 17' C 17' 23' 5' 21P1 ,vim `';20 ' b \ 9 ,I 9 - 1 03 a rillir se / /..t: / -. • 1 /- 4. .1 ,_ ...L 4 1 I Lu �tl O ��� u ; 2- �, 1 ; I SECT/ON A—A W �`a��-a, i !m i --- I RANCE ROADWAY SECT/ON o_3� 5/ X / 3 5 54 / 53 ENT , 0 19"E 396. ram; L, J[y R'IE 396.1-=V �// �,� I'I J j 52 1 0 S 1� • li NO SCALE ' 4 j r \ • 31 /I►' -E3— E'—h - 38'R -1i,Y F - 9 • PUBLIC� EY • I2' 1 ; L • Illi I '\ // U.I \ B B /` I 1' 10• E ro' _ 1�1' O C) 5YI-T • i ', 9aE>�i I _] I ,\ ,I i I4122. • C • •��- 1�� I y ��j�1 I1 318 I I I�E "I • I`, I ' _ n L. k! I S a f I 7' 39 `. 40 41 42 4 44' ! . 13 5. I I. 3 �5 PARK/HG MIEPE CAVG BALLED CURB 4. o- T - _ - _ 1 .SIDEWALK &CUTTER MP.) to i+ i \ Il .�\ • j - 'n L , I ,I (n1') INDICATED . I I *..fp -• ; SECTION B—B z 0- 20! TYP/CAL ROADWAY SECT/ONI: ,I I % ill! � I 12 TRACT F v1'' - J •f ' � I F'ED. CTI�LTI NO SCALE W W III '� .I ��—� \� _iG I c 1 ' I P ! 11 I ( Ii 2 3. 4 5 b 8 9 _I0 li ; I , —ZS W W a ._-__-_—_-- —_ _—_-_'_I—_—L.I _\—��—_ --_' - i—_--- —_------_-- -- -- • - -_I ! r _ .. i erio>ii 5vv.fa,,,n,p-S7,7 .< ‹wz ii i,.i.24•49 .--__----__-_ —_-- -8-m--_W Q_---- IC • �- ear ... .� 2 i W Y o o o 5^ 'T�. lu Rim 410l .- �"r�fj Q1 Q CO R n �'B'ml'15'W I I .r;- — o N B•1E acTs,E, ;.t->e> e: - I 6m6�I' . .-3::b I SECTION C—Co a an > z z la - } I u FM `' 1 SECTORS E F --- . 42' I 42' PUBLIC ALLEY SECT/ON N Zi" II l:i l NO SCALE SHEET OF ,4, a.uaa • • FIGURE 6 PROJECT NUMBER ° � :I 95054f I • _ - _—_._.- b� - - - - - - - - - I d"g 7 I w I • --g- DUVALL Ave HE N I. I \ N -__�__r.= . ,,,- - --_ __--__ —-.- ____ —-L c-,. ..-..- -_ •7\_ — — - ?Ih. ) ..„....._ .....„..„______ :,,,,:„..„......._......„-------....„.....,7-- -.%_____,,,..... .._____ I ._iii i i :! , ... :,. , 1 , \ \ - i tjI i .vim,+ ti \ 9 _.- -Y6E�1 V \ -1 lIi ' ^ I o .9 I, r k 7 i - <s, . y� m I / , _ \---.)- J/� — / : ---, ........,...1 -.,., . , . ,,-- D E \ ` \ it, \ `���� taw& Ili }m�p0�0g �y J`q,n�., =.1. eca k.'• Wriar--___________41,,,.... I 4 Ili leal ' idi : Nu Pilo rilkAriN14114*di Kit.40 7. . # Yk% / / -6 'ft..., I1/1 ...............„ . „ , _on 4.1„, ip, „, .6„,...., t,„46. .. 1H, .„,.... ill! EViti tWilit--6`1% arla . -.nig* -tir co III (6: I 1 irtiV 4 l°4141'- ''' ''-.8 . .414/„... 416400 # , wilitiiiti.........Atro g ___. Arwsin„ _o F) low4•0' - 144,- 1„-- ._1___ __ __........._-_, .. ,,,,oili.i _, -11Ma. i 91 04 I MOO law • ,IL,..1, i u3 IIIM 1114ttairi:iii , ' 11/1-/--wasiow. siew 1 ii—,...!.i.a. , 'Ik%•\/0.0 .1.01-. *, ., , il„. ;s1 4 ill i___.. ) :ti AM . . plaiikr.%;.-.._,..-, fa, ...I-a j aitra. , tole we st...........:"„. , Iv -.1, Alifirjh 11117/0244 ' '1"..65.P. -........ .....mmirov tWVIFF.iii. a lw,sw_i_i# Alio ivIrmiteliti .„ginrc-riiimplor 1510..716‘,/ ,."44 iliavirtt...by-fikkillorevarririfittilwk _A_./.‘ et., i c) ..,... , ,., .63 lirt 'Lb' ..ditivisininavow _ ,_ lori' - ;$(1) ''"r. L A 0)11 .0 VOL 1.4 ti: ,* I \laigallegti 111"312"11111 --+MEM4011. 0114116."."t4W14 . . L trl cl, III N.,m•..d'y �. id0.' \Lt...4.4,118ndatil ('' r /\-- LAtifir 41IV el- '''.4=__r_vlirrftrtitb...,) \ , ( (\ \ \ / ( g 1 1 . mi I N .. , m 8 • e o! s N1] III 2 -i i 1 Q i Rig 1..% . -, 1 i 10 3 N - o� nn, y03 b o 00 p t g 4 -g i D { IR rn N 4 o , aZ R g 4 .. s 0Av. l .Zk I- .i.— J .g . -( a a u 1 lip al 11 IV t 1[16% 2 jill ..AAlt A 'M 3 N I IN 11 • u!0 , A c 1 itli LP Do , m 9, J 1 I DATE JANUARY 1996 PRELIMINARY GRADING 4 UT/LIT/ES PLANT J• r,o. F,w oes SATE = DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. 4 Co o r -I DESIGNED E.T. ✓OWES PRELIM/NARY PLAT SECTOR 0-THE ORCHARDS CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING G., ` • 01° - - DRAWN 1LK, LRB j 'V aNORTHWARD PROPERTIES GELLE4205- IJE. AVE. N.E.- SUITE 20 �v . 1 .k; O APPROVED 'I'_` BELLEWE• WASHINGTON 98007 ��� . m - . CRAIG KRUECER, 1560 - 1401N AVE. N.E.„ SUITE 100 -r== ` o«i - p PROJECT MANAGER BELLEWE, WA 98005 [206] 885-7877 1.. Q••Lu•91 I 1 I.29.10 1 . . . . . ..... • . ,.. , . .. . , ? . • . . . . . .. .. . . • • • •• . . . , . ' . • ) . . . . • . ,• ki ...<5.-fs.• • • • 1\\ ...•.40ri-4,55;!•• ..._...mm....1...,p:::: •:;,,70.-41-r.;--.,.- ap......w.,... • . • . . _.....„.„.....:2,11.1.e.....,r1...... 11.1.117e11,:,.:4\;",',•=1,. .::'%:\".......1:., s 1:114i,k1Frciiill . • . IU . • •'-',-.'•---i'-' • . . -• • , r - - rli0IgY ' . . . ' • ''' 5,i5W§g§§iagaia6NUII1iWiMSSMOi • 1111111117111111.!11 1111M1110 ,. . • 1 l'S '\ ill. ' • . r . .. /.., "" .. .1 ;, • • f' - '111 .-flIPLirr'-7-- -. • . /7,--,›.5 . ,,, :11,:r. • . . . • ,. . :..•,;.4imigmil , , . 1 lt,........,„..........._ _-- ...-,, • • , \ m 171 ,,IIIMPINv.! k • .i.'fe.' . , Oc Ill r • .ii\-- _:;--7.---io" . , 0 P k t t\ .".'i, - • il. 1 1 ..0L 1 k ', "killE 111, , , . \, 7-1 I1G. $ 1 iir w• . , • ,, • , .• MINIMILMO . 1 . . WWi 1111 .HI I P /11111 73013911111 II 11, rrf .-11- 11,1"7 ,) y . . momm,otkomg& - i. , .. • , ! 1 / ,e, ,, L§ I I - - - , ,, 1 ,, `4.'':• •••, iL ill IP . . . • ,,, •, ...........„..... ill BIt.... \_' ,—t—;: ' 4; '.• —•:-"' -:iiiiiiiiir 1 , , . Vt s. .. .4*;-.,...[., ‘, 1 , , ; v• 1 .4 111111111r4Ae/, , 0, ,N N I'N'I ,1 Oi% IIMMIPII# - :' N 1' ' I VI .JW11):‘ ,'.4p.141-lit',,! 11 p-i:---',- ttN-v,--F---- -‘ 111 . l' , ii.,iN,, ' , 11111, • . /1)M1 ' ' I:ill IP 11 I I• illi,„„,..41,:._,!Iiii, OM ' Imvrell'y §b --:-...----.'•'••\:,,.4•1:::1,10%1B.B§§;),01P ' ! 1 • VirlitIVIA-_,Ve-1-111 N., . ' 1--- -----,,.„,0•16,-. .... k.k •,,.....j.....„„..,,,t .e....-___.„.4 p111111111111110411. 1 11 1 1111U . ? stiiitniSnil 1.1 11 . 4,..ngq.,gotiM 'MMNOMA \ , . . in,—....11 li ii •, . . • r? 111111111NA4 l'9111 kei loPil,-. •••r•-i N;; I i-111.! I. .1 . F j-vi . '''•:.,.;./r I till ti ' 1 .1 1111101111011 - .; vokmigu e '' ' ! III OHO II R;I 'ri,•.,..-..A‘`. $ ii ..„ , N7 LILI , i , II l'",,\ gzii it 1 i I I:i 111 k,.. rril 11111--11 Al • 11.11 ,N4y k L ‘) I, • .-- 1 1OG 1 „ InFl, • , I11 . ' . • \III 1 .. imp ,Ak NO - 0. -•q\I'i:th‘ IIIIMIMIIIIIIgir . '. ''' §tMA:RIM§M$gNN I'‘ .. I)' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS 1101 MIMI '?/1 Or/ • i 71R. NI. I" . • ,. , . . ,L 6 r.,40.- ----, 0'/ • . '...-Rill '119E ) , 1,_...„„--..l..,:••••_ . <-....„. 07 1 N 0' ki111111111111M1 1 1 . N ill 71. 4"1111111F7IMIll . VkIZI,i ...o.'• .,-...-•->...S.7, k......k.......\.....k........ii,k I; 1-Z--.- ---:.-'N-1.5'... .-74, ••N Ais 0 71t'' ''- ii I I I 111 1 q 1 il 111111 : , tly. , • . . . rimmool 1011111110110 ir ‘, ill . lUil IIHIIIIIIIIii • 0 ' As, .1,.., .,, , ,Iii • Ikk. • I 411 ' . • minioniiiii14. , ,,,_;Inc. • • .. 11111 i.. iil'...1,.1., ,1111_ 11171111111;011;:11,:;:a • I A : ,' '.%• l I Q; , . • Lir .._ • , . • ;ifiFilli 1 i . ir1 • . . ' • G.) Viiii,''. '' ' ••••• • idedi.1 4:„'": ;,,,1;"t,,,. • . • ,_-.,,,, C %AliiiiiilaiiMf..^.-' '"I'.•.:A% -'..d•• . • DO , 1 . . . Co . • .4) , .. e, . • , . . . . , . . .. . • i . . - • , • • • . • . NORTHWARD -..: .1- 1--1 E. C) R•Ci--IARDS G , .. • 15LO 110th AVE. NE . _ • BELLEVUE. WA 48001 • • . (20 ) 141-112L RENTON, . .- • " • ' 'WASHINGTON , •, •. . . • . •, ' . 1 . . 1 • • I • - I kl')'M,,,,,•;4„,.... • h— : . . ••• � . ice IL 'a:N 1 - rdE141 )1: i 111 11.1=�T I!I!li!ir,c \\ .•• IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII a;, : IIIIIIIIIIIIIII \ -:-. . Thi ; ' •,F • 111111111111I0 I1IIIIIIIIF9- _ iJJ• • • ' , tR . .s', 1 \ li ' ill • f!! I'IIffI i S.,..'''-1... ', II �' ')�II CCCII'i• 'Ill � 7iiii: ;\ ildl \,11 IIIIIIII 0 IDi�1 �'j 1111177.ni�r SVi \ 11A Cj • \1 1 i_I] kill "T 2.1 :P. �•. `fir 1 \ IIf _ �' IIIIIIIUI. IIII = 'I' ��+� -�I��ag, 1�� 5'. ill iuuTiu`e•a:> J J I'll ! 4 $kil . . . 111111111111111 „i I J aa! +�: Ill�lllllllll�llll�aal �1\ �� .0 �N Id I! ! .11 �j- :1 __�./ w ,> i� • IIII '� '�-'9• �� -"�" �� I ' .4yellir\V*-3" $i. 1 ter_ ;$ 1 I AIIIIII, ' '4,,, II ffff raqkss•s4,4/1-4%. `kq4;004:'� N / .' : ilmiloiti,t?4,'''' rollirmoloi • • 0. . , . \1 ris_t;3,1 .. . ii] iii ic 111 , �, $''/' ]JJIHIli itte , , ili . ,. . , 1r • • �,��,�1 . i_i] lii , 111A ‘'N.- 1. . . . •• v0 IIIIIIIiI 1 1 .ea ' C n111111; IMENI� . • 11 I1'�lAj.!-' q , 6 • , 1 1 • 1 NORTHWARD 16L0 110TH N.E. • BELLEVUE.WA 1800B • "O6! '11-17L REN TON. .. WASHING TON . .. . .• • ' . . ... • • . .. . . • , . • . • • . . . , . . . ve. 6,/,....../ ._, . k ••• :, .....00• ••• :. • .11,%41`-'•: ••••-..-:\,1`V :! 4.—--*--- ••—•■•I t s•.`r,'.. i.4.7.'`..1 . • 10'. ••••••/04- •• /1.••:4/0---.----°"-I • • , , . . .. ' i'0.\ ''' • • • .• ) , . . • Is - — -- 00 • • 1111 mN.,\V.m.... 4*ni:7qN: %) .• . • _ • • . ''' 1111111111111111111 q14•11`(••••• ,: 111 ••::: ' [.!11••• Ilio , li 4, • f • v..,.,, ;;;-----;711W' 11011111 i 1111.-,, o" - •,,, 4.,,:::•:-.•••••••,,,o• , •ow • ' ,•-•\''l U.s, ' '4 5% . .. ,s-3,'-'7,.--Nii I irli, , •. i .,,,,, q. , ..1, • ,„.,,i liefp y ItZ t L1.1_ A / ..... ...1.. • o. 1,\ --, -. —--,r.:47.7.7.. ..-. .1 ....•w ,--:-.:4,1‘ 1 ''• 1)?\ • 1111' , If L' •141%I.'•;•,:.:• ,'.:•;.,,,'...A,'. • - 41-11— —ilkAl'I' 14 S. • 1 1 II I iiiiiii N'''' iil I 11110 11 I I Wa‘.\‘'N•eliiii H MBIM1111111141;: 1 illuni Wo. rilr-rr..")5511 1 Milliiki . \•.s..,, ..1:111 ;,F;i• i--11 o, •7.si o • ,'....;.,,,. . .- • ..,•• •,, -111. , ; . .,,, KL‘ ..;.• 011 'I ..**,' . 1 . 1111111P. .' .,,Iii. ,.• IIIIIIIIIIIIIMIP","I ‘,%., t• ___--- giggsssisITI I • f ! 1.EAV-;:c?'%-...1:';'f'f'01' 111111111111 ( • '011 11\ -- 1 "b. ‘ 'I AMINO .1 ' „.....:•,,e..:7 -..-_...._.;;;.,,,,, sv-A. • ' el114. 11' 'V MIMIIIIIil%go tt,..--....o' • viiv,,,IA , limmury , N,, ,,..,, -if,,• ••.01000.100..,i1...w' itz-A-,11111111V.PAipium p.gi 1 r, imiiimmaitii,...! 1 1 I . .i A11110111111111111:(6111.5 j ...1•,,,11.•....`..... .''' , ,,.1:iir. ..Z..,.....::•::4:::‘ 1111111111011IIIII\ Yq- 1-1 1 • . Akt: e1 111111gi %.. N & 111111111101140011: t..--<--,7111. ,101.11iIiii111 ,p, , .,,...a..............-..—,--..44.4.wl . 111 ,,1 -.-..i--. 1 . itii-, --=--sriJiiV\1 .0 I. H 1 1 mv....•1 . ,.. „..„ mnitW 1..._.. • . IM'IM :111.111 I 111111111' ,,.. .,rvirt. „, .• • 1E1F g5i mli :j1i-. igi I 0 0' ' • 0 1 ,',150 , .. ; 1•, ',.'7' . • .4.... );',1 ' . •111 .:04441 a fipT•tgt ,i,,,, '"/ rip' ..t. .,xt'\4i,.\... ,..,• 4.I ,I .1 ..:.r.•"--214-->--- ..•,1:.•\.., ' ::: ligl 1 i ... . ./.•_... ..4...--ir-.1-..._... • ,-,.„N-4,...,..--,z,...,,.-; , ..;,...,........ ., . 4 ,..ii 11111 1)1 i ., , i' '.11r111 A _ • !/is ez....,...- • . . 7,4*i, •,..,,,,f 7 1 i '1 PT lig7liTitil, / •1 1 .iir—, --ii).. ........,-..:...„......„-:;-.,.., ,0 isLlit;*:, I. ,;..1 r,,,,,I . , 11111M. Pf' -il -..A ',.1111111111111MIIIIIR • . ,if -- • Niki ,d1-1 01 . .. .. .. , . ,00 i .-N. :`.k.7. l igi 11111111111111111111111 . . i . • • "11111111 tr,-7-i•-'.ill,romills.b.e.d/ 4gorigowv.0,,, " 1 A1 ,. ,,,, r•,,,,,,, 0, i •••••_,...., .ii 1., 1 .., 14 •AL....1.als _A1A-1 ••:",1 : ... - • • ,„• , 4LiII J - J /II ill il ..5,. ,gil'' ' Tir.:,,,. • i . f . . 1,! • . ' , NN,'----i-''=" I I . • .if 97"- ••• , ,,1,../.... ,,..,,, . . . M. . . ... .\\W'''' . , ..111v),0.dr,:.-i .._., ,.... • , . _ ___C .-. war.... "yr,.:.....;;.....,:,,,,, .. 1 .. • • --_47.- DO . dilir.,;-;4 ,,,1,110k"\•-\-.....--- . M . v 0,..... ..,..:.i.;...,.\. . --— i:.,.:...,..--._:' • .—.I. • 0 • . 111\ih*.. .. ---• . • • NORTHWARD • ' THE ORCHARDS• • 1510 119th AVE. NE . . • •BELLEVUE.WA 18001 MOO 111—I126 RENTON. • • WASHINGTON• ' . .. ... The proposal in the 1991 Dran supplemental EIS requested a rezone ___ie 18 acre site from the existing G-1 zone to a mix of R-3 and B-1. The objectives of this proposal were,to develop a mixed-use development; including a community commercial area, office uses, and multifamily residential uses. Two alternative conceptual site plans were presented and analyzed. The proposed action included construction of 212 low to medium density multifamily dwelling units and 28,000 square feet of commercial,and office space. Alternative 2 called for construction of 131 low to medium density multifamily dwelling units, 124 townhouses, and 70,000 square feet of office-oriented commercial area. Alternative 3 did not include Sectors E/F and G. The site plan addressed in this Addendum is similar to the site plans for the proposed action and Alternative 2 in the 1991 Draft Supplemental EIS in that the acreage of the current site corresponds to that portion of those alternatives targeted for development. The City of Renton has determined that an Addendum to the 1991 DSEIS, The Orchards Mixed Use Development,should be prepared. This decision was based on the SEPA Rules (April, 1984), which indicate that, "...an Addendum is used to provide additional information and analysis that does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in the existing document (WAC 197-11-706). The rules allow an agency to, "...use environmental documents that have been previously prepared in order to evaluate proposed actions, alternatives or environmental impacts". The rules also provide that, "the proposal may be the same as, or different than, those analyzed in the existing documents" (WAC 197-11-600). According to the procedures regarding Addendums, this document will be distributed to all recipients of the 1991 Draft SEIS. PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action is for the site plan approvals, preliminary plat and filling, grading and building permits for the implementation of a middle-income, single-family and townhouse residential development in northeast Renton in an area known as the Renton Highlands. The proposed development, The Orchards Sectors E/F, includes preliminary platting of 63 single- family lots and 59 townhouses. Separate access would be provided to the townhouse and single- family areas, with no interconnection. Assuming 2.0 persons for single-family unit and 1:5 persons per townhouse, the anticipated population of the development is 215. The site is currently vacant and cleared, except for the wetland and buffers in Sector G. Immediately to the west of the site is the 202-unit Windsor Apartments. North of the site, east of Duvall Avenue, is a proposed 200-unit multifamily residential development called Forrest Crest. Also to the north are Sectors A, B and C of The Orchards with single family homes and townhouse condominiums. The land to the south is zoned for commercial development. 95054addendum.doc;02/26/96; Page:11 Building Development The Comprehensive Plan designates Sectors E/F and G to be Planned Neighborhood Residential with a zoning designation of R-24. The site areas and coverage calculations are as follows: Sectors E/F , • Sector,G • Net Site Area 366,208 s.f. (8.4 ac.) Net Site Area . . . 399,428 .(9.2 ac.) Building Coverage 83,000 s.f . 23% Building Coverage • 83,000 21% Public Street 63,300-s.f. . 17% Private Streets ,• , .46,300 12% Drives&Walkway . ...27,500 s.f. . 8% Driveways/Walkways •..23,500. 6% Common Open Space 41,700 s.f. 11% Common Open Space 171,200 42% Private Open Space 150,708 s.f. 41% Private Open Space 75,428 19% Total:' 366,208 s.f. 100% Total: 399,428' 100% The gross density for Sectors E/F is 7.5 du/acre, with a net density of 11.7 du/acre. The gross . density for Sector G is 6.4 du/acre, while the net density is 15.9 du/acre. Vehicular/Pedestrian Access and Parking There are two points of access into Sectors.E/F, one from Bremerton Avenue N.E. and another from N.E. 6th Street, which focuses onto the landscaped private park. A series of grid streets and alleys then provide access to the homes. The streets have been designed to provide street trees on both sides with 8 foot deep planter islands and sidewalks on one side and a landscape strip on the other side. There are landscaped "neckdowns" at the intersections to reduce the hard surface and to provide a tree canopy. There are also landscaped areas at the entries and along both Duvall Avenue N.E. and N.E. 6th Street to create an attractive streetscape along the edges. The sidewalk along Bremerton Avenue N.E. has been attached to the curb to create a landscape area within the street right-of-way. The traditional homes will include an attached two car garage with additional parking on the garage apron. The cottage homes (alley accessed)will include an attached two car garage. Guest parking will be provided on the internal public streets. The total number of parking spaces is as follows: Traditional homes garage spaces - 76 Traditional homes garage aprons - 76 Cottage homes garage spaces - 50 On street guest parking spaces - 37 Total - 239 (3.8 per d.u.) 95054A-1.DOC;02/09/96; Page:12 I � The concept for Sector G (east of Duvall Ave. N.E. and south of N.E. 6th if extended) is to provide 59 for-sale attached townhomes on fee simple lots, accessed by way of a private street system. The townhomes are accessed by a private drive that aligns with N.E. 6th Street on the west side of Duvall Avenue N.E.. The private drive (with gated entry) crosses a narrow extension of the on-site wetlands then proceeds to loop through the townhouse neighborhood and terminates in a landscaped. cul-de-sac.. 'An emergency vehicle access lane is, provided at the southwest corner of the site-per the'previously approved-plans. A series of landscaped pockets have been placed along the internal private drives to create an attractive streetscape. The townhomes are both one and two story in height with attached one or two car garages. Guest parking is provided throughout the site in parking,bays, resulting in the_following parking tabulation: Garage spaces - 89 (assume 50% 1 car, 50% 2 car) Aprons - 96 'Guest parking - ' 14 Total - 199 (3.4 per d.u.) The townhomes,in Sector .G.will require the improvement of Duvall, Avenue-.N.E. along the frontage, with no additional public road or transportation.improvements. Site Utilities and Site Preparation . The utilities for this proposal are all available through.the extension of existing-services. Water and sewer mains have been installed in the adjoining streets as part of the overall development of The Orchards. , The sites have been cleared previously as part of The Orchards development, except for the wetland and wetland buffers in Sector G. Earthwork calculations for the site show approximately 67,000 cubic yards of fill. A filling and grading permit from the city would be required. Building Orientation, Heights and Materials I _ The concept for Sectors E/F (bounded by Duvall Avenue N.E., N.E. 6th Street and Bremerton Ave. N.E.) is to create a neo-traditional neighborhood with a total of 63 traditional and cottage homes, focusing on a small private park. The traditional homes are situated on lots that are approximately 50 feet wide and 73 deep (±3650 s.f.) with garage access from the internal public street. The cottage homes are accessed by way of a public alley with their entry facing toward the public street. The lots are approximately 37 feet wide and 87 feet deep (3200 s. I). The intent is to create an attractive streetscape by reducing the visual impact of the garage through alley access for the cottage homes and through the garage placement of the traditional homes. The streetscape will focus on the front doors and porches of the homes instead of the garages. The building heights will not exceed 35 feet and building materials will include wood, hardboard and/or masonry exteriors with cedar shake or asphalt shingle roofs. 95054addendum.doc;02/26/96; • Page:13 The homes will be two story in height and will transition down along the street to provide the appropriate residential scale and massing. Both the traditional homes and cottage homes are designed as "zero lot line" homes where useable side yards are created through reciprocal use easements. In this way, the resident will still have private yards on the smaller lots. The concept for Sector G (east of Duvall Ave. N.E. and south of N.E. 6th if extended) is to provide 59 for-sale attached townhomes on fee simple lots, accessed by way of a private street system. The townhomes are both one and two story in height with attached one or two car garages. As with the single family homes in Sector E/F, the massing of the townhomes will transition down to the street at the ends of the buildings to provide an'appropriate scale to the buildings. The number of townhomes in each building varies from two to four per structure to provide variety along the street and along the edges. The townhomes have been designed to fit the contours of the site and to focus onto the large wetland adjacent to Duvall Avenue N.E. The buildingheights will not exceed 35 feet. Buildingmaterials will be similar to the homes in Sectors E/F. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Construction is planned to commence in 1996, with occupancy slated for 1997. 95054A-1.DOC;02/09/96; Page:14 CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT,ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATING MEASURES,AND SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS This Chapter describes the affected environment, environmental impacts of the proposed action, relevant mitigating measures and any significant unavoidable adverse impacts to the environment anticipated as a result of the proposal. For each element of the environment analyzed in this Addendum, potential impacts of the proposed action are discussed. Mitigating measures are included and will be considered as part of the decision-making process.for this proposal. The following environmental elements were identified by the City of Renton as key elements most affected by changed to the proposal since preparation of the 1991 DSEIS. Elements which were not reviewed were determined by the City to be nonsignificant or unchanged from earlier proposals and analysis. WATER . This section summarizes the storm drainage study for the project prepared.by Dodds Engineers, Inc., in June 1989. Their report is included as Appendix C to the June 1989 Expanded Environmental Checklist for the Renton East Residential.Development. For further information on soils, geology, water absorption and groundwater, refer to the EARTH and WATER sections of the 1982 DEIS. These specific topics are not addressed in this Addendum, since it has been determined that there would be no significant change in impacts between the-analysis presented for the 1982 DEIS proposal and those which will result from the current proposal. The particular issue of storm drainage is addressed in this Addendum, since the current proposal presents a similar approach to storm drainage control as described in the 1991 DSEIS. Under the present proposal, the existing on-site wetland is enlarged and used as part of the storm drainage plan. Refer to WETLANDS section of this Addendum for more information on the existing wetland and proposed wetland enhancement program. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The project site is located within Zone 2 of the City of Renton's proposed Aquifer Protection Area(APA), according to revision No. 9 to the Aquifer Protection Ordinance, dated March 14, 1988. The intention of this ordinance is to protect the quality of the groundwater in the aquifer used by the City of Renton water supply wells. The ordinance disallows the storage or production of regulated compounds in certain areas of the APA. The APA encompasses the recharge area for a well or well field. Each APA may be divided into two zones, each with a different level of protection. For a well or well field, Zone 1 is defined as the area between the well or well field and the one-year groundwater travel time contour. Areas in Zone 1 generally require greater protection. Zone 2, the zone in which the site is located, is defined as the area between the one-year travel time contour and the boundary of the APA and encompasses upland areas north and south of the Cedar River Valley that contribute recharge to the Cedar River. Areas in Zone 2 generally required somewhat less protection. Residential uses are permitted in Zone 2, with connection to a central sewer system. 95054A-1.DOC;02/09/96; Page:15 Sectors E/F and G are located in the easterly drainage basin for The Orchards. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The proposal would convert.about 41.7 percent of the residential area to impervious surfaces, such as roads, buildings and parking areas. Most of the on-site vegetation has been cleared to accommodate this development. This amount of impervious surfacing would decrease the amount of absorption and time of concentration, thus producing more runoff. This increased runoff could cause increased erosion and sedimentation and,flooding conditions downstream without detention. Existing drainage patterns on-site would be modified with the proposed grading and the construction of the storm control system, including catch basins, conveyance piping and oil/water separators. On-site drainage facilities have been designed to accommodate both a 25-year storm event and a 5-year release rate and a 100-year storm event with a.100-year release rate. The proposal would change the character and quality of stormwater runoff. During construction, silt and other sediments could be washed from the site downstream without an effective, comprehensive:sedimentation and.erosion control program. Various construction materials and chemicals, such as oils, wet concrete, tar, wood preservations and paints and solvents could also enter the site's stormwater runoff and flow downstream. Following development the runoff would contain higher concentrations of phosphates, nitrates, heavy metals,oil and grease than in the natural state. Although the stormwater drainage system would be designed to trap and break down these pollutants, some water quality impacts are anticipated. No on-site storage or production,of regulated compounds is planned, as described in the Aquifer Protection Ordinance. The:stormwater runoff entering the soil may contain small quantities of nitrates, phosphates, heavy metals, soils, and greases washed from paved surfaces. However, levels of these pollutants are expected to be low and have no significant effect on groundwater quality. The project would be connected to the City of Renton sewer system via tight sewer lines and leakage of these lines would be very unlikely. Runoff from Sectors E/F would be collected in catch basins and piped to oil/water separators prior to discharge. The runoff will be routed through a grass-lined biofiltration swale. (The runoff from the off-site drainage in this basin, bypasses the storm drainage system in Sectors E/F and G through a separate tight lined drainage system). Discharge from Sectors E/F and G would be directed to the enhanced wetland area in the southwestern corner of Sector G that would double as a stormwater retention and treatment basin. The existing wetland on the site is fed and supported by surface water runoff. The loss of storm water or surface water through the development of the proposal would eliminate the only water source available to the wetland short of drilling and pumping well water to support this wetland. The livelihood of the two wetlands is dependent on maintaining clean, but semi-nutrient loaded surface water during the winter months and from intermittent summer rains. Use of sterile or nutrient free well water would reduce nutrients loading to the wetland with the potential of long- 95054addendum.doc;02/26/96; Page:16 term depletion of sufficient nun-lent for proper growth, particularly on argent plants and larger trees. Studies have demonstrated.that surface water treatment through biofiltration channels meet or exceed surface water removal expectations if the water is retained over a distance of 200 linear feet and the slope is no greater than 2.to 3 percent. The biofiltration swales on the site were designed to provide treatment prior to the waters being discharged into the wetlands. The existing wetland acts as a retention/detention basin that settles solids, absorbs nutrients through plant growth during the growing season, and provides a habitat for a variety of macro- organisms that live on aquatic vegetation that have the ability to use and transform various metals and other chemicals from toxic or animal damaging forms to useable forms. MITIGATING MEASURES (from the Mitigation Document for The Orchards Mixed Use Development, November 1991) 1. Because the proposed action must comply with the requirements of the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and because the proposed action will have no off-site surface water impacts which are not addressed by the KCSWDM, mitigation of off-site adverse surface water impacts will be achieved through compliance with KCSWDM. 2. Because the proposed action must comply with the requirements of City of Renton Aquifer Protection Area Ordinance, adequate mitigation of potential groundwater impacts will be achieved through compliance with that ordinance, including the restriction on the storage or production of regulated compounds. Refer to the mitigation measures for wetlands for additional storm drainage mitigation measures. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS During construction, temporary erosion and sedimentation could occur. Discharge from runoff would contain certain pollutants. 95054A-1.DOC;02/09/96; Page:17 • WETLANDS A discussion of the existing plant communities and species of animals expected or observed on- site is found in the FAUNA and FLORA sections of the 1982 DEIS Northward Rezone and Development: These sections also assess the anticipated environmental impacts, mitigating measures, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts to the existing on-site plants and animals as a result of site development. This section of the Addendum focuses on the existing wetlands on-site:and the resultant impact of project implementation on these wetlands. Although the 1982 DEIS did note areas of standing water on-site, that DEIS did not confirm that these areas met the criteria to be defined as wetlands. The proposed action in tiie 1.982 DEIS included filling these areas. Since that time, additional wetland areas have been identified on-site and described in the June 1989 IES Associates report, using criteria established by the Corps ofEngineers:(COE). The COE's technical guidelines use vegetation, soils and hydrology for wetland identification and delineation. Generally, a minimum of one positive wetland indicator for each,of the three parameters must be found in order to make a positive wetland determination. The IES report includes an assessment of these existing wetlands and a discussion of the proposed wetland enhancement plan. The report is included as Appendix E, to the June 1989 Expanded Environmental Checklist for the Renton East Residential Development. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT On-Site Wetlands. Sectors E/F and G include three delineated wetlands: #5, #6 and#7. They are described as follows: Wetland #5: 3,485 square feet; Class III; palustrine scrub/shrub. Vegetation consists of creeping buttercup, blackberry and Douglas' spirea. Functionally, this rather small wetland collects and discharges groundwater but does not perform any significant biofiltration purpose. The wetland and small surrounding area provide habitat for passerine birds and a variety of mammals, including mountain beaver, chipmunks and chickaree during the wet seasons. During this same time period coyote, raccoon, and skunk probably hunt the area for salamanders and Pacific tree frogs. Because of the small size of the wetland and the short duration of the period of standing water, the wildlife is not outstanding. Additionally, no endangered or threatened species were identified. Proposed Action: Fill the entire wetland. Wetland #6: 6,534 square feet: Class III; palustrine scrub/shrub. This wetland is primarily a drainage channel and vegetation consists of skunk cabbage, slough sedge, and Douglas' spirea. Functionally, it serves the same groundwater collection and discharge purposes as wetland #5. Because of its proximity to wetland #5, the wildlife habitat values are the same as those for wetland #5. Proposed Action: Fill the entire wetland. 95054A-1.DOC;02/09/96; Page:18 Wetland #7: 106,7022 square feet; Class II; palustrine forested and palustrine scrub/shrub. Stormwater enters this wetland from an 18" culvert running under Duvall Avenue N.E. and the exits the wetland through a 36" culvert running west under Duvall Avenue N.E. The main function of the wetland is detention during the wet seasons of the year. The northern two-thirds of the wetland is classified palustrine forested because of the dominance of an Oregon ash/alder overstory. Trees in the surrounding vicinity are red alder, western red cedar and Douglas fir. The southern one-third is categorized as a palustrine scrub/shrub because of the overstory of alder, black cottonwood and big-leaf maple combined with an understory primary of hardhack. (Overall,the understory varies greatly throughout the wetland.) The southern portion of the wetland has been disturbed through tree removal and filling and is dominated by off-road vehicle tracks and refuse. Functionally, this-wetland serves as a large detention pond for surface water runoff in the wet seasons of the year. It also provides habitat for birds and mammals typically found in urban areas. In the higher elevations on the edge and off the site to the north and east of the northern two- thirds of the wetland, evidence indicates the possible intermittent temporary use of the site by pileated woodpecker and large raptors. Animal species on the site include chickaree, chipmunks, and mountain beaver. Coyote, raccoon, and skunk probably hunt the amphibian populations in the area during the wet seasons. Proposed.Action: Fill a small segment of the north end of the wetland for the extension:of N.E. 6th Street; expand the wetland by excavating to create small open water component and terracing the side slopes; provide a buffer between the wetland and Duvall Avenue N.E. ENVIRONMENTAL,IMPACTS . . The majority of the on-site vegetation(primarily second growth forest.with fir and alder trees predominating) has been cleared for construction of the proposal. In general, this clearing would reduce_vegetation species diversity and density of vegetation. Due to the habitat removal, certain bird and mammal species would likely be forced to find replacement habitat or perish as development proceeds. Human-tolerant species would replace those species that could not use the replacement habitat. On-Site Wetlands The proposal would result in development of residential buildings, parking areas, streets and associated facilities surrounding the wetland on-site. Construction activities related to the proposal could cause increases in erosion and sedimentation to the on-site wetland and downstream habitat. The introduction of human activity near the wetland could also reduce the stability of wetland habitat. A wetland mitigation plan has been prepared by Terra Associates for all of The Orchards development: The proposal includes increasing the total on-site wetland acreage. The total area of all wetlands to be filled would be less than 1.0 acres in size; therefore no Corp of Engineers permits would be required. As part of the site plan, a buffer greater than 25 feet in width is planned around the wetland areas. The planned swale and detention system would increase biofiltration of surface water and contribution to groundwater recharge on-site. Refer to the 95054addendum.doc;02/26/96; Page:19 WATER section,-of this adden ►at�i for more information on the role of ,wetlands in the planned storm drainage system. MITIGATING MEASURES (from the Mitigation Document for The Orchards Mixed Use Development,November 1991)_ 1. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate the water quality and habitat impacts associated with filling wetland #5, replace the filled wetland area with 3,485 square feet of new wetland or 4,356 square feet of restored or enhanced wetland, all on the site. 2. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate the water quality and habitat impacts associated with filling wetland #6, replace the filled wetland area with 6,534 square feet of new wetland or 8,168 square feet of restored or enhanced wetland, all on the site. 3. The applicant shall, in order to reduce adverse impacts on water_quality,restore the disturbed southern portion of wetland#7 by removing the refuse and eliminating the disturbances to the land.contours. Similarly,,the applicant shall restore the Duvall Avenue edge of the wetland by removing the debris and improving the vegetative environment. 4. The applicant shall, in order to limit impacts on the existing water quality and wildlife habitat, provide,a 50-foot average buffer around the defined edge of the wetland, with.a minimum buffer width of 20 feet desired. Narrower buffers may be approved by the-Planning Section of the Development Services Division next to Duvall Avenue N.E. and the extension of N.E. 6th Street if necessary to prevent the filling of wetland merely to create a buffer between the wetland and the streets. 5. The applicant shall, in order to reduce impacts on existing water quality, replace on the site the filled wetland area at a ratio.of 1.25:1 of new wetland to filled wetland area or restore or enhance existing wetland areas on the site at a ratio of 1.5:1 of restored or enhanced wetland area to filled wetland area. • 6. The applicant shall, in order to limit the potential disruption of the functional value of new biofiltration swales, locate these swales away from roads whenever feasible. 7. The applicant shall, in order to limit the potential disruption of the functional value of wetlands and swales located adjacent to high activity uses, provide fencing around wetlands and swales as required by the Planning Section of the Development Services Division. 8. The applicant shall, in order to reduce potential adverse impacts to wetlands and swales, provide educational signing concerning the purpose and function of the wetland or swale at appropriate locations. 9. The applicant shall, in order to ensure the survival of the wetlands, perform a 5 year monitoring program. The monitoring program shall be designed and conducted by a consultant approved by the City of Renton. The applicant shall pay the cost of designing and conducting the monitoring program, including the cost of the consultant. The program shall include the following elements: 95054addendum.doc;02/26/96; Page:20 . a. An initial report completed by the consultant upon completion of the creation, restoration, or enhancement of the first wetland or wetland buffer: The initial report will identify problems in obtaining materials, differences in sizes of materials than were originally called for in the approved Wetland Mitigation Plan, differences in spacing materials than were originally called for in the approved Wetland Mitigation Plan, replacement materials if necessary, and any other conditions that varied from the approved Wetland Mitigation Plan. Major departures from the approved Plan must be approved in advance of planting by the Planning Section of the Development Services Division. b. Twice a year monitoring. Monitoring will be conducted by the consultant in the spring after green-up (approximately May 15th after the vegetation has started to grow but has not reached a height where it would preclude an evaluation of secondary growth at the base of the cattail and larger plant stock material); and in the fall after the growth has ended prior to the dormant season, approximately November 1st to 15th. c. An annual report submitted by the consultant to the Planning Section of the Development Services Division by Decemberl 5th of each year. The report will include identification of all plant species, either planted or invading, measurements of relative cover and abundance of each, plant vigor, and plant vitality. Photo documentation will also be provided. d. An evaluation. After the receipt of each monitoring report, the Wetland Mitigation Plan will be evaluated by the consultant and the Planning Section of the Development Services Division to determine if the Plan is functioning as designed. If it is not, modifications will be made to the Plan as agreed to by the applicant and the Planing Section of the Development Services Division. In assessing the success of the Plan, the performance standards will be applied. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS • Removal of vegetation over much of the site would reduce plant and animal species diversity and abundance. 95054addendum.doc;02/26/96; Page:21 TRANSPORTATION The traffic information for this Addendum is based on the analysis conducted by The Transpo Group in June 1989 and a supplemental report, also by The Transpo Group, completed in October 1989 in response to revisions to the site plan. The June 1989 analysis is included in Appendix D to the June 1989 Expanded Environmental Checklist for the Renton East Residential Development. The Supplemental Report is included in the Appendix to the October, 1989, Residential Development Application for The Orchards. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Description of Streets and Roads Transportation: The revised site plan for Sectors E/F and G will generate an estimated 1034 daily trips and 104 afternoon peak hour trips. This is a reduction from the traffic study conducted for the 1991 DSEIS, which estimated that the Sectors E/F and G project would generate 1821 daily trips and 200 afternoon peak-hour trips. When these trips were added to the predicted traffic volumes at the six area intersections analyzed, all intersections would continue to operate to Level of Service (LOS) D or better. In fact, the project would adversely affect the predicted LOS at only one.intersection: Duvall Avenue N.E. and Sunset Blvd. N.E., which would drop from LOS C to LOS D. Based on City standards, LOS D or better is considered acceptable, so the project would not cause traffic operations to fall below City standards at intersections in the area. Most of the project-generated traffic is projected to use either Duvall Avenue N.E., Bremerton Avenue N.E., or N.E. 4th Street. This usage pattern is a result of the proposed internal project street system, which consists of a series of residential streets leading into new neighborhood collector streets (N.E. 6th and Bremerton Avenue N.E.), which in turn link.to Duvall Avenue N.E. and N.E. 4th Street. To comply with City codes, the applicant must construct all new residential streets and neighborhood collector streets to City standards, which will make them of adequate size to handle predicted volumes. Presently, N.E. 4th Street is a fully developed major arterial. The widening of Duvall Avenue N.E. from 4 to 5 lanes is in the City's Six Year Transportation Improvement Program. With respect to parking impacts, the project is providing a total of 438 on-site parking spaces, which exceeds the City's parking requirements. Consequently, the project would not cause any adverse impacts on the parking supply in the surrounding area. Truck traffic in the area will increase during the periods of construction activity. Truck traffic after completion of the project will be minimal, as it will consist only of delivery vehicles and occasional moving vans. Transit service is provided to the project area by Metro routes 111 and 147 on N.E. 4th Street. These routes provide service to downtown Renton, South Bellevue, and downtown Seattle. According to Metro, a proposed service change has been proposed for route 240 to serve Coal Creek Parkway, Duvall Avenue N.E., and N.E. 4th Street. This route would operate seven days a week and provide direct service to downtown Bellevue, and offer connections at the South Renton Park and Ride with Metro service to downtown Seattle and South King County destinations. This route would become the main transit service for the proposed project. 95054addendum.doc;02/26/96; Page:22 To mitigate the increased demand placed on transportation facilities by the uses in the proposed project, a variety of transportation mitigation measures are being recommended. They can be grouped into the following categories: a) Physical improvements to mitigate the dependence on single occupancy vehicles by encouraging the use of the proposed new transit service on Duvall Avenue N.E. b) A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) designed to decrease the dependence of residents on single occupancy vehicles; c) Participation on.a"fair share"'basis in the NE 3rd/NE4th Street Traffic Benefit Zone; d) Support of the Duvall Avenue N.E. widening project to mitigate traffic impacts on the street; and Additionally,_mitigation measures are proposed to lessen the impacts of construction traffic on adjacent streets,and residential areas. MITIGATION MEASURES (from the Mitigation.Document for The Orchards Mixed Use Development, November 1991) 1. The applicant shall, in order to reduce traffic impacts associated with the dependence on single occupancy vehicles,,provide direct pedestrian access routes from,internal residential streets to Duvall Avenue N.E. to encourage use of the proposed new transit service on Duvall Avenue N.E. Pedestrian routes to Duvall Avenue N.E. must have hard surfaces and adequate pedestrian-level lighting to provide safe use during low light hours. The pedestrian routes and lighting shall be approved by the Planning Section of the Development Services Division as part of the site plan process. 2. The applicant shall, in order to reduce traffic impacts associated with the dependence on single occupancy vehicles, also provide the concrete bases and necessary easements for one transit shelter on Duvall Avenue N.E to encourage increased use of transit. Location of the transit shelter base and easement shall be approved by Metro, the Planning Section of the Development Services Division, and the Transportation Services Division as part of the site plan process. 3. The applicant shall, in order to reduce project-generated traffic impacts, voluntarily contribute a traffic mitigation fee. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is to be established at the time of application for a Building Permit for any element of the proposed project based on the number of average weekday trips which are generated by the elements for which a Building Permit is being sought. The fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of a Building Permit. If the applicant cancels the Building Permit in writing, then the unencumbered portion of the fee plus accrued interest will be refunded to the applicant. 95054addenduin.doc;02/26/96; Page:23 • 4. The applicant shall, in order to reduce traffic impacts on internal pr:-. ;t area streets, construct N.E. 6th Street west of Duvall Ave. N.E. as a full width neighborhood collector street. The applicant shall receive a credit toward the Traffic Mitigation Fee for the value of any street right-of-way which exceeds that required by City ordinance(s). The applicant shall be reimbursed'through a Latecomers Agreement for the value of any street improvement(s) which exceeds that required by City ordinance(s). 5. The applicant shall, in order to reduce traffic impacts on Duvall Avenue N.E. caused by construction vehicles, provide temporary traffic control measures on Duvall Avenue N.E. during periods of site preparation and construction. Temporary traffic control measures and any proposed hauling route(s) shall be approved by the Transportation Services Division prior to issuance of any site preparation/building permit. 6. The applicant shall,'in,order to reduce'noise and safety impacts caused by the operation of construction vehicles on nearby residential streets, limit construction vehicle access to the site to Duvall Avenue N.E. 7. The applicant shall, in order to reduce traffic impacts caused at I-405 and N.E. 4th Street and at I-405 and Sunset by the operation of construction vehicles during peak hours, restrict hauling activities to the hours of 8:30AM and 3:30PM or submit a hauling route for approval which avoids these interchanges. 8. The applicant shall, in order to reduce the noise impacts on residential areas caused by construction vehicles, restrict construction activity to the hours of 7:00AM to 8:00PM, Monday through Saturday. No construction activity shall be permitted on New Years Day, Thanksgiving Day, the day before Christmas and Christmas Day. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS. Additional vehicular trips would be generated by the proposal which would add to the existing peak hour traffic along Duvall Avenue N.E., 4th Street N.E., and Sunset Boulevard. 95054A-1.DOC;02/09/96; Page:24 PUBLIC SERVICES SCHOOLS This section addresses the impacts of the on-site population on Renton School District No. 403. Due to the changes in population trends and changes in the status of schools in the District since the publication of the 1982 DEIS, this section has been updated using 1995-1996 figures. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The project site is located within Renton School District No. 403. Students in the vicinity of the project attend Maplewood Heights Elementary School (K-6), Highlands Elementary School (K- 6), McKnight Middle School (grades 7 and 8) and Hazen High School (grades 9 through 12). ENROLLMENT OF SCHOOLS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE Enrollment as of 10/95 Highlands Elementary 57.6_ 2727 N.E. 9th. Maplewood Heights Elementary 541 13430 144th Avenue S.E. McKnight Middle School 850 2600 N.E. 12th,Street ' Hazen High School 1046 1101 Hoquiam Avenue N.E. Source: Renton School District No. 403, 1996. They have no current statistics as to the capacity of the schools. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT • The Renton School District does not currently have any student generation information to determine the total number of school aged children'. It is anticipated that, due to the smaller lots and demographic trends, the number of students generated by the homes in Sectors E/F and G will be less than typical single family neighborhoods. MITIGATING MEASURES, (from the 1991 Mitigation Document for The Orchards) 1. The applicant shall, in order to reduce the potential impacts of increased demands placed on the Renton School District by project residents, pay the City of Renton School Mitigation Fee, if any, in effect at the time of issuance of a Building Permit for each residential element of the project. If no fee is in effect at the time, the applicant may voluntarily pay an amount determined by applying the King County School Mitigation Fee for the next closest district to the project. 95054addendum.doc;02/26/96; Page:25 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS None are expected. PARKS AND RECREATION Due to changes in the site plan and the proposed on-site recreational facilities, this section has been updated since publication of the 1991 DSEIS. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The 18 acre site is privately owned. There were two single-family homes on-site. The site.may be used at times for unauthorized recreational activities (i.e., hiking, dog walking). Recreational opportunities in the vicinity of the site include several neighborhood and community parks'within three miles of the,site, including Cedar River Community Park, Liberty Community Park, Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park, Kiwanis Park, Windsor Hills Neighborhood Park, Highlands, Neighborhood Park and Community Center and the proposed Heather Downs neighborhood park. Maplewood Golf course is also a public recreation facility near the project site. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Implementation of the proposal would generate an on-site population of about 215 residents (based upon 2.0 persons per single-family unit and 1.5 per townhouse). This added population to the City would contribute to the demand for both private and public recreational facilities. (Note: This added population figure is less than the 360 residents anticipated for the previously approved plan for 212 apartments.) In order to help meet this demand, the site plan for Sectors E/F includes construction of a 1/2 acre neighborhood park for both active and passive recreation. In addition, approximately 43 percent of the townhouse area (Sector G) would be retained in landscaped/open space areas as wetland and wetland buffers. Landscaped pathways to these active and passive areas are planned to facilitate pedestrian access. These recreational opportunities are designed to serve the 122 homes and townhomes. The proposal does not include on-site recreational facilities for the 63 multifamily units (Sector D) to be located south of N.E. 6th Street, west of Bremerton Avenue. As a result, the population generated by this portion of the development would add to the area-wide demand for recreational facilities. 95054addendum.doc;02/26/96; Page:26 • MITIGATING MEASURES (from the 1991 Mitigation Document for The Orchards) 1. The applicant may, in.order to reduce the potential impacts on existing park and recreational facilities, incorporate a system of pedestrian and/or bicycle trails in wetland buffers, portions of wetland buffers, or along drainage swales, provided that the trails not infringe on the inner 20 feet of any buffer. Trails should meet the standards of the Parks Department. The location of trails shall be approved by the Planning Section of the Development Services Division and the Parks Department. 2. The applicant shall receive a credit toward any parks mitigation fees for the value of recreational trails and park facilities constructed. The eligible trails and facilities and the amount of the credit, if any, shall be determined by the Parks Department. 3. The applicant shall;in order to reduce the potential impacts on existing park and recreational facilities, deed an additional right of way, if any, necessary to accommodate a bicycle path on both sides of Duvall Avenue N.E. The applicant shall receive a credit toward any parks mitigation fees for the value of the bike path right(s) of way dedicated. The amount of the credit shall be determined by the Parks Department. 4. The applicant shall, in order to reduce the potential impacts on existing park and recreational facilities, pay a Parks Comprehensive Plan Mitigation Fee in effect at the time of issuance of a Building Permit for each element of the project. • 95054addendum.doc;02/26/96; Page:27 _ ; UTILITIES WATER SUPPLY AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The project site is located within the City of Renton Water Service area. An existing 16-inch diameter water main is located in Duvall Avenue N.E. with an 8" line located in N.E. 6th Street. There are also water lines located within the Windsor Apartments complex. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Major improvements to the City of Renton's overall water system would not be required as part of the proposal. The proposal would generate a water demand of about 21,500 gallons per day, assuming a demand of about..100 gallons per person per day(this is less than the 36,000 gpd anticipated for the previously approved plan for 212 apartments.). According to City of Renton Public Works Department, the existing municipal water system would be sufficient to accommodate the proposal given construction of needed utility extensions. The water system plan to serve the site includes a connection with an existing 16-inch diameter water main located in Duvall Avenue N.E. and an 8" main in N.E. 6th Street. The water line would be extended to the site and branch to accommodate the,development. Under this plan, fire flow at the site is estimated at 3000 gpm by the City of Renton Public Works Department. , . Improvements by the proponents include construction of new 8 inch looped water lines within each of the Sectors. MITIGATING MEASURES None are considered necessary. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS None are expected. SEWER AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT With the construction of the Renton Highlands interceptor along the N.E. 4th Street corridor, sanitary sewer service is available to The Orchards and the past moratorium has expired. Sectors E/F and G will be served by the 12 inch mains constructed in Duvall Avenue N.E. with standard extensions within the sectors. The flows anticipated by the development of Sectors E/F and G have been calculated and incorporated into the city plans for the Renton Highlands interceptor. The total number of residents for this proposal is less than the number anticipated for the 1991 DSEIS, resulting in less impact on the sewer system. 95054addendum.doc;02/26/96; Page:28 A MITIGATING MEASURES None are considered necessary. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS None are expected. 95054addendum.doc;02/26/96; Page:29 CORPORATE OFFICE DEVELOPMI PLANNING 3380 146TH PL SE STE.450 C IT`rY VON BELLEVUE,WA 98007 OFFICE 206 462-5000 VAR 0 5 1996 FAX 206 637-7650 RECEIVED DATE: MARCH 1, 1996 TO: CITY OF RENTON FR: JOHN L. SCOTT REAL ESTATES'LAND DEPARTMENT RE: REQUESTING TO BE A PARTY OF RECORD Based on a recent public records and notices, we hereby request to become an interested party of record for the following plat application: FILE NAME/#: 63 SINGLE FAMILY/59 TOWNHOMES LOTS @ SIXTH & DUVALL BY DODDS ENGINEERS HEARING DATE: UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME Any additional information or notices of your decisions and/or recommendations can be sent to: JOHN L. SCOTT LAND DEPARTMENT 3380 146 PL. SE., SUITE 450 BELLEVUE, WA. 98007-6472 NOTE: Effective immediately, the post office box used for the Land Department will no longer be utilized. Please note our new address. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us at (206) 230-7680. QUALITY STREET 2ohnL Scott REAL ESTATE , • c t , CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 28, 1996 /ifiltp, TO: Jennifer Toth Henning ' �` •( 1996 FROM: Sonja J.Fesser Vcry F Nr p, A?e Nevi NTp� vG SUBJECT: The Orchards, Sectors E,F and G,LUA-96-010-PP Format and Legal Description Review Bob Mac Onie and I have reviewed the above referenced preliminary plat submittal and have the following comments: Note all existing easements of record on the drawing. Note if the properties to the east and south of Sector G are platted(give name of plat and tract/lot no.) or unplatted. Note the names of the streets created by the plat on the drawing. See the attached. The King County Tax Rolls list Gary and Don Merlino as the taxpayers of record for the subject properties. The owner/developer,per the preliminary plat drawing, is Northward Properties. Information needed for final plat approval includes the following: Make ties to the City of Renton Survey Control Network. See attached. The City of Renton's land use action number(LUA-96-010-FP) and the land record number(LND- 10-0307) should be noted on all drawing sheets,preferably in the upper right-hand corner. The type size for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Include a statement of equipment and procedures used,per WAC 332-130-100. Indicate what is to be set at the corners of the proposed lots. Include a basis of bearing,per WAC 332-130-050 1.b.iii. Note the date the existing monuments were visited, per WAC 332-130-050 1.f.iv. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated. Addressing information will be made available for the final plat review. February 22, 1996 Page 2 Note that if there are restrictive covenant(s)as part of this subdivision,they can be recorded concurrently with the plat. The plat drawings and the associated document(s) are to be given to the City Clerk's office as a package. The plat shall have the first recording number. The recording number(s)for the associated document(s)will be referenced on the plat drawings in the appropriate location. Note existing easements and show any created by the plat, including a reference to whom the easements are granted. The property owner's signature needs to be notarized and the signature should be proceeded with a certification and dedication block. Required City of Renton signatures are:the Administrator of Planning/Building/Public Works,the Mayor and the City Clerk. An approval block for the City's Finance Director is also required. Provide plat and lot closure calculations. Provide an updated plat certificate(dated within 45 days of Council action). Complete City of Renton Monument Cards with reference points for new right of way monuments. Because this property is located within Zone 2 of Renton's Aquifer Protection Area,the Aquifer Protection Notice needs to be noted on the drawing. See attached. The surveyor needs to stamp, sign and date the drawings. Fee Review Comments: The Fee Review Sheet for this preliminary review will be available after the City's Waste Water division receives additional information pertaining to the East Renton Interceptor project. This additional information is necessary to provide an accurate fee review. MEMO.DOT/ ,.._,A.„ ......, r ,..„.„..,...:. , ...t i:-iii•*11.' 2"U1 ' 1 7 I ' ' TRACT E3 OPEN SPACE 601 2 1310 I , , sf ,.' mo s' 1 zo- 4266 4.'13 ma , on \ ' i r2208220 3 (. 7.111. i111—4815 6—\8 fi) I I k ,‘ /1- ,,., 44 I 5523. _ / ..„ A 2 1 21 2216 "'' / - . ." t., ...._ ---' 35— — —1 • 1 n ,..,46,94 of I LIE 5r4:-. GT ...-- —-O— N —-14—„ ,______ _____?a i_2'2 j.2_3 ''N 1 43 3945 of I 103 2 7 '.., 4., \ \ 3 ' - I , /,,,,,, )/ ' • ; , 1 2983 sf ',...„„ I \ 1 85 co/ ",-, I 4 -to 1 , 53,— 52 - 51 „,,, 50 lb 2835 I. 104 2263 ef I 0 / 3141 of"'2201 er 2201 0 3569 ef I TRACT A a,, 1 81 IN L „ I :-._-1 4t, , r _J 3380 sr N OPEN SPACE Ill -L f A 52 to 6 2-' " ...1 44 • -t0F4- 165030 ef e IIN b. 4008 ef 1----———-- \---— 1---- 1 1 , 46 \ -1 ra'S ...I j•n 3480 ir ' I t.) _— ,P \ 2506 sf 11 -j\ — 11 \01 \ ---.7 ___ — --1_ 4 \ 3389 er 1 ...) 20' 1--- --- e. \,.., $ \ 13 1, 58 1 ,.., I 2094 ef \-1 4 0 261'1 ef . cd \ 99 LI) I ...1 .. tO tIsI 2341 ef j --11 I 11'3 Pa oL— 55 — \ -1 1 1; la 1 214 lef ' la ' \ 24V3ef/7/7 ' 0 2151 ef -1 k- TRACT C v' 'el 1, I so 0 / I , . \ le / \ 1820 of OF*SPACE lei / 8 .., 1 2211 or \ ', ,• --,. / 1,4,/ ' i f \ 66 I i 31 3492 sr 1 18 / \ it, / / I/ , TRACT p_.--,- / ,-- --, 1 \ /9 A9°Ar " 36 \ 4 / --. -... 0 ... 3559 sr / ---t v/ '''---. 0 , ... 94 / ...... 10,, , b Lag_ / 2i30 ef g ' 45 t1 3066 src° 11 'I/ ' (TYP) a ....... 2209 ef ' 14in ... ,'/' 0 84 2181 sf 34 • 27 --.., 3062 sr f TRACT E „..._ 27 , -----.4.._ A OPEN SPACE 3282 of /2 111 m i- i I "9 ' ----" 3.4 236.0. •,ef , '' al , • , 24,' 1.0 \.• _ 33 • te ----"i- , .....- ----\ •• 2.. : 3 . '31386 ef ,, •,, 'e--- \ Fn 1 —102 . @ Z 21 .. r 32 7 1 0 . ....- i2 r.--1 4 - 16 • ./ V--- ---/ 3998 \16 ----- • li 2341 of ., 1 P: i N 3891 ef .,- - 31 i ,• 3012 sf 1 /I I IN k. , / 63 / FO ot ' / N N ' Fr 8 N N _ il / 2652 of 2611 of I- Ns. N...- i71 i SS, 1 . 1 i U.ETLAND BOUNDARY \ 29 7-4 . ,,,, j 66 — IV' k'i STI-4• 51". 1 1". / 20 / 50 WETLAND 1669 of '21 ' 69 7 ' 2/3 o r ; \ — IFFER \t„------ Ii;-, I- , / 1 I N. I --- , / 21 ,, —_---_ 't 2845 sf erl / / _ I ,,,, Nt. , /34______.,_J//Viri / 22 23 p 24 25 es 26 r 21 r) 28 01 • • .... -AL.:I I 3491 sr 2191 ef 3652 sr ,3069 sr IP'I&,‘,/,, 1 2310 cc 2002 ef 5312 si' _zz EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS r• • 40 _i_ L T J 354 : 3 2- 43 33 I 21 21 , N88.1271'1511L1 60.2" 56 ' SECTOIR G REINFORCED ' 'BOLLARDS GRASS PAVING Owner/Developer Engineer/F=lanner/Surveyor Dodds Enefneers, Inc. Northward Properties _ I An+L-1 A,'go 1,1 C,,I..... inn ...ii,nr, - I48th AVe.riu. NI F R.420� - 5 �-i"J � -- - .5920 ----,--- 1.. 0.08 0 4_35u- � v I N80.06 �__ _ — i racr s0 NE 6rH STREETtiR, cOPEN _ � - R,4e0,00 �0' 9 29 ( 2 50 4346 eF 1 # 88'll'32"w 50 4652 of I (- ---7 5� -- 1�(.T�- r 1 _ p j' 50 90 p r S0 '" 28 N i r- 13 21 ,� r mI I I I I 1 —7 ;r , ry le In 1 4215 of I I r of r L... c I 1 I I 1 y I I (0 c - 3642 of 9 9 26 1 r m '''''''''Ill n .- 3m m i _ J L—-----;*-1 Ii. 3645 eF I 3905 of 4052 or I 23 �Ip 22 'o in 3668 of I' m ��� `L- - - I I 40561 of 3818 of I I.q I !. - L _ I r• L.-- -'_J W - 626 20 39 \\ -` -J L - - ---1 �-_._ J J L d 41 50 50 L. a i -- , S ti� I t\� is -f G+�- 4" 1., • Dw I 31 m• Ian -I .. 3,94 sf / , - 1e �a, 1 - -15 r 124�I I t -81---- � 20 68 L _ 1 I 59 r — � s U co 60 r- - m 32 I r 1, L 3656 of - 3571 of m 1 3650 sf 1 -81- --� 38' __ _ Y- -81- -J av 0 L -13 - -I r - - 1 W 1--- - -- �' r 1 58 �... —1 1 �+j 1 L - - - ' PARK m 3656 eF Im 4 m 3656 eF 1 38 a 33 I o m OPEN SPACE — -8l - - - J. u �_ m r— 'n I 3652 of I `D 94ef r - -- - -- , '.„ 61 L 3656 of m 3656 of I r- a e r 34 i r - -- - -- i r---- -- 1 W I — {V I I 516) 0 3649 of 1 ,I S L_ 3656 ef, v I 6 @ 1 N �— J •L--3563eF / r —l3 — f— ._. 81 i 20 ( 66_� "j1 Ir' _1 I_ 3 z I I 5Ti-F.'PL. (1 i nil r— in 1 30s22 sr I o /� �►. I I fak. I 1 I 9ry 21 31 31 31 _,• � I 1- -13- f --� r- 1-_ 31 41 20 68 I 3 I I I 2I 36 I 1 I I I v 3490 or I U r - ' 1 3652 of 1 2 ff _ .0 55 6 54 w 53 6 -_ is,,,,, I 3563 o I 3221 of 3221 of I 3221 of 4,, I0 I - - - - I L -l3- -I 1 1 3221 of 3416,.p[. 1 1.., I 3`• .9 i- - - - - 1 az---� L- J L ! 1 1 I 348 221 f I .m L- 3-1 3� -I �3�-J -I t -��1 11 LT- -81- - � . 1 3652 of 0 .- _ - - - 1 PUBLIC �1 T I 1 ALLEY �4` m 41 ui —13 - --42---I ,--31--1 .F--3-1- ,..: 3- ' 32,21 of I I 3' W � 38' I I I 1 -1 r + i - L l i 1 1 I 1I 1 I I r -= _- 0— `Z I '3i38ef - I I I 1 I l..~,i:a¢ : r 1 1 6 r- — 1 ,fl JI 39 tm 140 m 41 �o 1 42 Os 1 43 1 1, 1 m 32$I of I i 38 L,,3- -� 51, of 13221 of I 3221,of 1 I I 41 I 4 I '' _ 1.l-_,,--I I "• 1 3221 or 1 3�21 eF I 1 3359�f i i - I 3E i g TRACTa J �_ I I I 1 r- i -_ ' H -Nor 23 3l J L �- LJ , 1' 35 of `'3l 31 3� 41 / ,1 2 01 6<. �� I y ' I - _. 1 , 6 jI 35! 1.IE r�rt-4{ 4. ,I, 3 50 4t.. 0 /r '4 - `�I 9 50 50 50 50 ,��' r�� „Q.� �/ _ __ i i L. r— i 'I--- 1 1- - -_--I 1- - --� r - 50- , - 50 28- f\ 29 N r. I I -- _ u\14290 of r 1 2 3652 of m I 3 I I 4 I tj I 6 II -1 1 1' 1 cn L -- - J L_ — _ L 36528f JI IL 3652of-1 i 3652 of I I 3652eP I I 3652_of 11 8 ti1,.3_6:5„15_,,f. 9 y 10 - J I_--_J L_- 3652ef I I 14008ef 5 m 50 � � _ __J � 50 50 Nee•07'15"W • sm 5� so SECTORS 60601' I LEGAL DESCRIPTION The South half of the Northwest quarter of the Sou I of the Southwest quarter of Section 10, Township 2_ �_ ,, 1 INr I East, WVM EXCEPT the East 42 feet thereof for I3F = • 341w .ph;,0 44;,a;,,v,4 • ". • • . • • SS LarS 146.1--; ./i-I. FALL. AQUIFER PROTECTION NOTICE -TtftS NOTICE SHAti---SERVE-AS-Ne-TfeE---Te-ALL-HOMEOMER-S--OF-WARRENLS ADDITION THAT LOTS--1-THROUGH---16-0E--WARREWS---ADDHION-ARE--LeekTE-D WITHIN ZONE 2 OF RENTON'S AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF RENTON ORDINANCE #4367. THIS CITYS SOLE SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER IS SUPPUED FRCA4 A SHALLOW ACQUIFER UNDER THE CITY SURFACE. THERE IS NO NATURAL BARRIER BETWEEN THE WATER TABLE AND GROUND SURFACE. EXTREML CARE SHOULD BE EXERCISED WHEN HANDUNG OF ANY LIQUID SUBSTANCE OTHER THAN WATER TO PROTECT FROM CONTACT WTH THE GROUND SURFACE. IT IS THE HOMEOWNERS RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE CITYS DRINKING WATER. • 5303 ro 1 N CITY OF RENTON c M 1 c �� a 1 159 J ��Z L— SE lath PI 1845 �o — SURVEY CONTROL NETWORK i _ w Z f �� SE 113 LEGEND NE 11th l n SE NE10thPI - o 0 y 1111 NE 10th St 1' NE 10TH St Horizontal ScVertical 806' 11—' CJ ' \ I- � SE 117th 2222 C '�' SE 118th _ St Horizontal Only Ct. ,---1 D ¢ 3333 $4 <A 1849 1907 2101 u Vertical Only in E 7th "ISE]121st St 6 Ct NE 6th PI 1 6th I w i! 2090 (...) 0 a ¢ w ¢ SE 124t z 1NE5thSt � 1 • Q I I j! 0) cc 0 650 1300 ! ! I I . 15*03 NE �th St 1:7,800 •SE 128th St _�852 ri o~�Y o� TECHNICAL SERVICES • 1937 gr 12 + . + P/B/PW TECHNICAL SERVICES 1 I i�N�$ 10/30/94 PAGE { 1 U I 5310 i 5315 1894 Location: Found 6" monument case at intersection of NE Sunset Blvd. and Union Ave NE Monument: MON. IN CASE NORTHING: 56890.539 EASTING: 399704.559 ELEVATION: 1907 Location: Chiseled sq. S.E. corner of concrete base for mailboxes on west side of 142nd Ave. SE (Hoquiam Avenue NE) opposite House No. 12014. Monument: CHISELED SQ SE COR MAILBOX CONC BASE NORTHING: EASTING: ELEVATION: 144.070 1937 Location: Scribed "X" in back of concrete walk marked "ESM 1411", north side of N.E. 4th Street at west boundary of Windsor Apts. Monument: SCRIBED [X] BACK OF CONC WALK NORTHING: EASTING: ELEVATION: 123.055 2090 Location: 2" brass surface monument at centerline P.T. 138th Avenue S.E. approx. 1500' north of intersection of 138th Avenue South and S.E. 128th Street. Monument: BRASS SURFACE DISC NORTHING: .EASTING: ELEVATION: 122.342 5310-3 2101 Location: Found a 1/8"copper pin in a concrete post monument down 1.5' in a monument case at the constructed intersection of SE 120th Street& 148th Avenue SE. • • Monument: 1/8 IN CU PIN ON CONC MON, IN CASE, DN. 1.5' NORTHING: EASTING: ELEVATION: 156.060 2119 Location: Found brass disk in road surface at the intersection of SE 128th St. & 142nd Ave. SE Monument: BRASS SURFACE DISC NORTHING: EASTING: ELEVATION: 129.972 I I i 5310-4 • SECTION 10 T23N R5E W.M. 18-May-95 Horizontal: NAD 1983/91 Meters Vertical: NAVD 1988 Meters 159 NW Corner 10 T23N R5E Location: Found a 1-1/2"flat brass disc with a punch mark on a 4"x4"concrete post monument down 0.6' in a monument case at the constructed intersection of NE 12th Street& Union Avenue NE. Monument: 1-1/2 IN DISC W/PUNCH ON 4 IN CONC MON, IN CASE, DN. 0.6' NORTHING: EASTING: ELEVATION: 126.782 806 Location: Found 2"disc with punch mark on a 4"x 4"concrete monument case at intersection of NE 10th St. and Union Ave NE Monument: 2 IN BRASS, PUNCHED DISC ON 4 IN X 4 IN POST 0.25' BELOW RIM OF 10 IN MON. CASE NORTHING: 56389.156 EASTING: 399705.708 ELEVATION: 1503 NW Corner 15 T23N R5E Location: Found a 1/8"copper pin in a concrete post monument down 0.7' in a monument case at the constructed intersection of NE 4th Street& Union Avenue NE. Monument: 1/8 IN CU PIN ON CONC MON, IN CASE, DN. 0.7' NORTHING: 55189.601 EASTING: 399714.506 ELEVATION: 122.231 1845 NW Corner 11 T23N R5E Location: Found a 1/2" diameter bronze plug and a punch mark on a 3" diameter concrete post monument down 1.3' in a monument case at the constructed intersection of SE 112th Street& 148th Avenue SE. Monument: 1/2 IN BRONZE PLUG W/PUNCH ON CONC MON, IN CASE, DN. 1.3' NORTHING: 56744.950 EASTING: 401312.014 ELEVATION: 142.573 5310-1 1848 Location: Found a 11/2"flat brass disc with a punch mark on a 4"x4"concrete post monument down 0.4' in a monument case at the constructed intersection of NE 8th Court& Union Avenue NE. Monument: 1-1/2 IN BRASS DISC W/PUNCH ON 4 INX4 IN CONC MON, IN CASE, DN. 0.4' NORTHING: 55989.266 EASTING: 399708.634 ELEVATION: 125.359 1849 Location: Found a 2"flat brass disc with a'punch mark on a 4"x4"concrete post monument down 0.2' in the constructed centerline of 140th Avenue SE at the SW corner of the Mormonument church property. Monument: 2 IN BRASS DISC W/PUNCH ON 4 INX4 IN CONC MON, IN CASE, DN. 0.2' NORTHING: 55966.118 EASTING: 400504.233 ELEVATION: • 1851 Location: Found a 3-1/2"domed brass disc with a punch mark on concrete street surface at the constructed intersection of NE 4th Street(SE 128th Street) & 140th Avenue SE. Monument: 3-1/2 IN BRASS DOME W/PUNCH ON CONC ST. SURFACE NORTHING: 55162.396 EASTING: 400507.882 ELEVATION: 1.21.478 ' I 1852 NW Corner 14 T23N R5E Location: Found a 3"flat brass disc on concrete street surface at the constructed intersection of NE 4th Street(SE 128th Street) & 148th Avenue SE. Monument: 3 IN BRASS DISC ON CONC ST. SURFACE NORTHING: 55139.675 EASTING: 401307.305 ELEVATION: 138.614 5310-2 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL it DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: rip -1 4(c ' G.CO COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 4, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-010,PP,SA,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 21,1996 APPLICANT: DODDS ENGINEERS(CRAIG KRUEGER) PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNING PROJECT TITLE: ORCHARDS SECTIONS E,F,AND G WORK ORDER NO: 78052 LOCATION: 6TH STREET AND DUVALL AVENUE NE SITE AREA: Approx.18 acres 1 BUILDING AREA(gross): SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal,Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes,which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes,with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 59 attached townhomes,each located on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced,enlarged and restored as part of an approved mitigation plan. Sectors E/F would would be accessed via NE 6th Street,and from Bremerton Avenue NE;while Sector G would be accessed by a private road system from Duvall Avenue NE via NE 6th Street. An emergency access would be provided along the southern boundary out to Duvall.Garages,aprons and guest parking would be provided for the homes and townhomes. This proposal is being reviewed as a demonstration project under City Council Ordinance 4550. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Probable Major More Element of the Environment Probable Minor Probable Major Mon Impacts impacts Information Impacts Impacts Information Necessary Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light.Glere Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ HistairrCultu al Preservation Natural Resources B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10N] •• ' 6, = .::.::•::::.�::::•:::::::::::•:::::.�::::•::::::.-..:.+........ .... :}' .:::::::::::.}::::::::ryri:.ii�!•}:•::.+.rr::::r.::.:::•:.�:::::r.:!•r::rr}+:::,:.rr.....:::...:.:::.n!-+ �i /r `irr:..i: i:.:.i:.i>:.>:.}:;!.}:•}::.:�':•:•::•}i:.i:p�rr:!.i•.::t!C`!:::::t: !•:i••i>::::•:.0 TY:.:OI•:• ENT ' l�f:R 0 ii?}{r?t}:}{;{i:'?;:i::i}:•ii}}:'}i::i•:} D .. Ir' ': ':?i K ::. iii:{.} 'j:i}}ii:::!r}}}:i}:.}}:4}}}}iii:.i•r.:y}:is..... EVE OPNIEI�T.SER...CCES.DkV.15iC�N.................... :.:,.:.4:::.:::.};}:4;•! 1115 LI.S>:i>�. O.F•�: U :... . .::,,.:.:.. :....:::RIR�UND1t1[�::::�:�RO:�':E�iY.:�:i(�l�lf .....:.::............:.::::::::. .::...,!..:...v.::.:v:::..:::........:.....!4.......v.v..:.:...::.�:...:::::::::...rn..::..�4.::::::::.......:..+rr.::: .r:.:...:.. .r.r. r..;::!:.!.}}:•}}:!t:::.:!:. <:r-•.::.vt!•.• ..i..rff.}�.!1+r�4:•::!.:4;:.;.:.: rr.t..4::J:ti:}¢:?i;•;.w::: :!:77 �:!. VV:}��e. ::��i�Q•i � `:{t!!n.�+.v{tfl'iS>�!....r...: Srt r.//r:•iiil r.'lrri%•}i}SiA:!•'i{:•:..{:.}:. :........... ...... nw:::::}Sr........ :: }.iiyirl..:.v:nv'vX.}•v t{::}. :r:.....:{:r:...;:.}::!!.h}}i::if:!}:r}r:}}Y.:v:........ .n.... :5. �ii�I.Lt��. t ...{frf PROJECT NAME: 0/QC11 6F-Ep/2s 47r f APPLICATION NO: 9(o 'O10 ,SAc I PPI GT r• • • The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER l Gi . . . CI• 1996• G (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) • Continued • NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER • • • • • • Applicant Certification � I, � i C IhcOM , hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property (Print Name) owners and their addresses were obtained from: ❑ City of Renton Technical Services Records gTitle Corn an i Reco ds , Ing County Assessors Records Signed q/),..e_ ailholci 1710 f4 p Date l (Applicant) • • NOTARY ATTESTED: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington, r-esidirlg z SSACiot)A-14 on the day of %.../i4A,M¢ , ,Signed (Notary Publi CERTIFICATION ' :;:.::::.>:.;:.:.;:�:.:•.:.:::::.:.<.:;::;:.::.:.:<:.:.,,.::,::::..,.::::::::::.............. '..�.:.::.::.....:::.::.:.......:. .:... AILING': ��>' '• ?; :'�:'��:<>"� ?»�:>:::::::::> ::::>°:�:::::>:�::::>.. � .:•.: :• O hereby:certify that notices of the proposed:a Ilcatton:w ::>::.:.;>:::<::.>: ::: ..::.:.:.:.:.... ::>::».;.;:::�:.:: •. :. ..:..�;::,;.;.>;.. ..;»:>:>;::;;:>:<'�::;:::.:::.>;>::::<;>:>::;;:::;:..:;::;:::;:::<.::;;:•::>:..::..�::.....:.:.::. ... ...:.... . PP ere.matled..to�:.:::.:•;.:� each li s �;•. .... ...... ........:..:.:::::; ATT•EST..;;:Sub cribed::.and.sworn' bef r .;.. ...:;>::: :.;::.,::: .<::: :; ;.;::.::...;.:::,::<::.;.».::::;:.:.;:.;:..:::.::<::::::::>::::>..::::.::.:...::.<.;;.:.:;:o:>;.....;e;.,.•.m..:e..::,..,a::..:..N.o..t.a;•ry...;..P. ubl.i.c.:,;;>ar nd;: .. S • :. a.;•�:a�::<:::::::o: t3• liatprop.doo 6 REV 07N6 2 :ri Fletcher Wendall 1 TIBBOTT PROPERTIES LLC Michael J Hertel 380 E 4450 N 17003 NE 28th P1 14012 SE 126th St Provo UT 84604 ; Bellevue WA 98008 Renton WA 98059 Gary Merlino Dean W & Anne 0 Tibbott Gary Merlino 9125 10th Ave S 17003 NE 28th P1 9125 10th Ave S Seattle WA 98108 Bellevue WA 98008 Seattle WA 98108 Robert E Dykeman Raymond A La Blanc LEBARRON HOMES INC 14029 SE 124th St 11621 SE 47th P1 25710 212th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 Bellevue WA 98006 Maple Valley WA 98038 Robert E Dykeman Henry L Mead Sylvia L Wood 14029 SE 124th St 12424 142nd Ave SE 12255 142nd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Lyle L & Susie A Bush Annette Hicks RIBERA-BALKO ENTERPRISES 14030 SE 126th St 20548 SE 159th St 13740 SE 246th St Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Kent WA , 98042 • 1 � 206-277-4455 RE'ttN DEU SUCS/PLAN 732 P07 JAN 25 '96 10:20 . i I I .::idi�gyo: ..x. ;'ot (� '.;fit, rn!'il�'C is y' ;7x+ra 's;^,.;.,•r. ', ,}2. .•2i `�1t:kba'rx,('Sil:m<i:•'r, .4 xa.n•:,::4. :2"::,....r':E;:' 'T''''i':'. a:,.('�R:�:;��:'`•��k•§�'�i{�..'.li' .;�;i� :3�:. :;,�" SiZ;.;. x<a.ati��¢ .,a`���$�>"?..>t;A;,� �. .ra.$ ;,�,; .:o::•,•;;`E.;2.,'},rr.rs..,�%<�,. •:'�;•;�,�,•ir;;� •2S/>,1•'v'7�r..:;... ) l:e�l; �X�.!,(¢.F g.x..x:r,., �,tjx�ry. �i.� �.:E.:^ !�` ,£,;:'S,' ';r�. :�;r,:: .1���%xx.....:s. ?.<,.,o:.E.'�T {i.�,sn�: �ye;�`.;..sk; S. ..n1:;•'r�iZt:t<'+,rr .i;:::.O •:avt r+ .•it>i, T 7Z.�: `:m s?r:;•ta>'r'' <iON s. '::f rf ,,�xe :r,�i, :�.w:•:.i;..i3S:�" >4'?r f•� is.�.<.!: :';r�;:• i ai; ,.�` `yt� ii�ri����4:x•k•f::<.::q:<..��.ri�f.'•YY••' ,,,!f$.'r'�•�•�: , 7 "•�?:�:;7�.y. . a• ,:.a tS'• rrhi::'.iE .b:!v s,x..o. Y4 .HyN 7 4.gvi 1` :4 .1=, :b :Sm:, .w,:;ti'i°S?R'Sif.'{n:ri a S'{ :p,S.. hr t• tk' ri;f;�`r�: ,;7?�;.. .r.•1.;s,.��t:'.t u�t.o�iS�)S:%;.• s�Si::s:.:.�ysX<fise..x'sh.:I C•%•:►•r,.fea.;,al';4;x:i�k' ...?;iS:;..t:.3''�k''tri'�.:b: •.�::., wx'8i�e..�i:• F�f{, '.t;r `;y. <''�•:> :S.;wa>:.;e.S�'.y4:Ri,�..�:.v..teT;���tis!ii<;d:;:4:t f•�.. .•.ay:.. >b °; wlSo,' r�'�:W;�+*•.'ti, r•>•o:r r ,y�r.?�:����.,� ;!: 'ar<,. W' •i,•'•' 9 ,f ,yf�$ •.+`'.Sti: ?' �`t�/l J� ( ;, ..a.:.:.:f•:Jv2 t:5��irrS t`�F ,�,. l :ti:. o:'�+k i i :� r}i.£r yf: �.. .O.p� `,IC :j { l i:tSi`.;Y ;4. x. .4,3y.!,u•' fix% (,•t.yy;v'v:'e'r:Sro:•.R5•(3ti,'< ' ry e,,V4''•x z?3 .. .F.•r: 4i .� V.I :pp .S.:r .4. r O•,tf i <, 3,': �i'��riebv� (3;�.r, s.uk,M:�f.�#iS�: fc•`r �`+5. ..x •i'+S ���x„ � Fn,.'�S:b'r.},•;,T•ge;.(s&bM.>�,�`° Y ;f"�<.:. (IM6VP9PafrVert':M*MgSqr,:eiakt*:*j*t.:Sg.N,,biivkte d'•,'sti''•:}:'< ..s,�s:Er`,ss�:?tx. ,,'•yt,�.,,. s.°.r.r':>,'r?:fis<y:•f.s.rsEi ;>:s;•r: ,�.�;cx•?�T�;#^:.sh::3:3.:>2; 'r�s• `'%`��: .y:r. ,sr� a.: • F<, w,:('��as3.r.'^rY.���.%.ila'tS?`•>< w•� o.arS...;.,§�en5�;lr.,x p: S:Y:�.x .r�'. �.�S�e:P Rb:•';f(+.i:o'.�..:.r:t•Y:�.fti •., a rY .�x„+.:•`n,�,aIAa3 : `.:: a'� a: .e .xaex.x.;: .;R:a+,o:or';Ah..,.yy�1¢, tW ei: ,�xy:S o rr rr:..a�..i,�F',,AA;tir4r•:fi.yr >: .I+F��::;%•,:<.,xk:tr,(;?t. �tb.:,ifF,fa;•xSY.�, yS m�' y<>Fs�? v.•. '� i�:•:�e�'•�.s:ir:.f.. .a•3�:;w r.(. .:a.3R� y��?.�. >a.i.w: ,jF: A � as ?Str '�i£'1°r >,� .Sy, e.3'� � At .:.�t�� >. ':r. 'n• s.G':n.:;.( x't3 r �Sr:'•'2.'• .� �'<. yKsr,,• <,x: .a „ :'t i'xr.' a, �, it<:: 'a >••, 5 :: •a•b ii ..a f.1,e r i• 'yr".:p f'r 0 ?'• :r..<t.. !o• r?=i �^ ,.o,x ;$" .'�� is.�f?IW�4$�'�L i.;.,t�::.��^•m,..;. .��".te>YZf�tY. >tia:::::....� a r•#.v � '��.r�. ��i,b....�..,.. k5 S1t,2 4�tSr x..ta•vi:y 7,.� i�� S+r��f k er � ' "'r :f 3`°C.�,s (.� �� "k!,,.rXy.� �fs<f�s 3•. �q}t•x' ;sy�.s'ys•�i�•girt a; ('• o' :i:& xa;.. ���?'���u>"�`�°.:f �'d:?! i'k.;��k' ::•> .�. :S' a .(. �( �i:Yr:„i;;:.?�i, y, v.:Y.••�' 2•rx`.....:kk� i�.�:: :�,f;,.,o.r.:�. '.�x. :.��'�F ��. �r1:�,:a ,r ��:, :ro�t...�;,.,,Y,��.�..fe �.���.� .� :�'�Erolt' ;r4 x;.,:.b. k:: ,S .•mod:. �e?! ...1., r.Yx.< rr:?�<;Y: ��.r l'n.•;.':;I....q. ,+Ay 0 40 ,% 6S ,,ffee�� uy, :s�',. �e,,f rt k'tst S,i+ yt, ( ,y"??:,3e:5"•sr ,':s•' �� � :S a£! .?�:�; r y�'S�'•r�r,:sx:f::t;:fiKiFs.y'<i: i,'F �o'r�'•:��o ?r3t�.�ram••':a:T$�4�� ::;L,s:•irG;�i'�'r�7�YF`.3(.!k:y...�uY�i.t"9'G� N. ;,..,fit xox:ry" x?�•>t ,;.�i'ii:�...,r• �x.,et".� <. F ,;(<3�of� r, Ak�:.F ,;:•t. fie. .rb .3', "?�:•. � .y.,:. r<a�ia?X�'.• r,;,fir.� ,�.s,�.tx,r�j,: •1„>�c..f^'o[io..,:4,01:4' ;f: rb, '.fDD it .4; •6 fF. �q ' '..r,.i; b �535:>4�,:a <( ,is>. {.:,;�;; sirr`.t•�b:'t Le6' jfi�Ne i° \:R j\� (��JeeE;y r,' "fa4 (,sue�' ?�i .i:Y•;�?1L:1<;fS: � �•• �' '�f.. �•(�L_Y/•�: K;•. i �,�,>,:: "�; "•:• �.� f .t 4., rx Y. •r s,<•::r:rrx�i,sf it,0'�., ?:q::,r'4 b: >Z 144. .: ,�•r t o f.:.0 r;;.:: ••:>r� .1$4 .< a,o Y 4'Mt:..::..:,..� «• ^;;: 'i'�'sr.s:.5:it>�i r„i i:;s;.;r of .:s.:>:•f� ;(<° ..:�, <`L� .2�,(.,'.i'...�ggafi, :a'01.,'1''sx'���n`r.fx.,.�s;:o..., •�,'• 42rF { $;;�,ri;,;�•�e.•s�•3�Gf�?R:� �3�a%<(•;::..;�ts`,,S+f.,t;k,:t,#.;.;:(ft,.;,;� :T�!3zf��� ,s,.;i >.r^.:4�i�.. :<( .h2.•r;F r•2,,.>2: '�(:�?F tY.�»x .x � ��>:,x x: !�•:�4'$,s,�4'R. 1� .... . r.... • STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ' •OUNTY OF KING ) • `e„, (`a00//) , being first d ly sworn on oath, deposes and says: • 1. On the /2' day of P,✓waT • . 19 etp , I installed _ public • . formation sign(s) of the property located at ( fli aitf 1)i // Ai&. fir the following project: . Df/ra►�'� / r r-74g . • Project name • • NOVIAtdard f �Vk , . • ' Owner Name / • 2. This/these public information sign(s)was/were constructed and installed in locations in conformance with the requirements of Renton Municipal Sections 9-12-8 G and a.12-9-I 2a. af,e6 0e46C0 'ft. . • Affiant • • • ' 'S BSORIBED AND SWORN to before me this/� day0( of • , 19 /co. • • • • NOTA PUBLIC in and forth S .to of Washington, residing at .S fk My commission expires on, i 9- 9-0—9b e J . ION , .__ D DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. -."""- 4205 148TH AVE. N.E., SUITE 200 - BELLEVUE, WA 913007 PLANNA°6] 885-7877 TELECOPIER [208] 885-7963 CITY OF RENTON FEB 1 4 °NB TRANSMITTAL RECEIVED DATE g/2-14c, JOB NO TO ,A1 61( Alieltii ATTN: jetikt4Yer PtAl tfrefrinf.fy lebi Na AW ,011-- REF: t )1•Ck 1 2 0 -8.71vr-•, r /264bt Ar 749-1 -- MAIL DELIVER PICK UP OTHER PLEASE FIND: ATTACHED UNDER SEPARATE COVER ORIGINAL PRINTS COPY PRELIM FINAL CALCS DESCRIPTIONS OTHER. QUANTITY DATED DESCRIPTION ( ri--- y ArlyeAfi y (fr(**/"Aticai-i TRANSMITTED FOR: YOUR USE PER REQUEST...? INFORMATION ONLY ACTION REQUIRED: PROCESSING REPLY.. RETURN NONE COMMENTS falt adg 0( ay 9ipwCbig . CC: BY: , p____Ceet4 VI G C1 NOTICE OF PROPOSEu SITE PLAN APPROVAL ANu 'PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION RENTON, WASHINGTON A Site Plan Approval and Preliminary Plat Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: Orchards Sectors E,F and G LUA96-010,SA,PP,ECF DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 59 attached townhomes, each located on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of an approved mitigation plan. Sectors E/F would would be accessed via NE 6th Street, and from Bremerton Avenue NE; while Sector G would be accessed by a private road system from Duvall Avenue NE via NE 6th Street. An emergency access would be provided along the southern boundary out to Duvall. Garages, aprons and guest parking would be provided for the homes and townhomes. This proposal is being reviewed as a demonstration project under City Council Ordinance 4550. GENERAL LOCATION: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review Site Plan Approval Building Permit Preliminary Plat The application can be reviewed in the Development Services 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 if you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications, by mail, of the City's environmental determinations, appeal periods and/or the public hearing date(s) for this project, please contact the Development Services Division at 235-2550. Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. _ • W. . , e o' E14 • • dz— q�� ^ OI Y 40.813. . . e m e, roPe- Et1pR4p'JJO n e •-C ARDSS M .RS"E/F&,' — B[ _ 1 d � a e • 1 ` r GENMALOT.DOC '` lls.4 ,4 Tl ^,e i'i r . 11',U 4I: :ail: - .11 lri I'l a J os �� CITY F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator February 21, 1996 Mr. Craig Krueger Dodds Engineers, Inc. 4205 - 148th Avenue NE, Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98007 SUBJECT: Orchards Sectors E, F and G Project No. LUA-96-010,PP,SA,ECF Dear Mr. Krueger: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has formally accepted the above-referenced application for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on March 12, 1996. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application for environmental review. Please contact me, at 277-5586, if you have any questions. Sincerely, l Q .,€)(71\ -- -6)(•(\ L A,4/14-t4 Jennifer Toth Henning Project Manager ACCPTLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 NOTICE OF PROPOS�LJ SITE PLAN APPROVAL ANL) PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION RENTON, WASHINGTON A Site Plan Approval and Preliminary Plat Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: Orchards Sectors E,F and G LUA96-010,SA,PP,ECF DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sectors E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 59 attached townhomes, each located on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of an approved mitigation plan. Sectors E/F would would be accessed via NE 6th Street, and from Bremerton Avenue NE; while Sector G would be accessed by a private road system from Duvall Avenue NE via NE 6th Street. An emergency access would be provided along the southern boundary out to Duvall. Garages, aprons and guest parking would be provided for the homes and townhomes. This proposal is being reviewed as a demonstration project under City Council Ordinance 4550. GENERAL LOCATION: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review Site Plan Approval Building Permit Preliminary Plat The application can be reviewed in the Development Services 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 if you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications, by mail, of the City's environmental determinations, appeal periods and/or the public hearing date(s) for this project, please contact the Development Services Division at 235-2550. Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. _„_,_ _ — If -)r.77ffif;, - '."-"'--. - viritif 7'"OW-pallibi6 .^rN;^- ' i ! , _ II - r. ja a ORCHARDS s 9•• Eriea �cnialtixR —=,, - • i _ AV .4/ i -777/4':.pfiwi .,...„ ,,i; r .., %,7% ' j,"';" : . • • .' '• I. Y Z7 • I ' — ° 1 ? Ell 10 (' GENMALOT.DOC ; : .:I. _ 'j ' 1: • i . PENDING APPLICATION PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: THE ORCHARDS,SECTIONS E,F AND G/LUA-96-010,PP,SA,ECF DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards.Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for ' apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal,Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes,which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes,with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments.The applicant proposes to develop 59 attached tawnhomes,each located on its own lot.Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced,enlarged and restored as part of an approved mitigation plan. Sectors E/F would would be accessed via NE 6th Street,and from Bremerton Avenue NE;while Sector G would be accessed by a private road system from Duvall Avenue NE via NE 6th Street.An emergency access would be provided , along the southern boundary out to Duvall. Garages,aprons and guest parking would be provided for the homes and ' tawnhomes. This proposal is being reviewed as a demonstration project under City Council Ordinance 4550. ' GENERAL LOCATION: 6TH STREET AND DUVALL AVENUE NE PUBLIC APPROVALS: _Building Permit XXXX Preliminary Plat _Short Plat Conditional Use Permit _Rezone XXXX Site Plan Approval • XXXX Environmental Review Shoreline Conditional Use _Other '— Permit _Fill Si Grade Permit _Shoreline Substantial _Other Development Permit , The application can be reviewed In the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted any time prior to Public Hearings,during Public Hearings,or prior to an administrative site plan approval.Comments for Substantial Shoreline Permits must be received within thirty(30)days from the last date of applicant's Notice of Application-publication in the Valley Daily News. For further information on the application,or if you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications of the City's environmental determinations,appeal penods and/or the public hearing dete(s)for this project,please contact the Development Services Division at 235-2550. _ ,.,i 1 r?—r--•, -I "-l.L�ti'a- ._. -- �I e— =Y.Lt_ 1 ,i; „271, ? li_ - _r cis: ' ma•-' _z4'. - a�v I te Api 3 ll !r _' n1 .j,?^�'i III'ir .. /_ f—• PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. • CERTIFIC-ATION I. S ,{'16i,� S)CLL CYI , hereby certify that_ 3 copies of the above document . were posted y me in, 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on gyp.23, l•61�(P Signed: S1,11464- Jklitbnit STATE OF WASHINGTON ) • ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) • • I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 6�b 1 r �Wi ./e signed this instrument and acknowledge _ it to be his/her/their free and volunta,ryfnr tie�us�s and purposes mentioned in the instrument. o:�'a' �' Dated: 3/q6 r/` '�° c w� Notary blic in for the State of-W shi oc tb,,'` Notary (Print) M.44641--/ e • l,Ct. ...-4-4- . My appointment expires: /GJtf NOTARY.DOC 1 # •,SIR I rsn� ,C V.0 o. v' 1 r. ' yh '11, 171k t; 4.*:14' 'A. r'''',' TN., eV i,^- 1 PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: THE ORCHARDS,SECTIONS E,F AND G/LUA-96-010,PP,SA,ECF DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 59 attached townhomes,each located on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of an approved mitigation plan. Sectors E/F would would be accessed via NE 6th Street, and from Bremerton Avenue NE; while Sector G would be accessed by a private road system from Duvall Avenue NE via NE 6th Street. An emergency access would be provided along the southern boundary out to Duvall. Garages, aprons and guest parking would be provided for the homes and townhomes. This proposal is being reviewed as a demonstration project under City Council Ordinance 4550. GENERAL LOCATION: 6TH STREET AND DUVALL AVENUE NE PUBLIC APPROVALS: Building Permit XXXX Preliminary Plat Short Plat Conditional Use Permit Rezone XXXX Site Plan Approval XXXX Environmental Review Shoreline Conditional Use Other Permit Fill&Grade Permit Shoreline Substantial Other Development Permit The application can be reviewed in the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted any time prior to Public Hearings, during Public Hearings, or prior to an administrative site plan approval. Comments for Substantial Shoreline Permits must be received within thirty(30)days from the last date of applicant's"Notice of Application" publication in the Valley Daily News. For further information on the application, or if you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications of the City's environmental determinations, appeal periods and/or the public hearing date(s) for this project, please contact the Development Services Division at 235-2550. l _5 --, ,"- - ,', -_M - ra,T: -4,•— — — — ,. ... +,-• Elm. -v r. •G •'I•,i". .+' • ./%•j2/, // •�i L� :o-t.! •- p ORCHARDS S .TORS E/F 6q — &' i` r.-"' _1-,-•'", , �9f 1 i'- l 'W . I ; ' •• Gam. '... ° '? II ll•1.& 1 'f•'",-1 e ,4 8• •'1 l'RI; ' `.sS ',',i...U. li!;l III 1:i Pjl'j L-. jFP I CMTIN'S ACRE TR'AGTS . "` ..1 . o- .. - i7_-714 ' PLEASE.INCLUDE!THE PROJECT:NUMBER`.W 'C HEN,., ALLING;FOR PROFER;FILEIDENTIFIGATION Eq ,;:; ..._ . . DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. 4205 14BTH AVE. N.E., SUITE 200 - BELLEVUE, WA 98007 [206] BB5-7B77 TELECOPIER [206] 865-7963 TRANSMITTAL DATE 2/cn C JOB NO. TO gtt fee/*) - /7.010 ATTN: .4tyr /, fiefig\my 'OR AVeitoe • , REF: irA• Noloo 0a4A, 70 - - )EVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON FEB 0 6 1996 MAIL )(' DELIVER PICK UP OTHER PLEASE FIND: ATTACHED ?(.. UNDER SEPARATE COVER RECEIVE" ORIGINAL / PRINTS COPY PRELIM FINAL CALCS DESCRIPTIONS OTHER. QUirTITY DATED DESCRIPTION Merahe TRANSMITTED FOR: YOUR USE 7 PER REQUEST... INFORMATION ONLY ACTION REQUIRED: PROCESSING REPLY RETURN NONE COMMENTS / 4 CC- BY: ',06.-• /k0./7 IT >:>>:F RENT`;" >'> > >«>> < : `« L .Y..0 ;,;,;<,, .;: ...;:::.: ::.:<>.:::.:»:.....*: >.;;»:<;,,i,e.ESD. . 1 .` » >` »»>> `>»>> >>>»>>> ,.L E SE E SION : .. .EVE O.FM. NT.. RVIC S..C� UI. .. MASTEI A ....PUGATTOft :. • : : ,,,: O.. NE . S ....................................... ....... ' >:< < P:R E:CT<INF0RMAT, <: N:;:. ;::.;:;:;:;::;;:ig.t::>:::<::: n : ttach an'additio artinfe al'owne ceaa< `'>' »"" > " > EXISTING LAND USESte iftee s'moefa <ofe ea h otivneY'�<::'>:<::>:�::>>�> >rNo r:'Yei .asfer>`A � lcati n.. o NAME: C/di //' AfG7C ADDRESS: / PROPOSED LAND USES: q/ 2 4- /U ear • CITY: n�� ,f' ` ZIP: q;) Q r J �f-t. �J EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: TELEPHONE NUMBER: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: C.ON.T .GT.. ..ERSO.NIAPP.LI.CANT........ .... .... NAME: ��E✓s• �AL�i 0 a.! 1 _ i" e-$Jc j- EXISTING ZONING: ADDRESS:• .. Cv rU /kiLI � /7�� PROPOSED ZONING: CITY: ZIP: LLe✓ �'o a SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): TELEPHONE NUMBER: / ,�s� 7277 . .. PROJECT VALUE: J C 0 PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: j Gi" -?;41/ IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN AN�Y OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY FEB 0 & 1996. SENSITIVE A �E@ � KING COUNTY ASSESSORS ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 6 ., - DEVELOPMENT PL4NNING • CITY OF RENTON I 1 .............. .. ......... ......:...: .: EGAt.:DEB.CRf_•_ , O.N...OE::P.ROPERT.1f... dttach'>se a'_ _,;s.h•eet f r e:cessa.::..1.:::::.:::::.....::::::::::::::::..:: i i . , d N:.& FEE;;: >>:>i > ffi ii >>< ::: ':'=i:>.... ><>i:»:::»: » .••••:••••::::::•••••••:::<::>::::"••••::<:::"••;::::>::::•:•::•::::::...•••••••••••••::•:•::••::•••:><;::`:TYPE::•OF>APPLIC 47l. .. S ``'�:':`'ff.w e e ..................... .. ........................ ................. :>:,...„<:>::::>: ::: ::>::.:.:.:::::<::<::>::€:::: ;h`..;ck:<...II>......:::I..ca ).an:: as:tha.t:a . ..: ::-:.0 t 's. a.................. ...t .............e..:....:..::.:::::: :::::.::::: ::::::::: :.:.:. I _ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: - . . • . _ COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ 1. _ REZONE $ _ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _ SPECIAL PERMIT $ SHORT PLAT - . S= _TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ ►X, PRELIMINARY PLAT $ ,00 -SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ JO0O.00 FINAL PLAT $ • GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ . • , (NO. CU. YDS: ) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ _ VARIANCE $ (FROM SECTION: ) _ PRELIMINARY. . . . _ WETLAND PERMIT WAIVER $ _ FINAL , _ $ - ROUTINE VEGETATION — MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ - MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ — BINDING SITE PLAN $ . SHORELINE REVIEWS: — SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ i _ CONDITIONAL USE $ i _ VARIANCE $ _ EXEMPTION $No Charge i ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ 5:0,0 REVISION $ AFFIDAVIT ;>:><OWNERSHIP<'::::>:>:> <> ::<::::><::::>:»:>::i:>:::» »::<: :::<:>>> > <>>: :: ::>::>€: I. (Print Name) , declare that I am (please check'one)A the owner of the property involved in this application,_the 1. authorized representative to act for the property owner (please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing staterr;ents and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the.best of my knowledge and belief. �i I ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, srioti ',Pu blic,in ano 1 for he State of(),Q. residing at %os 1.0Nl/./ ,.•,, S (Name of Ow / epresentative) 9 , on theea.,.....C.,•• •b,i1.. (Signature of Own .Representative) °' CO w: Q. I i ature of Notary Public) ;�I.,,%\..2 oN 'c: . °iesiwwo? $• ....................................................... .....................:.. ...hi ::se. to .com .lete.d:::.4.»>Cit .::5.fa. ..:,•;:<::>:::>::>::: >::»<>::»::»::>::> ::::: i�l:t�►.�:.::::::::::::::::::: : ::. .: :E;.i<S Fl SH.P iiiiiCU LLA`�< PP `:F:P `T:P=<> . i I(V VIR<V<;� _ >'> <'<>`:::::>`:<:':>: <:>>C:if`::::1 ileNi�libet ::>::::<:<:>: ::>:::>'>:::>:':»:>:::>:�:>:>:: .... C... ... . ......::..::.:.::::::::::.::::::::::: :::..:::..:::::.�::::::::::.A.�.D :::�/.. ::.1=P.,.LI. . :: ..5.v....:.�:. .M.E:::::.MHP:::::::t�.SP:::..:A:.;:::. .:. : ::. .: :. : . ..,::: ::: .. .::: ::: .: .::.:� FE >:` `'<'s:.`:.<'`: `::::` >>i'imi <:'»'S< :<:i:'>:':: T TAL!'P 'STA` E P:.>:( Ni:It) ():4.''<>s'<:':>i:•nim ` '><:> >y :.:i ' :»:•Ei :i:•: :»:.»:::>::.>::<:>::>»:::<::.:<:::>«:::>::'r`:QTAC..�� S.....$. . . . . 0. .OS. . G ....RO .1 . [�.,: $............................................. .. . .. REVISED 2/95 i EVEL .�......,;. 0 >...0 N ER >:( )....:.:.:.:::: :..:..::...... ...:..... ...... ;>>::>>:::<::::::»<:>::P.ROJECTINEORMA. 1 ;:. . .;: ..:;:.:.:;:;:..::.:..;.;;.:;. :Note`'_•:.:ere is •:?4:Y':<:i�;:...;.: .::,If:there.;is:more:thanon`efe �al:o'w;rier>`"Iea's'eattacH:artad8tional'. EXISTING LAND USE(S): NAME: Northward Properties Vacant • ADDRESS: PROPOSED LAND USES: " • 1560 140th Ave. N.E. Single Family Residential Attached and Detached CITY: ZIP: Bellevue 98005 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: S'PN TELEPHONE NUMBER: (206) 747-1726 • PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: • PERSON%APPLICANT NAME: :Craig. Krueger/Dodds Engineers, Inc. 'EXISTING ZONING: R 24 w/Deemonstration Ordinance • ADDRESS: 4205 - 14.8th Ave NE, Suite 200 PROPOSED11jj ZONING: CITY: ZIP: Abp.( Bellevue 98007 • • SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): TELEPHONE NUMBER: - (206) 885-7877 16 acres PROJECT • VALUE : PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Orchards Sectors E & G IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: o a 6th Street and Duvall Ave NE . IS THE'SITE LOCATED IN ANY cag fi ? 'OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): ' ' - ( 1At2 •. • I 62*oci-g03+ -off 'fr. I 0 'LAC! ' �OQ'yJ-Ofp �,�NP1�1`1G I o -1ieq- 1o(0* ' I ��_;__ lDS*OC!- 1O4-q•-o�i • DEVEG-aY Boo 14 • :::: ::LEG`AL�D'E SCRIP:;I tUN<:OF'=PROPE ,��::.::>:.»;;:::>.:;..:;;.: :.. .:.: .. . RTY>:(�4ttach>se arate::sheetiif..necessar :�`:.`....,.":::.`..:.:.,:. ...:,I (waed'/v A 'GL -1 ch • • • .:;.:.;:..;: :.:.:::.::.: ::. ::. :.>:: :::»<:::>;;::<:::::.<;::<:>:.;. ::.:. .;:::: .; T. .PE..OF::4RP.LICATi• :&:>FE ...•. ec ..a .a Il.catlo n.:t es..that.a I . ::.C(t to :f•wo..::.determ( ::f . ..... . ......... • _ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: _ COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ _ REZONE $ _ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _ SPECIAL PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT $ _TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ _ CPRELIMINARY PLAT' $ -- _ SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ / _ FINAL PLAT $ GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ — (NO. CU. YDS: ) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ _ VARIANCE $ (FROM SECTION: 1 _ PRELIMINARY _ WAIVER $ _ FINAL • _ WETLAND PERMIT $ ': . _ ROUTINE VEGETATION . . MOBILE HOME PARKS: -;$ MANAGEMENT PERMIT . _ BINDING SITE PLAN • $ . . SHORELINE REVIEWS: _ SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ _ CONDITIONAL USE $ _ VARIANCE $ _ EXEMPTION $No Charge ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ REVISION $ I, (Print Name) P c.Ic &1IY it1 , declare that I am (please check one) ,the owner of the property involved in this application, > the authorized representative to a or the property owner(please attach proof of authorization), 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. Dick oy • ATTEST: Subscri,ed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public,in and for the State of &Sil j frAesiding at (Nam wnl'r/" % :rese .tive) sue( n the.2�Id y of ( - / 7 (Signature o Ow.- 'e�resentative) nature of Notary Public) . • 0 : 'i g(Thls::section o: ........ :.:;:.;.... . :� :.. : .;;:.;::: .: . :...: . .. ::...::..::::.::..:.:...::: :.....: completed:b :..Clt ..:.Sfaff. ..:;;::.:::.:::...:.:::.::.:.:<..<:..:.::.>:.:;.;.:::.�.::::::.:::.;:::::::::::::::::::: :.;..::.:. ::.:....:.: Clt .�: . :Number..:>�<�:� ..: ,.:�:~�.;l�;.L�:.:::::;::<:: .:> :.>;: .><<: ::: . . :>>:>>. :.:.;::.;�. .: ... ...:.:.::. ..:::� ::.. �A I .::.:.. :ECF:::;;:SA:..::.R...:.SFiPL.:,:CU:»;:.::.:. :<::;: >:::::;. :;:.;:.>.. ::.>:::. :;:>«: ;»::>:�;<:::<::.;;:::>:. :::.>::: ....... .........:... ::.:::::.:::..:.::::..:.:.::.::.>:::.:<::;<;;:>•::<;:;:;:.;..;::....::::.;:.. ..:... ....,..:..:::. OTALP.OSTAGE.P..R . . .... : .::::::::.:._:::.............:.::::::::::..............:::::::.._::.... REVISED 2 9 5 • :;••::::::...:...:,..:::::::::::;:.:.:.:;:•;:c::::; :s::: .....s;::;:.:::.:: .:::':'::.:::x:;:?::;:>:.::;:::::;:;:::.::::;,;:»......;:::::; = e= DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING Ms. Jennifer Toth-Henning January 29, 1996 Planning/Building/Public Works Department DEI Project No. 95054 City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Narrative Statement Sectors E/F and G, The Orchards Dear Jennifer: Per the Demonstration Ordinance adopted by the City Council, we are submitting plans for both site plan and preliminary plat approvals for Sectors E/F and G. The intent of these plans is to demonstrate the types of neighborhoods that can be created for properties with the Planned Neighborhood Residential designation in the City's Comprehensive Plan (R-24 zoning) and to demonstrate some flexibility in these standards. The concept for Sectors E/F (bounded by Duvall Avenue N.E., N.E. 6th Street and Bremerton Ave. N.E.) is to create a neo-traditional neighborhood with a total of 63 traditional and cottage homes, focusing on a small private park. The traditional homes are situated on lots that are approximately 50 feet wide and 73 deep (±3650 s.f) with garage access from the internal public street. The cottage homes are accessed by way of a public alley with their entry facing toward the public street. The lots are approximately 37 feet wide and 87 feet deep (3200 s. f.). The intent is to create an attractive streetscape by reducing the visual impact of the garage through alley access for the cottage homes and through the garage placement of the traditional homes. The streetscape will focus on the front doors and porches of the homes instead of the garages. There are two points of access into Sectors E/F, one from Bremerton Avenue N.E. and another from N.E. 6th Street, which focuses onto the landscaped private park. A series of grid streets and alleys then provide access to the homes. The streets have been designed to provide street trees on both sides with 8 foot deep planter islands and sidewalks on one side and a landscape strip on the other side. There are landscaped "neckdowns" at the intersections to reduce the hard surface and to provide a tree canopy. There are also landscaped areas at the entries and along both Duvall Avenue N.E. and N.E. 6th Street to create an attractive streetscape along the edges. The sidewalk along Bremerton Avenue N.E. has been attached to the curb to create a landscape area within the street right-of-way. The homes will be two story in height and will transition down along the street to provide the appropriate residential scale and massing. Both the traditional homes and cottage homes are designed as "zero lot line" homes where useable side yards are created through reciprocal use easements. In this way; the resident will still have private yards on the smaller lots. The traditional homes will include an attached two car garage with additional parking on the garage apron. The cottage homes will include an attached two car garage. Guest parking will be provided on the internal public streets. The total number of parking spaces is as fo v6E111ED Traditional homes garage spaces - 76 Traditional homes garage aprons - 76 FEB �996 Cottage homes garage spaces- - S0 On street guest parking spaces - 37 DEVELOPMENT PLANNINGTotal - 239 (3.8 per d.u.) CITY OF RENTON 4205 148TH AVE. N.E., SUITE 200-BELLEVUE, WA 98007 (206) 885-7877 FAX: (206) 885-7963 -4 01/29/96 Ms. Jennifer Toth-Henning Pg: 2 Open space will be provided in Sectors E/F in a variety of forms from the neighborhood park to the private open space on each lot. The open space/lot coverage tabulation is as follows: Total Site Area E/F 384,608 s.f. Bremerton Avenue R/W Dedication -18,400 s.f. Net Site Area 366,208 s.f. Building Coverage 83,000 s.f. 23% Public Street 63,300 s.f. 17% Drives&Walkway 27,500 s.f. 8% Common Open Space 41,700 s.f. 11% Private Open Space 150,708 s.f. 41% 366,208 s.f. 100% It should be noted that the building coverage per lot is approximately 35% for the traditional homes and 40% for the cottage homes. In regards to transportation related requirements, Bremerton Avenue N.E. will be widened and improved to City standards as part of The Orchards overall development. A bus stop pad will also be installed along Duvall Avenue N.E. to meet Metro requirements. The remaining perimeter streets have been improved. The site for Sectors E/F has been cleared per the previously approved plans for The Orchards. The concept for Sector G (east of Duvall Ave. N.E. and south of N.E. 6th if extended) is to provide 59 for-sale attached townhomes on fee simple lots, accessed by way of a private street system. The townhomes area accessed by a narrow private drive that aligns with N.E. 6th Street on the west side of Duvall Avenue N.E. The private drive (with gated entry) crosses a narrow extension of the on-site wetlands then proceeds to loop through the townhouse neighborhood and terminates in a landscaped cul-de-sac. An emergency vehicle access lane is provided at the southwest corner of the site per the previously approved plans. A series of landscaped pockets have been placed along the internal private drives to create an attractive streetscape and reduce the impact of the garages. The townhomes are both one and two story in height with attached one or two car garages. As with the single family homes in Sector E/F, the massing of the townhomes will transition down to the street at the ends of the buildings to provide an appropriate scale to the buildings. The number of townhomes in each building varies from two to four per structure to provide variety along the street and along the edges. The townhomes have been designed to fit the contours of the site and to focus onto the large wetland adjacent to Duvall Avenue N.E. Guest parking is provided throughout the site in parking bays, resulting in the following parking tabulation: Garage spaces - 89 (assume 50% 1 car, 50% 2 car) Aprons - 96 Guest parking - 14 Total - 199 (3.4 per d.u.) The townhomes in Sector G will require the improvement of Duvall Avenue N.E. along the frontage, with no additional public road or transportation improvements. 01/29/96 Ms. Jennifer Toth-Henning Pg: 3 The site currently contains a large wetland along the edge of Duvall Avenue N.E. This wetland will be enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of the mitigation plan approved by the City. It will serve as a regional stormwater detention pond and as a visual buffer between the townhomes and Duvall Avenue N.E. The wetland will serve as a major passive open space component for Sector G and will feature a pedestrian trail (within the buffer) from the north end of the site to the south. The open space/lot coverage calculations are as follows: Net Site Area 399,428 100% Building Coverage 83,000 21% Private Streets 46,300 12% Driveways/Walkways 23,500 6% Common Open Space 171,200 42% Private Open Space 75,428 19% Total: 399,428 100% The townhouse lots will be approximately 33 feet wide and 80 feet deep (2,640 square feet) resulting in a building coverage per lot of 45%. The following uses currently surround Sectors E/F and G of the Orchards: North - Sectors A, B, and C of The Orchards with single family homes and townhouse condominiums and the proposed multifamily development, Forrest Creste. East - Undeveloped large lot residential. South - Proposed commercial use, day care facility. West - Apartments. Please call us with any comments or questions you may have regarding this narrative statement Sincerely, DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. ///,/, Craig J. Krueger Director of Planning DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. ®�- CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING NORTHWARD PROPERTIES, INC. ORCHARDS SECTORS E/F & G CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION The following narrative highlights the key components of the Construction Mitigation Strategy and Plan for development of SECTORS E/F & G of The ORCHARDS Preliminary Plat proposal. 1. Proposed Construction Dates Begin Date: Spring/Summer of 1996 End Date: As appropriate within the constraints of the real estate market. Phasing of Development: The phasing of the development will be contingent upon the specific conditions of the residential real estate market. Construction phases are typical 2 or 3 buildings per phase. 2. Hours of Operation: Short-term noise impacts will result from the use of construction and building equipment during site development and home construction. These temporary activities will be limited to normal working hours, 7:00AM TO 6:00PM. 3. Proposed Hauling and Transportation Routes Hauling and transportation is anticipated to be minimal due to the sites existing/partially graded condition. 4. Measures to minimize impacts during construction Noise: Building construction will be performed during normal daytime working hours. Construction equipment should be equipped with muffler devices and engine idling time should be kept at a minimum. Air: The Washington Clean Air Act requires the use of all known, available, and reasonable means of controlling air pollution including dust. Construction impacts will not be significant and can be controlled by watering or using dust suppressants on areas of exposed soils, washing truck wheels before leaving site and maintaining gravel construction entrances. Erosion: A temporary erosion control plan will be developed and implemented. Appropriate measures include siltation fences, temporary siltation ponds and other measures which may be used in accordance with requirements of the City. F CEWED FEB 2 1996 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON 4205 148TH AVE. N.E., SUITE 200 - BELLEVUE, WA 98007 (206) 885-7877 FAX: [206) 885-7963 . • „, . . w ,y a ,-• , I 'a,6 I SM•.i ontrie1 405 7.62 Ac I i^ 1' �''n nilm ■ Gilbert Lash 5.01Ae. �l I : N ■ n Y' o: © ) I11 'esf Yaf s„o - :_—_-----gin,_. - _---- •' --c.--i`-_�- -nt or t I r mu era +' •+w. r +JI{�LI -,a-p_ f yD_L„ :—g1M_u? 57.J—_ 0_—_- s NI 1 D)Mo 0�.1 DI 01t� 1 j c I •'W 1• rsr -O8 1 F. 0® Qa .$ • 'al- IS ® ® ®® ® �t�f4 • I• ^ _ IS �, InA. . •. ourL: 5 pv,-44 C"'<Ii MC F o * 1 aask�1i'9 Lneal 4Mo1 ' .N® 1•1•r� - 1.4. / • +1a rn I_i i<ne.i o.ar.•<r.a ve{Ac. JV a •F 2!ST ST a =rt-a S.E. 12IST tr..�a 1 .. I 4 ., II- rL:-•1 HoI 7R�7-t ,�aL,2 wY '® Fri Z ' Hs •21.2). 1" n r .lT y 41:0?bi F 13405. 4;42-- 44 L+..3 Vane. r.n.•w J Bonds ).. A.' Ac 3_'CS_.� n ■ �I 3 . 1- c 49 '0 '3-9" y� � yam,n. y o1•Ac VJ�.,p- li W CC)Act a 4 Franc.. ® �w a r,rr.,,.•cen,,.,- e..•o.w,.• ® E '8 ® I Ae.�� I3 UNION !70 uau uro Mal 1 1113 Ac a a a _ CO{OuIrTSN1Ur Sw•.• M•rrn bpi w W t I �• ry �f� py y (� 101Aci _ • * f I�7 0e1 '^ 'a r �>�w y(% rtc ®x San••1 onr..ar M)c e e '- A 9 • • �[•�� I 2..5 AC 12) I��c aL y aw4 �.�11 F 0 Ac Y onn "-I ®® IA "� U T • Nln'N•�ii Jr:: ® nau 0 f•Inll• 11 gear aww • lw • Mid ww orn Art a Semel District {01 'I 71r00• ow Ac a j .S tort s,..tn - 7 M Ac et ,� MN 2.{7Ac Oft N. ty = E. Beans Cral9 .7 r f • qq4 W * Bo.c[lilt"' • 42 -----r.Y-f !2...4�lr•T----f�'NJ✓C[-+�».--•—0 Q] -�O. (� . .E<1 Q MU Y WO 1 y•• _ r<yA Ilan e -1'• .•^��`7yr�f Y+la .. ( C W II -s 2.)TAC is U.y r/II•ul c O //// 'C 0 �lII.V^•[II `C! ,•., ®2 r.1.r ohAl ■IC..., so Ac s /�6 .,! J :Sf A/ •/� `u) on. iMo-®P Ac ®V / on ` 6•err w CQ A, C •N..��C • / .yf III I 0.7Ac Ue; R '•• © i �® ate C Et1 0 O OU4 ) • r C DY St• ■��/ tF aj/ OU f� 10•: 1�1� ��. ��[ w.�n••j•.11�1 I o I � !T A.rl d ofYC 444 it.0 : a .Y�Oau eut _; A. . / . / I a.•wul M.W.T.. . J , ..11 I rw C•.w /�� 1 !o (fie; 1� all�Ms tk •./aiai4 ' 6 I. .•• s. o ! M ,rl {�f 1C : S wml�Ac I` I N orA<• ® / ` (((buy Bak e y y 1 y re B '' rA {!•A _A.J{�w-' 1,114:0 _7 s r ! ^ ■■■■ . A 0 ® o uAct r l - III : 1 144ki d 0 2 1 1• I.I.. _ ,i 18. r ,a j .. 1 r '. raw " 1N4 3 •) ■ fir 'C ••r I� a • a ��� �rR )A .. e a n 3 l @Auk 0 r •1 Y a F 1 "'N! 1/.$ t a ... 41 .o _ la._°® a id' �.�' . 'a�` © mot. ig1 94'$ l �c ' li•.=°�amKE: r4TN.'�SL '� a '• b, �7 6i 717 M. n..nwar Y ,o, w v S. 2QF1 •'73a s�3T."s+fr -+fId-116 s = R,i, ^l�--^. u'° � I ill., w J7�1 _ CI otyA{. a • Y ••. o.., •-p u)t; 8 4181 el.• �I��Ei;:Y�' Y .r,. •`�_ i it .....t1 - js2: i l ��` is.' I I later'• • L>l Ofl^ ,r. , j I I .?li •11, .a o e i 1i _ f.a.r.•u r• `�i�_. as a Yr. ;Ta.•. i a_ AIAc{e7.. + I I 121 0. .: cVo Ae S > ,.� { e einr , aI a — ,p I f•Y/fMr ae...:r. ••si. 2 # 3 rul_ 4 r' I. Q x© -=© r• s 1• ..,.oaf T I. cl =Q "aI O ! -.,..1 , =-_:c I Is Ac dr. �; L���JJ11�v�j�.. s:„„„...I•• ! i n 1 w.A.AI.Y 'a wawa ® r ! I V9�V i� _• T' ! 9 I 7•S Ae f ••,re, C•.n.,•r<..1 $ Lane C Megs#r 4 SA AC l' ?-,!P • N S ACRE TRACTS l i «r:•,,.- .14Ac �. — ,r rS a g a c)1At • I h ,7 1 r. •`1V� • h 9 7 4r a 9 .I f•{rM{0 ' U•s400u S �� !lN�tEORDED�M 3 I' •�S1A{ in I . a- _--F`.^___ a LIwa]a]r..e•w A ObY !4° I IN �_} pg�=0�f��t}�,11�19� :l n .O Il• .�C 2{)AC 3 I . © �\ RN Mm�67, 4S4 Ac i. FEB 2. 1996 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF FIENTON ® P� DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. - CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING Ms. Kayren Kittrick .. February 2, 1996 Public Works Department DEI Project No. 95054 City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Subject: The Orchards, Sectors E,F and G Detention Calculations Dear Kayren: Enclosed are portions.of the original overall storm drainage, calculations for.the Orchards site. Included in these calculations are the areas of Sectors E/F and G. The current development proposed on these parcels differs in concept from the original design, so I have prepared this comparison between the original and proposed land uses. As you are aware, the detention volume required is directly related to the amount of impervious area on a site. In order to verify that the design volumes in the original design are adequate for the modified land use now proposed, I have calculated the amount of impervious area to show that there is not an increase which would necessitate adding more storage volume. The original calculations assumed a tributary basin of 23.3 acres which included all of sectors E/F and G, as well as part of sector C and N.E. 6th Street. The total impervious area was 10.4 acres. The new layout for sectors E/F has an impervious area of 4.0 acres and Sector G has 3.5 acres. The portions of sector C and N.E. 6th Street that are part of the original basin 'Y' account for 2.8 acres impervious. This is a proposed total of 10.3 acres, which is slightly less than the design acreage of 10.4. Since the proposed developments are hydrologically comparable to the design basin, the detention facility, as designed, will be adequate. If you have any questions or comments please call Ed Jones or me at 885-7877. Sincerely, CEIV:NDNIN DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. �oF� As 4 , µ, 2 1996 rt � G I. /F4 DEVELOPIVIEN " CITY OF RENroN Gary R. Sharnbroich, P.E. ssI• s O��titi';- ,_ONAL E Project Engineer/Associate (EXPIRES 12/28/ q7 1 4205 1 48TH AVE. N.E., SUITE 200 - BELLEVUE, WA 98007 (206) 885-7877 FAX: (206) 885-7963 - D DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING STORM. DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS FOR I , THE ORCHARDS ' I Renton, Washington tt 1 I • I `.. .. rti Prepared By: Gary 3 . Sharnbroich, P.E„ ` ' ' Approved 13y: Edgar 'I ., Jones, P.E. • / D.E.]. Project No. 88008t r "y 4 FJa EF 12/28/ J 4.4.94 4205 1148TH AVE. N.E., SUITE 200-BELLEVUE, WA 98007 [206] 885-7877 OR 454-3743 FAX:[206]885-7963 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT B. PROJECT OVERVIEW C. ONSITE DRAINAGE FEATURES 1. Existing 2. Proposed D. CORE AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS 1. CR#1 - Discharge at the Natural Location 2. CR#2 - Off-site Analysis 3. CR#3 - Runoff Control 4. CR#4 - Conveyance System 5. CR#5 - Erosion / Sedimentation Control Plan 6. CR#6 - Maintenance and Operation 7. CR#7 - Bonds and Liability 8. SR#1 - Critical Drainage Areas 9. SR#2 - Existing Master Drainage Plan 10. SR#3 - Master Drainage Plan 11. SR#4 - Basin and Community Plans 12. SR#5 - Special Water Quality Controls 13. SR#6 - Coalescing Plate Oil/Water Separators 14. SR#7 - Closed Depressions 15. SR#8 - Use of Lakes,Wetlands or Closed Depressions for Peak Runoff Quantity Control 16. SR#9 - Delineation of the 100 Year Floodplain 17. SR#10 - Flood Protection Facilities for the Type 1 and 2 Streams 18. SR#11 - Geotechnical Analysis and Report 19. SR#12 - Soils Analysis and Report E. ONSITE DETENTION CALCULATIONS 1. Preliminary Routing Summary 2. Existing Site Hydrology a. West Basin b. East Basin 3. Existing Upstream Offsite Hydrology a. West Basin b. East Basin 4. Developed Site Hydrology a. West Basin b. East Basin 5. Hydrology Analysis a. West Basin b. East Basin F. BIOFILTRATION DESIGN CALCULATION 1. Biofiltration Swale Summary 2. Biofiltration Swale Calculations G. WETPOND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN CALCULATIONS H. LEVEL 1 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 1. West Basin 2. East Basin A. TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT • THE ORCHARDS SITE PLAN APPROVAL Page 1 of 2 CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE PLAN King County Building and Land Development Division TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET PART 1 PROJECT OWNER AND • PART 2 PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT ENGINEER AND DESCRIPTION Project Owner Northward Properties Project Name The Orchards Address 1560 140th Ave NE Bellevue Location Phone (206) 747-1726 Township 23N Project Engineer Edgar T. Jones, P.E. Range 5E Section 10 Company Dodds Engineers, Inc. Project Size 6 2• 3 AC Address Phone 4205 148th Ave NE Bellevue Upstream Drainage Basin Size 114 . 2 AC (206) 885-7877 PART 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION PART 4 OTHER PERMITS = Subdivision 0 DOF/G HPA = Shoreline Management = Short Subdivision 0 COE 404 0 Rockery • 0 Grading IO DOE Dam Safety = Structural Vaults E Commercial FEMA Floodplain Oi Other 1X1 Other. Site P3 an Apprnva1 I XI COE Wetlands = HPA Preliminary Subdivision PART 5 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Newcastle Drainage Basin LnwPr CPrlar River • PART 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS = River 0 Floodplain 0 Stream [X1 Wetlands Critical Stream Reach = Seeps/Springs Ix I Depressions/Swales 0 High Groundwater Table O Lake = Groundwater Recharge Steep Slopes 0 Other = Lakeside/Erosion Hazard • PART 7 SOILS Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential Erosive Velocities Alderwood 1% - 20% MndPrat'P Norm. Sandy Loam 1% - 6% Slight Everett 2° R 1 i ght- E Additional Sheets Attatched 1/90 Page 2 of 2 King County Building and Land Development Division TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET PART 8 DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT El Ch.4-Downstream Analysis Reduce existing flow rate for selected design Q storm — see report for specifics O O O a El Additional Sheets Attatched PART 9 ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION ® Sedimentation Facilities IT Stabilize Exposed Surface ® Stabilized Construction Entrance al Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities ® Perimeter Runoff Control f Xl Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris O Clearing and Grading Restrictions LE Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities ® Cover Practices 1 Xl Flag Limits of NGPES . ® Construction Sequence I Other O Other PART 10 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM • in Grass Lined Channel O Tank O Infiltration Method of Analysis © Pipe System f-1 Vault O Depression SBUH PC I Open Channel fl Energy Dissapator El Flow Dispersal Compensation/Mitigation O Dry Pond L?I Wetland O Waiver of Eliminated Site Storage ® Wet Pond O Stream O Regional Detention Brief Description of System Operation Fxi stizvj on�-i 3-,P wPf 1 a nd 0,_-ilsed f nr_rl.Pt. .1-;4,1; pipe collection system to biofiltration swales prior to wetlands; npPn Facility Related Site Limitations channels. 1-1 Additional Sheets Attatched Reference Facility Limitation PART 11 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PART 12 EASEMENTS/TRACTS i • (May require special structural review) f l Drainage Easement O Cast in Place Vault O Other lX1 Access Easement O Retaining Wall pci Native Growth Protection Easement O Rockery>4'High fX] Tract El Structural on Steep Slope El Other PART 14 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER • I or a civil engineer under my supervision have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the 4 ! 11 ��p� attatchments. To the best of my knowledge the information provided �;+,l:Ysri i 4— 7 here is accurate. 1 ifign,dD,,, 1l N0 B. PROJECT OVERVIEW B. PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed project area is approximately 62.3 acres located south of N.E. 8th Street, east of Union Avenue N.E. and west of Duvall Avenue N.E. within the City of Renton. The project site is currently undeveloped except for a small number of single-family residences. The project proposal is for development of the site in a combination of multi-family units, single-family residential lots, single-family townhomes and a small commercial complex. Public and private roadways, parking and recreation areas will be developed in support of the above units and lots. We have prepared these documents in accordance with the Orchards mitigation agreement, the King County Storm Drainage Manual, the predesign meeting on December 19, 1991, and subsequent design meetings and discussions with City of Renton staff. The main points are summarized below. 1. The west basin detention would be provided in Wetland #1 (to be enchanced). Offsite runoff will be directed to a wetland swale traversing the site before entering Wetland #1. Onsite flows shall be biolfiltered prior to entering the detention system. Biofiltration facilities may be located within the wetland buffered areas. Access roads shall be provided to all facilities for maintenance. 2. The majority of the east basin detention would be provided within Wetland #7 located in, the southeast portion of the site. Detention shall be provided for the 2 year storm within Wetland #3 central to the site with provisions for overflowing the 100 year storm event. Wetland #4 central to the townhouse portion of the development would also be available for detention. Biofiltration and access shall be required as stated for the west basin. • j _ 2. EAST BASIN The east onsite basin is 45.9 acres in size. The entire east basin combines to discharge to an existing 36 inch culvert at the south property line within Duvall Avenue NE. The north-central portion of the east basin has five depression areas within it. These areas are thy during the summer months, but contain water within the wetter winter months. All existing hydrograph generations assumed the conservative condition that the depression areas were thy as an initial condition. On and offsite hydrographs were routed through these depression areas for establishing the same discharge requirements as stated above for the west basin. A portion of the detention was provided within wetlands #3 and #4 with the major portion being provided within Wetland #7. Water quality facilities include a wetpond east of Wetland #3 with additional biofiltration swales dispersed throughout the site. C. ONSITE DRAINAGE FEATURES :i1.t b11{I�'ii�s��1 e'Yr.•�.� � - �� � '...' ..�� , i ...,....1_..`...w�.,.�a..._r._._,.............. � ..,,......_.�..,._�,__-.._,....�__.<_......_.,..y.,..._.-.e_i�,. 1...,e:e1a......�:..,.,,�i....,....,._._.,.,_:t....,�. �..4-a. ._ `_ V ..,r, r .r .. v..1,.:•-r :,...1��:.._e......,rs..�..��uF C. ONSITE DRAINAGE FEATURES 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is divided into an east and west drainage basin. The east basin is approximately 45.9 acres, all tributary to the 36" CMP discharge at the south end of the site on the west side of Duvall Avenue. The north portion of the basin contains a .'series of interconnected flat depressions which are!. dry during the summer months, but hold water during the wetter months. Some of the depressed areas have been classified as wetlands. Approximately 30.1 acres of offsite area to the northeast are tributary to this portion of the site. The runoff makes its way through the depressions, travelling generally to the southwest and then changing direction back to the southeast to a roadside ditch on the west side of Duvall Avenue, flowing to south. There is another large wetland in the southwest portion of the basin, east of Duvall Avenue. Offsite runoff from 13.2 acres flows through this wetland along with the onsite area, and is intercepted by a ditch along Duvall Avenue. This ditch also conveys runoff from another 24.4 acres of offsite area, as well as the runoff from the north portion of the onsite basin which crosses Duvall in an 18" culvert. At the south end .of the site, the ditch is picked up by a 36" culvert crossing back across Duvall Avenue to the west. From this point the remainder of the east basin is also intercepted and the flows continue offsite to the south in a 36" CMP pipe. The west basin consists of approximately 16.9 acres of onsite area, with 46.5 acres of offsite area tributary to it. Runoff from the offsite area, as well as a small portion of the onsite area, flow into a small depression just south of N.E. 8th Street. It then continues to the southwest in a well defined flat channel that intercepts the majority of the remaining basin runoff. The channel itself has been classified as a wetland area. It flows offsite near the center of the basin and continues to the south, just to the west of the site. Runoff from the strip of area along the west property line sheet flows offsite across rear yards and is intercepted by the channel. Approximately 4.5 acres of the basin in the southwest corner of the site are tributary to a more defined discharge point in that corner, which also leads to rear yards of adjacent properties. 2. DEVELOPED CONDITIONS: The proposed development will continue to maintain the existing east and west drainage basins. Drainage from offsite basins will be collected in tight-line systems and conveyed either through the onsite detention/conveyance systems, or into the conveyance system in Duvall Avenue leading directly to the site discharge point. For the west basin, the development runoff from this onsite area will be collected via a network of catch basins and conveyance piping. Prior to discharging, the drainage will be directed to a 'T' type oil/water separator and then to one of a number of biofiltration swales. The existing channel that traversed the site .will be replaced with a large grass-lined swale, conveying the offsite runoff through the site, prior to entering the detention/wetland facility and ultimately discharging to the existing offsite channel downstream. The onsite runoff will discharge from the biofiltration swales into the wetland enhancement area located in the western area of the single-family development. The wetland enhancement area will be bermed along the south side and affixed with a storm drainage control structure, to double as a storm water detention and treatment basin. The development in the east basin is to be comprised of commercial/office, townhomes, multi-family and single-family. The collection system will consist of the same type of features as described for the west basin. The existing broad swale traversing the basin will be replaced with a grass-lined swale in combination with three existing wetlands which will be enhanced. Flows from the 30.1.acres of offsite area currently entering the north portion of the site will be conveyed directly into the enhanced central wetland. Several onsite sub-basins will also discharge into this wetland after flowing through biofiltration swales or wetponds. A control discharge structure will allow a minimal depth of storm drainage detention in this wetland before the drainage enters the large grass-lined swale. The swale winds to the southeast through the proposed townhomes and into another smaller enhanced wetland within the townhome development. More of the onsite runoff will also be directed into this wetland, following treatment in biofiltration swales. This wetland will be used for detention as well, with a control structure discharging into another section of grass-lined swale flowing southeast to the intersection of Duvall Avenue and N.E. 6th Street. Biofiltration swales and conveyance pipes also converge to this point where a 24" culvert will cross Duvall to the east. The culvert leads to the large enhanced wetland in the southeast corner of the site. This wetland is to be used as the main detention facility with berms placed along the north, west and south sides. The 24.4 acres of offsite area which currently contribute runoff to the roadside ditch in this area, will be intercepted to the north- in the conveyance system in Duvall and will bypass the detention pond. The control structure from this enhanced wetland will discharge to the existing 36" culvert crossing back under Duvall to the west. The bypass system also is directed to this pipe. The total combined flow then continues to the south off of the site. (RENTON( Joins sheet 5) AmC ISSAQUAH'2 MI. t� 1 680000 FEET 122°O7'3C , l ; 1 � I • __ ,E • f:.rt:.'c .'▪ • �.i . 1 ® ; , ? r. . - , • •y ^ .y'7'4 • :L':-;• `:..V:• . ee 0II• .s_---' i; �e1 r i I t'y,_�y • Y.y • � ' _ U., I 1 K" •:lf • i 1,11 '� L I • 1 , • r • • • � , ■. / � :•�� � j ; ;, , .. :.fr; ' 6 .n ` 7{ $gh1an. '4c Ili : —a .. - 1• A c ,� D. „!;do af.,, ; \▪"•;•••-••k.74 ::. *prig : -9 :.:,7,• :I i - 1 id,4,-;..mr...4/40 ,,,.H.-15-.- ,, .. . .1 • 91.5 ...„:„,.....).:•;;•!....."..I.E.. •;?:::::„41.....w.7,:f•• •,,-c. AgC % �l. ' I Mill I •' II I• •.• — ( • A6'B • 'Si.• 1.'''/r'• ir • • -�� ; 1 �1 �•�ark.. T I = pri u' ;8 •u8M • : • , .. • - _, 9 '� ' I• • 3 " 424 . .• - - ";52t6 `;y: Greenwood Ce n •• •. ' ' i ' , EvD t• } - fI • +�/ _ - ,•■ FEE _r - • ••' AgC •. I' } yti4.1•12P-Y-.:',, 1 GRAVEL 'PIT O`II 11 • �aJ•'.: -'4}''y l:;t\ I '. „J,•1,+. .,_� _• ' i, ` ?P I `' ;/ I I kFI �••' `'�•••• ,'., • s •,ii 'gyp , h?C • Urorik\ii\41/4.7q„.l Ufa. .4" ....., '.:I €d• _ • -; •;'- 1,..•.•1-' ��';- � �1 \• � •� M `�: •.�': "`'�' • • . . �. EvB ,.:: 1 •-"'""d.. ^''{f''S+ski :A C BMI37� AkF I RfYE Py d� ..'• ..,.•..'' e: ;,;;,-Wr. ' liVc.�, . g � e•. `r .n• rr 1 • • n /(j`O •:': '. •• I '•I 't k•-'rirlil::•' •11.y;;•:. T.▪ 7. �;,1. -; •a.: '>�a°:.:. {L ./f --,is +Y.=:;• / l''''..r- u'iirj•. : \`p' •I ,\, ':1i ••;rob" :,'i .is=.' / / Co • �?'I #.ajrll::11j•,,. .u' 'Eve, ~' .� AkF il,., j 1 z ari •' `r I \♦ AgD 1~ '.. . ��®li • ' PS' � • I *- PC ,-,:- y t aiizo:% : ..ss I) ' ,,,P.S‘ .. AkF _:.--.--• A , ap t.• Arst,,.//... ;17.,, IIP"'----7-; - kis, • ,,�1 q i (r `; `, .:�;=.4 '_ II • =1} �� • El lh c•a, tryliv.:14 Rh W `° AgC \ ``. ,!AkF 1 ;" `\\ = :}.+I`� li "a▪l••r ii I • ,R • a > 0 \� '`;I:. .AgC \� Park P • • 2?)) 47-• a .. '------'[1:-- •Z•-•_______ :m AgD „1111 '• 'AkF '<*:i:: • w -• +, ' - , �_• 12, • -/. 'M .• . .. - ^`I \iiira � = _ sio B� 1y 2T?aB I -g82- _;49f-figCt11. 41 ,1"41.4.----__111111111111& /WM '...-. 1._;?`..:',•,, ...,:',.,i,,.. '::-;!",,..•.':"•• ';:).t:gC. i... !-.t.•. za:,,;,,,,,-4,--i-1 lict •. +;AgC`, �qgp� �. �t. `AkF• �..:i[`:� ,.\• ,�-, ,.: 11. ,i--7L}-‘ ,..,.. . ..„..... .., . ti ''428 ~i' • :< 'c .. . .gj r . \I _ `4::,. ABB j em8` I • • _— --P/PELl%JE_ �'^' /� ABM �^ r. ‘ 1121 �: },I 27 1'"• 2 • 492I k k M , •itii s•:r #IA .-„, . 451N • I M1 ,_, .,..,.... ..N. ▪ ,,, • . N',.,„..a• n .:' `_ `! ter` ;• :.h:%r_., o AgC vy;�_ No I��^�ia ;' TI •Sk �� •'G-4-. likq i 0 T w' `,�r:`F4'';'y v. ir. ihilim‘ Ib'' •Fle").R.I2WIT6K0G''Eb1 �'{ �� ��.\ \ �G 1 \▪ n 470 \AB \ 1• r, jr, a Sp ,,I:' ;.. 463 •ggk.2 GUIDE TO.MAPPING UNITS For a full description of a mapping unit, read both the description of the mapping unit and that of the soil series to which the mapping unit belongs. See table 6, page 70, for descriptions of woodland groups. Other .information is given in tables as follows: . Acreage and extent, table 1, page 9. Town and country planning, table 4, page 57. Engineering uses of the soils, tables 2 and 3, Recreational uses, table 5, page 64. pages 36 through 55. Estimated yields, table 7, page 79. Woodland Described Capability unit group Map . on symbol Mapping unit page Symbol Page Symbol AgB Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes 10 IVe-2 76 3d2 AgC Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes 8 IVe-2 76 3d1 AgD Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 10 VIe-2 78 3d1 AkF Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep 10 VIIe-1 78 2d1 AmB Arents, Alderwood material, 0 to 6 percent slopes 1/-- 10 IVe-2 76 3d2 AmC Arents, Alderwood material, 6 to 15 percent slopes 1/ 10 IVe-2 76 3d2 An Arents, Everett material 1/ 11 IVs-1 77 3f3 BeC Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes 11 IVe-2 76 3d2 BeD Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes . 12 VIe-2 , 78 3d1. BeF Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 40 to 75 percent slopes 12 VIIe-1 78 3d1 Bh Bellingham silt loam 12 IIIw-2 . 76 3w2 Br Briscot silt loam 13 IN-275 3w1 Bu Buckley silt loam 13 IIIw-2 76 4w1 Cb Coastal beaches 14 VIIIw-1 78 --- Ea . Earlmont silt loam 14 IIw-2 75 3w2 Ed Edgewick fine sandy loam 15 IIIw-1 75 201 EvB Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes 15 IVs-1 77 3f3 EvC Everett gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes 16 VIs-1 78 3f3 EvD Everett gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 16 Vle-1 77 3f2 EwC 'Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy loamy, 6 to 15 percent *slopes 16 VIs-1 ' 78 3f3 InA Indianola loamy fine sand, 0 to 4 percent slopes 17 IVs-2 ' 77 4s3 InC Indianola loamy fine sand, 4 to 15 percent slopes 16 IVs-2 77 4s3 InD Indianola loamy fine sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes 17 VIe-1 76 4s2 KpB Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 17 IIIe-1 75 2d2 KpC Kitsap silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 18 IVe-1 76 d2 .KpD Kitsap silt loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 18 VIe-2 . 78 2d1 KsC Klaus gravelly loamy sand, 6 to 15 percent slopes 18 VIs-1 78 3f1 Ma Mixed alluvial land 18 VIw-2 78 2o1 NeC Neilton very gravelly loamy sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes 19 VIs-1 78 3f3 Ng Newberg silt loam 19 IIw-1 74 201 Nk Nooksack silt loam 20 IIw-1 74 2o1 No Norma sandy loam 20 IIIw-3 76 3w2 Or Orcas peat 21 VIIIw-1 78 --- Os Oridia silt loam 21 IIw-2 75 3w1 OvC Ovall gravelly loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes 22 IVe-2 76 3d1 Ov,D Ovall gravelly loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 23 VIe-2 78 3d1 OvF Ovall gravelly loam, 40 to 75 percent slopes 23 VIIe-1 78 3d1 Pc Pilchuck loamy fine sand 23 VIw-1 78 2s1 Pk Pilchuck fine sandy loam 23 IVw-1 76 2s1 Pu Puget silty clay loam 24 IIIw-2 76 3w2 Py, Puyallup fine sandy loam 24 IIw-1 74 2o1 RaC Ragnar fine sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes 25 IVe-3 77 4s1 RaD Ragnar fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 26 VIe-2 78 4s1 RdC Ragnar-Indianola association, sloping: 1/ 26 -- -- • - Ragnar soil -- IVe-3 77 4s1 Indianola soil -- IVs-2 77 . 4s3 RdE Ragnar-Indianola association, moderately steep: 1/ 26 -- --- Ragnar soil -- VIe-2 78 4s1 Indianola soil -- VIe-1 .77 4s2 -/ U.S.GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1973 0-488-286 A_ • • E. ONSITE DETENTION CALCULATIONS 1. ROUTING SUMMARY A summary table of the resultant peak flows is attached below. THE ORCHARDS DEI PROJECT NO. 88008 4-Apr-94 WEST EAST BASIN BASIN EX. 1/2 2 YR PEAK FLOW RATE 1.7 cfs 2.2 cfs DEV. 2 YR PEAK RELEASE RATE 1.7 cfs 2.2 cfs EX. 2 YR PEAK FLOW RATE 3.4 cfs 4.1 cfs DEV. 10 YR PEAK RELEASE RATE 3.4 cfs 4.0 cfs EX. 100 YR, 24 HR PEAK FLOW RATE 16.1 cfs 23.3 cfs DEV. 100 YR, 24 HR PEAK RELEASE RATE 12.3 cfs 14.6 cfs EX. 100 YR, 7 DAY PEAK FLOW RATE 13.4 cfs 19.5 cfs DEV. 100 YR, 7 DAY PEAK RELEASE RAT 12.5 cfs 18.4 cfs 2 YR DETENTION VOLUME (cu-ft) 21,166 221,309 10 YR DETENTION VOLUME (cu-ft) 35,644 342,702 100 YR, 24 HR DETENTION VOLUME (cu-ft 62,390 428,100 100 YR, 7 DAY DETENTION VOLUME (cu-f 63,508 450,568 4. DEVELOPED SITE HYDROLOGY As previously discussed, the developed drainage system will continue to split the site into two drainage basins. a. WEST BASIN: The proposed design for the west basin involves the use of the existing wetland #1 for detention. Due to site constraints, a developed area slightly less than the existing west basin will be tributary to the detention system. The remaining area will be directed to the main east detention pond, but the developed discharges will be designed to match the existing peak flows of either basin. "Z": 13.6 acres, tributary to main west detention system (100) 4.70 ac, impervious @ CN=98 7.20 ac, landscaping/wetland/brush @ CN = 84.5 Time of Concentration: estimated at 25 minutes b. EAST BASIN: The developed east basin will be divided into three sub-basins, each tributary to one of the enhanced wetlands to be used for storm drainage detention/water quality facilities. "V": 2.80 acres, tributary to the southeast detention system (300) 1.22 ac,impervious @ CN=98 1.60 ac, landscape/brush @ CN= 85 Time of Concentration: estimated at 20 minutes "W": 8.1 acres, tributary to the second wetland(400) 3.6 ac,impervious @ CN=98 4.5 ac,landscaping/brush/wetland @ CN = 85 Time of Concentration: estimated at 25 minutes "X": 14.52 acres, tributary to the first wetland (200) 4.72 ac, impervious @ CN = 98 9.8 ac, landscaping/brush/wetland @ CN = 85 Time of Concentration: estimated at 30 minutes "Y": 23.3 acres, tributary to the third wetland (300) 10.4 ac, impervious @ CN = 98 12.9 ac, landscaping/brush/wetland @ CN = 85 Time of Concentration: estimated at 30 minutes A developed drainage map is included in this section along with Basin Summary printouts and basin flow summaries. ------------.__:—. --- .--:-..— _..: -\____ i ` \' ____ ' .c. 1 • - . .,--,-----=----7_______.---___=-,-. 7.___,;____ s , . • „______, _., _L, ,._,._._=,_...,. _.:7= I,',,,,,,,..,,,, ..u.,2_,„,. •• _ . ---------7-.---_' -.-. • . • . ,•X .. .. i. . i,, i• : ,•7 ' ,F,, 11 7 ----'------------ -\ •-•••'," -I '3 '' 2 1 '‘; :' ..1 .i ''-' 0',I . .. , . I 16 •. '7 IS .•• ° 21 •-•: 2' ..1' ;---., ' ,',. -: 7._.''''''`, ,-'\.'','.'...::...),- .' I •"I I ; _ ..I ',.... , --',—,,,‘: :...:"/_ :3 .,• ' ,.,,i.l..,. I '• ,-•\,:.'- -: ... -L--- I-- •. - ,I . ,\ -• i • •• I'..:-....i .. I !' ...... . 74, , ••;,1 I. --... in ...------- • ------- ,_ •-- 7 _ ____.___________,_ -• --•-•• • '.•:'1,', A • —1,,,,•,,--_ __,. ._____,c- ,_v -------;7_______________ "-----------,----- , ••••••- .,,'," •••;:'i I- I •• 8 '_'', • '-' - •—•------' I / - - r---*--=`-s. ed--•,-----------,.4,\.. " .-....• ---- ' . :- - ,.. -s-A, ',\ .--•-.7;."1,1 1 - . -:.--_--;--•;-'2--- ----1- ;Pill . ../11.:27 ‘•••••••11..--.. .'1'..-...•.' :.,'.. It: '33.„ .;••••'47 ) .. -'1 ::11 -" i • • ' I '55•; 54 ...--I= -.it. j111' 14 ; , .' 7. ZLA) 26- 'i •L'I.'' ...3 ir•i'l ,:----713---- I I l'i I ,II • 7 .' ! - 1 \:‘-:::Y.::'_if--.t. .1 :•••.••'• ' ' 1, . ,1 • I. ,II ,; • , ; 1--' .'r ' r•'-t-;': ' I '-'-• 34 ; ' . -.. , , ',---------. -. .. ..--j= , .... i \ 1 I 4---,--..,•.=L- _,.------°•,- --- 'I ' •,I ; ' ' - , : ,53•:-.::::.f,:a 7,, j,.. •••• ',..-. -,,-.. ' ' ''.,-,„'; ; '' I'l •I •• I, IQ• , 16 - I • i :-.V.• • ,• ° . .P:•••• - -• ---- ---------4:7 "1.,..7-:3-1/ ] 1 •• '-• \ ' ' .•.;•••••L --. ''"—'• \''• 3,0 2 9 ' ay,:.:,/,,',:.:,-;.. .I7. 1N. ,. I ' ';' - 6s•''• - = I _of I ,,,,,,'777•2-6,9I4„/ ; -;/): I - Y‘-'„ 1.1 -., . -A356:,;.' ir)\,........-:. •\ . I\ , . ... ... • ,l'' -;- - ',, ../... .,____,' \,' .' "::7;II 7, II. il / 1' -/'. 7; I •.' _u--•,..- 5 ** .•:','. '''.* \--.''..7 ••••-•'-'-\.... ' \ j),r." 1 . ,.•?,, ..fi• ii‘,.it-i,.. . , _ ., . .,„.\,,,3,,...:. , •.::-.......,,,,-.•:: ...„ .....3.6 : ,-:.: ;':,/'-• ) .1‘... 7 -', - * ' '.‘ 2 - ''-' ,,'7 :7:-:-.7 '11!•.,;.' "..r.li : ! " ; ss' r‘r,4,:,. ),,,,..5 s:. -.5''. •••-.3,k •::.:- ' •/ .. . i -', '••• \; ; ''.- -----' •, -..-y:;'; III 't • ji 19'.. ___,..C - . „I I ‘,,,, ,, ,,,..„. .,, .., /1 i., ,.„ .., . . .. - s \Ijj • --. i ", „F:.-.,...,,,. ,..;,.--.. .;7 .'••-•-• . 39 •1 1,„ • • i /i 1 .. .4.- .....4 , '•,. !MIK I,:i. .,ti.-_z-. ‘,-, \y:.-zn's..-., ..-; . .;--..,- . -;. • •,, ..4 -1 \.‘:-4/::.-.F,, '1 ..-i' N '',.1\ i ••-•-' ;•',7--..-:_- .1-..x.rx.::::-..:/ .:..‹., )1 jxV.-k.. 7.1,"'•••• . V .....-.... A..1"1,.=\if.:,,,,,,,:„..: i ,•".• , , ...., .,,, . 1 ; 1 . .1 ‘.\ I it .. . ,,r.„,•1 ,iii 3.,' .,, . , ( .,-. : . GB 11. '.'.., ... !. ‘.;li ';" 'C;-,a'• . '''`'--•‘ ,,,--7 .. / .-;--1---- •• ;\.. . / '.; , 'Th•---:,•-\.'19', ; ; k";",:i14 tlt ...\'..>1.' <'....' • mr- .---, 1.11 . v• . ; • : • 1 . I 1 8 1 ,8, -..:,\••• FgA,!,• ,>---• 64 r _ 1 6.7 ( ' N.I. ':-.--; '. I;-\ I -• A \ ..„.. .7''' _____. ..:• .... .,- .1 ' In I 1 I ''• '.\--. .." •‘,.-.. :'•;'•:-:.. -\ -,/ .. -:„. '. -,..,...'-N.-,•,_____- ,_\ ',,,--c••• • ; ; I .iC,•41, --' ---7- • - --------- 047•1/4', go „: ,, , • 3*, 7 . ' - 6.01-Z3 " (-------:. .. , :-.>\'...'''.. •-:. '',:.. \;..a_ ...-:7:;.11 • •I . 1....___ ,\. •-. 8\__.,'17:.-!\:.`".40 '''..\ \ •\ , - I''..' '-:','' . altr _ . .• 751 ,4 A .z,- • .'.:\''' ' ' •• ' ."-- •-n- '1•:'.',f. .,'\ • „ . (->..-"-„--.. 1 i -.... \ ...., \ ,-A '<" ''• ., ----,. : .-.: '4, ----4-1 i.:*1 '1 .". •-.... -. . .4 e , 1------. 1 ......-::,•-:: ...: • —• ••;',.;.. .s....'',1.,..\y.'Z''•,••' • '"•• ' 1,------:, ,r---: ' ''''.7-7) PI.;:,i7-..--71 ' 12''-,'"• . 7,., : _......•-•:' \::., -... • „,g,-V.;., .:•...../._.,(.„3. ._.j...__r. ••• '- • —''''', \ -,-, 3•, ,, -,. ,:: . ,,.... .... ... /.\\--\ . - ...( _____I • _.•--- --=------ .._-_---- ;_„' : .. .., „.- .----....., •1\i i 7--', \ 1,, 11-1_,___J I. • LI•N,i1 1 L_,Ln \ '., •1 0 .. ... ..s-', ... .j:>,k,A..,,, ;, ---,_, ,,__---_-_-_------- . ---,---1,2-1•÷_,________-7, —',, , ' \ 1 -- ' -- ----- -\.• - \\..-\ , -__;___-,,,..'))1•1 ,'`-- T-j--. 1 .2.,,..,, •_________,„______c___•,-4...c„.., / : i I; 1 /••••4".•''''' •\''‘•• '.- \\ •\N:' • ' ) ^-1--1 I..-'4".`7-n c'' llib '-' -• s 1. 1 ,, • 1---- 4_: ..- ,N,-..........'i.--:-...----- . . --,.\ .,.:- . ',. .,...9 - i - :'. •Q •\';‘, ' '•'•• ''"'''.1 ' I 1 1)).1 ' ' „ 79-:- r r BD --. th.- --,5• •-1•••_t+g: ::.),:f.7.. / .3.:)` ::.-,..v.• \ ---,------1-4 -' --...1.: \p,..."'•- :,,,,,,_,,..i'i , 1-7 , ,Itli -. \ _.- ••j______--i ..\,. --:11. 11.1,.i'- ;.k..., ...,\'`-%:,,& -- '..I I, -• i - / - .-::. I.•-, ---.,k. ._-..,•••-- . - .-,,-:: - .: , -.,.-%".----N, -i (_L2-.::..1•.L y- \‘.-, - ( ' ' l_l_ri LI 1, Tii:F •• i'• \• , •.g,1 :" •••••-. L___,___=_____„,-__----_,=_ r• .,,,,_;....i,• " - , .- •-•,,: 7% \ \ . .,-\ ''.‘, . , ili,..._ . • -• -- ,---. -. ••• . -" . _ __-4., .1 ,, i 92 -___.ti__._.99....} .e'''•-I -,,-. •. '' ':: \' 1, , 1 • \ ., • -1L/L.4... i. .. , ,..,, 1, e•-,_,.. ..',. . ..,1 - i I I: \ ,:‘,• .<,.* .•1,;,..:.,.• 1-.,..(.•-•.: •-•"•'' . • •:-A,•.0', 7-• - \'' ••• ••••••• " n" :'• y V'.t'-"-= I-• IH I • . ',,,,, -r„. ' . •'--, , • - t• '.., ,---,--•''.. ,-....-„-..v ., ____-;:•.-----. .' \'.. 1 ',.° i_A• (1,g.,i H-rz--..,,,;,-, ••• ••••••• 4. 1.2,__, ) !I ! I...„, -1. v•-• ,__• ,-- ,-1 ' .. -,V.1:or; \",--" •--i '''\\ ' i '\ .** * .'•-.*L,1-E "i-t*--',...1. ' ., i• 11 1 - 1 7 I • . . \ I:.:}f. . w• 0. ... ,.. ,,1.-• -----i-. , ,, - . .• , • '.- k -,-,__•,--. ••••L-_,e.° •,n-•,:z_-2 * 1 , -.......___, 1... .. 1 i ...-..., \ , -,..--------i. !...-/-11,. /1-(-1-4-----t-Th- ____ ' '. • -...- - II .5'! ,, n .. e• . _ --_,• •• _. -.t• ....„ - ,.._ - i! r, •,.•.....••.; ., --- - • - . I . .....,••,... 7 .._-, -.„,, .,,i. ., ,;• ,z,.1 ! . j,f72-rt2r-, _1177 - ..... \-7.1.r, , . .--- .. 96 I 97 I . \' ••. . - ' I l'' :.'-1;-'''-'-,•-,"-"--1 ;) L.-7-- jt. ..z,,i C-7:_l •, i ,-- •' / =I' ''.,..j-, ' • ..,-.., ,-- , -. 1,1:L. • ____ I • -- • --------- ' --,—. F,'-'---0----..._.________----.___,:.._---..--..__ _.____, ____ _ ___,—.=.--,,f-_-__------------- _ f. . . . i "-: ,,.•:-'„,..-....,---_.__• .----- -;-'-''-•---•=.___2_-—--,-714 i ' '4 _____,.., ,__,,___i,-„,--- _.:"..1_, — - 7.•'.7w!iliniaml".111 ---- _ „_. ... •- . ..-__---..- •\ , . it. OP 110,.IIP _1 I: - L-,--i, ; --;,- i •H, j . i, - • - -- ---—-- .Z., ''ll 11.- r'' • ." \F\';: 1 , .,i;.,••.,. :,:41:: '':. \ • ..., ..„..,5‹ I.` w i .. . ' „-I.,01 ;' •,!.'!.7-- ::,' ; . .. . ,_,_ 6 7'. ) •• 'J.'---- • I • . Er I,-,s./1-41 , .51i.: .: ; ,,,,;.0,:, \:, -H: C- - • — , ,• I= F1-..r,• , —• -- -. ; •:•* •13.111 •"-..., '-`;'• ' • • ..... ",:111,.F.711";.. ,—' . 17•71-1 . •'': .. • , i , ..,1_-_,;,-- ... •rs :_,_, ,...--, L-.., .e.----„„, •..—t ,----- ,--, I I • !• • . I LI f g "•.\\\\,,. 2 ri-.. • 1...\, ..- , - "":11.-1.1 -:-..:.• I. \- '•- - ',„._ _/".,-- 1 ----4,_ ,E z,-- ::;. TIzi 1 — .•t- __,. . __I,. ._ - • •• 1/----)17777-,,,,i1.•:---: .- L.-L-7 •, .-L-'• -..:11--_--"-.--'' • 1,__7_____________ • . -,gib 1.. t--•.'• \ :-.,:• ,u;i --.... ‘• , .2.,, -- ..,.____ ,..,!..r,„.411-1--..;17,;). 1,1 ---7\i• 14.; I S .11 _ir,i -,.,. •-•\....._--,..1 , , .•—• 1 •-' i.„ 4010316i4,: s.-. •'• •• 1 --,-' . 1 • •-• . 1 1,--, ----- Hi' I.,".i! ..i-r-effik4111111.:::•‘:\\,,, '''''' .-z.:-...-111• 15.'--;_-'''.',,,i-.' -7 - , : 1 '[.- ..cc ,4 , • .. _. • ;e7u..,..,--r,'„-'..-., !-.) -- 0...--- IT.-Fr z.-, , - :-, .____:-. _4 1:r"fi _.• !i, t:.--, ' i..., , ,=_, _•--4-- l':. I: i ____:. r I., 1-. ,,.,_ •,:/1.-..:...1-1.- _._, ,., , , Ifiel \. ....., • ,_) -,i. --3)--- . . _ ,,:, ,., •______.:•,! ,,, •,..,....,, .,. ,.; ,ri .1 1!r33.". T'77• .-4 !I i's• ;lc. / '.`47 :,.... r"-k:sr->‹, 1 i mu. 174 Yr' • ., , ....,.., ....„._ , •,• _ , ,,,, 4' .:, •y, .L, ..livillypsr,illii: \‘.1 J._„ .1... - •---- :!Ii. io lw 1 i_ • ,...i• ' . II., id. ,_‘... ,,.., : _ 7 Be 11.32•W 324.,-09• . .0....L,J-7-'.--- L2'. --- .. ,_ _,._,A:, , i_ -' ) 1; ' 1 ''''I II t•'' .7.,.-0:- :,\,,,,^,;,.:\ 11111.1..r. r1.7'._ j '•"e;•. ).'•-•;'`''' - I, fr i 7-1 - 1 ' . - -•.* • : - .—... . '• ---r.,-, a_.1...1 • . . t N Be M.Pe'de,.. ...--."--- . '' ',live ...., , ---,---• _ . .1 t., ,:--1., , .As , • ,-.- •IN , . 'r-L''ll't':--SVF !-- ,,,4,,., , . •-.4• 'Cc-It& iiir-,.H..11 •. ',.., .t:;'!,1. ' . "_: [•,-,•-I,.- ' .''' -...-1,..10 t . , P.. 'op 11': •-• • . .. , •1" •• • , ,,-,•.1--- _-_,..,-.;--, ,,I-!, _i= -.77,f 11- : ----„,• : 'i'.,‘, I" '-- - , ,,. :" '--7„- DEVELOPED ( _-,. _ ' 1 -' ''---''-- ) --•2:1\. • -•:,, .. .;ii, grit . =,, [7.7- I -- ' -"I' - . I - jil -. 0 .',-----...,___,../ \',.:`,...., /. • -.)., lyak,:l.---;. .1 1' re.., '1':')--' • ' .. • ,mmemmisimmodoti... ','4.)/ - \ ;.II•1151 :",_'.7: 4-Z- . I .:= '‘'i.. ..J.-r-tit. . I:II, , : , I -- , ,-. ,,,,,i-_,,, .,..,'is a , 1‘,.--° ‘. • ' a i . ii ,_ _. ;. i' 4:1E1 7= 1 ..:\i)C.‘/1! '! 1 . -f.:/..-:-....',.. .74. ..,. 1:'...\ . \-. -'' i 1...•I " li ...-: \,:•;. , .L.... ,... ' :ONSITE BASINS • . 1••1 II • :.• . \' „I • ' '-' ' *------' L-1)NJ- ,-i . ..L___Z, '-'. '. • 1 . . . : ::. . ii1,1;.":"s.•:___ .t.' -= -• ‘ 7'.-- . - r- :;t:,'• ''''',. -.:•%•/_.,....,...,t';4" , • I- I • ..> , 91.. .,,,,,,;•,f,',/ , _I'1p ...L_ a -...- 1 • •t•l• ',.•••••ii:d.wavirj.,,111alt• , ..limo _ .7,!, :, . ,,•„....1_2( r____:,,, . -"4'.. 2r1 I ,• I r ',.,:a..,•:.,:.(-•,. ;,...,A,,..,n. , -"" ,_, :.• ./.--‘ —„ , k • ,, I 1 • '• 7.th: -I:- ,; . 1• ! r) 1,' • ,., I I 1 .• P' ,-,"."....,.34,,,,ii,4—I,x,,,,, -- •,./. •'--::--; ' :,,... i * , 1 :,...,.,;.,,,,,, • ., „7.4--)V, V' DEI #88008 / THE ORCHARDS •. ;!R lillik LI. . , '''''''''''''rIN'..",-",•;, ' .-.-.• J I 1 i '1 .. •..".....":.S.'.PAio• :,..::.:= 111111.,.s....,........z..... ...,:_‘..j '77.," • !T.! ) mMff.. ,. . .. . H ett•07'6• .1 H. LEVEL 1 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 1. WEST BASIN The west basin discharges across the south property line of Sector A fronting Union Ave NE. Drainage flows southerly offsite through a wide open swale for approximately 250 feet before crossing beneath a gravel driveway via an 18 inch vitrified clay pipe. The pipe crown is damaged and is bridged by a steel half-round culvert. The culvert is filled with 6 inches of sediment. No obvious evidence existed to show that the gravel driveway had been overtopped by drainage flows. Drainage continues southerly for 350 feet in the swale before crossing beneath another gravel driveway via an 18 inch concrete culvert. The 'pipe is in good condition but is filled with 6 inches of sediment. No obvious evidence existed to show that the gravel driveway had been overtopped by drainage flows. Drainage continues southwesterly for 250 feet before being intercepted by a 24" culvert that is stubbed out from the Union Avenue N.E. trunk, which is also 24" in size. From this point the runoff flows south in the Union'Avenue storm drainage system. 2. EAST BASIN The areas to be analyzed or discussed in more detail are indicated by [#]. Runoff from the northern portion of the east basin (north of N.E. 6th Street) crosses Duvall Avenue N.E. to the east in an 18" concrete culvert [1] at the 6th Street intersection. The runoff from the remainder of the offsite area and the onsite area east of Duvall Avenue, joins this flow in the roadside ditch and existing wetland area, continuing to the south for 650'. It then crosses back under Duvall Avenue to the west in a 36" concrete culvert [2]. On the west side of the road at the south edge of the site, runoff from the remaining onsite area is added and the flow is directed south for 80' in a 36" CMP culvert [3]. The culvert discharges into an open swale, flowing southwest for approximately 600' where it is received by a 30" CMP culvert system [4] conveying it through the Windsor Place Apartments for 370' to the west property line of Windsor Place. From here the flow is directed into a rocked channel that flows 150' westerly to a pair of 20' culverts[5], one 12" and one 18", crossing an old access road. The rocked channel then continues southwesterly for 170' to an 18" concrete culvert [6]approximately 30' long, crossing an access road to a water pump house along N.E. 4th Street. The culvert discharges into a short section of open swale leading to a 36" concrete culvert [7] crossing N.E. 4th Street to the south. From here the flows enter a channel [8] leading west along 4th Street for approximately 100' and it then turns and continues to the south. From the previous drainage analysis and.additional downstream basin analysis up to the Windsor Place Apartments, the following peak flow rates were obtained: 10 year developed = 4.7 cfs 100 year developed = 16.3 cfs 100 year existing = 25.2 cfs [1] 18" concrete culvert crossing Duvall Avenue N.E. - This culvert is listed in the Maplewood Drainage Basin Study as having capacity problems for 100 year events. The slope is 0.6%, length is 85'. The capacity is 8.8 cfs flowing full. There is approximately 3' of headwater depth available to push more flow through the pipe. However, this culvert will be replaced and resized as part of the Orchards development,so capacity will not be an issue. [2] 36" concrete culvert crossing Duvall Avenue N.E. - The slope is 2.3%, length is 110'. Capacity is 119.6 cfs flowing full, or 35 cfs with no headwater over the pipe entrance. Therefore, capacity is not a problem. [3] 36" CMP culvert along west side of Duvall Avenue N.E. - The slope is 1%, length is 80'. Capacity is 36.1 cfs flowing full, or 35 cfs with no headwater over the top of the pipe entrance. Therefore, capacity is not a problem. [4] 30"CMP culvert system through Windsor Place -The minimum slope is 0.8%. The capacity flowing full is 19.9 cfs. This is also listed as a flooding problem. While some headwater buildup would be necessary to convey the existing 100 year storm event, the reduced flow from the Orchards detention system should not be a capacity problem. There are some constrictions placed in the open channel, presumably by the property owner, leading to the culvert which may cause some minor flooding, but nothing of concern. Specifically, a 12" pipe under a small trail would cause the flows to overtop the trail, but the flow would still be contained. [5] 12" and 18" culverts in rocked channel. - The Windsor Place plans show that these culverts were 'to be abandoned and the channel was to go through the existing access road. The road was to be blocked off. However, even if the flows must overtop the road due to culvert capacity problems, they would easily be contained within the immediate area of the swale. [6] 18" concrete culvert at the water pump'house - The slope is approximately 2%. The capacity is 16.1 cfs. There will be a slight headwater buildup to convey the 100 year storm event, and the available headwater depth is more than adequate. [7] 36" concrete culvert crossing N.E. 4th Street - The slope is 0.5%. The capacity is 51 cfs flowing full. Capacity is not a problem. [8] Channel along N.E. 4th Street - This is also listed as being restricted by the Maplewood Drainage Basin Study. The study calls for reconstruction of the channel. Our field inspection verifies this observation. The channel has a negative slope of approximately 2' along 4th Street before it turns to the south. It has adequate depth but needs to be regraded. As it exists, it still has the capacity to convey the 100 year storm, but would likely cause water to back up though to the north side of N.E. 4th Street. In a City of Renton memo to Mary Lynn Myer from Randall Parsons, dated January 21, 1991, the drainage concerns above, along with erosion problems further downstream, were discussed. The recommendation was made to over-detain on the Orchards project for the 2-year storm (releasing at 50% of the existing 2-year peak flow rate) and for the 10-year storm (releasing at the existing 2-year peak flow rate). Additionally, the existing 100-year peak flow rate would have to be matched or decreased for the developed 100-year storm event. These criteria have been met or exceeded by this preliminary design for the Orchards project. January 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ORCHARDS SECTORS E/F & G King County, Washington Prepared in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21 C, Revised Code of Washington and Revised SEPA Guidelines, effective April 4, 1984 Chapter 197-11 Washington Administrative Code Prepared For: Northward PropertiesREC EIVED 1560 140th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 'E 1996 DE'VELOPIVIENT CITY OF REt'TON�It�G Prepared By: Dodds Engineers 4205 148th Ave. N.E., Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98007 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKL.., ; • INTRODUCTION Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement(EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. 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 impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: (A nonproject proposal includes plans, policies and programs where actions are different or broader than a single site specific proposal) Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply". IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the word "project", "applicant", and "property or site"should be read as "proposal," "proposer", and "affected geographic area," respectively. IF YOU NEED ASSISTANCE IN COMPLETING THE CHECKLIST OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS, PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFICE OF COORDINATION AT 453-2971, OR VISIT OUR OFFICE ON THE SECOND FLOOR, CITY HALL, 11511 MAIN STREET, BELLEVUE. 95054CL.doc;01/29/96; Page: 1 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: The Orchards Sectors E/F and G. Preliminary Plat and Site Plan 2. Name of applicant: Northward 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Dick Gilroy Contact Person: Craig Krueger Northward Properties C/O Dodds Engineers, Inc. 1560-140th Ave. N.E. 4205 - 148th Ave. N.E., Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98005 Bellevue, WA 98007 (206) 747-1726 (206) 885-7877 4. Date checklist prepared: January 1996 5. Agency requesting,checklist: City of Renton Development Services Division Planning/Building/Public Works Department 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction is proposed to start in 1996 subject to the approval process. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes, preliminary site plan approval has been granted for Sector D to the west. 95054CL.doc;01/29/96; Page:2 MN 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A wetland evaluation and mitigation plan has been prepared by Terra Associates for all of The Orchards property and is included as part of the preliminary plat submittal. The Orchards: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, August 1991; Draft Environmental Impact Statement, October 1982; Final Environmental Impact Statement, February 1983. City of Renton: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for City of Renton Land Use Element, January 1992; Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, Volume 1, February 1993. 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. No. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Final Plat Approval Building Permits Road Utility Plan Approvals Grading Permit Other Customary Permits 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) This application is for 63 single family lots in Sectors E/F with 59 townhouse lots in Sector G, utilizing the R-24 provisions of the code. The plan provides appropriate stormwater facilities, utility extensions, and road improvements. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The property is located in Section 10, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. at N.E. 6th Street and Duvall Avenue N.E. The property is approximately 18 acres in size. A legal description and vicinity map are attached. 95054CL.doc;01/29/96; Page: 3 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous other Flat, with some slope in the eastern portion of Sector G. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slope is approximately 28% at the eastern edge of Sector G. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Gravelly sandy loam (AgC) (Alderwood Series). d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The purpose of the grading is to construct the proposed private and public streets to City standards, and to provide building pads and utility locations for single family and townhouse residences. The potential exists to balance each sector independently onsite, however the preferred development plan requires the import of material. Imported fill material for Sector E/F could amount to approximately 55,000 cubic yards in addition to the 8,000 cubic yards cut from onsite. Imported fill material for Sector G could amount to approximately 12,000 cubic yards in addition to the 8,000 cubic yards cut from the site. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion could occur during the removal of the remaining vegetation and clearing the site during plat construction in the winter months. The ground would get saturated during rains. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 40% of the site will be covered by impervious surfaces. 95054CL.doc;01/29/96; Page:4 h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: A temporary erosion control plan will be developed and implemented. Appropriate measures include siltation fences, temporary siltation ponds and other measures which may be used in accordance with requirements of the City. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. The types of emissions will be those generally associated with plat construction and residential neighborhoods. They will include construction equipment, dust, automobile exhaust and smoke from wood burning fireplaces. There will be no unusual odors or industrial wood smoke. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. The only off-site sources of emissions or odors would be the residential and commercial neighborhoods that surround this site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The Washington Clean Air Act requires the use of all known, available, and reasonable means of controlling air pollution including dust. Construction impacts will not be significant and can be controlled by watering or using dust suppressants on areas of exposed soils, washing truck wheels before leaving site and maintaining gravel construction entrances. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Two small wetlands had been identified in Sectors E/F and a large wetland in Sector G. See wetland mitigation plan prepared by Terra Associates. 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. Yes, the townhouses in Sector G will be constructed adjacent to the wetland. Buffers will be established per the Mitigation document for the Orchards. The small wetlands in Sectors E/F have been filled as allowed per the Mitigation Document. 95054CL.doc;01/29/96; Page: 5 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Approximately 2000 cubic yards of material will be placed in the wetlands in Sectors E/F and G as part of the crossing, enhancement and expansion of the wetlands. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No, there will be no surface water withdrawals or diversions. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No, a public sanitary sewer system will be installed to serve the future homes. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No groundwater will be withdrawn since public water mains will be installed as part of the plat construction. No water will be a discharged to groundwater except through the potential infiltration of stormwater. 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. N/A. A public sanitary sewer system will be installed as part of the plat construction. • 95054CL.doc;01/29/96; Page:6 • c. Water Runoff(ir......ding 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. Runoff will occur from impervious surfaces and will be collected and routed into an on-site storm collection system. The runoff will be routed through bio-filtration swales and detained in the regional pond located in Sector G. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The only materials that could enter ground or surface waters would be those associated with the streets and automobile use. An oil/water separator will be constructed prior to releasing the stormwater. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: A City approved storm drainage system will be designed and implemented in order to mitigate any adverse impact from storm water runoff. 4. Plants a. Check or underline types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: cottonwood X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: hemlock X shrubs X grass pasture X wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: other types of vegetation: b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? For.Sectors E/F most of the site is open and some areas are grassy. Vegetation within proposed utility easements, lots, drainage tracts, and streets will be removed as part of the plat construction. The wetland portion of Sector G does contain vegetation that will be retained and enhanced as part of the wetland mitigation. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No rare or endangered plants are known to exist on the site. 95054CL.doc;01/29/96; Page: 7 d. Proposed lands„aping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The front and rear yards will be landscaped by the future residents with both formal and informal plantings. The neighborhood park in Sector E/F will be planted with trees and grass to provide an active play area. 5. Animals a. Underline any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: mountain beaver, raccoon fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No rare or endangered species are known to exist on the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The site is not known to be part of a migration route. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The mitigation measures contained in The Orchards Mitigation document will be followed including landscape plans, tree survey and the replacement standards. 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. The main source of energy is gas used for heating and cooling. All sources of energy are available to the site. The builder will be using energy sources which are the most efficient and economical for the development. 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: The requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the State Energy Code will be satisfied in the construction of the buildings. Energy conserving materials and fixtures are encouraged in all new construction. 95054CL.doc;01/29/96; Page: 8 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. The project will not generate any environmental health hazards. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: There are no known health hazards that would occur as a result of the site development. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment,operation, other)? The main noise source in the area is from traffic along adjacent streets and the surrounding land uses. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short-term noise impacts will result from the use of construction equipment during site development. Long term impacts will be those associated with the increase of site users. Additional traffic will occur on site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Building construction will be done during daytime hours. Construction equipment should be equipped with muffler devices and idling time should be kept at a minimum. 95054CL.doc;01/29/96; Page: 9 Y7: 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently vacant. The land to the north has been developed into single family homes and townhouses. The area directly to the west contains an apartment complex. The land south contains commercial development while the land to the east is undeveloped. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. There are no structures on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? N/A e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current zoning is R-24. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The current comprehensive plan designation is Residential Planned Neighborhood. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes, there is a large wetland located on Sector G. I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 325 people would reside in the completed development. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. 95054CL.doc;01/29/96; Page: 10 I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The single family use is very compatible with the surrounding uses, both existing and proposed, and is consistent with the policies of the comprehensive plan. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The preliminary plat calls for 63 single family homes in Sectors E/F and 59 townhouses in Sector G. The homes are anticipated to be in the middle income price range. 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. 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? The buildings will meet the height limits of the R-24 zone. The exterior building materials are anticipated to be wood, hardboard, vinyl, and/or masonry. The roof material will be asphalt shingles. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Because of the topography and the lack of existing vegetation, as well as the surrounding development, the visual impact on the adjacent area will be minimal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The homes will be of a scale and size to be compatible with the existing neighborhood. Landscaping will be installed along the perimeter streets and by the future residents to provide an additional visual buffer. The wetland in Sector G will serve as a visual buffer adjacent to Duvall Avenue. 95Q54CL.doc;01/29/96; Page: 11 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur. Light and glare that is produced from the site will be from building lighting and exterior lighting. Also, light will be produced from vehicles using the site. The light and glare would occur in the evening and before dawn. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? The only offsite sources of light and glare are from vehicles using the adjacent streets and the neighborhoods that surround the property. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Street lighting if required will be installed in a manner to direct the light down toward the ground. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Kiwanis Park is located '/ mile to the northwest. The Maplewood Golf Course is located approximately 1 miles to the south. Highlands Park is located approximately 1 mile to the west. This proposal includes a % acre neighborhood park for use by residents. 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 recreational opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any? Trails and a % acre private park (in Sectors E/F) will be constructed as part of this preliminary plat. The developer will also mitigate the impacts through the payment of park mitigation fees per the Mitigation Document adopted for The Orchards in 1991. 95054CL.doc;01/29/96; Page: 12 13. Historic and Cultural --servation 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, there are no known impacts. If an archeological site is found during the course of construction, the State Historical Preservation Officer will be notified. 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 will be from N.E. 6th Street and Bremerton Avenue N.E., Duvall Avenue is located between Sectors E/F and Sector G. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Metro service is available along Duvall Avenue N.E. between the Sectors. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? In Sectors E/F, parking spaces will be provided by residences on each lot with approximately 4 spaces per single family home and 2 spaces for the alley loaded homes. There are no parking spaces eliminated. Sector G will contain up to 132 spaces in the form of attached garages and open parking spaces. 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). The only new road required will be the public streets that will access the proposed lots in Sectors E/F and the private drive in Sector G. The perimeter streets have been improved as part of the other sectors of The Orchards. 95054CL.doc;01/29/96; Page: 13 e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Approximately 1000 additional vehicle trips per day would be created. Peak hours would generally be 7 AM -9 AM and 4 PM -6 PM. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None proposed. A traffic mitigation fee will be paid at the time of building permit issuance per the Mitigation Document adopted for The Orchards in 1991. 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. Increased demands on services such as fire, health, and police protection will be minimal. The school children generated by this development will attend Maplewood Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazan High School in the Renton School District. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The roads and homes will be constructed to meet all codes of the County and the Uniform Building Code. Access to the homes is very direct from public streets. The proposed development will increase the tax base and provide additional tax revenue for the various public services. The developer will adhere to the mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Document adopted by the city for the Orchards in 1991. 16. Utilities a. Underline utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. All utilities are available to the site through, the proper extension of services. Extension of services is the developers' responsibility. 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. Utilities will be provided by City of,Renton, Puget Power, U.S. West Telephone Service, and Washington Natural Gas. 95054CL.doc;01/29/96; Page: 14 C. SIGNATURE • The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: •Ohez akfr Date Submitted: f/M)filr 446Cle � 95054CL.doc;01/29/96; Page: 15 NS sE`r ,gyp 8ti NE 12TH ST N PRK A D NE 1OTH ST tu 7 4 91 ZZfr_ (' sr NE6THST g U W F p'`?' 3T NE 4TH ST VICINITY MAP NO SCALE LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTORS E 4 F The South half of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 10, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, WM.; EXCEPT the East 42 feet thereof for 138th Avenue. S.E. as conveyed by deed recorded under Recording No. 641'1488. The North half of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter or the Southwest quarter of Section 10, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, WMs EXCEPT the East 42 feet thereof for 138th avenue SE. as conveyed to King County by deed recorded under Recording No. 6411490; ALSO EXCEPT that portion of N.E. 6th Street as platted in The Orchards, Division I, as recorded In volume 113 of Plats, at page 16, Recording No. 9506230961. LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTORS G The South half of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the.Southwest quarter of Section 10, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, WM. EXCEPT the West 42 feet thereof for I38th Avenue S.E. as conveyed to King County by deed recorded under Recording No. ,41-1491 and 641'14921. The North half of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 10, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, WM.: EXCEPT the West 42 feet thereof for 138th Avenue S.E. as conveyed to King County by deed recorded under Recording No. 6411489. GUARANTEE AMER , ‘, $ 44044. �� „r 1,.,�0D0�a o First American Title Insurance Company 114 EAST FIFTH STREET, (P.O. BOX 267) • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 • (714) 558-3211 RECEWED FEB 2 1996 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON H 171037 Form No. 1282 (Rev.6/6/92) 1 . GUARANTEE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. Definition of Terms. this Guarantee. If the Company shall exercise its rights under this The following terms when used in the Guarantee mean: paragraph,it shall do so diligently. (a) "the assured": the party or parties named as the assured in this (b) If the Company elects to exercise its options as stated in Paragraph Guarantee,or on a supplemental writing executed by the Company. 5(a)the Company shall have the right to select counsel of its choice(subject to the right of such assured to object for reasonable cause)to represent the 1 (b) "land":the land described or referred to in Schedule(A)(C)or in Part assured and shall not be liable for and will not pay the fees of any other 2,and improvements affixed thereto which by law constitute real property. counsel,nor will the Company pay any fees,costs or expenses incurred by 1 The term"land"does not include any property beyond the lines of the area an assured in the defense of those causes of action which allege matters not described or referred to in Schedule(A)(C)or in Part 2,nor any right,title, covered by this Guarantee. I interest,estate or easement in abutting streets,roads,avenues,alleys,lanes,ways or waterways. (c) Whenever the Company shall have brought an action or interposed a defense as permitted by the provisions of this Guarantee,the Company may (c) "mortgage": mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. pursue any litigation to final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction and expressly reserves the right,in its sole discretion,to appeal (d) "public records": records established under state statutes at Date of from an adverse judgment or order. Guarantee for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters (d) In all cases where this Guarantee permits the Company to prosecute relating to real property to purchasers for value and without knowledge. or provide for the defense of any action or proceeding, an assured shall '.. / (e) "date":the effective date. secure to the Company the right to so prosecute or provide for the defense of any action or proceeding, and all appeals therein, and permit the 2. Exclusion from Coverage of this Guarantee. Company to use,at its option,the name of such assured for this purpose. Whenever requested by the Company,, an assured, at the Company's The Company assumes no liability for loss or damage by reason of the expense, shall give the Company all reasonable aid in any action or 'following: proceeding,securing evidence,obtaining;witnesses,prosecuting or defend- (a) Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the ing the action or lawful act which in the'opinion of the Company may be records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real' necessary or desirable to establish the title to the estate or interest as stated 'property or by the public records. herein, or to establish the lien rights of the assured. If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the assured to,furnish the required cooperation, (b) (1) Unpatented mining claims; (2) reservations or exceptions in; the Company's obligations to the ass red under the guarantee shall patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (3) water rights,claims;I terminate. or title to water:whether or not the matters excluded by(1), (2)or(3)are; shown by the public records. 'I 6. Proof of Loss or Damage. (c) Assurances to title to any property beyond the lines of the land' In addition to and after the notices required under Section 3 of these expressly described in the description set forth in Schedule(A)(C)or in part Conditions and Stipulations have been provided the Company,a proof of 1 2 of this Guarantee, or title to streets, roads, avenues, lanes, ways on loss or damage signed and sworn to by the assured shall be furnished to the waterways on which such land abuts,or the right to maintain therein vaults, i Company within ninety(90)days after the assured shall ascertain the facts tunnels, ramps or any other structure or improvement; or any rights or' giving rise to the loss or damage.The proof of loss or damage shall describe easements therein unless such property,rights or easements are expressly. the matters covered by this Guarantee which constitute the basis of loss or and specifically set forth in said description. - damage and shall state,to the extent possible,the basis of calculating the (d) (1) Defects,liens,encumbrances or adverse claims against the title,if amount of the loss or damage.If the Company is prejudiced by the failure assurances are provided as to such title,and as limited by such assurances.: of the assured to provide the required proof of loss or damage, the Company's obligation to such assured under the guarantee shall terminate. (2) Defects,liens,encumbrances,adverse claims or other matters(a) I In addition, the assured may reasonably be required to submit to whether or not shown by the public records, and which are created,; examination under oath by any authorized representative of the Company suffered,assumed or agreed to by one or more of the assureds; (b)which! 1 result in no loss to the assured;or(c)which do not result in the invalidity and shall produce for examination, inspection and copying, at such or potential invalidity of any judicial or non-judicial proceeding which is reasonable times and places as may lie designated by any authorized within the scope and purpose of assurances provided. representative of the Company, all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and memoranda,whether bearing a date before or after 3. Notice of Claim to be Given by Assured Claimant. Date of Guarantee,which reasonably pertain to the loss or damage.Further, if requested by any authorized representative of the Company,the assured An assured shall notify the Company promptly in writing in case knowledge,I shall grant its permission,in writing,for any authorized representative of shall come to an assured hereunder of any claim of title or interest which' the Company to examine, inspect and copy all records, books, ledgers, is adverse to the title to the estate or interest,as stated herein,and which. checks,correspondence and memoranda in the custody or control of a third might cause loss or damage for which the Company may be liable by virtue, party, which reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. All information of this Guarantee.If prompt notice shall not be given to the Company,then designated as confidential by the assured provided to the Company all liability of the Company shall terminate with regard to the matter or, pursuant to this Section shall not be disclosed to others unless, in the matters for which prompt notice is required;provided,however,that failure reasonable judgment of the Company,it1 is necessary in the administration to notify the Company shall in no case prejudice the rights of any assured of the claim.Failure of the assured to submit for examination under oath, under this Guarantee unless the Company shall be prejudiced by the failure produce other reasonably requested information or grant permission to and then only to the extent of the prejudice. secure reasonably necessary information from third parties as required in the above paragraph,unless prohibited by law or governmental regulation, 4. No Duty to Defend or Prosecute. shall terminate any liability of the Company under this Guarantee to the The Company shall have no duty to defend or prosecute any action or assured for that claim. proceeding to which the Assured is a party,notwithstanding the nature of any allegation in such action or proceeding. 7. Options to Pay or Otherwise Settle Claims: Termination of Liability. 5. Company's Option to Defend or Prosecute Actions; Duty of In case of a claim under this Guarantee, the Company shall have the Assured Claimant to Cooperate. following additional options: Even though the Company has no duty to defend or prosecute as set forth (a) To Pay or Tender Payment of the Amount of Liability or to Purchase the in Paragraph 4 above: Indebtedness. (a) The Company shall have the right, at its sole option and cost, to i The Company shall have the option to pay or settle or compromise for institute and prosecute any action or proceeding, interpose a defense, as or in the name of the Assured any claim which could result in loss to limited in(b),or to do any other act which in its opinion may be necessary, the Assured within the coverage of this Guarantee,or to pay the full i or desirable to establish the title to the estate or interest as stated herein, amount of this Guarantee or,if this(Guarantee is issued for the benefit or to establish the lien rights of the assured,or to prevent or reduce loss or of a holder of a mortgage or a lienholder,the Company shall have the damage to the assured. The Company may take any appropriate action option to purchase the indebtedness secured by said mortgage or said under the terms of this Guarantee, whether c - )t it shall be liable lien for the amount - ig thereon,together with any costs,reason- hereunder,and shall not thereby concede liability 'give any provision of able attorneys'fees expenses incurred by the assured claimant 1 \M E N fi r • 1 ti First American Title Insurance Company SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE ORDER NO. 301093-5 LIABILITY: $1, 000 . 00 FEE: $200 . 00 TAX: $20 .50 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, herein called the Company, SUBJECT TO THE LIABILITY EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS SET FORTH BELOW AND IN SCHEDULE A GUARANTEES DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. herein called the Assured, against actual loss not exceeding the liability amount stated above which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurances set forth in Schedule A. LIABILITY EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS 1. No guarantee is given nor liability assumed with respect to the validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown herein. 2 . The Company' s liability hereunder shall be limited to the amount of actual loss sustained by the Assured because of reliance upon the assurance herein set forth, but in no event shall the Company' s liability exceed the liability amount set forth above. 3 . This guarantee is restricted to the use of the Assured for the purpose of providing title evidence as may be required when subdividing land pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 58 .17, R.C.W. , and the local regulations and ordinances adopted pursuant to said statute. • It is not to be used as a basis for closing any transaction affecting title to said property. PAGE 1 OF 6 WA-97 (5/95) SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE ORDER NO. 301093-5 SCHEDULE A The assurances referred to on the face page are: A. Title is vested in: GARY M. MERLINO AND DON J. MERLINO, AS THEIR SEPARATE ESTATES B. That according to the Company' s title plant records relative to the following described real property (including those records maintained and indexed by name) , there are no other documents affecting title to said real property or any portion thereof, other than those shown below under record matters . The following matters are excluded from the coverage of this guarantee: 1. Unpatented mining claims, reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof . ' 2 . Water rights, claims or title to water. 3 . Tax Deeds to the State of Washington. 4 . Documents pertaining to mineral estates. Description: PARCEL A: THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE WEST 42 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR 138TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NOS. 6417491 AND 6417492 . PARCEL B: THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST' QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE WEST 42 FEET THEREOF FOR 138TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST AS CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 6417489 . PAGE 2 OF 6 WA-97 (5/95) ORDER NO. 301093-5 PARCEL C: THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE EAST 42 FEET THEREOF FOR 138TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST AS CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 6417488 . PARCEL D: THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE EAST 42 FEET THEREOF FOR 138TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST AS CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 6417490; EXCEPT THAT PORTION PLATTED AS NORTHEAST 6TH STREET IN THE PLAT OF THE ORCHARDS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 173 , PAGE 76, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Record Matters: 1. GENERAL TAXES, WHICH CANNOT BE PAID UNTIL FEBRUARY 15, 1996 . YEAR: 1996 AMOUNT BILLED: $1, 266 .44 AMOUNT PAID: NONE AMOUNT DUE: $1, 266.44, PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY, IF DELINQUENT . ASSESSED VALUE OF LAND: $90, 000 . 00 ASSESSED VALUE OF IMPROVEMENTS: NONE TAX ACCOUNT NO. : 102305-9034-07 (SAID AMOUNTS HAVE NOT YET BEEN CERTIFIED) CHARGES/ASSESSMENTS IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE GENERAL TAXES AS FOLLOWS: A. 1996 CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT CHARGE OF $1.25 OF WHICH NONE HAS BEEN PAID. THE TOTAL (UNPAID GENERAL TAXES AND LEVY/CHARGES) DUE IS $1, 267. 69 PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY, IF DELINQUENT. THE ABOVE CHARGES ARE DUE AND PAYABLE WITH THE GENERAL TAXES. (AFFECTS PARCEL A) • PAGE 3 OF 6 . WA-97 (5/95) ORDER NO. 301093-5. 2 . GENERAL TAXES, WHICH CANNOT BE PAID UNTIL FEBRUARY 15, 1996 . YEAR: 1996 AMOUNT BILLED: $1, 266.44 AMOUNT PAID: NONE AMOUNT DUE: $1,266.44, PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY, IF DELINQUENT ASSESSED VALUE OF LAND: $90, 000 . 00 ASSESSED VALUE OF IMPROVEMENTS: NONE TAX ACCOUNT NO. : 102305-9043-06 (SAID AMOUNTS HAVE NOT YET BEEN CERTIFIED) CHARGES/ASSESSMENTS IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE GENERAL TAXES AS FOLLOWS: A. 1996 CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT CHARGE OF $1 .25 OF WHICH NONE HAS BEEN PAID. THE TOTAL (UNPAID GENERAL TAXES AND LEVY/CHARGES) DUE IS $1,267.69 PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY, IF DELINQUENT. THE ABOVE CHARGES ARE DUE AND PAYABLE WITH THE GENERAL TAXES. (AFFECTS PARCEL B) 3 . GENERAL TAXES, WHICH CANNOT BE PAID UNTIL FEBRUARY 15, 1996 . YEAR: 1996 AMOUNT BILLED: $1, 758 .95 AMOUNT PAID: NONE AMOUNT DUE: $1, 758 .95, PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY, IF DELINQUENT ASSESSED VALUE OF LAND: $125, 000 . 00 . ASSESSED VALUE OF IMPROVEMENTS: NONE -TAX ACCOUNT NO. : 102305-9063-01 • (SAID AMOUNTS HAVE NOT YET BEEN CERTIFIED) CHARGES/ASSESSMENTS IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE GENERAL TAXES AS FOLLOWS: A. 1996 CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT .CHARGE. OF $1.25 OF WHICH NONE HAS BEEN PAID. THE TOTAL (UNPAID GENERAL TAXES AND LEVY/CHARGES) DUE IS $1, 760 .20 PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY, IF DELINQUENT. THE ABOVE CHARGES ARE DUE AND PAYABLE WITH THE GENERAL TAXES. (AFFECTS PARCEL C) . PAGE 4 OF 6 WA-97 (5/95) I ' ORDER NO. 301093-5 4. GENERAL TAXES, WHICH CANNOT BE PAID UNTIL FEBRUARY 15, 1996 . YEAR: 1996 AMOUNT BILLED: $1, 618 .23 AMOUNT PAID: NONE AMOUNT DUE: $1, 618 .23 , PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY, IF DELINQUENT ASSESSED VALUE OF LAND: $115, 000 . 00 ASSESSED VALUE OF IMPROVEMENTS: NONE TAX ACCOUNT NO. : 102305-9044-05 (SAID AMOUNTS HAVE NOT YET BEEN CERTIFIED) CHARGES/ASSESSMENTS IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE GENERAL TAXES AS FOLLOWS: A. 1996 CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT CHARGE OF $1.25 OF WHICH NONE HAS BEEN PAID. THE TOTAL (UNPAID GENERAL TAXES AND LEVY/CHARGES) DUE IS $1, 619 .48 PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY, IF DELINQUENT. THE ABOVE CHARGES ARE DUE AND PAYABLE WITH THE GENERAL TAXES. (AFFECTS PARCEL D) 5 . DEED OF TRUST AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: GARY M. MERLIIVO AND DON J. MERLINO TRUSTEE: CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY BENEFICIARY: JOE RIVERA AND DON GREEN ORIGINAL AMOUNT: $1, 100, 000 . 00 DATED: JUNE 24, 1994 RECORDED: JUNE 27, 1994 RECORDING NO. : 9406270970 6 . THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION FOR TITLE INSURANCE HAS BEEN MODIFIED AS SET FORTH HEREIN TO COMPLY WITH THE RECORD AND PRESUMED INTENTION OF THE PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTION. SAID DESCRIPTION SHOULD BE EXAMINED AND APPROVED BY SAID PARTIES PRIOR TO CLOSING. 7. EASEMENT FOR THE RIGHT TO MAKE SLOPES FOR CUTS AND FILLS ALONG THE STREET MARGIN. OF SAID PREMISES ABUTTING 138TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST, AS GRANTED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 6417488 . (AFFECTS PARCEL C) PAGE 5 OF 6 WA-97 (5/95) ORDER NO. 301093-5 8 . EASEMENT FOR THE RIGHT TO MAKE SLOPES FOR CUTS AND FILLS ALONG THE STREET MARGIN OF SAID PREMISES ABUTTING 138TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST, AS GRANTED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 6417489 . (AFFECTS PARCEL B) 9 . EASEMENT FOR THE RIGHT TO MAKE SLOPES FOR CUTS AND FILLS ALONG THE STREET MARGIN OF SAID PREMISES ABUTTING 138TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST, AS GRANTED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 6417490 . (AFFECTS PARCEL D) 10 . EASEMENT FOR THE RIGHT TO MAKE SLOPES FOR CUTS AND FILLS ALONG THE STREET MARGIN OF SAID PREMISES ABUTTING 138TH AVENUE S.E. , AS GRANTED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 6417491 AND 6417492 . (AFFECTS PARCEL A) 11 . EASEMENT AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN: RECORDED: AUGUST 19 , 1988 RECORDING NO. : 8808190378 IN FAVOR OF: CITY OF RENTON FOR: REPAIRING, CONSTRUCTING AND MAINTAINING ROADWAY SLOPES AND SIDEWALK AREAS IN EXCAVATION AND/OR EMBANKMENT AFFECTS: THE WESTERLY 25 FEET OF PARCELS C AND D. 12 . A RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED ON MAY 17, 1990 UNDER RECORDING NO. 9005179002 . DATED: JANUARY 23 , 1996 AT 8:00 A.M. gitrvirafriAt TITLE OFFICER PAGE 6 OF 6 WA-97 (5/95) , f NOTICE ORDER NO. /019- - a _ This Sketch is furnished as a courtesy only by First American SEC/ TWP RNG _5-- Title Insurance Company and it is NOT a part of any title N commitment or policy of title insurance. This sketch is furnished solely for the purpose of assisting in ;,s •..r:.,,, locating the premises and does not purport to show all highways, w • 1 E roads,or easements affecting the property. No reliance should be placed upon this sketch for the location or dimensions of the property and no liability is assumed for the correctness thereof.` J S 22 21 TRACT • C5 103 i5 CS 1 rt- I v n 5 , ( 1 ,I,S'r'I _1113' L3 C2 L2 «l, .'� ' :..........47 - -1 -J Irr.� - taf a. V7J� I i • r • 1 M !p II K ; . � if 0 *1'2 1 9.'4:Z i a 4 1 r h�s0. I _ _ _ e I •O aoiii i " i 0 Oil We yi .j _` 0 ,. ;! • t ,s ss ja ' { s1 p 1 :. ,t• • I.a ow I- -w •a .,_ Woe.ar t tiw r.r w ra as•ea -- 1 T ri..s ' • ��t� - 2 I si i a _ W i s . .'' 2 I. I •, �' q fie ; ' ; lei z I ;1 I 3 GUARANTEE NDITIONS•AN')STIPULATIONS •ntinued) which were authorized by the Company up to the time of purchase. 11. Payment of Loss. Such purchase,payment or tender of payment of the full amount of (a) No payment shall be made without producing this Guarantee for the Guarantee shall terminate all liability of the Company hereunder. endorsement of the payment unless the Guarantee has been lost or In the event after notice of claim has been given to the Company by destroyed,in which case proof of loss or destruction shall be furnished to the Assured the Company offers to purchase said indebtedness, the the satisfaction of the Company. owner of such indebtedness shall transfer and assign said indebt- (b) When liability and the extent of loss or damage has been definitely edness, together with any collateral security,to the Company upon fixed in accordance with these Conditions and Stipulations, the loss or payment of the purchase price. damage shall be payable within thirty rty(30)days thereafter. Upon the exercise by the Company of the option provided for in Paragraph (a)the Company's obligation to the Assured under this Guarantee for the 12. Subrogation Upon Payment or Settlement. claimed loss or damage,other than to make the payment required in that Whenever the Company shall have settled and paid a claim under this paragraph,shall terminate,including any obligation to continue the defense Guarantee,all right of subrogation shall vest in the Company unaffected by or prosecution of any litigation for which the Company has exercised its any act of the assured claimant. options under Paragraph 5,and the Guarantee shall be surrendered to the Company for cancellation. The Company shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights and remedies which the assured would have had against any person or property (b) To Pay or Otherwise Settle With Parties Other than the Assured or With in respect to the claim had this Guarantee not been issued.If requested by the Assured Claimant. the Company, the assured shall transfer to the Company all rights and To pay or otherwise settle with other parties for or in the name of an remedies against any person or property necessary in order to perfect this assured claimant any claim assured against under this guarantee, right of subrogation. The assured shall permit the Company to sue, together with any costs,attorneys'fees and expenses incurred by the compromise or settle in the name of the assured and to use the name of the assured claimant which were authorized by the Company up to the assured in any transaction or litigation involving these rights or remedies. time of payment and which the Company is obligated to pay. If a payment on account of a claim does not fully cover the loss of the assured Upon the exercise by the Company of the option provided for in Paragraph the Company shall be subrogated to all rights and remedies of the assured (b)the Company's obligation to the Assured under this Guarantee for the after the assured shall have recovered its principal, interest, and costs of claimed loss or damage,other than to make the payment required in that collection. paragraph,shall terminate,including any obligation to continue the defense • or prosecution of any litigation for which the Company has exercised its 13. Arbitration. options under Paragraph 5. Unless prohibited by applicable law,either the Company or the assured may 8. Determination and Extent of Liability. demand arbitration pursuant to the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association.Arbitrable matters may include,but are This Guarantee is a contract of indemnity against actual monetary loss or not limited to, any controversy or claim between the Company and the damage sustained or incurred by the Assured claimant who has suffered loss assured arising out of or relating to this Guarantee, any service of the or damage by reason of reliance upon the assurances set forth in this Company in connection with its issuance or the breach of a Guarantee Guarantee and only to the extent herein described, and subject to the provision or other obligation.All arbitrable matters when the Amount of exclusions stated in Paragraph 2. Liability is$1,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the The liability of the Company under this Guarantee to the assured shall not Company or the assured.All arbitrable matters when the amount of liability exceed the least of: is in excess of$1,000,0000 shall be arbitrated only when agreed to by both the Company and the assured.The Rules in effect at Date of Guarantee shall (a) the amount of liability stated in Schedule A; be binding upon the parties.The award may include attorneys'fees only if (b) the amount of the unpaid principal indebtedness secured by the the laws of the state in which the land is located permit a court to award mortgage of an assured mortgagee,as limited or provided under Section 7 attorneys'fees to a prevailing party.Judgment upon the award rendered by of these Conditions and Stipulations or as reduced under Section 10 of these the Arbitrator(s)may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. Conditions and Stipulations,at the time the loss or damage assured against The law of the situs of the land shall apply to an arbitration under the Title by this Guarantee occurs,together with interest thereon;or Insurance Arbitration Rules. (c) the difference between the value of the estate or interest covered A copy of the Rules may be obtained from the Company upon request. hereby as stated herein and the value of the estate or interest subject to any defect,lien or encumbrance assured against by this Guarantee. 14. Liability.Limited to This Guarantee;Guarantee Entire Contract. 9. Limitation of Liability. (a) This Guarantee together with all endorsements,if any,attached hereto by the Company is the entire Guarantee and contract between the assured (a) If the Company establishes the title,or removes the alleged defect,lien and the Company. In interpreting any provision of this Guarantee, this or encumbrance, or cures any other matter assured against by this Guarantee shall be construed as a whole. Guarantee in a reasonably diligent manner by any method, including (b) Any claim of loss or damage,whether or not based on negligence,or litigation and the completion of any appeals therefrom,it shall have fully any action asserting such claim,shall be restricted to this Guarantee. performed its obligations with respect to that matter and shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused thereby. (c) No amendment of or endorsement to this Guarantee can be made (b) In the event of any litigation by the Company or with the Company's except by a writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto signed by either the consent,the Company shall have no liability for loss or damage until there President,a Vice President,the Secretary,an Assistant Secretary,or validating has been a final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and officer or authorized signatory of the Company. disposition of all appeals therefrom,adverse to the title,as stated herein. 15. Notices,Where Sent. (c)11The Company shall not be liable for loss or damage to any assured for All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing liability voluntarily assumed by the assured in settling any claim or suit required to be furnished the Company shall include the number of this without the prior written consent of the Company. Guarantee and shall be addressed to the Company at 114 East Fifth Street, 10. Reduction of Liability or Termination of Liability. Santa Ana,California 92701. All i payments under this Guarantee, except payments made for costs, attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to Paragraph 5 shall reduce the amount of liability pro tanto. • • lb -7,0 / '93' - AMER � S � C ., . - Ago - .4. _A- ''' , . it., ., . N. 4, --i'"" !4'';;;07/07°11°...W1hii; . i N 'N--- .00," �K'Ill 'err - = N. \k . ' ✓�j 4°P --411115Z.111 - frg _..........-'"14_ First American Title Insurance Company 2101 FOURTH AVENUE,SUITE 800• SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98121 (206)728-0400 •1-800-826-7718• FAX:(206)728-7219 COPIES OF DOCUMENTS REeeivED FEB 2 1996 OEVELORIMEINT p�NNIMG CITyOF RE1NTOly ., lb o •a.. • MI vi IN.3iN aL i cc riled for Record at Request of: ,..A i t a a • ATTER RECORDING MAIL TO: I R. L. Hines, Jr., Esq. • , 9125 Tenth Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98100 v IQUIT CLA.a[ D=m m THE GRANTOR(S) G.K. Associates, a Washington generalp comprised of Gary rr a 5 partnershi K. Merlino and Don J. )terlino, 14. conveys and quit claims without consideration to the GRANTEE(S) o individually, Gary N. Marline and Don J. )Carlin, all of its I right, title and interest in the following described real estate, d situated in King County, Washington, including any interest w . therein which the Grantor(s) may hereafter acquire: 0 See exhibit 4attached hereto and incorporated herein W by this reference. CD Dated: This .27 day of Nil F , 1994. rn M G.K. ASSOCIATES, a Washington CD O general partnership K' C) eye (� ✓l/Ja" Don J,�+yerlin/`7�o � Its: ParrrEsiLi r I . WAY D -1- • MI in COOUf1 SOX=L03 7D 09 WWII 61E04290% f • r ::402: .,:r,1+_ ?►444: 7, • . 25 . 0 ' _32 O , elk, • • • • • • • • • • STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) so. COUNTY or KING On this day personally appeared before ma Don J. herlino, to a. known to be the individuals) described -in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged • that he signed the same as the free and voluntary act and deed of • G.K. Associates, a Washington general partnership, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVE under ay hand and official seal this , 7 day of �rtA6 , 1294. • • terry Publ c and for tluk State of Washington, residing at' )9' 1 A W My appointment expires: „ 7L2t,-97 • 1 0,(It liTh\V Pi,-i ftt4N.42• •1 w . /4, a, ca a, 0 N co 0 Tr • a, • • • • • • • • saoi.D 0 . • . • . •• EXHIBIT A PARCEL A: THE SOUTU HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 5 EAST,- w.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON/ ( EXCEPT THE WEST 42 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING„ f nIINTY FC)R 138TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NOS. co, 6417491 AND 6417492. Cd C) PARCEL 8: CD n THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUART R " OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; l7• EXCEPT THE WEST 42 rzrr THEREOF FOR 128TB AVENUE SOUTHEAST AS c CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. t' 6417489. _ • • PARCEL C: THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 5 EAST, W.H. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON: EXCEPT THE EAST 42 FEET THEREOF FOR 138TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST AS CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 6417488. PARCEL 0: THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER ' ' OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST. W.M. IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON/ EXCEPT THE EAST 43 FEET THEREOF FOR 138TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST AS CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 6417490. 0 • • • • • UMW FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF: L ' Joe Rivera 19840 S.E. Jones Rd. �= Renton, WA 98058 gl i 3 WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: a Joe Rivera 19840 S.E. Jones Rd. Renton, WA 98058 Rg 8 =UM MRIORITY DEED OP TWIT e THIS FIRS? DIED OF TRUST, wade this 22±fday of V21 d.G , 1994, N. Y is by and between GARY M. XERLINO and DON J. MEERLINO, hereinafter F referred to jointly and severally as GRANTORS, the address for all of whom for all purposes under this document shall be 9125 - 10th Ave. So., Seattle, Washington, 98108: CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE [G COMPANY, TRUSTEE, whose address is 1800 Columbia Canter, 701-5th 04 Ave., Seattle, Washington, 98104; and JOE RIVERA and DON GREEN, Ca BENEFICIARIES, whose address is 19840 S.E. Jones Rd., Renton, Tr CI Washington, 98058; 1ITYESSITE: GRANTORS hereby bargain, sell and convey to TRUSTEE in Trust, with power of sale, the real property in King County, Washington legally described as follows: See FEjiibit "A" attached hereto. which real p::2perty is not used principally for agricultural or farming purposes, together with all the tenements, hereditament', and appurtenances nov or hereafter thereunto belonging or in any vise appertaining, and the rants, issues and profits thereof. This deed is for the purpose of securing performance of each agreement of GRANTORS herein contained, and payment of the sum of One Million One Hundred Thousand and no/100 Dollars DWwTRUST - 1 0 am... 1111 • ($1,100,000.00) , with interest, in accordance with the terms of a promissory note of even date herewith, payable to BENEFICIARY or order, and made by GRANTORS, and all renewals, modifications and extensions thereof, and also such further sums as may be advanced or loaned by BENEFICIARY to GRANTORS, or any of their successors or assigns, together with interest thereon at such rate as shall be agreed upon. To protect the security of this Deed of Trust, GRANTORS covenant and agree: • 1. To keep the property in good condition and repair; to permit no waste thereof; to complete any building, structure or improvement thereon which may be damaged or destroyed; and to comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations, covenants, • conditions and restrictions affecting the property. Beneficiaries agree that Grantors may construct a storm water detention pond on • Parcels A and B as described on exhibit A. 2. To pay before delinquent all lawful taxes and assessments upon the property; to keep the property; to keep the property free and clear of all other charges, liens or encumbrances impairing the security of this Deed of Trust. 3• To keep all buildings now or hereafter erected on the property G described herein continuously insured against loss by fire or other IN, hazards in an amount not less than the total debt secured by this cl Deed of Trust. All policies shall be held by the BENEFICIARY, and p be in such companies as the BENEFICIARY may approve and have loss {. payable first to the BENEFICIARY, as its interest may appear, and 04 then to GRANTORS. The amount collected under any insurance policy CO may be applied upon any indebtedness hereby secured in such order C as the BENEFICIARY shall determine. Such application by the T BENEFICIARY shall not cause discontinuance of any proceedings to foreclose this Deed of Trust. In the event of foreclosure, all rights of the GRANTORS 'in insurance policies then in force shall pass to the purchaser at the foreclosure sale. 4. To defend any action or proceeding purporting to affect the security hereof or the rights or powers of BENEFICIARY or TRUSTEE, and to pay all costs and expenses, including cost of title search and attorney's fees in a reasonable amount, in any such action or proceedings, and in any suit brought by BENEFICIARY to foreclose this Deed of Trust. S. To pay all costs, fees and expenses in connection with this Deed of Trust, including the expenses of the TRUSTEE incurred in enforcing the obligation secured hereby and TRUSTEE'S and • attorney's fees actually incurred, as provided by statute. 6. Should GRANTORS fail to pay when due any taxes, assessments, • insurance premiums, liens, encumbrances or other charges against DEED Of next • 2 1 0 • L • • Q. MIMMOCIO Oit the property hereinabove described, BENEFICIARY may pay the same, and the amount so paid, with interest at the rate set forth in the note secured hereby, shall be added to and become a part of the debt secured in this Deed of Trust. IT ID XUTUALLY AGREED TEAT: 1. In the event any portion of the property is taken or damaged in an eminent domain proceedings, the entire amount of the award or such portion as may be necessary to fully satisfy the obligation secured hereby, shall be paid to BENEFICIARY to be applied to said obligation. 2. By accepting payment of any sum secured hereby after its due date, BENEFICIARY does not waive its right to require prompt payment when due of all other sums so secured or to declare default for failure to so pay. 3. The TRUSTEE shall reconvey all or any part of the property covered by this Deed of Trust to the person entitled thereto on p written request of the GRANTORS and the BENEFICIARY, or upon N satisfaction of the obligation secured and written request for 0) reconveyance made by the BENEFICIARY or the person entitled O thereto. P. CV 4. Upon default by GRANTORS in the payment of any indebtedness CD hereby or in the performance of any agreement contained C, herein, all suss secured hereby shall immediately become due and nn payable at the option of the BENEFICIARY. In such event and upon written request of BENEFICIARY, TRUSTEE shall sell the trust • property, in accordance with the Deed of Trust Act of the State of Washington, at public auction to the highest bidder. Any person except TRUSTEE may bid at TRUSTEE'S sale. TRUSTEE shall apply the proceeds of the sale as follows: (1) to the expense of the sale, including a reasonable TRUSTEE'S fee and attorney's feet (2) to the obligation secured by this Deed of Trust; (3) the surplus, if any, shall be distributed to the persons entitled thereto. S. TRUSTEE shall deliver to the purchase at the sale its deed, without warranty, which shall convey to the purchaser the interest in the property which GRANTORS have or had the power to convey at the time of his execution of this Deed of Trust, and such as he may have acquired thereafter. TRUSTEE'S deed shall recite the facts shoving that the sale vas conducted in compliance with al the requirements .f law and of this Deed cf Trust, which recital shall • be prima facie evidence of such compliance and conclusive evidence thereof in favor of bona fide purchaser and encumbrances for value. 6. The power of sale conferred by this Deed of Trust and by the Deed of Trust Act of the State of Washington is not an exclusive remedy; BENEFICIARY may cause this Deed of Trust to be foreclosed • as a mortgage. •. DEED Of TeJST - 3 J • i _ _ .ate- MIME • • NIMIXIAA 7. In the went of the death, incapacity, disability or resignation of TRUSTEE, BENEFICIARY may appoint in writing a successor trustee, and upon the recording of such appointment in the mortgage records of the county in which this Deed of Trust is recorded, the successor trustee shall be vested with all powers of the original trustee. The TRUSTEE is not obligated to notify any • party hereto of pending sale under any other Deed of Trust or of any action or proceeding in which GRANTORS, TRUSTEE or BENEFICIARY shall be a party unless such action or proceeding is brought by the TRUSTEE. S. This Deed of Trust applies to inures to the benefit of, and is bonding not only upon the parties hereto, but on their heirs, devisees, legatees, administrators, executors and assigns. The term B NEFICIARY shall mean the holder and owner of the Promissory '•,�( Note secured hereby, whether or not named as BENEFICIARY herein. • ti tf GRANTORS: GRANTEES: Gary p c=r�s%✓iu� ca Don J$eerli� CCU GREEN 0 Cr)• • • • • DcEDOf TWIT - 4 • ;F � _ • b Memel 11101, 0 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OP KING ) On this day personally appeared before ma Gary M. Merlin and Don J. Merlin to me known to be the individual, or individuals described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentionsgL. Given under my hand and official seal this ace day of k.tE. , 1994. I IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Vas qt � tiEZI( ro -Ulu V tart' Publ c in and for the r 4 C�`�? State of Washington, residing GI :i ...._. wd� at �ov77 '•.,4! . My Commission expires: ,�-�a9 r. Cd,O STATE or WASHINGTON ) ss. CI COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before ne Joe Rivera and Don Green to me known to be the individual, or individuals described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein aention94. Given under my hand and official seal this a7Se day of 44,2e , 1994. IN WITNESS WHZ EOP I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. /015.774:PpS\ ieliiTiiiNic u ! i _ N ry Public in and for the W . c Vs State Washington, residing : at ��4�7 LE p�p.oar ds • '.�:,-- -- My Commission expires: .'-.2 97 • . ii :pea _ `•, :.:rh f . r} I rJ v' �r l 11111( • • r • r _ Herr A (RUG) • PARCEL A: f THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE • : '34 S EAST, N.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE :NEST 42 TUT THEREOF CONVEYED TO ZINNG,rntflNTY FOR 13STH AVENUE SOUTHEAST aY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NOS. 6417491 AND 6417492. .. PARCEL a: THE NORTH HALT or THE NORTHEAST QUARTER Or THE SOUTHEAST QUART �. .3 OFTHE SOUTHWEST QUARTER Or SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RAN E l% EAST, W.!!., IN XING COUNTY, WASHINGTON: EXCEPT THE WEST 42 FEET THEREOF FOR 138TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST AS • CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. • 6417489. • PARCEL t: THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER Or THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER or THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, N.H., I2N ZING COUNTY, WASUINGTONJ • EXCEPT THE FAST 42 FEET THEREOF FOR 13STM AVENUE SOUTHEAST AS CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING. NO. 641741S. PARCEL Ot THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTZ* Or THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER Or Ti!! SOUIHWEgT QUARTER OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE a EXCEPT THE EAST 42 FEET THEREOF FOR 13STH AVENUE SOUTHEAST AS CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY SY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 6417490. CD . h a, G N Cat CD O Kr Q, • • t1%i4.h Ly , , • 1 1 . ? - ..• rli,T,, ."V�� A p .. '1'1a,. .•'h:.I C. 1• • ���'� I. • 1 •06,02,94 13:23 206 747 4157 FRON NORTHWARD CONSTRUCTION S4.S2.111= 13125 0. a pHTA�a..- r - _ "' j( ?� .�( k 1-it� �••'• ePb r;e `' `'` •` ! N ' t � i � c 0 iiikt. ,..):. mse, ' L u 0 en Wia - .% Ati -,... ; I 1 ,. ... ..... -- i..r.r.r•+ram' I� e / p (' y Id \ 'i 1 _ o I. is III! ' 1°� A vizJ I . el I! • — . ' 1 .. ... &,,,,,rH N ti 1 r.l. ' . r -~ �oi' r t . 1 .. �• ,L — J ` ,A 1Ifi1 N" , ,, I.......=-;_zre.....mle 1 1 k j... I: . . :. 14 NV ' . 11 lif "i :_ • ...END... ' •-- IDlie . II or& v. Orissa. 1t7488 am. "=a`�._.,0 • • . i.A.s. saris 1(sf • /2 ys3 i3jsLUIT-CLAIM DEED ' 1"'2 il-R • / 1f4/ • T.L. 63 9Bar� : • • a Ora W. Grilses and P-arhara F. Grirs Q�rhf gt'tabr. ..herein. • r for the eottasderotioa of /t/[.i ! ;/J‘,-•s'fN� — " . — Tr �,6y1br11ara and also of boasfiu to seers. to t hors by ree.soa of laying out sad .euiblishiog a petal,' rood through... I3141Z.. property. and which is beretaafler dwenbed. convey. . toles... , sad goat. • claim to the County of t'in State of N ashlagtoa. for use of ' L : the Public foreerr, as a pt:Llie road and highway, all interest in the following described real estate. meg including Any after acquired title. - ‘N iI The test 27 ft. of the East 42 ft. of the South 1/2 of the N.r•1 of the S.F.; o! �!I the S.W.'. of Section 10, Twp. 23 N.R. 5 l,w,Mo Containing .21 AQes more or lass, ■,'ta 171Ith Aver. 5,16. ( S.E. 128th St. to Renton-Issaquah Rd.) togttth.r with the right to oaks all accessary atop.•for cuts sod fills upon the shuttle(property, sad us aat.li . • I side of said Z.eeriboO right.ef•way,is sonfornuty with standard places sad specifications for highway purpose, lad to the same estest sad pttrpo..as Jf the rig►ui horse Fruited had been acquired by condensate,'proeloed• iilags under Easaes% Domain statute of Lb. Suite of Washes:tea. II u otuat.d to the Caaty of.... ") �/ CP State of llo sahlagtes/< <, i Dated this `/ E day of ,. �' '. .s 'A. D. l c . WITNESS: /� ' i I._ -—.... _ -- -_—_ — --_ - --- ----- • sTAT1 OP WASIVPIOTON • . , COUNTY or .: . .4..4,- on the r'"r day 5 ->r • . it...:. before sal.a Notary fit►Ise La and far the State of Washts ton•dulyesmmaatiaaed lad sin 7 g ors personally cans G;('r ls� l!h'i^7r. y • ' ��1�A� N i i /t'.' 'w .1a ma basest. to be lb.tadtetdusJ'• described to sad T't',". . messed the wtt►la taatrua.st and acknowledged to ins that y/Vi.7 sigeod and sealed the same es i •,k '' .luntary act sad deed for the uses and purpose tLrrets a,rt..sed t k pia mrUagmtt offiausl seal the day lad yeti firsts writes. {� ' / �.�� Nosertlp►1M o .1� tie Stale of Waa►tsgtea, reside(at /t /��.. . U • tr _e.�, aAt:At_. . . Q = 2E kLiJ., -7 deed ; 3 11 w i - ,� ........-_.. i at . Q a ACi . .6$_Ii0tJLST l . I a _ • 1I i . c 0 o • .. I . U . 1 Y Ri Rl A.f1ui IS �lIWiOA V ¢ MG CUR 1Y i H . o ® - ` 1 0 ..t o i Y - 3a - e e I: !V I i N No. = is . `e -a 3 s T I - e ' _ _ ' .-. — • _ • "i>RL1 e �0.174 ��.1 7 4 H9 mete• 10=3..��00 . . • -a..--._. Air— W.A.13. tai, 351 R e7%4 7-Wash. Q7 QUIT-CLAIM DEED 3 • T.L. 43 T - • v The grsatnr.! _herein. C. Larsen and ltarbera I. Larsen and Tan Holcomb • c. 0Tf � 17 •0d for the *iteration of / � - ' d s •' and alao of bsnaltu to accrue to.. them by reaaoo of laying oat and establishing a pobli.read through their property, and which is hereinafter desert •. ••beat, eonw.y relsa'.. and gait• 0 I claim to the County of t n'') State of Washgtoe>L for w of en y f. • - the Public forever, es a public road and highway, all interest in the following described 'real caste. girt: incl.uctir.g my atter a:quit-et! title. I - • I The East 'l 27 ft. of the esN t 42 ft, of the North 1/2 of the •6.. of the S.E.t. of ' • ii the S.W.'. of Section 10e Twp. 21 N.R. S =•tr•M. Containing .21 Acres nor• or less. . . •• • . • cite 138th Ave. S.F.. ( S.E. 128th St. to Renton-Issaqualt Rd.) . • A i together with the right to malt.aul necessary slopes for euta and ftlla up*. tba abutting property,anal on sass I - aids of said deaenbed right-•of.way, in conformity w.tb standard plane and speetfieationa for highway purpose, .• , and to the mane-aunt and purpose as if the right'herein granted had been acquired bv condemnation proceed. ' • Legs under F.mtaent Domain statutes of the Stan of Waahuglen, situated in the County of... . State of Washington. - Dated this ..�` \ ( `" , • • day of et A. D. 13.. - i , - ., r_ t. :. • , ,. / . ow J...-/‘ail( L. �I ) ..[love- ,> ..... r • - N -, STAY' Of WANSINOTON . - COUNTY Of (' .G.- !! / • t On the. day of. ..4�r , 1>l�' C►d/•ee ma. a Notary Publis tin ter the State el W aahtngton,duly eommie't.ned and ewers, ps.ovally eatnef4✓e s 4I• L/n'f•4'j - i / P 2'rAAtv's J.4 N e••'... /'I"' /.•.4..CN' ' to me knows to b.tb.individual •-S dssen►.d is and %'s''' ! , it es.anted the within instrument and acknowledged to me that 7' ' signed and sealed the name as (• , ",.Q.A4i.w,,,,freo and voluntary act and deed for the use' m end purpose' the ■ mentioned. • • • :'l� Itaussaaj•)faad and offie•al seal the day and year first show writ-tem. . •oir t -.7,00,1 77-2/Leer',1-: ' ev Nparg Tulip?u and for the State of Washington,ma. tiling at er/It'4'4 0!!. � - - — i. Is Q ••• o = ` v E y •Ls a r•!t 8 q . ` oe o f Q C 3 it f• pnI W V 7.13 C: acgY1 P I Y - o ^'' e g II01 1 MONI;lSllifl1Ofl fir •M e.. -- ►-- - 1 _ L o Tr Irrdil. _ _ 6.• IITY - C�FPTi ��J No. H a 0 3 ' • a; 6417 490 tero 0 �t M 5153 187 _ listis s lRenton s''-•a SUIT-CLAIM DEED Rw 1,�q •. 4 • ma • • . _ The grantor... .ercie . . .. ...-.,.ul.h...1.._Venishr.ick ' �` E T - •F for the consideration of.•— l �' ��� .. �'�P��J �-�'S�7Y�'�`rrpoll.n I and also of benefits to accrue to '.4-r .. by reason of laying oat and establishing •pablie road . through liar property, and which is hereinafter described. convey. . release , add quit. • • • claim to the County of I;iiiy State of Waahtngtoa for use of - the Public forever, as • public road and highway, all Interest in the following deeertb.d reel estate. ems: • including any after acquired title. U The Crest 27 ft. of the East 42 ft. of the N.►, of the N,wA of the S.lA of the S.U.t of Section 10. Tarp. 23 N.R. 3 E.w,N. Containing .21 Acres sore or lees, . 11 Wlii: 138th Ave. S,=. ( S,!. 12eth St. to Renton Issaquah Rd.) ' together wlta the melt to make sit nscesaary slopes for cuts and fills upon the absttttog property, and on each • nude of said deacnbed right-Moray, in conformity with standard plans and specifications for highway purposes, •• it and to the some aaunt and purpose as if the melt'herein granted had been acquired be roodemoauoa proceed- . - i mg'under E:mtneot Domain statutes�( of the State of Washington. tousled in the County of. \ / A.. L: State of Waahtnstne. .. • I _ _ S i� Dated tau _ day of ' / '" A. D. 1g..` • I WITNESS• ,ti-. I. II I • . • STATI Of W011tfOTOtil COUNTY Oil ,<.1.2j `1- } I Ou the... '3 .. . day of... ..> t/''i . .. -. 1f1f.'T c . before !_ifl a Notary Pu►I t in end for the State of Washington,duly commiasiowed and swore personally came. /�////'' � . r 4/?i!,t ,c . to me known to be the individual desenbed in sad S;•n. . rL; .• • eseeut44.Xne•liff#iribittrument and acknowledged tu me that. 5#' signed aaa sealed the same as . /� {.•. Itse�cr 'r uotary act sod deed for the uses and purpoe a therein mentioned. ,W bees my band aa4official seal the day and year first abo *ri..en. — --. +, • 1• Notary Po . kfl(a Pe e State of Washington.residing at . �C'i�t'.r L. -'U .. . it - C W • .. 0 O .r .-.. I ii Q m w'E . RECOftD£ll• 153 devil c Al_ sat . ::} 3 I. I. _�t, mg•. 'if>l�lf®1 l� I O io 21' • s • - . •. g N oo a ' 9 - i •"1 h-.1 , ..:'• u.: ID.. f1 tz ':Ca u a a illU V sc o 2 : 2 ' OER. '311oA.'smut riaN . r.� .. U w 11TY c y S : 5 A . 3 EXCEPTION No. ( I • ' • f .. De l5� • _ a.' ' • ~t4111r5 om`o- , • ••ate wr 6�1749�`_ sty 1UIT• DEED 9. , A/W 1669 T. L. 34 ,/ / / 23 S Horace Dal Valle i Anne-5e11s Del Valli,- Louis • The 'graat.r.._.._.._kar,iL _ •_• G, lateen i Eta Tait ra .1. LarIan ROOSEVELT 0472 INC. tin racs Dot Valli, PSAs. I llama King _..--- •— -- -- , — rt*7, , Q for the eooa,dentaoo o!_—Des- —.--..--.•--•--._._..—..---•-- —Dollars r - - . Q amok'also of bodu to souse to_..—___Lheil— _.. ..._..by reason of laying out sad setabC ►ba4 a public road 1 - • i Caroni! tbalr property, and which le hereinafter doaeribod, *savoy—, release sad Quit-aLaist... ' to the County of - King —........... . ....-Stars of W aksage^for too of the Pnbbs farever,as a public road and highway, all interest in the following drsenbad real*rite, rut.: • • The West 42 ft. of the South half of the N( . of the SEk of the SWs '� of Section 10, Twp. 23 N ., R . 5 E.W.M. - : ,� .: If ` o►• 'nCl„ded within a strip of land 84 ft . in wroth. having 42 ft . of Such • ,.loth on mach ,tat .f a :chte, ! ine ^_es:riber+ ,,•, follows ; Beginning at ' • tie S .w. corner of the E . of the E . t7 of the S.W. ti of Sec. 10, Two. _-.— - - :3 H . . R . , c .W.M. tr.ence N . Co JI ' 17" E . along the w . line of said • C .t,bdivision a distance of 155 .90 ft . , thence along the arc of a curve I !.D the left having a radius of 1 ,600 ft „ a distance of 195 .48 ft . thence _ 60 56' 43" w. a distance of 214 .56 ft . thence along the arc of • curve -. . _ to the right , having a radius of 1 ,600 ft . , a distance of 195,48 ft , thence • .• • 1, 0° 01 ' 17" E . a distance of 482.58 ' t . , thence along the arc of a ' curve to the right having a radius of 1 .600 ft . , a distance of 195,48 ft ., thence N. 7° 01 ' 17" E . a distance of 216. 12 ft . , thence along the arc of • • a curve to the left having a radius of 1 ,600 ft . a distance of 195.01 ft., thence N. 0° 02' 72•' E. a distance of 2,029.60 ft . , thence N. 1° 20' 15" E . a distance of 451 .99 ft . thence along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 1 ,600 ft . , a distance of 101 .54 ft . , thence N. 4° 58' .° 22" E . a distance of 465 .68 ft . to a terminus on the centerline of the • Renton. Issaquan Ro. in Sec . 3 , Iwo. 23N. , 1 . 5 C .W.M. at State Highway ' Sta . 176 . 74 .51 . , . r.ontaininr e0 AcLes more or ;ess . y • / 7/ t '• ,w I3Q•�, Ave . (S.C . 128th Sc . to Renton. Issa4uah Rd. ) • • a - • together with the ng►t to make sU neesaary slope, for cuts and lilt upon the-sb..tting property and no • earl side r•f aa,d deernbed ngbt.of•w.y, in conformity w,tb standard plans and apeeaficauoos to b,gbwsy purposes,and to the same sztrat aa.l purpose Se if the rights herein granted Lad boon acgtur*d by eoodetasgihrlO` 1 praetvdan/a ander Enunant Doman sunny -i'� • •1 • ty of the State of Washington, �' G' ��e`�/ situated to the County of /\ 'C'..L7" . ..... State of Wuhington. : ~•r �/, is lig • _ • Dared tine. day of ... ./`'777- .... . . A- D. 19 V._G.. , ot i } ' W 17157.244'• f � i/ r�,..r_•-._. r 1 �li;•�r,-{ I a�� • o• , - •• • .-_ - - • . �� ./.......:/... 1Le-,:-.;,. .' <. ,:.: _ ._ . ..._... • - 1=XC=' , ''N I L� • V STA18▪-Ol /1g. 1 d oxJNrg.•yr•'A�'d , III o%t" -2/47. dRr a --Cejle-Abadan. ■no.a Xi ars Tilt&la . i I sad for the State al w«il,4ton,duly«�■i■i--d sad ewrn.�er�b T. .OItL � �.Qfr14`d ' .l�L.•B .FeA 1 .<M/9uE•Iaa 6 a 0naa bGhrto an ham r be Jadirua.: _J I- desk w Elkin Vatr...lt and wkao.irigd In a».,.a Try y • and 4\7`!/' « an tti and"tna.rs a and dna ler tal l a aai'�.re taro fii • ; Wpse«sty►saiIad*Ilaial seal In day sad Tar Iat tlrittan. i• r, . A.24 \•t0o te a ___,., -4 ` 2 r • N•tary•i€i lit Atelbbiljos. the Stab of Waalispa . randiag at-- I;c'T‘TE OF WASHINGTON. 1 (aunty of •• • (Mt thtt ` E .Jq p( J .4L f Ige.D twine r.r the unl-•dlnnl. I Norm I•JMt.• n ,n4 a01 the C.ur ot K•t.h.nnon. JO% ton.m....n1.1 u.J ••..n r..r .nallt sneer• #./JAce y/• per g. marl A/ordrtH A :••r ' I..n■ In..•n t.•he the Yrrr Jen, an.! b' F /yt'fJ....r........l.,u..1, .•1 n ' ••hr ..nr..,turn Mg r%I'IM J the Irrelurnis m•rruntnM. ./.1 .1.11r.‘leJ;e.t the •:_' :c.t••after• t.•t..tl. tt.. ,lull ..du..,.. A At I 6,11 ,.1 .Atli ... wY..n I.ri the utn and r,urrn...Iltneu, Irrru■rt.•l and.•11 ...oh vat"( luau vt.tl■•tu. gpo/cutr the .a4 ,nunntti and Ilut the WA aIhaJ I.1 an s t. Orr ...tinware weal ..r ...1 .n1..at.— :4 40nJ ,A,rul .eAf Irmo airlieI the Jar u•I . 1,1 aA•.. •ry•tn a :u t ,�r•�4 I :Y •� t �r • t• ..J sr1•1 NILHb. In aaJ I.. IIIrr••1 a'.:... r•.. 4..a.11.at•.........e,$ta.•w...• rv.g./.1 y ✓ a _ �i 1' i _psi;I `\% ' Gila —4s il` .I ii . J .. G7 ..+ r Mri = Y a r o •!t 1� 6 = 1 w b 1 = (.^. m YL• `o • 1 CI ^ intJ A. nCllg6 itartot co)V a r K v ltraia+ts Y �l H to 0 . = I •0 0 k _ .� i ©a T. a .3 IZI II • It 1 •1 11 I li 1i 'I 11 . 'I II JI• ,I I I II • • ryy •: ' • .. . •l'...+d�'' g,'. h. ':. R/lt• 1e69 • `i T.L. QUIT-G .` •- ' :DEED=' 3 ► t ...-Coop rate"•Forin: ;<"t4 (.' .. . • The grantor.._.-herein.... PRIESZ1'IAL ?fO'iVAL SivzlirCle.Dar:. - .: •I -- • S.L. ielak, President' and D.K. McClure, Secretary 0^ Qna and lfo/100 _Dollars'Q for the consideration o[_ _..__..............._..__......._.................._._._...._...�.�. ...._..._.._.._._. •. ... r . .Q and also of benefits to accrue to by reason of liying out and establishing a public road through _ _property,and which is hereinafter described,convey&.,releases....and quit-claim.!. to Utz. County of gia6.._...._._.._.__.-....__................_....State of Washington,for use of the Public ' • • forever. as a public road and highway,all Interest in the following described real estate.•aixt f III • • including any after acquired title. The west 43 ft. of the South 1/2 of the N.H.' of the S.H.'j of the S.W.% \ 1 of Section 10, Twp. 23 N.R. 5 B.W.M. 'S:`!i included within a strip of land 84 ft. in width, having 42 ft. of such • -.d width on each side of a centerline described as follows; Beginning at - y ;iithe S.W. corner of the E. 11 of the E. Ls of the S.W. It of. Sec. 10, Twp. 23 N., R. 5 E.W.M. thence N. 0° 01 ' 17" E. along the W. line of said , _ _� • :.II subdivision a distance of 155.90 ft., thence along the arc of a curve �, to the left having a radius of 1,600 ft., a distance of 195.48 ft. thence ''Fi -. N. 6° 58' 43" W. a distance of 214.56 ft. thence along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 1 ,600 ft., a distance of 195.48 ft. thence ;: T H. 0° 01 ' 17" E. a distance of 482.58 ft., thence along the arc of a • '' curve to the right having a radius of 1 ,600 ft., a distance of 195.48 ft., ! •- .. ' thence N. 70 01 ' 17" E. a distance of 216.12 ft., thence along the arc of - a curve to the lef.: having a radius of 1 ,600 ft. a distance of 195.01 ft., .i ; •- • • = ) thence N. 0° 02' 22" E. a distance of 2,029.60 ft., thence N. 10 20' 15" : 0 E. a distance of 451 .99 ft. thence along the arc of a curve to the right ` having a radius of 1,600 ft., a distance of 101 .54 ft., thence N. 4° 58' . i : .t 22" E. a distance of 465.68 ft. to a terminus on the centerline of the Renton-Issaquah Rd. in Sec. 3, Twp. 23N., R. 5 E.W.M. at State Highway ) { Sta. 176 + 74.51 !� • • Containing .21 Acres more or less. ' R/W 138th Ave. S.E. (S.E. 128th St. to Renton-Issaquah Rd.)• I f L • • 11 t 4 ,.0 • ` a • , 1: .. '••••.,.---•--•J...1:4:-"'"`-:•-v,••--i•i'"•;•.?.','77 C7—..tt..6-1.t • .7. :: •.'• "'''..S • • =5i53, ._Ti 1 • together with the right to make all aeeeasar1 slopes for eats and fills upon tie abutting property and on . each side of said described right-of-wsy.is conformity with standard plans and specifications for high- granted had bites acquired way purposes.and to the same extant and purpose as if the rights herein gran 1 , by condemnation proceedings under Eminent Domain statutes of the State of Washington. ' bang _.....__�. _.State of Washlrston• r situated In the County of.. r _ Q Dated this 211ta' day of........ t,S0211t...r..._..........._...A. D. 18. ....- 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF.said corporation has caused this . m unu to September 8 by its proper officers and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed this 2i1th y „\! o 00�....t, PRUDENTIAL ?RITUAL SAPLN33 BA7i1C % •os 1 • a•• rif Pruidextt, s '... ..C:-IVIt ii-e-e.e-e--2.....-________ i •'+4l%,.M6 �+• By........... _.._........_._.._. .Statraey. i . • aT.\TF.OF WASHINGTON. ss. County of 1'!716 I On this ".Itt:t day of Swpt!n6es•s 1968 ,before me,the d�etus , a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington.duly commissioned and sworn, personals u . o. rl.' ek and O. `:lure to me known to be the Presi6 nt and Secretary,respectively,of Pr.:.l.ri:!al. Ii..at-i+� SeTtrzs 3ank 4 • the corporation that txecuted the!weaning instrument,and acknowledged the mentioned,audios be th statede and that act and deed of said axporation,for the uses and purposes thereinate seal of said • t. w n authorized to execute the said instrument and that the seal affixed is the torpor Pli , R - hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year in this certificate abort written. /.7. . /. Notary Prblic in and lac the State al WasL gt. , :'."7. • • is n j residing ar Seattle G r."....hSA\�•a hied ,. ..._ „ .2.i/ ..1GY I r.M. ..........1'• t.pu.st of Heald of L:.ray Con•-.»iz—sts tO$tUT A M,Ottis.Count Aud'A• L. "-- ' . - 9, 'e Q • • ft III EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY SLOPES AND SIDEWALK AREAS In the Matter of WINDSOR PLACE APARTMENTS KNOW ALL NEil BY THESE PRESENTS, That G.M. Associates, a Washington general partnership, for and in consideration of mutual benefits • do hereby convey and warrant unto the City of Renton, the perpetual right, permit, license and easement to use and occupy the hereinafter described lands for the purpose of repairing, constructing and maintaining roadway slopes and sidewalk areas In excava- tion and/or embankment, said lands being situated In Renton, King County, State of Washington, and described as follows, to-wit: . The Westerly 25 feet of the following described parcels: • The South half of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of the •• Southwest quarter of Section 10. Township 23 North, Range 5 East, In King County, Washington, except the East 42 feet for 138th Avenue c0 Southeast. • f— • • M TOGETHER WITH CD Cl` The North half of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of the 1 a3Southwest quarter of Section 10, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, In a0 King County, Washington, except the East 15 feet thereof, and except o0 that por!.lon conveyed to King County for road. • • the specific details concerning all of which are to be found within that certain map of definite location now of record and on file In the office of the City Engineer of Renton, Washington, and bearing date of approval. • • 1; " ,,.2 and , .,�., , „ y.,--•a • S `-./ 1A and ,c,�c+ 5.94 and 11 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) • ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) On this i�Yv-{ day of lai111 rc h , 19 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public In ap,d for theae of , duly commissioned and sworn personally appeared Kv %) t..on an . to me known to be the (V,r.� �... .e' e-cc_ and eVoref't� , respectively, of 6 M• A/ea,,...•1�, the cooper-144o* t Lai at executed the fore- . going Instrument, and acknowledged the said Instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, fnr the use: end purpose: t!i-'ein mentioned. and • on oath stated that iv_.Ls authorized to execute the said Instrument and that the seal affixed Is the corporate seal of said corporation. I , A 41)\ IJ1J. =- N�Tr� Notary Public in an or he tale of • itA i Washington, residing at - if-9f.''5, 9 /'f e ��'''',25•�' •: FILED FOR RECORD AT REQ!.EST OF �'IIIF`WAS,,.,' •, EFFICE OF TI:E CITY CLERK • EXCISE TAX i'41i HcuuiHcll AENTON MUpICIPLL 8106. i, I. c°•R°�`�D"u'°" •200 MILL AYE. SO. i I By / �1( 0—% Depu►y RSESAE-la A TON, VIA 1>IOSS I ihos. o .......... 0 . . . .... .. .• , . . • • STATE OP WASHINGTON ) es COUNTY or KING ) ' • I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Irene Grayson signed this instrument And acknowledged it to be her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. • DATED.: Marc .15_, 1990. ..; \il . ` / -5/1 (1F 1,-- Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at 4. My appointment expires: 3-a,c 5 d 5.12/21:2/20/90:jmw ....c .0 ' N N i . i' C'7 c.D Q` '1--! . • • • 1 r.,- r: • .-r""'.^"` - O... ,.... .. - ...:tai%L--*":,;.4C M-•r,,.ylZb 1 J BEST COPY AVAILABLE 8 ••1.•. ....�..••••••.• .-w • • • it .I=: . 1• i i ...::tom;.: _._ II e ; ,, ,, . domm••••MIME= MI•M•00 NEMER ID UM=•DI=NMI 1= r . ii l• •e;5 �:r�-•=,.—.."� ..= ••, •.-r...wn lil !1 ♦• I �� ,. -"'j • • -•c —•ram•.--u.mr..- --...•.� r...r•...•r.• +. r..•w •- •lF '.G•,, 6 M.IM 8. p • , - �... .•mg. — •.r w • , •.•J 1 • t • Ne ---�'—.—.----'_ — 1. ��.., --...,... 'E I. - 33 3) ..., •• .D%(:).34 (j_i ,II ."••42 el il I e i 3 old a. �� ig°ate ��� _��do�•.����.� V� i `�,"^ f/ W....�at t �� i \, �/.1! ••� �: •1 .•...-:-.1—.-; ; ;-; • • fl - 3 , , i 1•• • 1• I+o.o.1]M �r V7A l 5> ,) .. I •r . 1 tl d • rD-, ,n i _5 • :WPM, IP -IL • ...� ,.,.. ...r •�- wino. i.li I 9Q L 1 L7 " 1 %I t ; r souarK.�• ., �y^iJn pA a... J _ . • 1 It ...3 et...... cos '7y� i •♦y I • ' • y". ~c _ram r+s �/ 1_ i r- r G41• ave.i. I 0 I `t. Or s.>. '-' • ". .Y • . _-'...2 _s,.. ay.a'•'o n.qq 1 a+o-,.:..I.N.- .7zw w, .j s 1 :r •os ^ Mil.v A•{r{s 7a i.ate _!Q! w4 qy . 0 J . ' z i ♦ s -Iz {•u��s.11,i1 / r�ft I i 0. p n - - - - _--g A.H r ISM *I.If 3 "is pi i i.S A • J. i Z. .I A.3{.•.N 11 A L.M.',r1G Ili• •w..{• 01 l —Y.. < \ a ' 9 a %i1- ,t R $ i I 1a. ( rA" ;1 4 Q i ^�:3r • •• •wa•�•ri• I n Q av/r 041 .776v7 13611.7.7.,I J R I - _ 3 _ r ®ad.• 1 {3'17q 1 1 Y ; n44 0,0r1 r� 2 `� • 1L aal I I �{ i + l R {• a401 �S�. 1 •f6f�� -L 1 iltTl�� al ,i i I 1�T •� T.�� I aO r \� , 1 \ L ` M = .�.MGlI•�M v wi.v • av- rrlb .. •"f••.'N G• Z ® 6 —1- — f►'11.13 S•M.atv O.T-.0M •• L+...sail a7•ti 4 7.v ' .11,rI 7 K�•d .i iA.: .v. ?e7 C714'►7 Of"061 01 •Mse' 7AK'ti,MN:$,/1Ms '7,, • ,y 'P/15 �► *,,;MS .'ri 'N i itl w Is 1 1 q7"OO fG! • T ill � -.�- •ta.r•cDTI(r __Aw:irr". rII T. ft) ,$'••■ra k _ wrf� I •Isue..■ A ► rw.1.o■a`i •.N rt twr - I - --- -- ► - � --firL.•�► I a ) r.. iA.+.■�■ an�r•(f.ral 1f v I o I � I . 11 :\ N i ..I- -- / l - - Q t /........ ..., .. /111/•“4/ OM •••••••.../mon/ Ti •f •1 : 4.....+r. .L .o /1-1•b r • �I)u . - p •g 8 ; 1 n F ill •Q `? j • 7r ii 11. 1Ne [iN •' iyI s -- - � - J r. _ • IItJ w.��'1t'� tee**. a. -W i tlE 0 -- ..J. 0 it o r ifs d.T • OOP A (1) 0 W —t t l ii5) ei p(11,1 gel. tr.) ...n !II {{{{1/ ;! JUl 19 II f in'1 Ijii j ;i 11 t !11 [ tl il! ! 11II yii 1 !i 1 iE ! E ! E ll r �� n .I t II! ;Oil! t t t b ! I!i lii °11 t I I rtl !! ! ! .T ,- . Itt -e ! IIit - �114e.if !r - , ! I 1! t 1 t � t , JIJ r = I ttlr ,! I!JI 1a i I iE :E : I tI t ! i= ! II 'el5s- , ,�iI ! t IIt ! � I II � +�, .I Ii Ii �. � { It ,. � �ii1 ! I , 4III • ! t : I LII, rrl, III t 1 ! _ {I � 1 . III tI .1I — 1:IiiIr til111 I rat t �E II i! =II I II! It IIII Ilia — . II t {I , tis�t 1II -ii I:1III I ��� I iiitfr r _ iI 11 11 l..i ..i li.i II _ , It - I1i• fI ti• i t r t t• I t i . +' raOf;1 g5o :)7.13 00 005-7077 INIECOPICHI1201 CERTIFICATE SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE NORTHWARD PROPERTIES rI/N Tor ......A •hl. thy r,r ' T n r... •u r• .,r..r r Iv r.•r.-•••n•• a •.rwv ...A• 4 a 0000e ENGINEER®1 INC._ 19 at .. 1. ...• n NO .. v n •n .rn r nr ,•lr•I /r .••rr.r••• , , r r .-•o RliO MOM MOIFTI�AST n. ewirro .r p.v. .r .ne re.,..... II ..rn 'h.- r,,,......r• to rr•. a.vrr grrrtm■r SUITE ow '3115-tn8r.h ANEn1UE 1o7THEAST Ill LEVU 7 woos ENGINEERS. IN(. a t ph, .•�...• nr F. WA !ODDS BFt1EVUF.VVA- -41NGTONI 99011 _ RECORD OF SURVEY 1 OWN AlCHRISNAN nt�c.. a-2i-5- ""°' "'Ci nrv•c•.w ..r .n...nc a rrnrr.+c __,( NORTHWARD PROPER _ 88OOo ry..o.: '", ?, )71_1_.•v B9, •CASCADIA '•Vri I. B£CN£R tint MAY 19, O w�' +"-- -- - - — /- 7 -}�� •rwt .• ✓s909 n•g•rrS.A MERRYMAN P[ 5 a.,( I IOr I — ► 41110 FILE -ID: 301093 5 TO: DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. 4205 148TH AVENUE N.E. , #200 BELLEVUE, WA 98007 ATTN: STEVE CALHOON THANK YOU FOR CHOOSING FIRST AMERICAN TITLE **************************************************************** City of Renton WA Reprinted: 02/02/96 15 : 19 Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R9600491 Amount : 3 , 500 . 00 02/02/96 15 : 19 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: GM ASSOC. 1154 Init : JE Project # : LUA96-010 Type : LUA Land Use Actions Location: 6TH AND DUVALL AV NE Total Fees : 3 , 500 . 00 This Payment 3 , 500 . 00 Total ALL Pmts : 3, 500 . 00 Balance : . 00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 .345 . 81 . 00 . 0007 Environmental Review 500 . 00 000 . 345 . 81 . 00 . 0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat 1, 000 . 00 000 . 345 . 81 . 00 . 0017 Site Plan Approval .2, 000 . 00 IP **************************************************************** City, of Renton WA Reprinted: 02/02/96 15 :23 Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R9600492 Amount : 9 . 60 02/02/96 15 : 21 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: CALHOON, 3411 Init : JB Project # : LUA96-010 Type : LUA Land Use Actions Location: 6TH AND DUVALL AV NE Total Fees : 3 , 509 . 60 This Payment 9 . 60 Total ALL Pmts : 3 , 509 . 60 Balance: . 00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 . 05 . 519 . 90 .42 . 1 Postage 9 . 60 • 5303 I SE • RM-N - --g- 11 I l i 1i1ith1 i I - � z IN -: R'8 � 1 , • . 4 -1-iRfrirfj r_ R ,-_- . .. , , , „ , VE 10TH St o. ..*> RI 7 1I I ' ll ill I f/3- , � ~ w -i R- r '( ( I ' , SE 118th St 1 r- e _______r • •, . ::c..) z7.5 rn- 'N, N 1 1 . \ i SE 121st St A r� ' EL Ill I I 'Nit 6 ft.....i•.--e. 114E R- ri RM-I ' 7 nil , ., .. ............ it) or• ogGHARd9 ,.i.:p'k. EFE j i • < ' , NOien-I ,E2- ,m. : -z Sectbr9 :___ =_=[1_______ dmic-=7_____47 &NN.., . A G. . - CS C '. CS - _J rE ' t WAi- . SE 128th rt ILilli __ 5315 t1/1413r , 1 . . - ../. ) I . s13 Ieu! imewaiddns • ....3..0tig'Is.: -I 1...sixt.....w.g1 . sP1e143i0 eill •••••••••••eA%- -. :•••-t v.zer- p'eAr•••-, x.,,, .,,,,-..,:::::::.•:::,-:: -.. ..i ,:-.---",4 1:t?:$- "@ 11511111 :.W11:43V A- a3 E2 %. ^::•:::••••:.:.:4:.:.:.:::ia. :ii:* %"""""v•v""•• " 1 174 e• ..:::I: -' _•. -C 1:.::Z.....'4'-1 w-.4'.:''%'.'.......,1..e\..1"..•':::i`:.:..::f::::g::.,'i'.;.2..._.E„ a-- • sti t P . . 7.:••:.:•:•:••::••::••::•:•:•:••:N•:.•..._• ,, • e ;,.:;ill . •...... ; .i.,..„ i ,1 • exipms itailwwoo(r3 4:::•, 0 ..,-.0-4•.:...-, . "met 1111111 •:?:::::::,-.:' °I* • . ..,...;.-. *•:::....• wit 1111111 °lila' ,,,,-4..-;:'.%, Y. ,g.;) . • litTlii ; aiM w::• ,., , , , . 06 WI •,0•6.11• 11111:214S Arwerninti 11. •5',.• ,• G f:• ...•-•"•••••••••••• 1 4 ., $ •• irled U0P1103A3 WiS ......."... ..,1,3 •:•:•:•:•:•:•::: : 1111 ...;irm _...1 e WI ,'1: • • I : ect ,- ......",,,,,,:t. :EB ,:::::: , -_.-...„,, --o)--1, . ..,, : i,sc,,,!§::..:: .;:...-",•%':{ I. -jia 12 Ni. —J71)1 :::: ::. .7'.:•.. 1:.•:i Ni%:.:.. %...............1: •••:::. i:::is:c,,,y ''e.:::e:.v.:::li imp . ::::.' 11, It'd •.: g3 sl - -:-. C.D , g .$ ...,, • •• „ .,.__ AmmogeluirNo-Pesioms. msevs?LI V hopunos els,...... • • •::..... .. ,,,,,...:. •- ••.•:•:•:•:•:••••••",-.3-...- ''' PP* 411# - - i • . ' '' - 1 .e.- .,.I ,, "'.'5. - . it 0,13031 ze•••••••..,----.,----yr.--•-•••- - . i cri--fr..77,F.,WOI:,;4-;:e.4;x::Z4Sktik;11---..- ...14 1,--•-• -- I• _..---....: .. , 1 z•,:z4i.o.,.):1)pf..••ky.•:•, ..e,.. .. -.... ....„....,-„,.....4,. : ____=_.. .: • 00) 0)1 0 i /- 1=1.10d=king • I .....---..----"-'-r----:::" IIN*: *':.;"!'-......f.....:"....."....n.-!:- .- •,:i: ,...,.1.,,s . Will ilqin aillineR it . ••:.••,;:•:-.:•:•.•A.i:::',:•:•:::::::•....m....•. •f•lIl 1 _,*.!• :1`, .• erilll,i•-•7i::r•O. .—.:W:A:- •:: •• ••••••4 . A-:-.. . •g.: YN I . A, 3 „at. lips...::::ii•-:** ,1?z:A . %II - WEI rid 1. •-• wri •• : i$.. ,:•'‘. sa le.....k. ..,‘" Nip. 114,,:*.....N w ,:v: . 01 I Us:•::.••::: ' ",. ...,.. mmlf . w....:riact -\;:: ••••::"•••• -:. wg- wi ...„....1. , 1 I ..4 1-• iiiii'W im .c...:••••••:: l':* 45*.;S4 ',/:',, 1*:1::"% 111 \:..**: 4'•::$":"""4141"41;6:0:Mi i i 2 i 1 IA illi min Ilialitem et 1 .• , ,.':::":".:• .•'-' -- - •:: -7 1 pm •; 11‘0111 'WIPP, IN41.11/` **",11 . If • en '.•-;.:::.:...\.„ , 26 •- A •\ oil" ,..:...,,,, \--...:\. . . . 1 . • :::ea .. v•::::,1111 , .0e•AP• 0.••• 4 . • P • • \ •.• .. . il 1 1:i1W:".!:.:.:51t- •-•:1:.!.. ‘• • a ::::c 1. " a so I • • / a . 111 • ' :.V.:.fr----- ' 41:k\ 1110111 . ft 4.X...es • , El j:.•, .........„ . ••••:*:::: ?:::a),..... .i 1 '•';-:*:;,,...,, -• i.•:-..,,. At:. ..„. 1....: a • a 1 i 1 1.•.A ,i,::" • 0 Si 0 • • i • 4. I ,e• . . . ...... .. • 1. . • .1 ,,r_::; • , a ••••::4i*), : a ;,...1. : a a • il . '\ •.:::,.:.:!.../..: . 1 ii.'::if a a 0 ).! N....::::V\ T• --,-.-1).;a ..........11::... r,..........1 I I 0 ••)...:. \ $ .. 0 1., -Z:4 . I e • I i .. . i . II . ! i ! I I •:::*I I * I wow „ II" . L _.... „0..,m.._.._________.___.._It.._ . - IIMIIIMIIIIMMIMIIIIIIIEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEL - :-.-_,J, --•,,,, -,. • , .-- -. -.,_, :-.• ..• .,. • --•.- .,.. ,_ -:,-, , •-• • . • .. ,..w.., , , .. ... .- , . '�` .JUL 22 '96 09:.12 BROWN&ASSOCIATES P. . ' iResidential Condominium/Townhouse (230) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: : Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 53 Average Number of Dwelling Units: 185 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1 5.86 1.83 - 11.79 3.09 Data Plot and Equation 8,000 • 7,000. r r r ' • • yr, . A/ . 2 8,000 J J• / . . 0/y0� /' I- /' x /� x 4,QW ' r s • 3,000 / x . 2.000 x ' 1,000 • • • 0 • t • , • t I • 0 N®0 100. 000 400 000 000 700 000 000 1000 1100 1200 ' 1900 • X= Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Pointe Pittard Curve - Average Rata Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)=0.850 Ln(X)+ 2.568 R2 -0.62 Trip Generation, January 1091 382 • Institute o1 Transportation Engineers • • „..t.,,, .4.4.4,fw.i.;), .7:4- cc un....„,,., __ _ . .... _ , ,,. ...,..„..,. . , 1 .., 4. .0,.itt--,.:, • ~e-YA \Ufa _ '5* � •,,l Te'Z e . •• '�i�G - A. '• M _Q spa _-yt••- 7'.,. •.,r1.t,,':,r�, .,_r,i :;,Q- ; ;i. - s __y . " .% +c !' M ,fir i�y.' 2. 6id r. 'Ryt �1 fpY7F._, 'y iI' S7. '. - -ii. • anlfT4.-IWa. -'_ rim,'",. G3 / 44.•;^� s�ae �. ^mot` �'/, -ti. .�. �.� .'.t4 `zaass '=f'y� +.��Ilp C'" S�A� 1 r��z _eaa.... I. •:IniP' G dwii-_w` J ram LIA +�uWare 'J KSMFT.M WI i .r I II TRADITIONAL HOMES I72•o"MIN. .4--o 1 ao 0 8•o t 41•dl to-o rIN. COTTAGE HOMES IV rogci4 a {7I M R 5Is1N Nc,14*U. .ANTSF. D lAd • , 1D R7RC.M r FRONT WADED GARAGES 16t-0t MIN. 1. 1-d (Jue,91-ffSeKit.xc . REAR WADED GARAGES GUEV T f% rNG A'RGN I I - QAY*uEYallo I c 1 IoLa' •39.0 Raw D-o '1 irrimyEsbEM6 EAff...NEttri STREET SECTION •�• THIS O R CHAL Ili' D S •�• . . NORTH 1GWGT.Al R D HOMES _ I VEIR SOIN ASSOCIATES, INC. 66 CtS 1-":"ii I ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING -- ------------ --- - — -- ---- - ------- - ----- ------------ 3--- --f0 -- ----- - ---- --- ----- ------ ------ ------------ -•---------- ----------- -- --- ---- - - EC. TWP. 23 N., RGE S E., W.M. —a �I. I i i n oon• .. .1.. •. /y.6401..- ,*".', --'• -•Wr .1 BTI1�I—- -__- --! `• \_ 'P 111 •IiAa i ,.. - • I� �-/�r.•Tf9T v ! ..._ _ -.- y�,� .3. .r••'� �1 1 _ _s i 1 :. _ Maw :7+ "'+ Y.. j•>_.�_..� T>r. 1 i t t 7 ',, i i �.,, • Y, r�.`► Y,� _? oaf #Urn* r . y Y 1. -T i 24 n n I '* 1! -` 7 -.gri:ice{ +a • ray ' .a_ _--b� �'�'- *-•_;�. •+1! ' ' r. ! ;*�� I .01 ■-_ irk a fit, il,''';;, , :./ S�y. s 7—� illil�)" =_.- ir k TRACT n 1 (Ln �i-rg7a� : t �,MP.n. NIL 1.11,21—114 ® Z a 1.4 vs. O - .-' s t r t .ate ttrurlW7grAtt k41;4T- -E:'-'-;..' -N .444.V...4147-11riEt4- ' ''-. 0°) WI r 'Z' ..'__! le; 4". 1.11 . ts.,,a ,.gm _;• 5. A .' -Itt`,4114 4 0)g it-. , ,,, ; 7 . §%.,1 ., . , -..W. • — oz WM Ent 1.11 of Pow. r. Nwit ...�... u� T ty; l'3' i ill • • M ,� pisJ(}y7 �'�J'✓' '�.,��11�` ly ''� Q �\, Y J +,O ♦noon i ! llIYYY i B F� � 1 V�'? r7� ;x .11 36 • M.9,..-...im.wUtit,.- ''''3?.., ,( ••.n 1 rr.ram jM .0,4111514-14,,,,414°IF: iOseicL111 11A1.4:;-.K0AS' ; . '10 rilf,41#:,... CO pre.. ip- .. #i 3 B e 1 e S,1 .-- �:,�� a: 1111- - ' , ? �0, ova ..•a11 • •_0.o •i:il lil!,'�I.VINI.iY!g::44 .' N Q d 3 SECTORS E d F • '1 / �. ... 0is. • SECTOR G . .n a V >i • LEGAL DESCRIPTION eecTo.s e.. Ow Cl ,r.eeAn..u.r u.Mev.-noon•..a..a.w.....•.•.. V W Z a..ewu.r.a+M.a e.rtie,n..w<k"n Meow • 1{► Ziik L....M LLr..�...,.- .. Ownar/Developer Englneer/Planner/Surveyor y ..•MVN N-too.11.2.4•.a or..S.N..0�. L•G-..dl.O'YC.!/1•n0 .IA-4.�MA,~r, ME ! i il- I ' al i...no [iraGana:."-u.e,•.Eno. r.•n..O.T.e"'�sr o 22 `..r.• R.Bge... _ c�-uw �a e�.ui...�vu escv. jr , •:n.•ia u.c`�.a y».w"�.�o•a Ma sua....nen�..c�..r a.rw....-m• '.�A ra..n.Geg.,y PE.- '�, l..wrn.-.0•v.b• a r.242 • ..vow na M anon n.W 8B .u. ...y rLB-w"M•' B. • v A 1 Sn▪ oce.vgb9CYllC•Yl . • TN.raO..erB-+BP i `. �. I. ryrt SIT LEGAL DESCRIPTION eecTc, STATISTICAL SUMMARY r r• n.so•u.i.u.+u..e."-......um or+.sort...,w.. -'-- • leu1(400,0sI neva n.T..Vrp as Nano a ' Ent WM CXCL.Y..e..1 fort 0--1 re IN.An.EL.. KCTOIC\C.. GICTQ!G t0.4 R SCALE: 1' = 50' . •••• •.n. .a.. n� Toot r.. a•..Oa w"•WIG ne- aawB•..Ile•n n.- ,B.O.op. 000 ne •- b r ,r.Mart nu a Ire Me.....4n.a Ole awrtw.goon r..r.M..VMrt.a�... •f •T o0 ...Sown,comer of Son.O......n0 Ia Noon • Zone !,wcow.e R-N R-]. 1= of OM.L*arT u•not a fort unroof Mr0AM•.A..AL n. • MA fe...go � •:n °..[.g�..yq.-,.�...a.e.sm...•e r., W.rt4... n.]OO.I..MOM e G. 6.00•...OM o.G. IMAM of•EEG a tow.mv, vICINITT MAP > MO SCALE 95O54 E iV2 y- . . . 1 1 . wo y oaiAJ94 AN/-, jai •'o' •''2 ,E1 - . 7 _ . �j►,Ii0 t14i, ' 471 I-41)- 561 ! 0 7 0 0 t- AO ef4- . 21 0 i , . . ., 4,awa44 1.a-»V ......... 9 l aNM .lo? o�h2 . : . 8o alio. ail.v.mulf - - . 1 _47cr- 7eN f- i) 3 i 1(1. cl (.40../.2 4_,r4.2 j, v.. . • (4_, A . ===-1-" - ----. . L------\-•• le 1. (41-T-471----t • SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E.,- W.M. - - - — • • , ) ' ( . I ; r --, - ... 4 .T 1 A p j j •]' 4]' j TMwean3R• SOD ��J J .v n 1,.020 •• SCALE: 1R = 40' N -'G•e� •_ 0 1 N. a T�cr - '�--.cm - R•y'p_. 1E en.eT. W T ,VI 4C- Z'.'1% 6 VICINITY MAPnr Al SCALE 'd °°°'°' Owner/.c,wetveloper E elneer/Plenner/Surveyor = ii it r1P alI 1.11H W NPVR dE605 w.wm 'S..r. E • L 75 24 a3 ZZ I .]' .]• n06,141-n]`eEOB D�.w,.. V,_ o Cd 'RLEGEND .]De.pee-TBn "'vie-a....pQ5 °o-- eTOTe-T ORAn Eo 31 / i•• ��- ..' .. 20 R CAT.SASS LEGAL DESCRIPTION i _ �,ER T•e ew.w w.v es T.e NORTMBEST CARTER CO T.E Barr ens•CPASTER :am::: .T.e eWT.REBT=ASTER.SECS..m.TOWewm],.OW.4.044 B ;_ - - `I 1I .-- „� EAST ?E EXCEPT DE EAST.]SEET ERRE C ECq i,BTO DrE4E BE AB s59 60 CORVETCD DT DEED RECORDED VDER RECCXD..RO 6.n.SpeANRTAR.eEUER T.e NOarww•>La o Twe NomwEeT onARreR.TwE eouT.EAST=AR•ER 3Z I9 Ir mTw o S.e=TwEeT=ASTER.SECTi=m.TO OWP»RCS,RAUSE e ie E.,.wn,EXCEPT T.E EAST.]TEET TwERECR TOR ISS,A.e4E eE.. DS8 61 R EXISTN.'CCSTOUR CONVETED TO CEO CC.NT.DV DEED RECORDED UQ)ES RECORD,.ROWPAPoG .1 b.n.emnNTew GRAD[CONTOUR!^ 33 rN 6PdcE 11 I elR'�Sl 0 6Z }I IB 1' I \ ` d Ic .. I 1a 0w �I4141 FL:._ 1 I , I�T II Qo ii 1 35 _ Mil s•covc lsOc�nra0P�RB 4 U I6 sar... jlk 1 g R, W o W 49 l SECTION A-A ;w lillimie= 54 e� ENTRANCE ROADWAY SECTION W36 57 51 50915 4 +n suer Q-r I` 48MT - bm cb W3l "%P wsQi'+dl 14 ]'� ZOQ".:T1yyael Je [` r7 _eTat Ro '•j O U •l 4043 43 4d 13 ,-cb+r``T `CO,40 rC .. 5.. • - TRdCT 4 • 45 �• O•.o... Q Q ca I SECT/ON B-B —Z�' a TRACT; TYPICAL ROADWAY SECT/ON AI, _ _ •c seer Q _ - 11 l'o„..._ U. L r e e rl III NB I a 4 6 l 0 to I Ii__ _.i3_' .. III B•0T19'W _ -' 60401. SECTION C-C SECTORS_ E 4 F •]' 42 PUBLIC ALLEY SECTION • . 1 1 I 95054 SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E., W.M. iPra•/.Or SCALE: 1" = 40' ' _ s, �. :�•u� .. a .y.. - a-��- 1 \'�, 6.1 .....1 VICINITY MAP � (r�l # co TRACT B NO EC4E •,�?..�. 9'y, -P.c I "" • `\ Owner/Developer Encjineer/Planner/Surveyor II • lMilinglillMilirl 660-1=7:ratrE,6At•.0 Dome Eoe/Ars leo lIiilI LEGETm 1I11y1 coT" LEGAL DESCRIPTION • •u II 1 . p=111.11111itEel ■■/■ ,— Wx,ER of eay.r.Ir dr d.w..,.....or t...A_dr w ed,.d..•.23 Noon./..... _ =\� �i�■ -..-- f" E.N'.Iqu�E+CEPf�'i,.n wen•]fonOrd v_cIC*, anclar A.•_BE e• ILA'> • TRACT A IntlilfteliTil -t u rtAR.-BEUER en•i 1 rniin�]4viy°ydrd..eo.a.d,mod_rrr�.d�.�g en Z E I' 6PACE E 41 • .. ow v o In rwYf S o.._hr,dr w m„u....q•...._ " - E...Wn EKCEP,d.WUA a]rr.u_•.r re.I..Ae_u 6E• 11 4O EKIBToi CPAgR roi:Byw ro K.y Ca•xy°`J d..d r«wd.a w.RAwi,dug noW WW1\. / ,.` 'it �� I ` --.----. ,v.NN GRADE CON10. N`• „, it) Tiore3 , • \ SP - a 11.18.1111tV0101 �1 T II "/ 1 Ii.liA I l \ 1111 a.41/168....... 44144 JO...WI JOAO moor N.. --• Ct 01%iiiii . dr ' -i-1- '°-- ' :-,] -- Q., ( ,#14,ii 111°441111/174ky • M e C(YCN,C0.VLRr l(KF,K.I CARS \• O y O Y t 9 &NOR,Nr K NLar,C SOCRA:.---\ Q ti et_ ,111.110.- SECTION A-A 2 @ e=3 ENTRANCE ROAD SECTION a k xt scu( p cTc , _ 26'GN,V — i '------K'''''A 411 • 1 . I.1.0111 -— I [(WA"cavcanr a,xlm CORN -1 \ �' =f--- -- • Ali 28 : a[EARN,ca+canr SW. - -1 r. E_«G:.•,E.._- {E;, SECT/ON B-B TYPICAL ROAD SECT/ON a. — NE8.0115'w NO 50A<r SECTOR G -----t=60GmI• I 1 1 95054 SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N.• AGE 5 E., W.M. -- -__-__- '• - . • • • \.1•\,ll1 R4CI a . yy_.�`..... ,!994•nee. 1441177v 4101.62.— --':_ •�,\ TRACT mB °am' D - I iI _.-___ /— $.I: 94 sr ! �i � ' . _ - , . '� { , l 73"'i 71: I II • +D 11 .m .D _ , ' ;g I- ` 14 ,: I.. . I / — ------- —� l , mi:..3..i ( \\ (gg) Nit i f Q. I0 ilit igh ml ,. • L� .. —a ,1 m • i t 1 // i- 3S ErrUimiek e i I ,�( }Ii//wefts feCuba0 • 1 �I\ �� i �i � IY 1, 1.:-..„,,, Rl.r• I .n- t ZZ mJ"i? ii • kit I, '' Ammi.,,,, 1 0 Li hOiE.Ca•t MII bM...--- _>� . I 1 '-_- D- i I I '1d} �jj ` ,.� ,. tU ,` Aran. .e a.e T4nN Ova �Dbrvg a.f s - J :I '.� i<�/ `` �rE,' , p Q'� A`v-' 3l -.. l ( • /�� -�. '� "all � d:. 41 • , F.-.C I__E, '1 14 ; ,' , I/'////,/ ,...te f..., 10014 1 P Alif**7 co r' 2 IC t;• .. " d'' - yTj ' 1.r.i// •/ I1 sr „. : .. 14 • . D 6 Iltl • fl — . 1 _ . 2 tepee • SECTORS E 4 F. .) heI•m Pro mf (‘I 0 O� 3 . SECTOR G V I I O 4 CC LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTORS e I r 11 m.N WI of tti 40(2 .quarter of u.Oeeeu ee... W a? g Ps O of Pe Owurt quart.;of 0e.tton 1D.Tc.Wg.)a hcrN 0 taw.WT.Ez4M u.Co.e)fee.Paso?for Ia0tz AWN...a. Owner/Developer Engineer/Planner/Surveyor y Com ,.e by creed.rods.qS Recadwg fb...11.0e. . DPP Gasmen.Inc. Cl) - Pe Mcru..•0 a Ps hon.rn grry a P.•wMe..t gull mho-MPn ME.OUI.•IW .r09-ufM argue NE - .� r en• ' o?P.oewu..t quarter of Sep..b.To..M.p ra North R�.y 0 D•11•we,yu b000 mAte PO ,Q� Ca•t,y0'1.Cz4M Pe Ca.t q feet Poree1 for OOP a 0 I• Cmucu Rlw.e 61Yoy Del4u.u.ua Ya7l Jr P "}' y {{ cnn. peel to King Couay by creed rme.e under uraewy W. Jen L..-Pl4 Da:Ucu Eqw.Mw.PE-Ergvr y ! i ..fNf0r K00 dX4M V..t pertle.of NC.u.Bp.as patted w Tel lrUr Nl-N. O.Tq 4u.9R-PW^' Q N SS OS llv d `I.• Pee F voles N o1 PYu.at peg. PS G4.wy PLO-0vr�.r l L, v .z.SIT T L.Wee e0g.b.e I]Or.L• T.L f)O•]Dee-lOtl w l5 w U 2 ... SIT* LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTORS G r a .e. ,.Owlh NO oI e.Por3ee.t q er.,of P.0ou..a•t q..... STATISTICAL SUMMARY { . of. !kph..g quarto,of leo.10.ToasTop)]bolls Range !i the 4.1 W]L 1941•T Pe West e]feet tlab.ol ha 13OP App...OE.a. MOTORS C.. SECTOR m TOTAL U m.,.�.d to R`� •a+]by deed receded area Reee...g rto SCALE 'R CO• t. uu •r HlN Nfl!]l Teul Mu 07900 p.h./003 acre. 3.420 p TT f SO crud• IMOM'•q h.f b00•oes -vITLL J The sp.tell a 0m rtr..a•t qu.ry of the LAMY..g0amer Iropo•.d Nsa of Leu .a 0l ao �® Otwrt quw e1 Motbn q,To..Op]a.bVt Ra tes• • lcrng•Existing/Propose. R-]. 1020 • 4•l W)L Cz4rt..u1e.a]Ise.Pero,for DAz•vwu 6E.a• PUMP Rlgr.-e W.y Dw b]w•r,fo..)ICJ e Oboe County by ere mood...e.bearding Ho ~Coverage 3404p Are.. 104400 el.00.of SAW 4ee00•f.roa of m/ WISPS.11 nb•of total.n./ / 1 VICINITY MAP NO SCALE 95054 . , • • . - _ _ ___ -SEC. 10; TWP. -23 N..-RG - , --- ---- - -- - - . ip.... .lri". • • . . ,•. I \ • i&-.• ..11,— _.....et F • I I • 'r I • i a i lit ... .- . SCALE: r E, 40' /.._ ..• • ..- . .• • a IMQ= ,vICINITY (MAP 1"r-it I . .„,...t.• , ..A. • .....,,fr.•„tr. , . ----..---_,..t _ ---- ...... a - V* .... 0,a ..,. 6?"-----"•-• •. _ _ _ _ OwnarlDeveloPer Engineer/Flamer/Surveyor s•-•,..\ ...1. •-j.:. IlrmillIFIII ee.••••=11..Owns We •36.0•Ur•npZeli - IQ ii. •fre -.. liggigell n) „ 2 __, ..,,,• ,9 Wax, ....,..........We, 100•P 041,020 • 0.:10.Ire ere..se IMO/ Canon lag.Jog..1•Free tai i ?.• -7,• 1.1 2 ) 1 -ill gill."'" _WI --....•- •• Mee 000001 P300,MAI '''....... .e :1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION_h. - - 11- 1111T . 4 . CAM.Yee ee Mew Per e..r.%ream eerie pp•we Derrepre ere. CC: ' t>,, .--w P.,%-Air',48t akkl eini .1 -•- WM e re 65.41••••••••••••Sqlruo•••••••••ip 3,err....le 0 W. I .; • tel/ 1. 7 . . . 1,A —111. I 4 " rm.W..Brae.,re won al 441.ewer Pe rler a.v.e•I rs ..0.••=•:::::trae,ay••••••2*swam"dre./MeV..••• • 111> ' i VI ! '. i • / TO..ACT A agm'siCies 1 in At:1,1 41145 z_._. if AI h , . 1r .to i le--••••-• 110.10•010 fele re ee erre.0 re••••••••••erne a•we•••••••ewe. a..pre bon..••ner a,eget..•'a.m.11 err ergs• Ire 000 trCee•re we 01 NM inEr•o•.6.,127.•&Arse OE ft 1•110003 CORM* ..,.•••=e to R.,Cc...4 ta,Moo mesem9 wee efter.o..e er al. i - --f ! W 1 4 k.k 0 /1 •/ • 11‘11,1111‘01111-liir 1' /i7 -44=1: •w- --SIII\ Iii) wil IlitammV 11 .4141-*---.. -.4011511°r:1.. lirl I I I III 5*- • I Peri+Orl•Le COM". . 0:3 it?) k • 3 li L.-.;, . :„....._ . N...._."r)-41114Cliarsh• tilla •. Q, 1 —Catt:1 .1,17 ta '44..,_ Et- i•--- 1 _ •i '. 1 012 Ct )14 If*" .8 . AVIV ffr.re-7 rt•PC•I nee ,, 9'(1 %.,-,7.C.f 7 C•17.,•.._..: el bt E2:: i, • ; SECTION I ett ENTRAAICE ROAD SECTION ca • - ii 4040)111111101, IlittP\,... SO SC•I f CC et i'..1 • 1...... ,,,, , IL•03: N.t c• ti . 4.Ell Z !ACT 1, ; 411107 44111111k\I" -- )13,..r•7 Al.:'A.() Ed k-....,:., ii an.II.0 •• -.•• et • _ i.„,,r,..,.. .. ._. ...,. .,.., ... ,. ... .e/ „.. -...... .. .. .' 1 rAe..e.e•O--.., 141117 i Ikla°.--'.41Pr. . • ' ! • ' _-- , 0 . --A 21 '-L-=....1.•:.:_1 7.7..:=_7,47__-_::_----_.=_-__---_--_----------..-.------%. ' . • .'..- a iii!: Ili C•fr,c•f lol7rPrff 7••klf-f..1 C7•I.1 i 1nj SECTION B-B AL TYPIC • t'•;-'. ,.. ROAD SECTION• ••••V..f •;• NEVID119111 '- MI.Or •- - • SECTOR G '2.7:1,..., ' ....-:-..• , - / /- 1 - . 95054 • ; . . ., . • . .• .. . . . . ,,,...1 4 i+'r.:•;,3,i• ,ii;.'.;,,,,,,..,t-.3;.?- ,.. .qi,.,,,4 .,.,i,,,,;-., ;J:.,..,,. :,..,:.,, I, ,, ., . .; . ''.,!iffitittil tr,.1y1hifillif p Liiii, 1.• 4,ti.:•:,•,.i .• . -• . ''',•,.: .40,,,i. • 1:. !I• . , -,,.; 1 o?„,- ...I. I'l?.‘"-'•-• ••,,h,imilkiwir..••, _!i.1,:-f' -/.' :: .' ......... ...,....m..7 ...:. ......_. .__..----------- -.4.. .. ------------- - -------— -- -- -------- - .'§'-i, . ' i ' A : ' . .' ' .. .../'::4:,,',.,,.,—•3-1 I;•...'..T.Pr/•1-.. .-:'-'.• • 7I!-—1,.i.;:i..,': 111,11rAWrr"11111r , . ,,.. ,,:,. ..,,ii,.,....i:,:;',t! !i.i':•, ,. I.-t!..!:"..,... ...,,II.1.144 li,t:I.f...: .:1I:i'.' LI „! IF-211.1111 ' 'k ;•. . ‘.••i.' , ,',1,:1 ;' • ' . ••, , • .•:••••.,,, c.:.,:. .. .1 . ' ' •.'i !NI''t..A.4.;.!' •V...11 i'-vi 1Iii,; •'• •10 ;•1',,).;) iifil.'ii'. svc.,, , :11 i,••i. . jr . hilarrffik . • 1 i 1 . . J.-41101-.-ifr).i!. ,..:1.I•iill .i.rit` i:-. l'i 1.11ffill.;I: i,... '' • - ,'.',. If - .ii•i -.•!••!,,,1., , • ; ':' ' '11„ ..1.)•.:,I.:,1 • ,,III. • 1 iti•:,r criin:117./..r.R.I3 iq,,...1i1.;:1,41,7.1.:),I,', i•‘::."!,.,•:.1:11,);,:, .: jr..1.0. ..,,,,.;ir i.:,140,q,,..'1, A i. .. . gi ...1 .,.. .,„.. . . , , . . • . ...., .,..,! .. , 1111111m4 - --. _.. . . .. . . ---• _ . ••• .. ..• . 4-.'"--,:i--- --.4 -- • .•:1.-5-0 0 il- SCAM'.1*;...40., / C:-...--.7...77--7:—=--...7---..... f. ; .::.!4.4:',1•:ifits: •!1,'....1 !:',1''',-...,., ,i.i., ; .; /441.1..Pr'- L . _. - ... •,•;;, 1.11''..';1141Li • '7"---1.1'`t••i t;:,..,.1, ..4t,' •I..,: . , :1-.1 . • -.,'1- li*lij,_7!•'• . __-, , . . ,,, .' '' ."6.1•• ...:r; '. 2 ' LiATiiiii ,r VICNITY MAP " 1',:i^ // nue . AS .---_....... II% *,., °. ••‘ ' 1 PI.:1 : ' : ii: l''•...1.4.• '. ',1•"• -I..:• • 4...0 _„,....- "( - \)t_. ' ----Iran— 401W11.111.=, It .:.•i. ' . • • , :,;,! ,,i12fr , 1„gw_saf.. jprziffla -, VI -.411 .111,7•••. . --- 1- ; • •; I'i,*!.f. I I.I Il r,i. ! ...1L':. ( - ' • - '...':.-......; •• '. ...1 ' :•,1'.,i. 1 .:',A.. ., •, . • . .+, ., •.,„1- 1,i 1 • ! :-.7 .... • , , =.....,....a. . .7w, ....., ......1,1s:-..„÷P,,izr.• z . 2z r . • 1 2o 31 impitil; . 1 I • N r ,11."1"6,,I ',11..,1,1!.i,•,.. ;,:'7.:.;: ;-! :;'1''.: " ' ': . ' ' • ••4 A . le 1. p I so a 4 IgIll ,. 4 i fi:.: • . .. .‘, ' :,?1!t:!. -• . ...--..—. . . . milmi i 4 . .,1 , . eirIOWW•Ph 11•1/61:111t1 FL*•.""A• .• f011tsatil Wank e."4, =I` w; 74) c, ....• • , , . ___...—. um.. ''...... 140 -' 0... • , . frii iii.,, ". ,. • , , 1 IIIII , e ik 1 $21 .--PA:A". ... 66l.L 01(0• .'.11::::;:''',:1,:•'i::1r::i',:•:::.:''21,;::::.•:1:':':1:'1'.;.:)'.'I•;0(/'1i1I lIlI II I — 11 4 - ,'••1 i•• •• .1 ,: ,k:Is'.-':,1•.i1 • .. _•..•.._._........... ..f./er..•.f....4.11..0.•1.1.. it."r"."r'MtA.0l i.r1.6i"C.00iftlir.i2:2-..M-ID MOaW ED 41W.0.."1AW.."IRV'"C A IMI.D. "!c0I01oA0oa t:gZ".g6 2) •trunre(...1 h 413 tib a Lii __ _. N- 1 ''.;:zi-.7.:710-Pragaii- 1.,--....-w-aLagek'4:11.1.-i.opiix, , 7-'1v. . , .,.., SECTION A-A %W ttwt • ..jr.. ..... 1, ',;!!::; A ,,. apl,im., \ i le 61• ct 4 NI' 'it 34Y '1. •I 55 34 55 57 Di 00 , :. ' 111,111 ' 1"1 le • I • . ENIE4yCjq=—,—..---••----OADWAY SECRON • ,IV .; lilki . • ,. , ilk • • • • • I n 90 al .68.1:...i...E• 11 \____ if.' \ . i - . L.!'MC •ION*MP; tIC,... is 0 •------- 46 Prwr.4 OM 1 .1 36 ss 40 4/ 42 43 44 . •••••• No-wry (re.) ot.'1•• ,-(i•ot MID NW b.. :1.Z i 1 C3 i 1 •-ilii :':. ,''.'i:l ':'',, J • SECTION B-B zi k 3 . ••• • - i lAtt TleAci•P • ."'=== .0 ilr• 41 i 4.. i ' TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION • 2...j1111M1h-Aill If i"...Arra&1 r_. ...Avg gilia.:-... 1 ,64.... ,.. - • MIIIIIIMINIIIIMI&ill ../I MK"...•.11111 R I IMIlr''AI MR/WAIIRO,15.11115A It . • (11(I ...•••••• maroffigmon.m e ....„„„._,,... RR .. . . ... . • ,. .. . . .„,„ ,.,.... . .,,. , , ...:, .: Is, I • . ' ' lo-Rvellorkinik:- ARIelangosfflosestamciogms LA' SECTION C-C . -...:- :.• • I , . i!'. . . • -, .•: , . 1, ,, . , . • ' • 1 I N111111111V• !..'. ''::l' ••••••• •:i' . ' • . 4r 43, PUBLIC ALLEY SECTION ........========= SECTORS E 4 F •';', . • NO frAff 11111 ----------------"....:d„,.,, .t 1,4.I..: . , , . . . :,. . .. : . ' , . . ' . . . • ' ' I .' 1 irliffili I I . . ql.i.'41"'. ' '•. . ‘ • , . . '' • .. i . .. ..... . . . . .•"1 .;J.:.• .i . .. . : • - .. • ..:s? 2'3•11.1; • `J till 1•>.;•'!_ :.i.::,211,1-,i.,;%-4,441.' ....:-....e.:; .-1," • 1:'I'''t't. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. - ; I• ,0. ., • I -o m m z m ± a 13 v 0 x m / ti ) T m n •. m •01 c f. .. .‘i \ . • \ \ 8; '!' ` w / SETBACK up5-2 '_.6 }N. i / ���I/ I '• (I, I � I (hmsrll ,.1,-6'I Imo' I N: ., A : T , a —Ft--, I / I .1 : j I,'., gm] 1 I , _ / I r N • 'L l` m PUBLIC ALLEY 20'ROW IloI �: 5'SETBA - gil� rj / j r n fNy IN. psi ■ iD• Iijup;1 a a :r - a ImeI ''[ 1 x II ' ',I !� AIL • I �g ILiurAl . I mIf-1 I ,8A.� alJ- illii L - -Ln; / If 4 4 k NT'U1:''''''.,,...14=1=L07...1:1111111:- W.:.` GUEST PARKING �-`=�►r,ai 11)111" x, 5 0 co m m - 177 PAZ , JAY 10.1°'6 DODDS ENGINEERS. INC. RE�c o.,f u' " "COTTAGE HOMES SITE PLAN 'v " '"E "G " " "' ' G ' ME i z SECTORS E/F-THE ORCHARDS .� 1ae*+�nvE. -snE� T CRAIG KRUEGER paxq swan m CSa37ai -, pre4 ni r incu y pfa-f -I1 yell . 'RVI E TKO-lV1r O. D > DE ON >` >uomm a MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS : Section 4-31-7D2f(1): Setbacks for residential structures and accessory structures; Section 4-31-7D2g(1): Projections into setbacks; Section 4-31-33 F—Site Plan Review: Major Adjustments. REFERENCE: This interpretation/policy decision is issued with reference to The Orchards, Sectors E/F and G, Demonstration Ordinance 4550, File No. LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF. SUBJECT: Permissibility of applicant to vary from the required front yard setback of the R-14 Zone as a minor modification to a site plan approved under the guidelines of a Demonstration Ordinance(Ord. 4550). The Demonstration Ordinance allowed the applicant to propose deviations from the development standards of the applicable zone(R-24/R-14), including front yard setbacks. The applicant is proposing a reduced front yard setback from the required 15 feet to 13 feet in order to accommodate covered front porches on homes being offered for purchase in the development. The covered front porches would project a maximum of 24 inches into the required 15-foot front yard/street setback. BACKGROUND: The Orchards Sectors E/F and G were accepted for consideration under Demonstration Ordinance 4550. The City Council approved the Site Plan and Preliminary Plat based on a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner. The applicant's proposal deviated from the development standards of the R-24 Zone, including reduced setbacks. At the public hearing, the applicant presented graphic representations of the proposed home designs, which included covered front porches. Following approval of the project, the applicant discovered that the covered porches for one type of home would project into the front yard setback area by up to 24 inches. The R-14 Zone (which applies to the property at this time) generally permits projections of up to 24 inches into the interior setback, and up to 30 inches into the street setback, subject to limitations. Projections for fireplaces and bay/garden windows are limited to 10 feet in width, and no more than two per facade. Eaves may project 30 inches into the street setback with a requirement for a minimum street setback of 10 feet. Uncovered porches and decks (18 inches or greater above grade) may project up to 30 inches into the street setback. Covered front porches are not specifically addressed. JUSTIFICATION: The Demonstration Ordinance for The Orchards Sectors E/F and G permitted flexibility with regard to development standards including setbacks. The Hearing Examiner approved all of the reduced setbacks proposed by the applicant. City Code permits projections into the street setback area of up to 30 inches provided that a minimum setback of 10 feet is maintained. However, the Code does not specifically address •.• covered front porches. • The Demonstration Ordinance states that: 'Any future change of use or additional use or exterior structural change which is not specifically permitted by the Hearing Examiner in conjunction with the Demonstration Project (The Orchards), or which is not permitted under the then existing Zoning Code provisions, will require review and approval by the City." The applicant's proposal for covered front porches was presented at the public hearing. At the time, no request was made to vary the front yard setback in order to accommodate the porches. Therefore, the applicant's request is for a use/change not specifically permitted by the Hearing Examiner. Since the site plan review and preliminary plat approval considered variations from required setbacks, it is appropriate that this request be treated as a modification to the approved site plan, rather than a variance from Code. • According to Code Section 4-31-33 F, major adjustments to approved site plans are considered to be changes in the basic site design, intensity, density, use, and the like, generally involving greater than a 10 per cent (10%) change in area or scale. 'Major' modifications require review and approval by the approval body which approved the original site plan; while minor modifications are approved administratively by the Development Services Director. The request for reduced front yard setbacks to accommodate covered front porches is . appropriate, and should be determined administratively as a minor modification to the approved site plan. The reduced setback/projection into the setback would permit the applicant to construct the type of home proposed during the public hearing for the site plan/preliminary plat and approved by the City Council. This would be an adjustment to the approved site plan, and would clarify that covered porches are permitted to project into the front yard setback as part of the Demonstration Ordinance. DECISION: The applicant for The Orchards Sectors E/F and G shall be permitted to construct covered porches that project a maximum of 24 inches into the required 15 foot front yard/street setback area. This decision applies only to The Orchards and is considered to be a minor modification of the approved site plan as processed under Demonstration Ordinance 4550. DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: ( ylZ��_ ✓�' DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: DATE: f G2- (-) / APPEAL PROCESS: To appeal this determination, a written appeal—accompanied by the required $75.00 filing fee—must be filed with the City's Hearing Examiner (200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055) no more than 14 days from the date of this decision. Your submittal should explain the basis for the appeal. Section 4-8-11 of the Renton Municipal Code provides further information on the appeal process. • j - CITY OF RENTON • ik I Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator March 12, 1997 Dick Gilroy Certified Mail Z353 400 715 Northward Development 1560 140th Av NE, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Dear Mr. Gilroy: Subject: The Orchards Plat, Sector G Environmental Mitigation Compliance In accordance with the erosion control notes and plans that apply to this total project, any area which has been stripped of vegetation and where no further work is anticipated for 30 days or more, shall have all disturbed areas immediately stabilized with mulching, grass planting, or other approved erosion control treatment applicable to the time of year. Grass seeding alone is only acceptable during the months of April through September inclusive. Seeding may proceed, but must be augmented with mulching, netting, or other treatment approved by the City of Renton, outside the specified time period. During the time period of November 1 through March 31, all disturbed soil areas greater than 5,000 square feet that are to be left unworked for more than twelve (12) hours, shall be covered by mulch, sodding, or plastic covering. Sector G is out of compliance and is subject to citation. This was outlined to you in a letter dated October 17, 1996. Sector G is not under any permit as of the application date for the revised site plans. No grading license or fill and grade permit exists for this sector. The easiest means of allowing any further grade and fill activities is to submit plans for approval and pay all fees associated with a construction permit for the project. The site is to be planted or sodded and mulched immediately. No further permits for right-of-way work including the work in Duvall Avenue NE shall be issued until Sector G is brought into full compliance. Only that work required for erosion control compliance and maintenance is allowed at this time. No additional fill nor any additional grading is permitted. The project shall be brought into compliance by March 22, 1997. Citations shall be issued each day the contractor is out of compliance beginning March 24, 1997, with a penalty assessed of$500 per day. No further warnings shall be issued. Sincerely, N ; U) Neil R. Watts, P.E. - f trj Plan Review Supervis r Development Services Division cc: Robert Arthur Mark Wetherbee Jennifer Toth-Henning h:k3/orcwin2 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 C 7 Thie nanar rnntainc Ffl%rarvrlart mntannl 9f1oL Weser rnnci v..nr c. CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,-Mayor • Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator • CITY OF RENTON CITY CLERK(2) DEC - 91996 RECEIVED • • C!TY Ci ERK c OFFICE November 25, 1996 SUBJECT: ADDRESS CHANGES AT THE ORCHARDS PLAT: PP `16 a TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please note the following address corrections: • OLD NEW LOT# _OLD ADDRESS NEW ADDRESS PARCEL # 35 :701 Bremerton Av NE . 665 Bremerton Av NE 6403500350 36 707 Bremerton Av NE ; = 671 Bremerton Av NE 6403500360 These are both new houses that are still under construction, so there probably won't be any billing information for them yet. Sincerely, Jan Conklin Development Services Representative Development Services Division Telephone: 277-6176 • #l :utilltr 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ' . October 7. 1996 Renton City Council Minutes Page 372 APPEAL Planning and Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a Planning & Development report regarding the appeal of the Orchards Site Plan and Preliminary Plat for Committee Sectors E/F and G, File No. PP-96-010. The Committee convened on Appeal: Orchards September 25, 1996 to consider the appeal filed by Northward represented by Prime i r ary Plat (Sectors Dick Gilroy. The appellant appealed the decision of the Hearing Examiner E/F and G), PP-96-010 dated August 22, 1996. The subject property is bounded by Duvall Ave. NE, NE 6th St., and Bremerton Ave. NE. The appellant seeks to subdivide Sectors E and F nine-acre parcel into 63 lots for traditional and cottage style homes; and subdivide Sector G nine-acre parcel into 57 lots for townhouses. The appeal consisted of nine parts which will be discussed below. The numbers used will be references to the Hearing Examiner's conclusions which were appealed. 1. The appellant seeks to pay impact mitigation fees at the time of building permit issuance rather than at the time of plat recording. The committee found that it has been City policy to require the payment of impact fees at the time of plat recording so as to avoid hidden fees for those people who wish to build their own house. The Planning and Development Committee recommended no change to the Hearing Examiner's decision. 2 & 3. The Hearing Examiner's report referenced side yard easements in recommendation No. 2 and fencing for those side yards in recommendation No. 3. In each instance the reference was to lots 48 through 63. For clarification purposes only, those lots should be lots 39 through 63. 4. In Sector G the Hearing Examiner required a privacy fence along the rear yards of proposed lots 28 through 48. To remove any ambiguity, that requirement applies only to fences along the lots and does not require a privacy fence adjacent to the wetland along the south side of Sector G. 7. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation allowed for a private road in Sector G with a requirement that "this road be dedicated to the City and the gated entry eliminated, solely within the discretion of the City." Because the project is a demonstration project, and because the private road will be developed to less than City standards, the Planning and Development Committee recommended that the road be a private road and remain a private road and that the City not retain the right to require dedication of that road. 8. The Examiner's recommendation required sidewalks on both side of the street in Sectors E/F and G. Because this is a demonstration project, and because of the gated access within Sector G, the Committee recommended that the Council require sidewalks on only one side of the street within Sector G. The problem is somewhat more difficult in Sectors E/F. That sector has more points of access which are ungated. However, the design is such that the traffic count should never be high within Sectors E/F. Because this is a demonstration project, and because of the low traffic counts projected within Sectors E/F, the Planning and Development Committee recommended that the plat developer be authorized to provide the City with cash or a letter of credit, or other financing device satisfactory to the Finance and Information Services Administrator and the City Attorney equal to one and one-half times the cost to install the sidewalks on the outer side of the inner streets within Sectors E/F. The City will then determine when the plat is essentially built out. From that point the A October 7. 1996 Renton City Council Minutes Pane 373 City will wait two years and then conduct a survey of the residents within Sectors E/F to determine whether or not the residents wish sidewalks on both sides of the street. If a simple majority of the residents within Sectors E/F desire such sidewalks, giving one vote to each developed lot within Sectors E/F, then the City will install the sidewalks using the funds provided to it by the plat developer. Any funds remaining after the sidewalk development will be returned to the plat developer. If a simple majority of the residents do not wish sidewalks on both sides of the street, then the City will retain the cost of the sidewalks and place the money in a City fund for sidewalks where there is a need for such sidewalks within the City. The extra 50% will be returned to the plat developer. To ensure notice of this requirement, the plat developer shall include the authority for such a vote of the homeowners within the homeowners association documents and provide notice to perspective home buyers through signage, individual notices, or some other mechanism acceptable to the plat developer and the City. The plat developer may file a restrictive covenant describing the possible reinstatement of the requirement for sidewalks on both sides of the street. Such a restrictive covenant, together with the inclusion within the homeowners association documents, would satisfy this notice requirement. City staff is directed to review the functioning of sidewalks on one side of the street, at the same time the homeowners are being surveyed, and • report to the City Council whether the requirement of sidewalks on one side of the street only can satisfy City policy and citizen need, in certain circumstances, and recommend to the City Council Code modifications, if appropriate, to permit sidewalks on one side of the street only, as part of plat development within the City. 9. The Hearing Examiner recommended vertical curbs. The Planning and Development Committee, because of the demonstration nature of this project, recommended that rolled curbs be permitted. In particular, in Sector G, because of the gated access, low traffic count, and smaller lots, the Council believes rolled curbs would be adequate. Rolled curbs should be permitted within Sectors E/F for much the same reasons, although this Sector does not have a gated access. The staff should review the use of rolled curbs within this demonstration project, at the same time it reviews sidewalks on one side of the street only, and provide a similar report to the Council about appropriate Code changes, if appropriate. 10. The Hearing Examiner required landscape neckdowns in Sectors E/F be within a reserve. Since those landscape neckdowns are already within public right-of-way, this condition is unnecessary. 11. The Examiner recommended that open space reserves adjacent to the entry points of this Sector be consolidated with adjacent private lots to facilitate maintenance and financial issues. The Planning and Development Committee recommended that the affected areas be included within the common areas and appropriately landscaped to be part of the entries into the Sector so that the homeowners association would have the maintenance responsibility for these areas, and so that these areas would function as an integrated part of the entry streets and entry landscaping. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. 1 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Date 1 — 7- 9� COMMITTEE REPORT OCTOBER 7, 1996 Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision on The Orchards Site Plan and Preliminary Plat for Sectors E/F and G, File No. PP-96-010, SA (Referred September 16, 1996) The Planning&Development Committee met on this matter on September 25, 1996. The appeal consisted of nine parts which will be discussed below. The numbers used will be references to the Hearing Examiner's conclusions which were appealed. 1. The appellant seeks to pay impact mitigation fees at the time of building permit issuance rather than at the time of plat recording. The committee finds that it has been City policy to require the payment of impact fees at the time of plat recording so as to avoid hidden fees for those people who wish to build their own house. The Planning and Development Committee recommends no change to the Hearing Examiner's decision. 2/3. The Hearing Examiner's report referenced side yard easements in recommendation No. 2 and fencing for those side yards in recommendation No. 3. In each instance the reference was to lots 48 through 63. For clarification purposes only, those lots should be lots 39 through 63. 4. In Sector G the Hearing Examiner required a privacy fence along the rear yards of proposed lots 28 through 48. To remove any ambiguity, that requirement applies only to fences along the lots and does not require a privacy fence adjacent to the wetland along the south side of Sector G. 7. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation allowed for a private road in Sector G with a requirement that "this road be dedicated to the City and the gated entry eliminated, solely within the discretion of the City." Because the project is a demonstration project, and because the private road will be developed to less than City standards, the Planning and Development Committee recommends that the road be a private road and remain a private road and that the City not retain the right to require dedication of that road. 8. The Examiner's recommendation required sidewalks on both sides of the street in Sectors E/F and G. Because this is a demonstration project, and because of the gated access within Sector G, the committee recommends that the Council require sidewalks on only one side of the street within Sector G. • 1 at. . : 04,4,16, 4,1z4 /rAteipicift-A1 The problem is somewhat more difficult in Sectors E/F. That sector has more points of access which are ungated. However, the design is such that the traffic count should never be high within Sectors E/F. Because this is a demonstration project, and because of the low traffic counts projected within Sectors E/F, the Planning and Development Committee recommends that the plat developer be authorized to provide the City with cash or a letter of credit, or other financing device satisfactory to the Finance & Information Services Administrator and the City Attorney equal to one and one half times the cost to install the sidewalks on the outer side of the inner streets within Sectors E/F. The City will then determine when the plat is essentially built out. From that point the City will wait two years and then conduct a survey of the residents within Sectors E/F to determine whether or not the residents wish sidewalks on both sides of the street. If a simple majority of the residents within Sectors E/F desire such sidewalks, giving one vote to each developed lot within Sectors E/F, then the City will install the sidewalks using the funds provided to it by the plat developer. Any funds remaining after the sidewalk development will be returned to the plat developer. If a simple majority of the residents do not wish sidewalks on both sides of the street, then the city will retain the cost of the sidewalks and place the money in a City fund for sidewalks where there is a need for such sidewalks within the City. The extra 50%will be returned to the plat developer. To ensure notice of this requirement, the plat developer shall include the authority for such a vote of the homeowners within the homeowners association documents and provide notice to perspective home buyers through signage, individual notices, or some other mechanism acceptable to the plat developer and the.City.. The plat developer may file a restrictive covenant describing the possible reinstatement of the requirement for sidewalks on both sides of the street. Such a restrictive covenant, together with the inclusion within the homeowners association documents, would satisfy this notice requirement. City staff is directed to review the functioning of sidewalks on one side of the street, at the same time the homeowners are being surveyed, and report to the City Council whether the requirement of sidewalks on one side of the street only can satisfy City policy and citizen need, in certain circumstances, and recommend to the City Council Code modifications, if appropriate, to permit sidewalks on one side of the street only, as part of plat development within the City. • 9. The Hearing Examiner recommended vertical curbs. The Planning and Development Committee, because of the demonstration nature of this project, recommends_that rolled curbs be permitted. In particular, in Sector G, because of the gated access, low traffic count, and smaller lots, the Council believes rolled curbs would be adequate. Rolled curbs should be permitted within Sectors E/F for much'the same reasons, although this Sector does not have a gated access. The staff should review the use of rolled curbs within this demonstration project, at the same time it reviews sidewalks on one side of the street only, and provide a similar report to the Council about appropriate Code changes, if appropriate. 2 • i10. The Hearing Examiner required landscape neckdowns in Sectors E/F be within a reserve. Since those landscape neckdowns are already within public right-of-way, this condition is unnecessary. 11. The Examiner recommended that open space reserves adjacent to the entry points of this Sector be consolidated with adjacent private lots to facilitate maintenance and financial issues. The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the affected areas be included within the common areas and appropriately landscaped to be part of the entries into the Sector so that the homeowners association would have the maintenance responsibility for these areas, and so that these areas would function as an integrated part of the entry streets and entry landscaping. eaittt`/ &' , '� Kathy K Aker-Wheeler, Chair imothy Sc r, Member CITY 14:58:as. 3 „ ;_'. CIT' `OF RENTON .u. • City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen _rrr9 October 9, 1996 Mr. Dick Gilroy Northward 1560 140th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98004 Re: Appeal of Orchards Preliminary Plat; PP-96-010 Dear Mr. Gilroy: The referenced preliminary plat was approved by the Renton City Council on October 7, 1996, by adoption of the Planning and Development Committee report regarding the appeal. A copy of the adopted report is enclosed which clarifies, and, in some cases, modifies the recommendations issued by the hearing examiner in his original report, dated 8/22/96. In accordance with Renton City Code Section 9-12-6, a final plat shall be submitted for approval within three (3) years of the date of preliminary plat approval. Your plat will lapse on October 7, 1999. By filing a written request to the hearing examiner at least 30 days prior to the expiration date, a one year extension shall be granted if the applicant demonstrates that a good faith effort has been made to submit the final plat within the three year period. If I can provide additional information or assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, S 111. A. P/ Marilyn J' '( rsen, CMC City Clerk cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Council President Toni Nelson Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner Jennifer Henning, Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2501 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,25%post consumer tf � APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Date• 9� COMMITTEE REPORT OCTOBER 7, 1996 Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision on The Orchards Site Plan and Preliminary Plat for Sectors E/F and G, File No. PP-96-010, SA (Referred September 16, 1996) The Planning & Development Committee met on this matter on September 25, 1996. The appeal consisted of nine parts which will be discussed below. The numbers used will be references to the Hearing Examiner's conclusions which were appealed. 1. The appellant seeks to pay impact mitigation fees at the time of building permit issuance rather than at the time of plat recording. The committee finds that it has been City policy to require the payment of impact fees at the time of plat recording so as to avoid hidden fees for those people who wish to build their own house. The Planning and Development Committee recommends no change to the Hearing Examiner's decision. 2/3. The Hearing Examiner's report referenced side yard easements in recommendation No. 2 and fencing for those side yards in recommendation No. 3. In each instance the reference was to lots 48 through 63. For clarification purposes only, those lots should be lots 39 through 63. 4. In Sector G the Hearing Examiner required a privacy fence along the rear yards of proposed lots 28 through 48. To remove any ambiguity, that requirement applies only to fences along the lots and does not require a privacy fence adjacent to the wetland along the south side of Sector G. 7. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation allowed for a private road in Sector G with a requirement that "this road be dedicated to the City and the gated entry eliminated, solely within the discretion of the City."' Because the project is a demonstration project, and because the private road will be developed to less than City standards, the Planning and Development Committee recommends that the road be a private road and remain a private road and that the City not retain the right to require dedication of that road. 8. The Examiner's recommendation required sidewalks on both sides of the street in Sectors E/F and G. Because this is a demonstration project, and.because of the gated access within Sector G, the committee recommends that the Council require sidewalks on only one side of the street within Sector G. 1 Y I _ The problem is somewhat more difficult in Sectors E/F. That sector has more points of access which are ungated. However, the design is such that the traffic count should never be high within Sectors E/F. Because this is a demonstration project, and because of the low traffic counts projected within Sectors E/F, the Planning and Development Committee recommends that the plat developer be authorized to provide the City with cash or a letter of credit, or other financing device satisfactory, to the Finance & Information Services Administrator and the City Attorney equal to one and one half times the cost to install the sidewalks on the outer side of the inner streets within Sectors E/F. The City will then determine when the plat is essentially built out. ,From that point the City will wait two years and then conduct a survey of the residents within Sectors E/F to determine whether or not the residents wish sidewalks on both sides of the street. If a simple majority of the residents within Sectors; E/F desire such sidewalks, giving one vote to each developed lot within Sectors E/F, then the City will install the sidewalks using the funds provided to it by the plat developer. Any funds remaining after the sidewalk development will be returned to the plat developer. If a simple majority of the residents do not wish sidewalks on both sides of the street, then the city will retain the cost of the sidewalks and place the money in a City fund for sidewalks where there is a need for such sidewalks within the City. The extra 50% will be returned to the plat developer. To ensure notice of this requirement, the plat developer shall include the authority for such a vote of the homeowners within the homeowners,association documents and provide notice to perspective home buyers through signage, individual notices, or some other mechanism acceptable to the plat developer and the City. The plat developer may file a restrictive covenant describing the possible reinstatement of the requirement for sidewalks on both sides of the street. Such a restrictive covenant, together with the inclusion within the homeowners association documents, would satisfy this noticei requirement. City staff is diiected to review the functioning of sidewalks on one side of the street, at the same time the homeowners are being surveyed; and report to the City Council whether the requirement of sidewalks on one side of the street only can satisfy City policy and citizen need, in certain circumstances, and recommend to the City Council Code modifications, if appropriate, to permit sidewalks on one side of the street only, as part of plat development within the City. • 9. The Hearing Examiner recommended vertical curbs. The Planning and Development Committee, because of the demonstration nature of this project, recommends that rolled curbs be permitted. In particular, in Sector G, because of the gated access, low traffic count, and smaller lots, the Council believes rolled curbs would be adequate. Rolled curbs should be permitted within Sectors E/F for much the same reasons, although this Sector does not have a gated access. The staff should review the use of rolled.curbs within this demonstration project, at the same time it reviews sidewalks on one side of the street only, and provide a similar report to the Council about appropriate Code changes, if appropriate. 2 '10. The Hearing Examiner required landscape neckdowns in Sectors E/F be within a reserve. Since those landscape neckdowns are already within public right-of-way, this condition is unnecessary. 11. The Examiner recommended that open space reserves adjacent to the entry points of this Sector be consolidated with adjacent private lots to facilitate maintenance and financial issues. The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the affected areas be included within the common areas and appropriately landscaped to be part of the entries into the Sector so that the homeowners association would have the maintenance responsibility for these areas, and so that these areas would function as an integrated part of the entry streets and entry landscaping. / &' , Kathy Kiolker-Wheeler, Chair co ,Timothy Sc r, Member CITY14:58:as. 3 September 16, 1996 Renton City Council Minutes - Page 350 Mayor Pro tem Keolker-Wheeler replied that not only has the wording of the committee report already been changed at the request of a representative of the applicant, staff has indicated it is more comfortable with the existing wording. Committee Vice Chair Corman concurred that the existing wording is satisfactory. *MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are accepted by one motion which follows the listing. Plat: Preliminary, . City Clerk submitted appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision on the Orchards Orchards (Sectors E/F and Preliminary Plat (Sectors E and F - 63 lots on nine acres, and Sector G - 57 G), Appeal townhomes on nine acres); appeal filed on 9/05/96 by Dick Gilroy, representing Northward; File No. PP-96-010. Refer to Planning & Development Committee. CAG: 96-106, President's City Clerk reported bid opening on 9/03/96 for CAG-96-106, Steel Water Park Steel Water Main Main Replacement in President's Park; six bids; engineer's estimate Replacement, Kar-Vel $235,564.38; and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the Construction low bidder, Kar-Vel Construction Co., in the amount of $228,297.41. Council concur. CAG: 96-ill, Carco City Clerk reported bid opening on 9/09/96 for CAG-96-111, Carco Theatre Theatre HVAC HVAC Replacement; two bids; engineer's estimate $86,400. Refer to Replacement Community Services Committee. CRT: 96-006, Profit v Court Case filed by Todd Maybrown on behalf of Lowell Profit alleging that Renton Washington State's sex offender registration laws would violate Profit's Constitutional rights if applied to him, and further seeking to prevent public notification in the Renton community of his status as a sex offender. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. CAG: 96-104, Highlands Community Services Department submitted CAG-96-104, Highlands Library Library Carpet carpet installation project; and requested approval of the project, authorization Installation, Decor Carpets for final pay estimate in the amount of $21,652.29, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $1,049.05 to Decor Carpet, Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. Finance: Mini-Bond Finance and Information Services Department requested approval of proposed Issuance for Fire Pumper ordinance authorizing the indebtedness of $635,000 for the purchase of two Truck Purchase fire pumper trucks, and additionally authorizing the sale of mini-bonds to finance this purchase. Council concur. (See page 353 for ordinance.) Finance: Surplus Finance and Information Services Department requested approval of a Equipment Declaration & resolution authorizing the sale of surplus office equipment. Council concur., Sale (See page 352 for resolution.) Personnel: Firefighters Human Resources & Risk Management Department recommended approval of Local 864 Labor Contract the agreement reached with Firefighters Local 864 for their labor contract governing hours, wages, and terms and conditions of employment. Council concur. Personnel: Renton Police Human Resources & Risk Management Department recommended approval of Guild Commissioned the agreement reached with commissioned employees of the Renton Police Employees Labor Contract Guild for their labor contract governing hours, wages, and terms and conditions of employment. Council concur. a NORTHWARD CITY OF RENTON SEP 1 6 1996 RECEIVED September 12, 1996 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Ms. Brenda Fritsvold Deputy City Clerk City of Renton 200 Mill Ave. South Renton, WA 98055 RE: PP-96-010 SA Ms. Fritsvold, 1560 140th Ave.N.E. When completing the hearing examiner appeal form I incorrectly marked the Suite 100 wrong box under Summary of Action Requested. I should have checked "Modify Bellevue,WA 98005 the Decision or Recommendation and Grant the Following Relief". I have (206)747-1726 attached a corrected form. Fax(206)747-4157 Cordially, NORT i ARD Dick Gilroy DG/bw 14 , ,edd/ ` ,G� AYYLAL HEARING EXAMINER . - :- Mil, :�F Hi EN' t_-;i,, 1 WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL. 1_.►' •-- 5 pn FILE NO. 1.1/A -f` e/D, ✓244 p.). RECEIVED APPLICATION NAME: AteX- -A weter :;1 M` CLERK'S OFFICE The Undersigned interested party hereby files it otice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated X7--Y 19 9.4 . • 1 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY • APPELLAN `` . REPRESENTATIVE. (IF ANY) Name: p ir'7--A wbriz a Name: 1 G )G 6' L-=_,1 c. Address: /S"GD /iQ ' ,4v 0 t✓` Address: ,S",) N.,C .. - L1vu Po o 4 . Telephone No. '7 ` 7 i 77- 4 Telephone No. • 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this.appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the xaminer's report) ' ' FF No. Error: S --•-a-- ,$'�'r9e h L ti Z. _ 1 Correction: . i CONCLUSIONS: . No. .. Error: 1 1 • Correction: - • . I OTHER o. Error. 1 • Correction: - • . 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attac )(Planation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: ------- v �` 4 Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: 4' " Remand to he Examiner for further consideration as follows: they , w C/ 1 •i . Appellant/Represe ature • Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-16, for specific appeal procedures. • June 26, 1995 heappeal.doc/forms CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI#: SUBMITTING DATA: I FOR AGENDA OF: 9/16/96 Dept/DivBoard....City Clerk Staff Contact Marilyn Petersen I AGENDA STATUS: Consent X SUBJECT: Public Hearing Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision; Correspondence... The Orchards(Sectors E,F&G)Preliminary Plat Ordinance File No.LUA;PP-96-010, SA Resolution Old Business EXHIBITS: New Business A. City Clerk's letter Study Session B. Appeal Other C. Hearing Examiner's Report(8/22/96) RECOMMENDED ACTION: I APPROVALS: Refer to Planning and Development Committee J Legal Dept Finance Dept Other FISCAL IMPACT: N/A Expenditure Required Transfer/Amendment.... Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal accompanied by required fee,filed on September 5, 1996 by Dick Gilroy of Northward. ,; 1: CITY OF RENTON -City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor `_ , ,- . ' :Marilyn J.Petersen j , :. September 9, 1996 , APPEAL,FILED BY: ,Richard A Gilroy; representative for Northward ' • .RE; Appeal of Hearing,Examiner's.Decision on The Orchards Site Plan and Preliminary Plat , for Sectors E/F and,G,;File No. PP-96-010, SA ; - - • To parties of record:_: . Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written'appeal of the Hearing • ' ' :;Examiner's decision on the'Northward request for a site approval and preliminary plat,has been - filed'with the-,City Clerk:, ' r, - In accordance with'Renton;Municipal Code Section 4-8-16.B., within five,days of receipt of the ../ notice of appeal; the, City Clerk shall notify all parties:of_record of,the-receipt of the appeal: NOTICE:IS HEREBY.GIVEN,that the written appeal and other pertinent documents'will be' , " • . reviewed by-the Council's Planning and,Development Committee: The Council Secretary will' - • ' ' notify all'parties of record of that-meeting's date_and time. The recommendation of the - • Committee will'be presented for consideration`by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code' regarding appeals of Hearing:Examiner ` . `- decisions or. recommendations. Please note that,the City.,Council will be`considering"the merits of'the appeal based upon the written record previously.established. Unless a showing can,be ' ,; made that additional"evidence could not reasonably.have been available at the prior hearing,held , ',. . :by the Hearing-Examiner, no further evidence•or testimony on this.,matter will be accepted by: . • " the City Council. ' For.additional' information' or assistance, please feel free to.calla_ - ' ;, , . , ' Sincerely; , :Brenda Fritsvold - ' Deputy City.ClerkC ' . , , Attachment , ` 200 Miil:Avenue,South.-Renton, Washington 98055`=(2'06)235-2501 ; - September 9, 1996 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss COUNTY OF KING ) BRENDA FRITSVOLD, Deputy City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 9th day of September, 1996, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision filed by Richard A. Gilroy, representing Northward, re: Orchards Site Approval and Preliminary Plat for Sectors E/F and G; File No. LUA-96-010, SA, PP. • rends Fritsvold, Deputy City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 9th day of September, 1996. tary Public i and for the State of Washington, residing in 5244kih Ar t LAL HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL. SEP a 5 1996 FILE NO. I L/A —; e//O f ) RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFIC- APPLICATION NAME: MA-4- (a,4-1z I The undersigned interested party hereby files y otice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated ✓ 19 9 . 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY) 11 4/4-Tr"�� � Name: D��'h J Name: r e= �� � � � ;� Address: IS-I d 4.e ,4v iJ�=` Address: , Telephone No. 7 & I- 1 % Telephone No. 2. S'PECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denotedI in the � K Examiner's report) No. Error: � A �G t== _ • Correction: CONCLUSIONS: • No. Error: • Correction: OTHER No. Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attache-xplanation, if desired) V Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to he Examiner for further consideration as follows: ther / l/' e e Appellant/Represe nature Date NOTE:I Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-16, for specific appeal ) procedures. - June 26, 1995 heappeal.doc/forms I - Lay V1 ACIIWII l,lCy LOUe -• Title IV -Building Chapter 8 -Hearing Examiner Section 16 -Appeal 4-9-16: APPEAL: Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with the fee schedule of the City. A. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the.substantial error(s) in fact or law which in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. Facsimile filing of a notice of appeal is authorized pursuant to the conditions detailed in Renton City Code Section 4-8-11C. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92). B. Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. C. Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. D. No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by • the City Council unless aishowing is made by the party offering the'evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the,time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence i required, the Council may remand the matter to the Examiner, for reconsideration. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony,, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. E. The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. F. If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section 4-8-10A and after examination of the record;.the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in.the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the_Examiner accordingly. G. If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section 4-8- lOB or C, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law.exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded Or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application pursuant to Section 4-8-10B or C. H. In any event, the decison of the city Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material.finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) heappeal.doc/forms August 22, 1996 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION APPLICANT: Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers,Inc.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP LOCATION: East and west of Duvall Avenue NE at NE 6th Street SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To subdivide Sectors E and F 9-acre parcel into 63 lots for traditional and cottage style homes; and to subdivide Sector G 9-acre parcel into 57 lots for townhouses. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on July 17, 1996. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area;the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the July 23, 1996 hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, July 23, 1996, at 10:20 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Vicinity map application, proof of posting,proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 3: Preliminary plat map Exhibit No. 4: Site plan for all sectors Exhibit No. 5: Site plan, Sector G Exhibit No. 6: Detail of cottage homes, Sector E,F Exhibit No. 7: Site elevations of Sectors E,F Exhibit No. 8: Site elevations of Sectors E,F cottage traditional homes homes Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineer', ,: ..) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 2 Exhibit No. 9: Street section of traditional and Exhibit No. 10: Elevation drawing of townhouses, cottage homes Sector G Exhibit No. 11.: Cross-hatch drawing of entire site Exhibit No. 12: Previously approved site map. Exhibit No. 13: Trip Generation Chart from Institute of Transportation Engineers The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by JENNIFER HENNING,Project Manager, Development Services, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055. This application is for a preliminary plat and site plan approval for a'project that also has a demonstration:ordinance attached. The purpose of the demonstration ordinance is to provide residential development which meets the City's land use development goals and creates new residential neighborhoods on large lots and in a neighborhood development style that creates high quality in-fill development that increases density but also maintains residential character. The demonstration ordinance allows the applicant to go outside the boundaries of the code and propose features that may or may not be within the range of what the code,allows. They are not all necessarily supported by staff or the City, but the applicant has an opportunity to present and argue various aspects. The City does not have to approve it. This particular proposal is zoned R-24. If this project were not to happen and the previous approved site plan were not to happen,the zoning on the property would eventually revert to R-14. The Examiner stated that since this project may be approaching major deviations from existing code,this was more than a normal land use hearing,that it was actually determining certain policy issues which possibly deserved greater explanation and exploration than may be contained in the staff report. It was changing code, changing zones, changing road widths, changing platting requirements, and not things that are usually done at a land use hearing without exploring the positives and negatives. Ms. Henning explained that the Orchards is a residential development that was approved for a variety of residential and some limited commercial uses in 1992. It is located north of NE 4th Street and on the east and . 1 west sides of Duvall Avenue NE. This particular proposal is for Sectors E, F and G. Sectors A and B were approved for detached single family residential development and are presently under construction. Sector C was approved for 63 townhouses and is presently being constructed. Sector D was approved for 63 apartment units, but has not come in for building permits yet. Sector E was initially approved for 108 apartment units while Sector F was approved for 28,000 square feet of commercial development. Sector G was approved for I 105 apartment units. This is a new application for Sectors E,F and G. Sectors E and F (hereinafter Sector E-F)would be combined for the platting of 63 single family home lots. They would be small lots for detached single family homes. Sector G on the east side of Duvall would be platted for 57 small lots that would have attached townhouses. Sector E-F is 8.83 acres, Sector G is 9.17 acres. Both sites have been graded and cleared as part of the previous development approvals and within constraints of construction permits that have been issued thus far. Sector E-F has a one-half acre park located in the northwestern portion which would serve as a focal element for the proposal. Of these 63 lots, Lots 1-38 would be located on the perimeter and would be called traditional homes. The center lots,-Lots 39 through 63,would be smaller and narrower than those traditional home lots and would be developed with cottage homes. Where the traditional home lots would be accessed from the front yard with their garages,the cottage homes would have alley access for the garages, or what is known as rear- Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineer, The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 3 loaded. The size of lots in E-F would range from 3,000 square feet for a cottage home to just over 5,000 square feet. The lots for traditional homes would be approximately 50 feet in width and 79 feet in length. The cottage home lots would be 37 feet in width for interior lots, 42 feet in width for corner lots, and a uniform depth of 87 feet. There would be public streets with tracts that would access some of the lots in the corners.' The cottage homes in the center of the site would generally have access from a public street system and from public alleys. ' There are.four,lots focusing on the park. The two center lots, Lots 57 and 58,would have driveway garage access from the-20-foot wide alley, and a.sidewalk off the public park that would allow access to the front yards. The proposed homes would be two stories in height and would be configured to have pitched roofs, articulation, front porches. The traditional homes would have garages accessing off the street._There would be stairs or ground level entries with front porches....This particular housing type has a sense of entry, an area of parking for residents and guests,private area of yard and landscaping. Even though they are somewhat close together on narrower lots, it achieves a neighborhood feel. The rear-loaded yards, or cottage homes, show the pitched roofs and porches. For sense of entry,there are alcoves prior to entering the house. The applicant is requesting that front and rear yard setbacks be reduced for.the cottage homes. The front yard setbacks would be 10 feet while the rear yard setbacks would be reduced to 5 feet.. The lot coverage would be approximately 35%for the traditional homes and 40%for the cottage homes.'The cottage homes would feature reciprocal use easements so that they would have useable side yards. They have an.alley.with a parking apron that is actually not functional as an apron, so parking would occur on the street. They would have front yards. What is being proposed is a side yard that is useable as the yard space for the particular unit it adjoins. There would be fences erected front and back between the homes and the side yard area becomes the yard space for one.or-the other home. Each home would have its own.exclusive side yard. While the lots would have a five foot setback from the property line,the use easement would be configured as part of the Codes, Covenants& Restrictions(CC&R's)that would be set up by the owner and between those who buy into the project so that the understanding is this becomes the yard for this home. There would be a maintenance agreement established that allows the owner to still come into his yard and repair something on his home. The size of the side yard would be approximately 25 feet at its widest and 10 feet at its narrowest point. It would have articulation and • private spaces. The corner lots then end up having a side yard on the street side and also in the area between the ' homes. Staff would require these fences to ensure someone has a private yard area. Staff has concerns about maintenance, but the applicant states they would have the use easement and maintenance agreement as part of the CC&R's of this development. The reciprocal use easements allow for the creation of private yards as there are no useable private outdoor front or rear yards because of the reduced setbacks being proposed. The ! minimum lot size that would be proposed in Sector E-F is 3,000 square feet and is allowed in the new R-14. The development density that applicant provided is 11.7 dwelling units per acre for Sector E-F. The primary access to Sector E-F would be from NE 6th Street and would be flanked with ornamental landscaping. There would also be an access from Bremerton Avenue NE. These public streets would have 8- foot deep planter islands and would have sidewalks on one side. The sidewalks would be around the perimeter I of the cottage homes in the center of the site. There would also be sidewalks that would be part of the overall outside street system along Duvall,Bremerton and NE 6th. All homes in this sector would be inward focusing. The applicant is proposing landscape neck-downs, or extensions that jut out which create parking bays on the interior. The intent is to reduce the appearance of the hard surface and to provide tree canopies. These planter islands help create defined on-street parking, but they do reduce the travel lane of this public street to 20 feet. There is a 20 foot travel lane section, 8 foot in the neck-downs for parking,rolled curb with 4-foot sidewalk on one side. , Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineer; --. `:.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 4 The Examiner stated that the City had strongly objected to rolled curbs in the past,preferring vertical curbs, and asked what their position was at this time. NEIL WATTS, Plan Review.Supervisor, Development Services Division, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South,Renton, Washington 98055,responded that there is a variety of pros and cons between the two types of curbs. There is a.feeling.of aesthetics,.that some people preferred the look.of:a vertical curb over a rolled curb, and.there.is a.perception that it will:restrict:parking.up omthe:sidewalks. ..There is drainage control with a vertical curb, but rolled curbs,can be installed to provide adequate drainage control. People,can.choose to park on the sidewalks or planting strips regardless of rolled or vertical curbs. With rolled curbs there is additional flexibility for emergency equipment to use:that_area for staging; however,they could also drive up on a vertical curb if conditions warranted: With smaller lots the driveways are placed fairly closely together. With vertical curbs there is such an up-and-down appearance with sometimes 60 percent curb cuts versus very short sections - of curbs. The vertical curb is not needed to define parking versus driveways. They are very difficult to construct, especially with the multiple driveway entries, and therefore more costly to provide. The City has allowed the use of rolled curbs in some portions of the single family portion of.the Orchards, again:in areas where there are mostly driveway and very short sections of curb in between. Ms..Henning continued that the homes would feature two-car garages and the front-loaded,or traditional homes would have 76 spaces in garages and 76 off-street parking spaces on garage aprons. The cottage homes would also have two car garages, but lack the apron space and would have no parking for guests. Guests for the ,cottage homes would park on the street in 37 on-street parking spaces which would be shared by everyone. . ,This results in 3.8 parking spaces for each dwelling unit, and the code provision is for 2 spaces per.unit. ' Regarding Sector G which is a little over 9 acres, about half of the site is taken up with Class II Wetland and a 50 foot buffer. The applicant is subject to a mitigation document that calls for the retention of this wetland,the expansion of it and the enhancement of it. It is being used for storm water detention purposes as well as being kept in a very passive state. It is a visual focal point for Sector G and relatively undisturbed. The proposal is to plat Sector G for townhomes. The applicant is proposing 20 foot wide travel lanes with areas that are cut out to provide space to accommodate on-street parking. The proposed lots would average 33 feet in width and 80 feet in depth. The average lot size proposed is 2,640 square feet with the smallest lot size being 1,869 square feet and the largest lot about 5,500 square feet. The development density as calculated by the applicant would be close to 16 units to the acre. The buildings within this particular proposal are 2 stories in height with pitched roofs. They would be an architectural style which is similar to large single family residential homes. The appearance from the street would be of a very large home with three single car garages. There would be attached one and two-car garages. The units that have one-car garages would have a one-car parking apron at a minimum. The units that have two-car garages would not have a parking apron. Each unit would have parking for two vehicles at a minimum. There would also be 20 guest parking spaces along the street. A gated entry is proposed off NE 6th which would result in it being a private, secured community, with a secondary access off Duvall from the south for emergency vehicles only which would also be gated. The applicant is proposing that the connection to this emergency access be a transitional material such as reinforced grass paving to be allowed on a demonstration basis. That has been approved through the Fire Department on a conditional basis with appropriate markings. The applicant has gone through the Environmental Review Committee(ERC). There were two Determinations of Non-Significance-Mitigated imposed. Mitigation fees for traffic, fire and parks were imposed. There was a concern about the narrower streets and how emergency vehicles would get through if guests were parking in Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineer,;_ ,;.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 5 such a way that it impeded access. The ERC asked the applicant for revisions that show how additional guest parking spaces are being provided in Sector G, along with some requirements for posting and marking of streets as fire lanes and also posting of alleys with no parking signs. The ERC also had concerns about the emergency access at the south end of Sector G, and an agreement was reached with the Fire Department. There was also a ,mitigation measure regarding enforcement of parking on the private streets being proposed in Sector G. The _ERC has asked that the City enforce parking requirements if they do become a.problem and that they bill the =owner/applicant for fees, including attorney's fees, if necessary. The applicant requested the payment of any possible fees be tied to the;ownership or the homeowner's association...The:last mitigation:measure was re- adopting the previous mitigation measures such as wetlands and storm drainage that apply.to.the.prior approval. I As part of the site plan approval criteria, a number of items are considered for compliance. In Sector E-F the • ' proposal is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan(CP)designation of residential planned ' neighborhood. Lots 57 and 58 would have public alley access of 20 feet in width. There would be 16 feet of paving proposed by the applicant,but staff is asking for an additional 2 feet. Alleys are not generally primary • access. This is one point of the demonstration ordinance that is unique for these two homes. The problem that _ has been identified by staff for these two particular homes is addressing. Deliveries could be a problem. Mr.Watts explained how Lots 57 and 58 would differ in terms of mail, garbage,vehicular access. Ms. Henning stated that policies in the.CP;encourage small lot single family development and that it comprise up to 100%of the new units.in.a category such as this. This accomplishes.both. The.20.foot wide alleys or public streets that_are being proposed do comply, but the sidewalks being proposed on-one side of the street only are inconsistent with the CP. Mr. Watts discussed the grid street criteria and pedestrian facilities for Sector E-F. Ms..Henning explained that the concept the applicant was striving for in Sector E-F was similar to the smaller, East Coast towns with the village green or the common area,tree-lined streets, a little slower pace. The narrower streets hopefully slow people down as they are traveling. The policies of the CP also call for subdivision of the land in a development pattern consistent with Renton's older neighborhoods, and the subdivision of land into blocks and lots with walking distances that are minimized and with lots that front on public streets or parks. The platting that is proposed in E-F is consistent with all of those policies. Pertaining to Sector G,the proposal is generally consistent with the land use designation. The platting of the parcel into small lots for attached single family ground-related townhomes would not be considered traditional, but the platting of these lots and the opportunity it presents for owner-occupied townhomes is consistent with policies of the CP. The wetland area is considered to be a visual focal point which meets the intent of the policy, even though there are no amenities being incorporated for active or even passive recreation. In this instance it is more important to protect the wetland than provide an amenity. The density of about 16 units to the acre is within the maximum of 18 units per acre that is stipulated in the policies. The residential street policies for interconnecting streets would not be met under Sector G. It has a street system that is comprised of private streets with a gated access and a secondary emergency access. What is being proposed here is a gated community on a private street system where our codes normally would require a public street system. Mr. Watts explained the City's policies with regard to sidewalks on both sides of the street. Staff did not support this particular project to demonstrate sidewalks on only one side. Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineer,'..- _ ;.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 6 Ms. Henning stated that for Sector E-F the applicant is proposing reduced setbacks. In the R-24 zone the required front yard setback is a minimum 15 feet for the primary structure, a minimum of 20 feet if there is an attached garage which accesses from the front yard street.'This front yard setback for the primary structure may be reduced to 10 feet if all parking is provided in the rear yard with access.from,either a public street or'an alley. The applicant is proposing a 15-foot front yard setback for the traditional homes,and a'10-foot front yard setback for the cottage homes...The traditional homes would have garages,thatwould.be:accessed from the front and the cottage homes would have garages that would access from the'rear:via alleys. Therefore,the proposed setbacks for the traditional homes would be less than the requirement by.5'feet, and the cottage homes would meet the development standard for the front yard setback. The front-loaded:garages for the traditional homes-- the minimum setback there•for the front yard is to be.20_feet.to the attached garage. The applicant is proposing 15 feet. While the primary structure meets the setback,the garage does not. In the R-24 zone a minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet is required. The proposed rear yard setbacks for the traditional homes do meet that requirement, but the cottage homes have a rear yard setback of only 5 feet. The applicant has proposed the side yard with the reciprocal use agreement to offset the lack. The applicant is meeting the minimum side yard setback for both traditional and cottage homes. The applicant _. .- -- is proposing a.7.5.to.10.foot corner side yard:setback instead of the required 15.feçt so that.some,additional areas can be maintained in'landscaping tracts. These common:areas and open:spaces would be maintained by _ the homeowner's,association,and,they would have accent plantings and:landscaping.that was seasonal and a focal point. • The townhomes in Sector G feature 8 foot front yard setbacks and 15 foot rear yard setbacks. The front yard setbacks do not comply with the code, but are being proposed through the provision of the demonstration ordinance. The rear yard setbacks do meet the minimum requirements. The side yard setback is required to be 5 feet unless it is an unattached end of a structure which is required to be 15 feet. The applicant is proposing reduced side yard setbacks of from 5 to 8 feet for Lots 1 and 48 at the north portion of the site adjacent to the. NE 6th Street entrance to provide open space tracts separating the units from the incoming street. All of the setbacks for the unattached end of the structures are met. No tot lots'are being provided in either Sector G or Sector E-F. There is the half acre park space available for Sector E-F which will allow open play. There will be areas that the children can ride their bicycles on such as the sidewalks. Sector G does have useable rear yard areas for the most part. There are a number of open space tracts in both sectors that are available potentially for some additional landscape treatment or recreational treatment. The R-24 zone allows a maximum lot coverage of 45%. In Sector E-F the traditional homes would achieve a lot coverage of 35%and the cottage homes would achieve a lot coverage of 40%. In Sector G,the individual building lot coverage is proposed to be 45%which meets the maximum allowed. City code requires single family residential homes to have 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit and this proposal complies. The applicant's landscape plans provide adequate landscaping for Sector E-F,provided that individual homeowners landscape their yards in the private areas. The cottage homes do rely on the use of the proposed side yard use easements and staff would recommend that these easements be recorded with the plat. The applicant is proposing to have fences defining the side yard areas. In Sector G there would be more area that would be maintained by the homeowners'association and less private yard space. i Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineer,,_ ;.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 7 Sector E-F is located north of an existing commercial day-care facility and single family residential homes. There are multi-family apartments located to the west and the Orchards is to the north and east. The applicant will be required to.provide.Staff with mitigation plans on how they intend to limit dust, erosion and noise during construction. Staff recommends..that a wall or a fence be provided for the business to the south during construction, and also during occupation. To the north of Sector G is Forest Crest,which when completed will be a 200 unit-multi-family housing development. Staff is recommending that there be a fence constructed around the•southeast and north portions-of Sector G'unless adjacent properties develop first and they.are required to put in a fence or wall. In Sector E-F there are public streets and public alleys. There would be a 20-foot travel-lane maintained on the public streets and 16 feet that would be paved within the alleys. There are planters defining on-street parking bays. Staff is recommending that sidewalks be constructed on both sides of the street as a condition of site plan approval. The problems of access for Lots 56 and 57 and the practical issues involved with their location were discussed. Sector G.has a proposed private road system within the plat as part of the demonstration ordinance. Streets would.be 20 feet in width for-the.travel lane. Three sections of that road.would be.increased.to provide for on- street parking. The gated access location and queuing line would'be'located where NE 6thrcomes into Elma. Staff is recommending sidewalks on both sides in Sector G. Staff recommends approval of.the Orchards, Sectors E-F and G with the following.conditions: (1)Compliance with mitigation measures required by the ERC;'(2) Requiring sidewalks for both sides of the street within the plat, all sectors, and that the sidewalk design is subject to review and approval by Development Services Division; (3) Recording the proposed reciprocal side yard use easements with the plat. These use easements apply to Lots 48 through 63 in Sector E-F. The language of those easements must be approved by the City's Development Services Division and City Attorney;(4)Installation of a fence,wall, or other suitable means of defining the side yard use area for Lots 48 through 63 in Sector E-F; (5) Installation of a perimeter fence along the south property line and along the rear yards of proposed Lots 28 through 48, and on the north side of proposed Lot 1 in order to provide a clear separation and buffering between Sector G and adjacent land uses. This condition could be modified if there are suitable fences installed on the common property line by adjacent property owners for any development that could occur prior to the development of Sector G; (6) Submittal of a lighting plan; (7)Establishment of a homeowner's association for the maintenance of common plat improvements. JIM GRAY, Assistant Fire Marshal, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue S, Renton, Washington 98055, stated that the main concern of the Fire Department is maintaining the minimum width for emergency access for fire equipment, and that those areas that are reduced to the 20 foot width be adequately,marked and signed. The fire fighting access to Lots 56 and 57 in Sector E-F would be the primary streets. The alley itself would not be used - because it doesn't meet the 20 foot minimum width with the turning radiuses for fire equipment. This was something that the Fire Department had agreed to as a part of the demonstration ordinance. The gated access in Sector G is not the most desirable situation,but there are ways to provide the Fire Department more immediate access, either through strobe light access or activation. One other deviation that the Fire Department has agreed to accept as a test is the use of grass grid in the fire lane. Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineer-:.. ;.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 8 Mr. Watts noted with Sector E-F there is available on-street parking on both NE 6th and Bremerton that will be of some value for overflow parking. The main difficulty with.Sector G was the lack of any off-street parking. The parking is limited to the project itself. With regard to Lots 56 and 57 in Sector E-F, staff preferred an alley to creating two pipestem lots. If these were created as a pipestem lot with one having pipestem access to the south and one with a pipestem access to the north,they would fully comply with City.codes. In Sector E-F the radiuses at the corners all comply.with City code and requirements foremergency.vehicles. The turns into the alleys do not..meet.the same radius standards. The alleys are not intended to be used.for access for fire trucks or . for staging of fire fighting operations. The hydrants will be out on the main streets. CRAIG KRUEGER,=Dodds.Engineers, 4205 148th Avenue NE,.#200 Bellevue;,Washington.98007, applicant herein, stated they approached the City with a request for this demonstration ordinance. .They wanted to work with staff in looking at lot sizes and setbacks for the various housing types in the PNR zone which was encouraging this type of development with the alley-loaded homes. Due to the changes in housing market and availability of some more creative lot layouts, applicant is proposing to create the neo-traditional neighborhood '; consisting of 63 single family detached homes. Regarding the corner lots where there is enhanced and accented landscaping at the entryways into Sector E-F, there would be a privacy fence on the lot line that would delineate the private open space on one side and the common open space tract on the other. ..A:common open space tract was preferred to'enhance that entry and the street-scape into the neighborhood, rather than putting it behind a fence. A portion of the R-24 code_regarding alley access indicated that if there was a.detached garage accessed by an alley,the setbacks would be down to 0, both on the side yard and on the rear, as long as you had 24 feet of backout space. What is being demonstrated here is that even if the garage is attached to the structure, a reduced setback from the right of way edge of the alley is acceptable. In regards to the corner homes, a minimum side yard setback of 7.5 feet, but it would average a minimum of 10 feet along the edge of that structure, is proposed. In order to focus on the alley from a landscaping and visual standpoint, applicant has tried to keep the paved width as narrow as possible to meet City codes. The landscaping is brought up to that edge,the two feet that is left over on either side, and then there is a 5 foot setback to the front of the garage. In addition the privacy fence that is constructed for those homes is then pulled back from the front of the garage so that there is a landscaping area on either side of the alley. LU80 does indicate that there is an encouragement for the smaller single family lots fronting onto public streets or a park. This is a concept that has been used elsewhere, and while Lots 56 and 57 won't have the frontage onto a public street which is associated with traditional homes,those two houses are going to front onto a private park. Mr. Krueger pointed out the differences between Sector E-F and their amenities from a natural features standpoint versus Sector G. Regarding the private gated entrance into Sector G,he stated that there is a small landscaped island before the gate where the residents could punch in their code number and then enter. Between that island and the gate there is a paved area where they can maneuver in and do a turnaround to get back onto NE 6th. As far as the queuing,the residents would use one side and the guests would park their cars and call who they are visiting and get the gate opened that way. Obviously there are details to work out as far as practical aspects of gaining access. Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineer;: ;.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 9 Applicant is in agreement with the staff recommendation for approval of the site plan and preliminary plat as part of the demonstration ordinance. Mr.Krueger asked for clarification and changes to the report and the conditions recommended by the staff regarding ERC mitigation measures, school generation figures and traffic generation from Sector G. The setbacks from BremertonAvenue are•15 foot front yard setbacks'for those homes per the.R-24, and 15 foot rear-setbacks, so it seems like what is in fact used as a rear yard,whether it.is called a front yard or a rear yard, they both meet the setback requirements for that road. Bremerton Avenue NE has not been constructed yet for j that side of the road. There is an open space tract adjacent to.Duvall Avenue fora potential meandering sidewalk along that frontage. The open spaces would be maintained by the homeowners association. Sector E-F along the perimeter has been designed to carry on some of the landscaping that has been installed as part of Sector C and some of the other portions of Orchards along those street frontages, and those would be maintained by the homeowners • association as well as the private park internal to Sector E-F. The yards for the homes in Sectors E-F will be maintained by the homeowners. The adjacent homeowners would also be responsible for maintaining the - landscape neck-downs and they would also be responsible for maintaining the landscaping adjacent to the alley- ; way. The CC&R's would be written to provide enforcement powers.forthe.homeowner's association to come in andmaintain that landscaping at,the expense of the homeowner-who:is responsible forr those areas. The homeowners association in Sector G would maintain all of the open space except for the private rear yards associated with the townhouses. The homeowners association would maintain the landscape tracts internal to the neighborhood as well as the townhouses. Regarding a tot lot in Sector G, applicant's market is directed towards the young singles and young couples, and doesn't see the need for that type of recreation. From a market standpoint the trend is towards reducing the recreational amenities within the townhouse developments just from an expense, maintenance and liability standpoint. ' Regarding the private street system in Sector G, because of the constraints in that area,the wetlands,the topography on the eastern boundary,potential commercial center on the south, and the`fact there are surrounding streets,that to go with the public street and the wider requirements, it could pose some problems. With regard to the gated entry and delivery trucks,mail delivery, garbage pickups, etc.,they all have a code for access. BILL STALZERL 1925 Post Alley, Seattle, Washington 98101, stated he was the contract planner to the City of Renton in 1991-1992, and was responsible for the environmental and site plan review on the original Orchards project. Mr. Stalzer spoke on behalf of the applicant and discussed the issue of sidewalks on one or both sides of residential streets. He cited various elements of the CP regarding pedestrian safety, attractive neighborhoods and storm water concerns. It is applicant's position that there is an adequate policy basis not only to permit sidewalks on one side for these two sectors,but in fact that they end up as better overall solutions to the objectives of the City,both in safety, in terms of visually enhancing the neighborhood, cost of housing, and minimizing impervious surface and storm water problems that are actually better served by sidewalks on one side than on both sides. The type of street patterns,traffic volumes, comparable standards in other jurisdictions and pedestrian safety were all cited as considerations to be studied in determining sidewalks on one or both Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineer;.-. ;.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 ' Page 10 sides. He concluded that the Peach Tree development was the best argument against having sidewalks on both sides of the street. DICK GILROY,Northward Properties, 1560 140th Avenue NE#100,Bellevue, Washington 98004, owner/applicant, stated that they have designed a product that relates to the marketplace,that they build homes to sell to the public that meet their needs.- There is a variety of products here. Sector G as a gated community :.markets very heavily towards the single adults and they are very concerned about safety. He cited several different communities that have already been developed which meet different needs. He stated that both Sector E-F and G.would not be developed,at the same time._They•would be,on:adifferent schedule,with E-F under construction this year, and Sector G next year. Also each individual plat, E-F and G, would be divided into several phases of construction. Ms. Henning stated that staff supports the phasing of these sectors. With regard to the landscaped tracts,those are required by code to be irrigated. All landscaping installed is to be irrigated, and also staff would want maintenance by the homeowners association of all the common landscaped areas,the neck-downs;planter areas and such. 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 3:55 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in-this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, Inc.)for Northward Properties, filed a request for approval of a Site Plan and Preliminary Plat under a Demonstration Ordinance enacted by the City Council. 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. 3. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M)for the subject proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site was zoned R-24(Multiple Family Residential)which could allow up to 24 units per acre depending on the particulars of the parcel. Subsequent to the submission of the application and the adoption of this site as a study site for Demonstration Ordinance purposes,the Zoning Districts were altered and this site would now be zoned R-14. The site is permitted to develop under the R-24 standards and as modified by the Demonstration Ordinance. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of Residential Planned Neighborhoods,but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineer: The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 11 7. The subject site consists of two separate parcels located east and west of Duvall Avenue NE immediately south of NE 6th Street. 8. The subject site consists of two approximately 9,acre parcels. Each parcel is approximately square with south property lines approximately 606 feet long and their north to south property lines approximately 650 feet long. 9. The subject site is part of the previously approved Orchards development, Sector E-F (the western parcel)and Sector G(the eastern parcel). Sector E-F is relatively:level. ,Sector G contains a Class 2 'wetland on its western half and<slopes near its eastern edge ranging'up to approximately 28 percent. As noted,the sites were cleared and graded under the previous approval, leaving them in a raw state as this proposal is reviewed. 10. The previously approved plan is still in effect and permits 108 multiple family apartment units on Sector E, 28,000 square feet of commercial uses on Sector F and, across Duvall, 105 apartments on Sector G. 11. The applicant proposes developing 63 single family detached homes on Sector E-F. The development will also contain a one-half acre parkin the southeast corner of the northwest quadrant of the site. 12. The development would feature 38 traditional but small-lot single family homes on parcels ranging in size from approximately 3,400 square feet to just over 5,000 square feet. These lots would be a minimum of 50 feet wide and 79.feet deep. Lot coverage would be approximately'35%. 13. These traditional homes would have two car garages, an apron for two cars and available street parking. The total parking complement would be 152 spaces. 14. The remaining lots,25 parcels,would be developed with what the applicant calls "cottage homes." These parcels range in size from 3,000 square feet to approximately 3,400 square feet with the predominant size approximately 3,100 square feet. These lots would be 37 feet wide for interior lots and 42 feet wide for corner lots and would be 87 feet deep. The reduced front yards would be 10 feet and the reduced rear yards would be 5 feet in depth. Lot coverage for cottage homes would be approximately 40%. 15. Four of the cottage homes would be located on Proposed Lots 56 through 59. These four houses would front on a sidewalk and not a street. The proposed one-half acre park would be located abutting this sidewalk. The two middle lots,Proposed Lots 57 and 58 would have their sole access via an alley. In other words,they would not front on any general circulation street. Proposed lots 57 and 58 and eventual homes would need special addressing consideration for not only emergency response but especially for visitors to these "hidden" homes. 16. The cottage homes would be developed with a concept similar to "zero lot line" homes. The side yards to two adjacent parcels would be combined and used entirely by one of the two parcels under an "exclusive or reciprocal use easement." Each home would have the sole use of the parcel to either its "left" or"right"with an end home having a larger street setback which would provide its side yard. To create private outdoor space,the "non-use"home would not have any windows looking into the yard. It would have the right to use the yard for exterior wall maintenance. Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineer;:; ;.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 12 17. The cottage homes would have two car garages and 37 on-street parking. The total would be 87 spaces. The total parking for the sector would be 239 spaces or 3.8 per unit. 18. The proposed alleys would be 20 feet wide.with 16 feet of pavement. The proposal has been modified and staff has modified its recommendation. As now proposed,there would be 2 foot landscaping strips on either side of 16 feet of pavement. 19. All of the homes,.traditional and cottage, would'be two-story,pitched,roof,homes. They would contain modulated front facades and porches. This would create a tiered streetscape. The overall'density for E- F would be approximately 11.7 dwelling units per acre. 20. The public streets within this sector would be 38 feet wide with 28 feet of paving. They would be designed with 8 foot wide planter islands'or parking strips and there would be sidewalks on one side. There would,be a landscape strip opposite the sidewalk side. There would also be neck-downs or what might be termed protrusions into the travel lane at intersections to slow traffic and provide more greenspace and eventually a tree canopy in these areas. 21. The second phase of the current proposal,-Sector G, covers the approximately 9.17 acre parcel immediately east of Duvall and south of NE 6th Street. The applicant proposes developing 57 attached townhouses. Since the applicant proposes platting this sector, each home will be located entirely on its own legal lot. The townhouses will have common walls that will correspond with the underlying lot lines. Approximately 2.5 acres of the site will be reserved for wetlands and buffers. The wetland is located along Duvall while the homes will be located generally on the east side of the parcel. 22. The complex will consist of groupings of two,three and four attached units: There will be a total of 17 separate buildings. The buildings will be aligned along a proposed 20 foot wide private road. There will be a landscaped turnaround at the south end of the site. An island of housing will cluster three buildings at the north end of the site. The primary access will be from NE 6th Street. The entry way will be divided to provide better access to the site and will be secured by a gate of some kind to limit access to residents and authorized persons. A gated secondary emergency access will be located along the south margin of the site. This emergency roadway would be 20 feet wide and finished in a"grass- crete" surface. The Fire Department wants it clearly delineated. This security access will contain a pedestrian pathway out to Duvall. 23. The 57 lots will range in size from 1,869 square feet to 5,523 square feet. The average lot size would be approximately 2,640 square feet. The proposed lots will average approximately 33 feet in width and approximately 80 feet in depth with some lots as narrow as just over 20 feet. The overall density of this sector would be approximately 15.9 units per acre. 24. The homes would be two stories in height. Pitched roofs will be used to soften their appearance. The intent is to make the clustered townhomes look like larger single family homes. 25. The applicant will be providing 49 of the homes with one-car garages and an associated one-car parking apron. The remaining 8 homes would have two-car garages but no additional parking aprons. 26. The entrance would be 30 feet wide with a 20 foot travel lane with vertical curbs and a 5 foot sidewalk on Elma Avenue. The roadways would widen to 28 feet to accommodate nine on-street parking spaces. Eleven additional guest or tenant parking spaces would be located in parking bays located in the site's center and on parking aprons. Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers;..i,.%) - The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 13 27. The following is a table of the yard and lot size issues presented in this review: ITEM REQUIRED PROPOSED Front yard 20' front garage 15',traditional homes 10' rear parking 10' cottage homes 8' Sector G Rear Yard 15' 15' traditional homes 5' cottage homes w/side yard private space 15' Sector G Interior Side Yard 5' 5' -traditional/cottage Corner 15' 7.5' to 10' w/common side yard landscaping Attached Unit Side Yard 15' end walls 5' to 8' for units 1 and 48 • Lot Size 3,000 sf in new R-14 zone 3,000 sf to two lots over 4,500 sf. No R-24 standards Attached dwellings may be on smaller lots. 28. All units meet the height limitations in terms of overall height and number of permitted stories. 29. The applicant also proposes reducing the right-of-way and driving width of the various roadways in the two sectors. Driving lanes would be at least 20 feet in the main, 28 feet in Sector E-F,with wider access for on-street parking. The Sector E-F alleys would be 16 feet of travel lane. 30. In addition to the applicant's proposal regarding the various dimensional issues they propose demonstrating,they have also proposed installing sidewalks on only one side of the interior right-of- way for.Sector E-F and on one side of G and they propose rolled curbs instead of the usual vertical curbs. 31. In general,the benefits or potential benefits with rolled curbs are they provide almost complete flexibility in locating driveways and require no predetermined site for the future residence. They are cheaper to install and they provide a uniform profile or elevation along the sidewalk rather than the rises and dips associated with traditional driveway curb cuts. Traditional vertical curbs provide a defined roadway and sidewalk thereby discouraging haphazard driving or parking along the street margins or even on sidewalks and parking strips or outside of the driveways, and they provide a more definitive channel for storm water. Both systems have been termed unaesthetic by proponents of the other curb type. 32. Rolled curbs have been used in some cul-de-sacs;therefore, it may be unnecessary to demonstrate them additionally and await the issues that arise from those already permitted. At the same time,this would be in a more complex larger development where more issues could be raised and/or resolved by additional demonstrations. . Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineer,.: :.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 14 33. The applicant's proposal regarding eliminating sidewalks on one side of the street also has pros and cons. More greenspace or, at least, less concrete results in less impermeable surface, less concrete reduces the overall cost of the development which might be passed on to purchasers. In the interior of this proposal any sidewalk will be crossed by a larger number of driveways as the lot width reduction will mean more lots and driveways in a given linear dimension. The elimination of sidewalks means that pedestrians and children in particular cannot negotiate a separate path immediately in front of their residence and in their immediate vicinity, but rather have to either use the travel lane of the roadway or cross a-roadway to use a sidewalk on the other side of the street. Those stopping at a curb without sidewalk would not be served by a sidewalk but instead a lawn area,.whether public or private. 34. Sector E-F's 63 lots will generate approximately 630 vehicle trips per day with approximately 10 percent of those being during each of the peak hours. The Sector G vehicle generation would be approximately 342 to 399 trips per day. Again, each peak hour would produce approximately 40 trips from Sector G. 35. A day care center is located south of Sector E-F. There has been some concern about noise and dust during construction and additional impacts after occupancy. Staff has recommended that a fence be erected to separate the properties. 36. Staff noted that the already approved proposals would probably generate more police and fire calls than would be generated by the current proposals. 37. As noted,the applicant will be paying a Parks mitigation fee. It will also be providing the half-acre park for Sector E-F and dedicating right-of-way for a bike path. Sector G will have the large open space mandated by the wetland preservation plan. The applicant was not predisposed to provide a tot lot. They are not proposing to cater to families with children on Sector G. They believe that the open space will provide for the recreational needs of the children or nearby parks can provide these services. 38. The side yard system proposed for the cottage homes by the applicant is not entirely unique. That system or one very similar in function has been proposed for a recently approved mobile home park. While it is a different zone,the concept will be tested just the same. It may not be necessary to have too many simultaneous tests of the same principles while not actively evaluating the success of the existing models. In any event, it seems that too much design has been invested in this idea and attempting to eliminate this feature would be too difficult. There was concern that creating completely owned private backyards would have created very deep lots, although that does not make it untenable, particularly since it would greatly simplify ownership and maintenance issues and might eliminate disputes. It would also allow additional windows on one side. 39. As the applicant points out,the proposed townhouse layout is quite similar to the one approved by the City for Sector C. It contains the narrower roads and parking bays along the streets. The major distinction which may or may not be an important one is that Sector G is a plat although its similar townhouse function probably is more determinative. 40. The wetland preservation standards were settled in the prior reviews. The wetland will be approximately 2.5 acres and will contain uplands generally 50 feet wide. There will be some filling of the wetlands to extend NE 6th Street to the east to provide access to the site. In exchange for filling a portion of the wetland,the applicant will be upgrading the status of the remaining wetland. - Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineer;::- ^ ;.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 ' Page 15 41. The applicant shall clearly define who is responsible for the landscaping on both sides of the alleys. 42. The turning radius of the proposed alleys will not support fire equipment. The Fire Department can do its staging,for fire fighting from the primary street and for Sector E/F's "interior" lots 56 and 57 that would have to occur from the open space to the west of these lots. 43. The applicant indicated thatthe resident mix anticipated for Sector G as well as the costs,maintenance and liability were reason for not providing a tot lot in the proposal. The applicant notes that their similar development in,the existing Orchards has not-attracted many families with.children. Of course, the absence of such amenities in the first place could be a factor that discourages such families from residing there. 44. The applicant proposes developing the site in four or five phases over the next year or two. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Before reviewing the site plans and plats for Sectors E-F and G, some discussion of the overall proposal in terms of the Demonstration Ordinance is necessary. It was determined that the then existing R-24 Zone was internally inconsistent and too rigid,preventing development that was compatible with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the applicant was permitted to submit plans which could"demonstrate""why certain zoning and platting provisions should be altered. 2. The applicant has submitted a rather complex proposal that takes full advantage of the Demonstration Ordinance in many ways. The proposal is extremely innovative. The proposal introduces a wide range of new ideas or couples some older ones with each other. The applicant has attempted to demonstrate how these various ideas will work to create a unique community and one with a very distinct identity. The complexity of some of the ideas or deviation from what might mundanely be called the "tried and true" probably make the current forum, a mere land use hearing, somewhat inappropriate--that is,there was not and could not be sufficient time and background provided in one public hearing to fairly provide an opportunity to explore both the beneficial and possibly detrimental aspects of the various concepts. Normally,the City Council might hold a series of meetings to explore the ramifications of many of the concepts the applicant proposes. Unlike some demonstrations which are either temporary or can readily be fixed, much of what the applicant proposes will be permanent. With the possible exception of making the Sector G private street public,there may not be any good opportunity to provide remedies if it appears necessary. This office does not want to be viewed as a critic because it recommends against some of the applicant's proposed demonstrations. The suggestion that some of them are inappropriate is not itself inappropriate under the Demonstration Ordinance. The City Council permitted the applicant to suggest areas where it would like to demonstrate some development concept, but it did not mandate or require any or all of them to be approved. 3. As clearly noted during the course of the public hearing, many of the suggestions involve substantial deviations from existing code. In some cases more analysis and discussion even for a supposedly limited demonstration than could occur at one land use hearing seems needed. Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers., , The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 16 4. It is clear that reducing the lot size and with it one or more of the generally required yards(front,rear or side)broadly opens up the development potential of both subject sites. Actually, reaching this conclusion itself demonstrates that some of the other aspects that are proposed for demonstration may not be necessary., One question is whether attempting to demonstrate so much in these two associated _ proposals will make it hard or even impossible to measure the outcomes of any one part of the.concept. Issues that need to be considered are not only do the ideas play out well to create affordable smaller lots, but can_emergency services live with the potential impediments and will buyers "buy"this system. And ultimately,will these developments be long term viable.solutions. .This office does not mean to disparage this proposal, but small lots and attached housing has been done'and in some instances it has eventually led to run-down housing. 5. The yard demonstrations generally appear reasonable..Clearly, if one is going to attempt to create relatively affordable housing, one major method would be allowing the parcel size to shrink. In addition,the Zoning Code and in particular,the new R-14 Zone, also establishes reduced standards for parcel size and for front, rear and side yards,thereby already establishing support for reduced setbacks. The most dramatic reductions are the proposed 5 foot rear yards of the cottage homes and the effective elimination of one side yard by ceding use of it to the neighboring lot. The'cottagehomes'five foot rear yards are offset by the proposed side yard system where abutting homes get.exclusive=use easements to the intervening side yards. This will create useable side yards although'it is inevitable that incidents of"unneighborliness"will occur from time to time. Since those incidents also occur in so- called normal ownership the unfortunate incidents should not foreclose this alternative. The agreements defining these arrangements and'maintenance'and entry standards will need'to be very carefully crafted to protect the interests of both parties. After all the actual property owner of a portion of the side yard will not be maintaining or dealing with the landscaping, barbecues or occasional basketball hoop or play equipment. 6. The one area where the reduced yards may not work is the reduced yards along streets. The proposed community ownership of landscape strips in what would normally be corner side yards or setbacks seems inappropriate given both the maintenance responsibility of lawn care and the irrigation standards. It seems inappropriate to saddle the adjacent homeowner with a water bill for irrigating common property or even public property depending on the ultimate ownership. In addition, installing separately metered irrigation in these areas and billing a homeowners association does not seem very workable although it might be possible. Since the main objective of these proposed common areas is preserve the openness of the streetscape,that might be more easily achieved by fence standards. The various setback and fence requirements seem sufficient to avoid walling off these proposed streetscape open areas and covenants can fill any voids assuring that these areas will remain unobstructed. At least, the ownership and responsibilities will be straightforward. 7. The private road system proposed for Sector G is not an entirely new idea. It is something that has been utilized in other developments such as Falcon Ridge(Cedar Ridge). There are benefits to the. residents but it is less likely that it benefits the general public. The residents have a secure environment and gated access precludes unauthorized persons from entering the grounds, but this is not a privilege which the City grants everybody. Many residents probably would like to preclude others from entering their neighborhoods,too. As indicated at the hearing,residents of this "private enclave" enjoy the option of walking on nearby residents'public street while not providing reciprocal walking rights or privileges for others in the neighborhood. The positive aspects are that with less outside traffic,the Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers;lll.,.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 17 • proposed narrower streets probably make more sense, although the Fire Department is still concerned about access and circulation on the narrow streets. 8. Since the proposal is a demonstration project and there is still some concern about street blockage for . emergency services,the applicant should create a reserve for the street and provide.a contingency to .:..actuallydedicate.the.street to.the.City:if it is found that an open;public street system serves the needs - .of the emergency services.:divisions and the.residents after a two year.trial.period.--The-option to require 'any dedication should be solely within the discretion of the City. 9. . The proposal to install sidewalks on only one side of Sector E-F:does.notappear.appropriate-for this development. While the applicant showed some positive aspects such as less impermeable surface,the • clear lower cost of eliminating one side of sidewalks and the additional landscaping that can be accommodated, it seems that if sidewalks on only one side of a street have an appropriate venue,this small-parcel plat is not it. It would appear that the nature of the development could appeal to not only those "empty nesters" looking to "buy down" in space, but to home buyers who may be just starting families and are looking for smaller and presumably more affordable.dwellings...These younger "starting out" residents might be just starting families and there maybe more toddlers and young children.. These younger children would probably benefit.from:being,able to:wander..between their house and the next on a safe sidewalk. Both adult residents-and-young children should:have the benefit • of protected sidewalks in front of their homes. No matter how low the traffic counts,walking and tricycle riding in the streets invites accidents. 10. In addition,there is a particular policy that advocates sidewalks on both sides of a street. This is not a • limitation imposed as a result of the R-24 zoning or even the platting ordinance. This area appears to have been specifically considered and appears settled when balanced against the supposedly positive aspects. While the Demonstration Ordinance does permit changes that seem appropriate, as noted at Page 11 of the staff report: "provisions of the Demonstration Ordinance shall include the minimum requirement for the protection of the public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics, adequate public services, and safe and functional streets and thoroughfares." This clear objective would not be met by providing sidewalks on only one side of the public streets. For similar reasons,while the applicant proposes private streets in Sector G, sidewalks should be constructed on both sides of the roadway system in Sector G. SITE PLAN REVIEW 11. With some of the general discussion of some of the demonstration aspects of the proposals reviewed, the particulars of these proposals will be discussed. 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; • - Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineer , ..:.;.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP' August 22, 1996 Page 18 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; With the exceptions noted above in the discussion of the demonstration aspect of the proposals, the proposed uses satisfy these and other particulars of the ordinance. SECTOR E/F 12. The proposed mix of what are called traditional homes and cottage homes meets the goals and objectives of the Residential Planned Neighborhood. The proposal provides a variety of housing types on smaller lots. It provides a streetscape with homes with articulated facades and modulated rooflines. It also introduces some very innovative elements which time will test. There are smaller lots in exchange for a half acre parks exclusive use of side yards in exchange for almost no rear.yards and ___ narrower streets to reduce the sprawl and tedious appearance of pavement. The exclusively single family detached complex meets the,goal which also allows 100% single family in the zone. 13. The proposal does not necessarily conform with all aspects of the Zoning Code. This is to be expected when a project is authorized by.the Demonstration Ordinance to deviate from the rigidity-found in both the Zoning Code and Platting Regulations. Conformance with actual building and fire code provisions will be determined after the submission of a building permit. 14. The applicant has proposed to vary front,rear and side yards as well as roadway width and public access. As noted above,the yard deviations seem appropriate except for the corner lots. While simplicity is not always the best objective, it seems that there should not be any reserves for landscaping which would complicate maintenance and ownership and billing issues. 15. The standard impacts will occur during construction and there will be additional traffic on area roadways after occupancy. These are the normal consequences of development, and according to staff can be accommodated. The daycare center does appear to deserve protection and the applicant has agreed to screen it. Such screening shall be subject to review and approval of the City. 16. There should not necessarily be any untoward impacts on the general community other than the increased density and the potential for property line disputes. The Fire Department will be inconvenienced by the narrower roads and the neck-downs and will possibly have to set up staging areas in remote locations. These issues appear to have been reviewed by the ERC. 17. The development should not have any impact on property values. 18. The installation of sidewalks on both sides of the narrower streets should assure that both vehicular and pedestrian circulation is safe. The proposal will ultimately serve as a demonstration of whether the narrower and somewhat constricted(by the neck-downs)roadways will provide for adequate circulation, particularly for emergency vehicles. - Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers,um;.) - The Orchards-Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 19 19. The narrower lots and yards will reduce to some extent the openness of the complex of smaller homes but the layout and the articulation of facades and modulation of the roofs should still permit adequate light and air to reach the site. 20. There appear to be adequate public utilities to serve this segment. SECTOR G 21. The proposed townhouse groupings also meet the rather broad objectives of the Residential Planned Neighborhood. The clustered, attached homes are designed to look like some larger single family homes masking their multiple family nature.. They will have pitched roofs.and modulatedfacades. They also open up home and lot ownership by actually creating platted parcels on which homes will be situated. It definitely provides an additional variety of housing types on smaller lots. The topography and wetlands features defeat the creation of a street grid system. With this in mind,the applicant has proposed a private street system which is not entirely in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 1 22. As with its companion proposal for Sector E-F,the proposal for Sector G,does not necessarily conform with all aspects of the Zoning Code or the Platting Code. Under.the,Demonstration Ordinance this is anticipated. Again, conformance with actual building and fire code provisions-will be determined after the submission of a building permit. 23... .. The townhomes with attached units would not necessarily have-side.yards.but with the exception of two lots, Lots Wand 48,the yards between.buildings'would meet standards. Again,the applicant proposes common open space to replace the needed side yards. In a clustered,.townhome type-complex this deviation appears reasonable. The nature of the complex is quite different from its companion proposal and common open space and shared amenities seem more appropriate. There is also less complexity with fewer such parcels which are also larger. The reduced front yards appear reasonable. The roadway width and private access appear appropriate as noted above and with the exception that dedication remain an option. 24. Sector G will create the same construction impacts and will clearly add additional traffic to the surrounding roadways after occupancy. Again,these impacts are expected with any development. 25. The applicant is preserving the wetlands features and buffering these areas. The complete absence of any recreational component varies substantially from some more recent models, but staff supports the applicant's proposal. In this Sector,wider roadways and signs are intended to assure that emergency access is not impeded. Again,these issues appear to have been reviewed by the ERC. The applicant shall provide appropriate delineation of the emergency access as approved by the Fire Department. The use of grass-crete paving shall be continued as long as the Fire Department finds it is acceptable. 26. This Sector's development should not have any impact on property values. 27. The proposed private street is of some concern to the City. It will be harder to enforce no parking restrictions to assure corridors for emergency vehicles. It also restricts access to this platted property by the general public. It appears that it could serve as a demonstration,but it really offers nothing new that does not exist in private non-platted apartment complexes. Nonetheless, it will be approved for demonstration purposes subject to the requirement that a reserve provision permit the City to require dedication if the private status proves a hindrance to emergency or other access. Again, it would appear • ; Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineer.;, The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 20 . that to assure safe pedestrian access, sidewalks be accommodated on both sides of the street. The additional width required by the ERC should also assure adequate circulation. 28. The layout of the townhouses and the clustering should permit adequate light and air to reach the site. Coupled with the expansive wetland preserve,.the proposal seems appropriately,laid out. 29. The site is served or can be served by appropriate public utilities. SUBDIVISION • ;. Preliminary Plat 30. With the demonstrations proposed by the applicant and the exceptions noted above,the proposed plat appears to serve the public use and interest. The proposal appears to take advantage of the lesser standards of the R-14 Zone regarding lot sizes and setbacks. Since the applicant has permission to pose a number of deviations from the standards under the Demonstration Ordinance,taking advantage of the R-14 District's lot size and:in some cases yard or setback standards is appropriate. 31.... - The new,lots ranging between 3,000 square feet and approximately.4,500..square;feet meet the standards of the R-14:zone in the main and also,appear reasonable given the Comprehensive.Plan's goals and ,policies. They are small and visually adjusting to such small lots and the streetscape they create will take time. But they will provide the variety of housing types and lot sizes required by the RPN provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. 32. The setbacks vary from the enunciated standards..,Except for the side.yards.adjacent to some streets that - the applicant proposed for common open space,they appear to be reasonable. The open space reserves should be consolidated with the adjacent private lots. As noted,this will facilitate maintenance and financial issues. The applicant should be permitted to place covenants regarding the use and fencing of these areas. Since this is a demonstration proposal,the proposed yards are reasonable. Usable outdoor space appears to be provided for each unit. 33. The applicant meets the standards or has reasonable alternatives for both the front and rear yard setbacks for both the front garage and rear garage served lots. 34. It would appear that staff supports the narrower than standard streets and it appears reasonable. There probably should be an option to remove the neck-down areas, particularly at the throat of the alleys, if those prove too difficult for emergency response vehicles. Since this is a demonstration, it might be necessary to remove those areas. Therefore,they should be placed in reserve with the potential to be opened for street purposes and dedicated along with the rest of the right-of-way. 35. The proposed private street for access in and around Sector G has been discussed in other sections of this review. At the moment it seems like a reasonable alternative but subject to the exceptions,already noted. 36. The proposed rolled curbs do not appear necessary to make this proposal better. As noted by staff some have been employed in some cul-de-sacs where the delineation of driveways on the curved bulbs caw be a problem. But the narrow configuration of the proposed lots pretty well defines where driveways will be located. In addition, since rolled curbs have been employed in these lesser cul-de-sacs, it seems prudent to await a review of how they are working in those areas before extending them to this proposal. Therefore,the applicant should install the traditional vertical curbs in all platted property. Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, ....,.) , The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 21 37. .In the main,the lots and blocks of Sector E-F are rectangular, creating a more traditional subdivision. Lots 10 and 11, 21, and 29 and 30 are accessed through private tracts,much like a private roadway or pipestem access.. Proposed Lots 57.and 58 are "different" in that they have no traditional street frontage,,with all vehicle access or"frontage"-in the rear off an alley. Their companion lots, Proposed Lots 56 and 59 are also somewhat different.in that they,too,have no true frontage'street but are rather bounded by a street only on their.respective.side yards, again,with alley only:access. These lots are significantly:different but this:office will join with the applicant and concur.that:there probably will be.an audience for these "odd duck" lots. In conclusion, as noted above,the proposal definitely contains some very;.well-designed,:and innovative elements: Many of them seem appropriate, but as noted, some seem either premature or inappropriate for one or both of these two sites. Clearly,the applicant's proposal precipitated some of the changes in the newly adopted R-14 zone and some just mirrored those changes. On the whole,the proposals are well thought out and should be approved by the City Council. RECOMMENDATIONS: The.City Council.should approve both-the site plans and plats for Sectors E-F and G; subject.to'the following conditions: 1. -Applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures required by the ERC; 2. . Applicant shall record the proposed reciprocal side yard use easements with the plat. These use easements apply to Lots 48 through 63 in Sector E-F. -The language of the easements must be approved by the City's Development Services Division and,City Attorney; 3. Applicant shall install a fence,wall, or other suitable means of defining the side yard use area for Lots 48 through 63 in Sector E-F; I ' 4. Applicant shall install a perimeter fence along the south property line and along the rear yards of proposed Lots 28 through 48, and on the north side of proposed Lot 1 in order to provide a clear separation and buffering between Sector G and adjacent land uses. This condition could be modified if there are suitable fences installed on the common property line by adjacent property owners for any development that could occur prior to the development of Sector G; 5. Applicant shall submit a lighting plan; 6. A homeowner's association shall be established for the maintenance of common plat improvements. 7. Since the proposal is a demonstration project and there is still some concern about street blockage for emergency services,the applicant shall create a reserve for the street and provide a contingency to actually dedicate the street to the City if it is found that an open, public street system serves the needs of the emergency services divisions and the residents after a two year trial period. The option to require any dedication shall be solely within the discretion of the City. 8. The applicant shall install sidewalks on both sides of the street; • Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 22 9. The applicant shall install the traditional vertical curbs in all platted property. 10. The neck-downs shall be placed in reserve with,the potential to be opened for street purposes and dedicated along with the rest of the right-of-way. 11. The open space reserves shall be consolidated with the adjacent private.lots. As noted this.will .. facilitate.maintenance and financial issues. The applicant should be permitted to place covenants regarding the use and fencing of these areas. 12. The applicant shall provide covenants that assure that the 1/2 acre park shall remain open to childhood play and permit the homeowners association to install play and.tot;lot;equipment,if they chose to do so. 13. The use of grass-crete paving shall be continued as long as the Fire Department finds it acceptable. ORDERED THIS 22ND day of August, 1996. \<04404.„.... FRED J. KA N HEARING E R TRANSMITTED THIS 22ND day of August, 1996 to the parties of record: Jennifer Henning Neil Watts Jim Gray 200 Mill Avenue S 200 Mill Avenue S 200 Mill Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Craig Krueger Bill Stalzer Dick Gilroy 4205 148th Avenue NE,#200 1925 Post Alley 1560 140th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98007 Seattle, WA 98101 Bellevue, WA 98004 Anne Tibbott Annette Hicks John L. Scott 17003 NE 28th Place 20548 SE 159th 3380 146th Place SE, #450 Bellevue, WA 98008 Renton, WA 98059 Bellevue, WA 98007-6472 Ronald R. Knight P.O. Box 6 Renton, WA 98057 TRANSMITTED THIS 22nd day of August, 1996 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman, Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator Members,Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson,Development Services.Director Art Larson,Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney' James Chandler,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Mayor's Executive Assistant Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers,-.i,:.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 23 Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Valley Daily News Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on-or before 5:00 p.m., September 5, 1996. Any aggrieved person feeling'that the decision of the i. . 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. Appeal of the Examiner's decision is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 11, which requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within twenty (20) days from the date of the decision. 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. CITY OF RENTON SEP 0 5 1996 September 5, 1996 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE `City Clerk, City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Subject: The Orchards- Sectors E/F and G File No. LUA-96-010, SA,PP City Clerk, City of Renton: Per our conversations with City staff, we are hereby appealing several of the recommendations of the Hearing Examiner regarding our proposed site plan and preliminary plat for Sectors E/F and G of The Orchards. It is our understanding that our appeal is to be submitted to the City Council of the City of Renton, due to the recent changes in City procedures and the fact that this proposal is part of a Demonstration Ordinance. The Hearing Examiner's report states that any appeals are to be forwarded to Superior Court, yet is it is our understanding that the City Council will hear our arguments. The transcripts of our public hearing before the Hearing Examiner, and the information that was made part of the record, contain many of the arguments made relative to the recommendations that we are appealing and we will present this same information to the City Council. Specifically, we are appealing(or clarifying)the following recommendations contained in the Hearing Examiner's report dated August 22, 1996: #1. There is an inconsistency between the Mitigation Measures issued for the overall approval of the Orchards in 1991 and the measures issued by the ERC for our proposal for Sectors E/F and G as to the time at which mitigation payments are to be paid for traffic, parks and fire impacts. We would like the City Council to clarify for staff that these payments are to be made at the time of building permit issuance (per the 1991 Mitigation Document), not at the time of plat recording. The timing of the payment plays an important role in providing housing at a cost that meets the City's housing needs and provides the payment of the fees closer to the time of the actual impacts. Even with payment of the fees at the time of building permit, these fees are paid approximately 4 to 6 months before the homes are occupied. It would be best if these fees were paid at the time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy. #2. As a clarification, and one that is part of the record, this recommendation for reciprocal side yard use easements will apply to lots 39 through 63 in Sectors E/F. #3 Same clarification as in recommendation(2) above. 09/05/96 City Clerk Pg:2 City of Renton #4 As part of the record, we had requested that a staff recommendation be somewhat modified so that the fence along the south boundary of Sector G would be placed only adjacent to the buildings along this property line. This would eliminate the requirement to install a solid privacy fence adjacent to the wetland which exists along approximately half of the south boundary, again in the interest of housing cost and the lack of any real need to place this fence adjacent to the wetland. #7. Per our presentation at the public hearing, the townhouses proposed for Sector G will be very similar to the townhouse condominiums currently being constructed in Sector C of The Orchards. The main difference between Sectors C and G, and one of the major reasons for proposing the Demonstration Ordinance, is that the townhouses in Sector G will be sold on fee simple lots, not as condominiums. This difference results in reduced financing costs, simpler conveyance procedures and better market acceptance, all of which can be passed on to the future homeowners of the townhouses in Sector G. The private road for Sector G will be maintained by the homeowners through the payment of homeowner association(HOA) dues,just as the private road in Sector C is maintained by the homeowners through the condominium association. We also discussed the type of buyers that are anticipated to purchase the townhouses in Sector G and the fact that many of these buyers will be single women. Security is important to these buyers and is the main reason for the proposed gated entry. We do not believe that the decision to dedicate the roads in Sector G, and eliminate the gated entry, should be "solely within the discretion of the City. If there are future problems regarding emergency access into Sector G(which we don't anticipate given the type of neighborhood and homeowners anticipated for this sector), the City staff can work with the homeowners association to resolve these problems. The proposed solutions should be jointly determined by the residents and the City. #8. A major focus of our presentation the public hearing was on the staff recommendation for sidewalks on both sides of the streets in Sectors E/F and G. We would like to make these same arguments to City Council and feel that this request is justified for the following reasons: 1) Our proposal is part of a demonstration project to review modifications to City standards. 2) The proposed site plans call for neighborhoods with internally oriented street systems with no major trough traffic, either vehicular nor pedestrian. 3) Sectors E/F and G will be neighborhoods with a limited number of homes. 4) The elimination of the sidewalk on one side will reduce the amount of impervious surface and allow for more landscaped area along the streetscape. 5) There will be more room for the placement of underground utilities and their surface vaults on the smaller lots proposed for the sectors. 6) There will be a cost savings that can again be passed on to the future homeowners. 7) Sidewalks on both sides of the streets in Sector G will be physically difficult due to the terrain, the configuration of the site and the large wetland located along Duvall Avenue. 09/05/96 City Clerk Pg:3 City of Renton #9. Many of the same arguments made regarding recommendation#8 can be made for this recommendation calling for vertical curbs. In addition, we would like to point out the pedestrian safety factor of rolled curbs with attached sidewalks versus the driveway aprons and vertical curbs. With the smaller lots and the increased frequency of driveway approaches, especially in Sector G, the pedestrians will be forced to maneuver across the sloping driveways that are created with the use of vertical curbs. If rolled curbs are installed, the attached sidewalks will be at a consistent flat level and are much better suited to pedestrian use. We would also like to argue that the rolled curbs create a more attractive streetscape, especially with the increased number of driveways. #10.As a clarification, the landscaped neckdowns proposed for Sectors E/F will be within the public right-of-way and these areas will be dedicated for street purposes as part of the final plat process. There is no need to place these areas in reserve per this recommendation. #11.We would like to present an enlarged diagram of these landscaped areas located adjacent to the entry streets for Sectors E/F and show how these areas will be a natural extension of the landscaped areas along the perimeter of these sectors. With our proposal, the appearance and maintenance of these small areas will be consistent with the other common areas of the plat. We do look forward to discussing these items with the City Council as part of this Demonstration Ordinance. It is our belief that our proposal for Sectors E/F and G will result in neighborhoods that are positive additions to the City, promote the more traditional lot layouts envisioned by the City, and will assist in meeting the housing needs of the City. Please call with any questions or comments regarding this matter. Thank you. Sincerely, I Richard A. Gilroy Northward cc: Ms. Jennifer Henning, Project Manager PLgNNING DEVELOPMENT CITY OF RENTON September 5, 1996 StP 0 5 1996 City Clerk, City of Renton RECEIVED 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Subject: The Orchards - Sectors E/F and G File No. LUA-96-010, SA, PP City Clerk, City of Renton: Per our conversations with City staff, we are hereby appealing several of the recommendations of the Hearing Examiner regarding our proposed site plan and preliminary plat for Sectors E/F and G of The Orchards. It is our understanding that our appeal is to be submitted to the City Council of the City of Renton, due to the recent changes in City procedures and the fact that this proposal is part of a Demonstration Ordinance. The Hearing Examiner's report states that any appeals are to be forwarded to Superior Court, yet is it is our understanding that the City Council will hear our arguments. The transcripts of our public hearing before the Hearing Examiner, and the information that was made part of the record, contain many of the arguments made relative to the recommendations that we are appealing and we will present this same information to the City Council. Specifically, we are appealing (or clarifying) the following recommendations contained in the Hearing Examiner's report dated August 22, 1996: #1. There is an inconsistency between the Mitigation Measures issued for the overall approval of the Orchards in 1991 and the measures issued by the ERC for our proposal for Sectors E/F and G as to the time at which mitigation payments are to be paid for traffic, parks and fire impacts. We would like the City Council to ciarify for staff that these payments are to be made at the time of building permit issuance (per the 1991 Mitigation Document), not at the time of plat recording. The timing of the payment plays an important role in providing housing at a cost that meets the City's housing needs and provides the payment of the fees closer to the time of the actual impacts. Even with payment of the fees at the time of building permit, these fees are paid approximately 4 to 6 months before the homes are occupied. It would be best if these fees were paid at the time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy. #2. As a clarification, and one that is part of the record, this recommendation for reciprocal side yard use easements will apply to lots 39 through 63 in Sectors E/F. #3 Same clarification as in recommendation(2) above. • 09/05/96 City Clerk Pg:2 City of Renton #4 As part of the record, we had requested that a staff recommendation be somewhat modified so that the fence along the south boundary of Sector G would be placed only adjacent to the buildings along this property line. This would eliminate the requirement to install a solid privacy fence adjacent to the wetland which exists along approximately half of the south boundary, again in the interest of housing cost and the lack of any real need to place this fence adjacent to the wetland. #7. Per our presentation at the public hearing, the townhouses proposed for Sector G will be very similar to the townhouse condominiums currently being constructed in Sector C of The Orchards. The main difference between Sectors C and G, and one of the major reasons for proposing the Demonstration Ordinance,is that the townhouses in Sector G will be sold on fee simple lots, not as condominiums. This difference results in reduced financing costs, simpler conveyance procedures and better market acceptance, all of which can be passed on to the future homeowners of the townhouses in Sector G. The private road for Sector G will be maintained by the homeowners through the payment of homeowner association(HOA) dues,just as the private road in Sector C is maintained by the homeowners through the condominium association. We also discussed the type of buyers that are anticipated to purchase the townhouses in Sector G and the fact that many of these buyers will be single • women. Security is important to these buyers and is the main reason for the proposed gated entry. We do not believe that the decision to dedicate the roads in Sector G, and eliminate the gated entry, should be "solely within the discretion of the City. If there are future problems regarding emergency access into Sector G(which we don't anticipate given the type of neighborhood and homeowners anticipated for this sector), the City staff can work with the homeowners association to resolve these problems. The proposed solutions should be jointly determined by the residents and the City. #8. A major focus of our presentation the public hearing was on the staff recommendation for sidewalks on both sides of the streets in Sectors E/F and G. We would like to make these same arguments to City Council and feel that this request is justified for the following reasons: 1) Our proposal is part of a demonstration project to review modifications to City standards. 2) The proposed site plans call for neighborhoods with internally oriented street systems with no major trough traffic, either vehicular nor pedestrian. 3) Sectors E/F and G will be neighborhoods with a limited number of homes. 4) The elimination of the sidewalk on one side will reduce the amount of impervious surface and allow for more landscaped area along the streetscape. 5) There will be more room for the placement of underground utilities and their surface vaults on the smaller lots proposed for the sectors. 6) There will be a cost savings that can again be passed on to the future homeowners. 7) Sidewalks on both sides of the streets in Sector G will be physically difficult due to the terrain, the configuration of the site and the large wetland located along Duvall Avenue. • 09/05/96 City Clerk Pg:3 City of Renton #9. Many of the same arguments made regarding recommendation#8 can be made for this recommendation calling for vertical curbs. In addition, we would like to point out the pedestrian safety factor of rolled curbs with attached sidewalks versus the driveway aprons and vertical curbs. With the smaller lots and the increased frequency of driveway approaches, especially in Sector G, the pedestrians will be forced to maneuver across the sloping driveways that are created with the use of vertical curbs. If rolled curbs are installed, the attached sidewalks will be at a consistent flat level and are much better suited to pedestrian use. We would also like to argue that the rolled curbs create a more attractive streetscape, especially with the increased number of driveways. #10.As a clarification, the landscaped neckdowns proposed for Sectors E/F will be within the public right-of-way and these areas will be dedicated for street purposes as part of the final plat process. There is no need to place these areas in reserve per this recommendation. #11.We would like to present an enlarged diagram of these landscaped areas located adjacent to the entry streets for Sectors E/F and show how these areas will be a natural extension of the landscaped areas along the perimeter of these sectors. With our proposal, the appearance and maintenance of these small areas will be consistent with the other common areas of the plat. We do look forward to discussing these items with the City Council as part of this Demonstration Ordinance. It is our belief that our proposal for Sectors E/F and G will result in neighborhoods that are positive additions to the City, promote the more traditional lot layouts envisioned by the City, and will assist in meeting the housing needs of the City. Please call with any questions or comments regarding this matter. Thank you. Sincerely, r Richard A. Gilroy Northward cc: Ms. Jennifer Henning, Project Manager `DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT CITY OF RENTON CITY TREASURER REG/RCPT : 02-39851 C:09-05-1996 CASHIER ID : G 13:39:00 A:09-05-1996 8000 MISCELLANEOUS REV $75.00 APPEAL 000.000.00.345.81.00.000003 TOTAL DUE $75.00 RECEIVED FROM: NORTHWARD CASH $80.00 TOTAL TENDERED $80.00 CHANGE DUE $5.00 DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT ..; ems CITX OF RENTON soLL: Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator 7/19/96 • TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Subject:ADDRESSES FOR NEW PIA, Please see attached new plats that have just been addressed. Please add these addresses to your City directories and maps. Attached: Anicello Short Plat —',urn" Prellwitz Short Plat stiP- Springbrook Residential t re O'Connor Plat F P- i -11(0 Renton Place P-a 5- 191 Several newer phases of the Orchards Plat F P- . -Op' S SA_cuo,,D l o Sincerely, • CZ,773 •2 • :%Jan Conklin Development Services Representative • Development Services Division Telephone: 277-6176 • #1 :platadd 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 «)This paper contains 50%recycled material.25%post consumer 1 - 7K 1!i! `. •: :i . -,'.. .' ceI11 1 1'E = `L.r11.54*Et - d~1 E[11IJ1f1f11L i i - _ _ y 1. -mM4ar . ., 11. 1 • • -�: :� op! •ism . ■Oalr I �r6 '� III F: ~ t... .a » ,,.: I::J II 11 . 4 lb La la f Da zi± ) . . ..... t. .orp ,„,.0., ,.,.. _.__-.-----•___,-.--T,-- -:• ....‘ ,.. • . '. ell 1 i„, • Lik-i, -•,a,?,- • *it ------ ---- ., • ---,,_.....) , ,. t : ._15_?I'J jNip 1 1s 94' 7 1$ en d 1■ 12 \\�. . 11 W..a 1• ,..:: • `' • /84 -�` �3� tigliw 4t¼ .•� gib • u $ . es .I �oL L u .: _ ,� • • 1.9 • ''...'1:‘,#':. 'F.... "7"i%‘C.,.71:1211111. .;#41i Ifri 4v . • u sy . 1. , 7,...----""'N. ,.,,1".. .? cc ,.....'.. \\ v r:fi,„_A-- 2.! 2,—/— eik\\ 14k112M? -J /'0,111 0 \110011 ;\':., -- —.. .,:::Qj v - I 40k., \ ot• 0:.rsr.._:15P / ‘ \ . 11 to ta/ IC K C� OG ,,K CA 1D CD ` ••� I I ill ' i ic40)h(Th t lc • • • • • '- to ±I M�fi lLa afiAy,. /�, �il�l'� /i I .ir Jar , ' • (_ //01tWtf_____,-- • S...,/�� N 1 I `.- \ a / OjC.) 1 .. 4. „e e tz 61 (D]'� it 9H 1 L I C 1 r S -• k3J _ d`''• � 4V ti 01 J l{ Itillortrivil gia '\\` > C...),-.).-1., 0 • o'i�i� /172N f 1^ L's(\ I- \ i * _ _ ._ \I _ :N(ii_ __\t_ _ 11- Ct •% [(11 _Z_ I__ i_ \ i r ii. . s„, ,,,• v.,. (., . .,________ ,.., _,.._. r�`..�,, bob 11 \II rLJ . - . 6 alkiam--71 aellitik. °. i .r 17--r71-. 1 I If 111 I,F ,irj___ _Th ( 7 \ 4 . .0, 1 co q illett) ,;(\.; --1c5 = \0 ;o 1 . ' O o�i11, _ I o tii ` ��/� 67E \ . - . i51, ^U —J , )i. ,3 lit qi(i) . i im 6 \OU 7) , . . \ • ® t7" - 95C vot, 96 \ . QV/ C ki4 Immr-6 ,C54&___1: . ' . . 2469 I I `?C r (IT 1 ��f\ (\, V7rZry �CP i, 1 POI, i . lila • " :51; . ) '-i . 0151 k0/11WP Milip 1\t. ' ' -* ' .11111411L ......?. . ..--..',_... '. ...... --'..."11111 t MI a X 4 .0 fill Irak • 11111.1111-,. M -71 , El - l= . -I Pill ffirilliiillUi- ... -- - 11111111"Wial .• I A! . . - _?G\ & J i\(' f ?,.\ .t I co(% ,1 . P T Ilivi PI- re me' ] \t /\\/ Lrr * ____F-- /44 . f .. . .. _ . . __ ,}1 A I I :42:64V7 -70U-ii• y.:2eV,,,,,,p-v22 7,,-,2a-i2 2. , r • • • • • • , (--...7i,..,...c.......Ace. . Se?;-..74-r-s �' 12. til / �e R+tC7 C �� e0 - R Lqe NE 67N MEET �:.1:•.6— L-.:1 �/ L. �' , r � r• II a , ��., Jig \1° xiii.1 Z • .140 t... ` b . S I l v . ''�� bict .,..„, , • x �. ! ;7• 1 • 124 1 I ; I I �q}: J !r •r I 4027.r I 1 4p56.r 3e1.2. 1'44s+•r I o . I I'1 •1 /�®¢=` j' 7a "i % ` 4r L___J ` L-_-_ i . 1 kci-or,70) . AP• . • . •. . t't I I� I U1 r--- 1 1 okt-- • xu. N •'• sbn r 1 ! + Ip7 - L ---e,--J 2 1 19 o 1j I x. \ ., I 3,54,..V. I • 1 UVI ` • PARK " 3rec. 3.sr.r I r--ie- e 1 3 0 o OPEN/WAGE ^ °p I----61---1 r ..4- 1. • ( 1 I t • ^ I x!6•I 4 �_ saw•r •I _ I )dot.r VVV"9�� '{�, @ • L - ^ -.t_-te--� • �p 'I R i 316._4 7 Q I - , i---�^ I- i • E J . ..... `-61 .� r �• �_1e I • ' fi.; ' 1 I x35.r I $ ' 1 I /Cj I >> 37 sl _ ), ai•: 6 I seal.r . L. lsl� 1••. r- L--ne- . %i IP- P ; 1J )seo rli- '�J I se rG.r I + ; 1 ••4 ; 1RA" • I /. + -e1-_J..fia `•1' �m I 2IK +11 11 .51 5� + r- — , e1 15 ` R r t•L7)_ J I I 1 r v 413" r L_ fi: I� r----T 1 1 I. I■1.1 .•"• 1� I �_-3teir_J � ••� r-�--i a I 3� 1 / r—MG— —�—I—_ m I I p� ^.�I s36W.f I 2, • .a,. PUBLIC ALLEY 541 • � n 1 I. 1 n I i: { \. Z 7 1 u ------ 17210 I r, 1 leo7•r 1 I • _7) _ x.1 1 �•.. u-•.F"Sl• _ r'u i -�i u ---e,--J L-,e- ' YYY������jjj a 1 38 I 1 . i 1 1 1 I '� •' t rJ r „ sa• 1 '.. I )6y7.r I i1 - I I I 1 \•.1' a I I 1 i139 0 1 40 0 1 41 m 42 r 43 ; 44 ., - L___e, I R* 4 ## •I 1563.f ' •i 23 • ' • r7�fT. L- 50 9.1 32 I• ,,. Sa bo so so/�- S0 • r v� rt�- r-�yi r � r--�� r- i SO 7e 7 +�'!, I e_, `. 1 t 1 i I ; 1 I I 1 I1 ItCI_ I ` '�U��� 1 1 +1 47eI .r i I 2 . VIM27.f i I 3 , 1 4 ? I"�5 :, In ;, 1 1 :, 1 8 :. I S . I-1`�10 :-:'; „„., 1 II :• ! 3657.r i 1 x57.r I 1-x52.r 1 1I 1 -- . L.___J I.-__J L _ I _ 36S7•f 1 I 3 657.r I 1 765:•f 1 I•3631•f I 1 ,r'ade N 1 1 1 \ I' 60 • •rC 30 50 so ' NBB'0l'15'W ' 5a 5a 5O SO SO 5a I .. 60601' •SECTORS E 4 F . .42.1 L.tCz.41_ LJ>=�c.Kit—I IC.. .1 SECTORS E 4 F The 9A8th half or the Not .e q artx or LA!9outhaa.t-qQ rter c ca.,. I . ....G. 10.1.. g 4C Li. LL ,,, Er .147909 L1 LC / 12.41.L47. 9N j,, 96.94 ., e ---- --.2115- . 7 2CG ... • I I j J.i,„, J.1,, I ..1127:4K466X9X4 2230,1.2104.34 1.0,0721243 / • -------- - . 401Y,44( tj I 3 i Il.t iti i(241,- _____ a I. Itio•I 1113:1141•2 -.1' 077011.22.04 • L .•-••,, r4‘rk +1(.:41-7215s,.;11 l' i. Air,--..-4, 9,. .. , . . . .0 t 1 • . . . ,..... JR& 1 I mg \ 32•904102 CDC/1132 I /itc7/11 4/%1 V 3 I iiiik* • 10(4, .. 4 ' . • 4 cat'-1 ---- croi . . 5 ,. t 411/* . • . i irr tir, --2 ...___ 1 17 091C r • -• no on------,.........-4 Ann r13•10 ..z. re 3•I•7S;el I ir:zotior ir • • . C., , , .••&am , & 4' ;E:allir. 170.4 ,5, 101116... 11.11. /d4S43,44, •/ 4.17 I 11;171410.iir......‘/44/.......0/,./ \ . 4 _,. 1-- -I " .i / i rPC . • 0 . , r Nor umr. ,....• . 1 sit4„, 1,4..7-- 9A.,- ' :'' i . .0 ,a ../ ;I tOrli ka-91-'151itri7 SPG1t6V4ir r t.t\P-911P1 1:- te-4161: >111_41 •-• c j.1.,, a......9 \la os 45 , / . .4v7itioas;,..... • •-•,.. . I. - ar'"Alt; • !-trri-_I ,..t. giusir-ev 1 • a'altms-P r cc 1 igillial 411 1.111 ...Mi."1111. it I•04019 279c19 1040 44 . WU i ' in te totrau. 03 3 Wir. ..4 in I =r ---1 ---.7-4.-". I . • --.. • • i .4 ,.. / /iVIPIONIkil i . 1••• 1 . . • • •edU .\ • . . ; 1 ‘1'. ‘ yi do I 1 I.-% , -- *-- 4. - • ° ,- c A-- 1 . •1 : ... 1 ...,, 1 , • •; • - i i., ....._.. --__-_-A-..J 11. • '. 04 • 1 . • L'-' ,:.-- 7---I t. . . 7 _. -7,i Ce • LIP C. \ "- -"Ci "trIlli . 1 \ .. • • ir cm • • 209.19 t(3610 Z01.09 i• ! • . , 1r ::.:.::•: :::.:::::: •-.....— ----.- C...7 ..,taik".),..(9 . L . _. --IrV . . • - . i • I •_ l NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION • ," I ' AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COME rEE • RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee Jessica Borg , being first duly sworn on oath • (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non- states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the Significance - Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. • VALLEY DAILY NEWS THE LUA-6-010SA,PPECFORSE,FBG 600 S. Washington Kent, WA. 98032 Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards.Sectors E and a daily newspaper published six (6) times week. Said newspaper is a legal F are located on the west side of Duvall newspaper ofgeneral circulation and is now and has been for more than six Avenue NE and consist of an approxi- mate 9-acre parcel that was previously months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the approved for apartments and commer- English language continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Wash- cial use. Under the current proposal, ington. The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal newspaper by order Sectors E/F would be subdivided into 63 of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Kingtraditional and cottage homes, which p 9 County. 111 would orient toward a small private park. The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Valley Daily News Public streets and alleys would serve (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers the homes, with sidewalks provided on during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a one side of the street.The approximate9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously Notice of E ri v D e t approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 57 attached town- homes,each on its own lot.Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be was published on 7-5-96 enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of an approved wetland mitigation plan. Location: Duvall Avenue NE and The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing blication is the sum of NE 6th St. The 15 day comment/14 day appeal per'- $ ods for this project will run concurrently and 7 2 •9 9 end at 5:00 p.m. on July 22, 1996. Appeal if\.1 procedures and the mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environ- I�lerk, ValleyDailyNews mental Review Committee are available at Le al W� the Development Services Division, Third Floor,Municipal Building,Renton,Washing- ton 98055. Phone:235-2550.You should be I Subscribed and sworn before me this �� ' Oa of v 19 C6 prepared to make specific factual objec- tions.tions. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the Ooonv�.noy it�.c,��-.� ' second floor of City Hall, Renton,Washing- .4J` 0 M - ton,on July 23, 1996 at 9:00 AM to consid- ! ..•••-/yr er the Site Approval and Preliminary Plat. If ��id" •. \ON Ey••�� Notary Public or the State of Washington the Environmental Determination is �':•�\� �• . A appealed, the appeal will be heard as part �'� �< '9`. residing at,Atrr�O Y tN ` of this public hearing. Z:c, TAR II King County, Washington Published in the Valley Daily News July 5, 1 --- : �c * • 1996. 1787 a\ ...53.4 PUa1.\c } I vitiy vixd 7/9 •Q 1 F.WAS 001 f , AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss. •County of King ) MARILYN MOSES , being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 22nd day of August ,1996, affiant deposited in the mail of the United States a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: '1///1 G "-O�•7 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ZZ Yam- day of • , 1996. *Notbli ' d for the State of Washington, rtygdx2._ _ residing at , therein. Application, Petition, or Case No.: Orchards, Sectors E,F,G LUA-96-010,SA,PP The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record ..:,..1'.1‘,...11P''?:: i�t h t ' ll 1 • '14'' 11 f4 • It - S. 1: . - ,lei 7 ;IT i '' ti • 'v,1 1 HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N.. RGE 5 E•, W.M. 9"--�� —_ `_' .-— = . I I Ta•OT - Jn•non L _ f.•'•nv i 1 � .066 +• •• _'n•'_ -_ ' •. e..{. .. _Tw�ci C _ root.., rur Y won 16 Eii .. • e I Ja 7)`•• ' 77 71 [jjn� ar I Y .,lt -\1• Y /l ab .D . •* f . . , ,. . - ...., � ' L • 4eI„,,, `JC eW • • ! ggg +!• ..J .. L— t j I j Yâ wg i I . * Orgill Wi : ', i. • . • :f ev. • IIZ ¢ }+ f i VA4*. �' `j S W wo?ipL;F.. w e•• 0,.. •,,,, ...•tateoao w...w x 61 ae a '•(� • , . ` 4 } O z 'I T,.Pa+,r D.r 1 I 31 r ' i 1 •J• • •• , O j CO 1 38 I L�TAT• .I .J ® • 1 •I ...QD»..o ..) • , ,�� 3• o W I I ./ W • „ ..• ,,,g> ctto wit, .)F . • ,,, ___________ • „.. ....i .1....... ..... ,. , . • , ...• .. .... LU 4." ...albs. • ••..I..c _u.r;.N Z• . . • ---- -- -- -:-....'L....: ___ •..•-- . 41,3 , 24 :: ads. •.• Z�h QSo • !h lvOCt R`a • SECTORS E 4 F v a ..•'e,111„ Q, • SECTOR G ._.:.., r---"'' O C1 2 ,I �^ro, 3 2w • 1. Qh LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTORS E.F Ow O T.o ww,,ry a tow Manors.R....a tow..•I.••.Awt. W IS - a w Pour•.4✓.. tr"'O.Tor.p"bra ...yap*. . ca w E•..as f. w..P,P.1w,•rr..�i N Owner/Developer E00 . 0wer/Plaroler/Surveyor. y 0) �...�m.. W0100 b.n... aw.a.rep. DP..r��. y Tra n.awW MI of Vs e...u4••.. J.O-Npn ara w.wulDO w•-uwn.r...pa - Y V..• , - . a ••Arrt...n.of•as 10 Too..73 b.Rag.• MI•wl W Y00• 64.700 4 _ __ E..W4 EXCEPT w last 41 T.Unroof.P U..r...{2 N Co...RW..0 61. EMI.w.,W YOOT �g 'Id—I:. ,w. a.[.,.w...'••�•.••. b .wn.w..�. Cam. tar Joy....•E•Eg... ti T• + ! ! 4 •.nX1.4.O/XfA y'I o......om•fW p„�tu w TN 006,141,126 �+•g•�"•9.•w^+ T..Pow.OW..I..,r m a roW N of.Uu.•t page TO.110.,•••.bT•y rlJ•wvyP °y vi L ;: Ai. ' [ Y Mc>o^B M 00.i10Y1 • ll • r�•' SITS LEGAL DESCRIPTION eecTORe : ,•`,o n V. TAN Paw,..•a ve W.vt a.•t.awe..•«(}IN STATISTICAL SUMMARY '••'••, are wort�.a•s...IOU Town.lb RCM RAW --- T • E.•t..v..loam 1 01114 e.W for u •.e..PS N A Y rev,p 1..q Can m re.l•.r W IIGTQR[., 1R410u 4 TOTAL SCALE: 1" = 50• J • ., ..Ly uO..lVI •R oy TOYI YY ]Nb0J.q R1•n Paso >.•U•p ft.911.vas 1MOM•q h.000 ay. r csu..o.sob.o,Lou •U) wT 00 •14. M1.bM..eaw Wwf•.q...vaw w,.w.w oyry a w Jw.r.q..•,.W Mc..s.0 Tor.q 11 WY.Raw• 7•"•'G l..t•g f PY.pw.e -1. .1. F.0 0,{XCEn Ir.•1.••. W fr UM Prot Raw N Paola e0,.a-Y.1 MO. U700 6E 1041 K. t tom r4 lYo MN Oov.. N p�'•�• ore e.V Wow... 01200 of.006 of E., 61600 0.166 a 0, U•J.,f,1131,of foul•..•• / 1 VICINITY MAP AO•C•.[ 95054 TA avcwalloe I I j f .-. _ SECTOR'C —- ----}—- - /—Iill III w..r�•ovo. cli: I::' 1 I '5 f . -, --- 1 I 'fe!..."-:-•L; •:•.• ig...a.8,4..,,,i7•1;7.::',-. ° '-',,ii ,,,,.,* ,_.,. ,,,I _�,��"�� 113 , .`� ! D,, '° '�� how : r JG�''�_ �. Ik Illen— e .60L[LTryE N,o 4`�1• r4iel ��/'���� J` (.t. - 111 _ • i �]. .l• _ECT as E�[••'il dim ) ' o .We-e.r.u..uj[rc A..G 6+141 to.J X VI �! ti• Q• •.,,[ On I . ys.v..ce �0� - /.1. AEUJG yl ` ,•,, p w w a.:;rKr lel =t�' lE �■ ,,` • i ��t I I',;'� •� ,p`�P. *`e•w'�'�1 Ids ��I °r�� e'j ,ji,i`',o_ 1- ��; �` J��. 1 ■u �•,) •,44/J e� :' r� �� deft y � • ° =- ;�;"ice°° �a I (� Nii f•7 _ , YA'rtrl IMI F 6 Ef.:a1iTsIr1IL1t , I `r • , i{ !' a oI n: e`I� 3 r T •s. • 'I� k. tl • � e t'O, O 1' _---- --- �( �( 1 d }. r r�'.:I.1; w�,rl, �"° °e' �.Va +,i--� o I Y I� y 'l j/ p _ �.,;,) =; lDBr 1 I'f,��'.'I` vjY - t•J�� ;Atli "j !� ep^ r .•.• u I �•' .�,6j...1�� l E vf'S`�aH��``, �1/ 1•°•.cam• `I �+I"'y I I •• q:i..�;, bj1�'Ir•I I I -$ �•��.vj. ��pp*+• '� o�1�I U. �tt��{�7 iooll, —. _..o) ,1 ,, ,, -,ini 1'. - � ail �'' {3 ��Isj d► �1 1[" 1 i,•'{:•;yl ia r.Y...:ir �• � 0 ��ry�,• e i:ifl elialif itilift;1 E c% _. � oioi io oiO ?''* . ORSo °o.o a �,�Oo o • v o.iTTEO SECTOR Cs p „gl- PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE P1 CI EIERII l l2W IlL,HIE) PLAIT — SYMBOL BOTANICAL _NAME_ COMMQA N114_.B1ZE1 CONDIT114N SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE{CONDITIION iwn •� D•[leuou•Tr.•••m Arnflarge •.>.,•E^,e u I `^n Len.BNUBs .In-1••n w p«o fr.••1, l/ I. • - a s..n wo a..a. o• '•o•.cot t.•ry L.me,. __.--- a yew..v.�..y �•'^ ccfo-...r •ra.oe•D.e>.aK[.. ,u:.••.••• e._••':•.o.. d D.•e�M ...•«..w .I.. Ley..•u..•Co.p.i. .a+,s.-r • A[conl DlocIEYOuE Ti....IlowAlnagvAllnp_ o_•.... '..•..e.b•mro I..eno�n•va. tir _ _[-+•cc ' _.rE...op..Eo o•[opv.•ew D•D rurr.u•bq.foin. erya.b•p ..e... ..c0E_000 f//.;':— 81�1 BIrUB. .p.e•r.oi...cc o_..g. .,..e p,..,.•.•• n ar•Pr«e Ao—E es•'°ea.•.. E.••..paw •ww n,'•ary..e.•co.... Narrow Dcgleypu,p.m _ en _ D.o.,•a,.roan c.•.r/WA,. f.o.oc q•[p.rr• .,.....o.p•• K.o�•..:we=re p« ..��o..,,.w e.e v .w A . .a•w ••.[oau...a.pp +ca.var. Er•rpr.•n Tr• .D_`n Co•p•[• Coro• pwr•.w�yw �E•• •or . • ..,my CA./al • — ..• ..-g•...:.•• Ca..e..P., Oroyne,orr&A.c.m. ACC.nI Er«pr.n Try.. 16.AA .A.,y IIy' •'you•«.i•••e e. ���• 5•u-.••pE✓• C...,,.n-C• f..o o•.^P«— lam_. Yua•Ilpyb•..• 1. K..uCorOYa•I. IIp[r� Ar•A. '—I C•:o.•C•uv ae•e . Co.w•...pw.r Wr6y w.•p«�«. �a�..... R�� -- — L-1 ow Rube t ;I f� , t L1\�C, "'\' . • .. irinunnminl iiiiiniiii i i 1 T1i1 unii I�;% =,_ mmnuiF '' ' I 1 1.,-�� -� �IIII�IIIII ;�� JJJ • If ---p. I;. 1 1 alr • • 'limn mmi • IIIIIIIIIIIIIL'••�� , 1 ' 1ili 1tJH , h, • i! •i':. .11 klil i, I `nnuni niiiiili��\ ir l • • ,��� ,7AI11114 III, (�I b.:Nis • �,::.it ,n I �,py,.,::::::::::; `.;a :::; >: • Illllllhtii.\ IiIN III,l.II!I .i 1n1, ,:' 1 III{II1I / Q\ • i ld�l !10 i r;r,: I: MIIIIIII111 1ITS; JJJ �:: �� ,,L • II 1i Illlllllllll: II! i `7r I I; Im� m�llp • ,I JJIMJJItIlril . ;,I I: i�f, ' � s e,,i1I'i"!i"It:;..,,`.,. ! ii � IR -. iCali' IIIIIIIIIIII na: � lilt. ' II 1 1 _=' nn If Vu • 4. `1i11 • Ifr'. ii IIIIIIIIIIII'/ 11;"//' `\- _ • - - .jam•' y ;?. • _ jk. cam• - . NORTHWARD T H E O R C H A R D S G .610 HOU AVE.NE , BELLEVUE.WA ,•001 • :s0o ill-mU RENTON. -IINGTON _ - 0 • .....1.- ..,_ --- • . + - ---111161w.. " n.---.•-•-_—- _ - __.--.•.._--.._ ':........12.•'- • ., .r' - — _..... ..----7*---....— . 4. --_,-__--s_.:..., •• .4 A g t. -..-=---=.._a•••••••IIIIMIMPMPr.....411ro-'::-...--.4.1.*4 Nk rl. - ____••••••••••11•111..... ..tr Art • —-" . - N-'-' :-T..- .".) .g __ ...4.1.......,. _. .ig'. *et)• ...-- mmimmolmoi------ ,..:.!...---...„:......=•.-'-'4". . 04% ,'- 1--. -I" 1.-- A' 1.:''',."..• • •AllIMIPPI".-....,,, ,._,, . .1,--- .- . . 4..". ,•, ..,. .._ ---- . .• . ., .,-. _ • . r.:1 _ gig.-awl- 4 i• 4.-3 s.•.1 ii II ii i 1 ."••••• '••"`""' ' Fi tra I" •=1. ....11111"-pRi••:1'4••••' • Y 1.-19igiirn•-•--------A••• .. ;,-...,;•.• - -.,. NM III M I II ra. •••••• ...).4,14r4• 0 .. =.. .. ,. ,, i ,ir. §. =.1 . ., • Il• SO 44,.......0,.., A.... W.,. ..t...41._. ---- .• .,.."- -• . ••• ow • '..• - , • • .- ,..,„ i ," 410„...., '4 ill ". ••••••'•' •,,,, .,;•0,'.'••••=-••-----'-I - - - --,--i- • : - , .. 1.4211•11! 1 I I I 111E13111. 1 Ct) • .'.. ' ' .1 I I :lir- ---- -=:-.'''.." •••• 41)4 I 'I',:, I • ,••••••••• • . • = §Alliiii"..." ---- ---'-.---- ....--- '' ''"'":...'1:5.... .; - -.. 'fl,W=.4.4Ezil 1111.111:: s4 Fig":1•••°-== = ' .':•."0... Illii:-,..• _ _ _. "C.7 • '7,,,••4 ...I I m =rig r•••••-..-7,.•••=;:•I:,.-...i...,:...., • ." ,V::•,,:_. - •'" 7:: - .- ---,7_-..."-F, - --:•,'''i i'ac .., •:S'.' - 1....- f,/174. 7,'r ".. ; — .1. 111111.1. .,.". ..1'. I t ••,..... tne 27").b 'or .4f4:= 3 rag .:-.:..1 trgl •.. oi.; • .:i•.,1., ..1 .1 . . II f;r:••••'• ; ' ,"...... ... %eV 3•Wi•-•:::iG MI • .= '‘.1-7 .:,-f-". = •,,,,r II °I 3 4, 'i',',Cr• 'el:: V '4.404-VP in -1‘7.,•... ,'..7t,A_-,_IP " '.•.-... re'I---;•!lig 4.-e),r,v. x.,;-,,--, 1 ifew-X-ni..? '•-IL:: nj.' ' Lnii : HE 6,--..:*•04,.....:v.,,z_ 1 f '' . . ---Li„ta -."-4.-2alt.;.,4gallialdi Ili; : :=,.=',,:f:i.,!;:!4--;'/-.-..ii_..L.,_,==..- ______,, _..4. IR :I._....• -.-. :.. : ....:*“.1L.....-1:- tf.f.444:________4ft-4.,....... ......- 7..T-''••••;r•-7.---1"--..;•••-•••. ••4".."' • 1 =4-4.7-.-;--''...p--- ,fr÷,---:4 .-tr.- .AILLf://,'-:-__1;z:-,;-,..-E=i3-4...Fp' :.-/..r =,is mi I .mit. •ry., ari=.....r.)-7+-iri q....-• Wt.-:....;=.... ...1..:,/, ••,....-_:).-.it-k-r--A:e .:, .i. ... .-. ...,....r. --•-•-•-' i rtz.,. . I:.--.f,g'41 .---- J,.,, M. off•B.1,mffEr ma. ; 'O.: •.17.1...'''''..* ....Z..' .4-...1i....%— ..- .' 4.•—wi.ri. ,er • i,,,,,f f41,—,-..3.,--A—.--1---_. i. , 1,....-- •••, •— :4 .4,w.ei.:1E1,11111114. ell.rm—.. 0,r, Proi. _ 1 . •..11 f, ' '•6' ''.".=-•"'•7--2';.!.."'".z 1..-A0.,,,...=—)r... ' {4, we.MI—. -..-='.0:• • ..I.M7,7,.r.r. •-'''' 'Pi ...,t //1.1..=•---' - ' '' '' =-..- col-ka- 1-c,-.iv-. •.? slx----x---rieguli ..• , .' c 111,.....'".nrr:X........ ...-h. '•1. •"""" •...-1.4 "":77.=.-...., ...... .• ,....4 0„ •'' 4, • ...,,': ..-....r': ....". ... ...'••• .ff -.''"Iglilr .a.v.'-1.• • . ' 12;.".7.r•••••• "..• - ' . -r• •I'%1 ..........- • •""". ..-;;;..;•.'' 4.-...:•, ',. ... .7./t" :--•:'--',..:-•"."..... ;_-,-•,--f..:•--- -.'...."•••-i-...--„-%..,-•,••i--•,- •-•-•::-.;•,..:i•,-.:?••,-,•;- -,,;,),-..:.•-,-:•3;:::-,I, •.:-:-'„-----..,..•_:•. -..,„.•„• -• -= - -:.,:.-'' -- -;i:....".• - • •— l :.:i•r -,... ....:--..., -:-..:-_-:•t !.- •'-',.. ..7.4. ..„-.....;.i....*-1. .: *.-.';••-_r-•;•a•,•••:.1--,':,.LI..:-1/•••-:---:•-S•:..,?...1;•":%".•_;-:-....i.,:f--:%.:....,".;-:*.r.;%....,1;'....;:f,"3::tr...--..--}-5.........!_-_-r.:::.1_.......•_:•-•,..., .'",_ - -'•:::::•.• -: , - r...?: ...e• -.1,• ,..•••,- • -. _ I - .•••••• ..• . ... -:.- .... THE OR cHAR _Ds .... NORTHWARD HOMES . REAR LOADED PRODUCT TYPE • IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING o '�° '' CITX JF RENTON "u.„ , Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator July 25, 1996 Mr. Craig Krueger Dodds Engineers, Inc. 4205 - 148th Avenue NE, Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98007 SUBJECT: The Orchards, Sectors E, F &G Project No. LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF Dear Mr. Krueger: This letter is to inform you that the comment and/or appeal periods have ended for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non-Significance for the above-referenced project. No appeals were filed on the ERC determination. You will be receiving the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Site Approval and Preliminary Plat in the next few weeks. . If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 277-6186. For the Environmental Review Committee, J9-r dit1-11 ennifer Toth Henning Project Manager FINAL.DOC\ 200 Mill� Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Cam1 This naner cnntains 50%recycled matenal.2c,nnct consumer City of Renton PUBLIC Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date July 23, 1996 Project Name The Orchards--Sectors E,F and G Applicant/ Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, Inc) Address 4205 148th Avenue NE, Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98007 Owner/ Northward Properties Address 1560 140th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98005 File Number LUA-096-010,SA,PP,ECF Project Manager Jennifer Toth Henning Project Description Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 57 attached townhomes, each on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of an approved wetland mitigation plan. Project Location East and west of Duvall Avenue NE at NE 6th Street B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record Northward Properties 2. Zoning Designation Residential -24 du/ac (R-24) 3. Comprehensive Plan Residential - Planned Neighborhood (RPN) Land Use Designation 4. Existing Site Use Vacant City of Renton P/B/PW Departme:=•_ Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 2 of 23 5. Neighborhood Characteristics North E/F: The Orchards Sector C (aka Peachtree) 63 townhomes, and single family residential homes (Sectors A and B) G: Proposed as a 200-unit townhome development (Forrest Creste) East E/F: Sector G G: Large lots with single family homes and vacant South E/F: Daycare G: Vacant, proposed and zoned for commercial uses West .E/F: Windsor Apartments G: Duvall Avenue NE and Sectors E/F 6. Access Sector E/F: NE 6th Street via Duvall Avenue NE and Bremerton Avenue NE Sector G: NE 6th Street via Duvall Avenue NE 7. Site Area Sector E/F: 8.83 acres Sector G: 9.17 acres Total: 18 acres C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Annexation-E/F 2290 11/21/66 Annexation-G 3553 6/8/81 Rezone LUA-138-90,R,PP, 4361 8/10/92 SA,ECF Demonstration Ord 4550 8/21/95 Comprehensive Plan 4498 10/17/94 Zoning Code 4405 2/20/95 D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities Water A 12-inch water line is located in Bremerton Avenue NE and water lines are located in Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street. (These water lines were constructed by the developer) Sewer An existing sanitary sewer is located in Bremerton Avenue NE and extension to the East Renton interceptor is located in Duvall Avenue NE Surface Water/Storm Water Existing facilities are installed in Duvall and NE 6th Street. 2. Fire Protection Provided by City of Renton 3. Transit Metro Transit provided service along NE 4th Street. Routes 111 (peak-hour commuter only) and 147 (weekdays) operate on NE 4th Street. Sectors E/F are also within the area served by Metro's Dial-A-Ride program. ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Departmt Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA, PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 3 of 23 4. Schools Maplewood Heights Elementary School, Highlands Elementary School, McKnight Middle School, and Hazen High School are within one mile of the site. Renton Technical College is within 3/4 miles of the site. 5. Recreation Cedar River Community Park, Liberty Park, Coulon Beach Park, Kiwanis Park, Windsor Hills Park, Maplewood Golf Course, Highlands Park and Community Center and Heather Downs Park are within 3 miles of the site. 6. Other Site is within Aquifer Protection Zone 2. E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Section 9-12, Subdivision Ordinance 2. Section 4-34, Street Improvements 3. Section 4-31-7, Residential-24 dwelling units/acre (R-24) 4. Section 4-31-19,Administration; Interpretation and Permits F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Element, Housing Element 2. Supporting Comprehensive Plan Policies: Housing Element: Policy H-10. Encourage small lot single family development. Policy H-13. Allow single family development to comprise up to 100% of new units in Single Family/Multi-Family Mix areas. Limit multi-family development to 50% of the total project units. Residential Options and Residential Planned Neighborhood: Objective LU-K: Create new residential neighborhoods in areas mapped as Residential Options (RO) and Residential Planned Neighborhood (RPN) in a "traditional neighborhood" development style while at the same time supporting affordable housing, infill development, transit service, and the efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. Policy LU-42. A range and variety of lot sizes should be encouraged. Policy LU-43. The dwelling types should be mixed throughout the project to create a neighborhood which functions on the traditional neighborhood development model. Policy LU-44. Provision of small lot single family detached unit types and owner occupied townhouses are encouraged provided that density standards can be met. Policy LU-45. A maximum of 50% of units allowed within an individual development may consist of multi-family units. ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departme _ Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA, PP, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 4 of 23 Policy LU-48. Central place public amenities should function as a focal point within the development and should include features such as a public square, park, or commercial center. The central place should include passive amenities such as benches and fountains, and be unified by a design motif or common theme. Residential Planned Neighborhood: Policy LU-60. The City should allow development of planned neighborhoods at 10-24 dwelling units per acre in areas mapped Residential Planned Neighborhood on the Land Use Map where the site meets the following criteria: a. adjacent to major arterial(s); b. adjacent to employment area and/or Centers center; c. project size over 20 acres (acreage may be in separate ownerships); d. site is buffered from single family areas or other existing incompatible uses; and e. a SF50%-MF50% mix is achievable. Policy LU-62. Developments in the Residential Planned Neighborhood category should be subject to the following additional criteria. 1. Projects of 20 acres or more: a. Master Plan is required. b. Residential density of 24 dwelling units per acre is allowed. c. Multi-family buildings may be 12-plexes or smaller. 2. Projects of 5-19 acres: a. If a Master Plan is approved: i) Density may reach 22 dwelling units per acre. ii) Multi-family buildings may be 10-plexes or smaller. b. If a Master Plan is not approved or desired by the applicant: i) Density may reach 18 dwelling units per acre. ii) Multi-family building may be 8-plexes or smaller. 3. Projects of less than 5 acres. a. Density may reach 10 dwelling units per acre. b. Multi-family buildings may be four-plexes or smaller. Policy LU-63. Projects in a Residential Planned Neighborhood designation should have no more than 50% multi-family development. The single family may be attached, detached, or a mixture of both styles and may be met by zero lot line development and townhouses with attached outdoor open space. Residential Streets Policy LU-70. Streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths in a neighborhood development should be arranged as an interconnecting network. Cul-de-sacs should be limited to areas where natural barriers occur. Grid pattern streets are preferable to connect adjacent and future development. ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departme:.. Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA, PP, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 5 of 23 Policy LU-72. Access to and from individual residences should be restricted along arterial streets. In such areas, residential site design should ensure primary access to residences comes from collector streets. Policy LU-73. To discourage vehicles from exceeding speeds safe for pedestrians, residential streets should be connected to the narrowest widths (distance from curb to curb) feasible without impeding emergency vehicle access. Policy LU-74. Parking should be allowed along one or both sides of streets both to serve as a safety buffer between pedestrians and moving vehicles and to reduce the need for on-site parking. Policy LU-75. Intersections should be designed to minimize pedestrian crossing distance. Policy LU-76. To visually improve the public streetscape and the safety of perimeter sidewalks and facilitate off street parking, construction of alleys providing rear access to'service entries'and garages should be encouraged. Policy LU-77. Sidewalks should be provided along both sides of residential streets. Sidewalk width should be ample to safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrian traffic. Policy LU-78. Trees should be planted along residential streets. Subdivision of Land Objective LU-O: Create a .neighborhood. development .pattern consistent with Renton's older neighborhoods and an interconnected road network. Policy LU-79. Land should generally be subdivided and blocks sized to minimize walking distances and provide convenient routes between destination points. Policy LU-80. Land should be arranged in blocks divided into lots with all lots required to front on a public street or a park. G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking Site Plan Approval and Preliminary Plat approval for the development of two approximate 9-acre parcels of The Orchards. The parcels are known as Sectors E and F, located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE, and Sector G located on the east side of Duvall. A site plan was previously approved by the Hearing Examiner in May, 1992 to permit development of 108 apartments in Sector E, 28,000 square feet of commercial development in Sector F, and 105 apartments in Sector G. The current proposal is to combine the Sector E and F parcels for the platting and construction of 63 detached single family homes, and to plat Sector G to accommodate 57 townhomes. Both sites have been cleared and graded as part of the previous development approvals and within the constraints of construction permits that have been issued thus far. The project description and analysis of the proposal will be discussed by sector below. Sectors E and F will be combined to Sector E/F, and Sector G will be analyzed separately. Sectors E/F. The development of the 8.83 acres that comprises Sectors E/F would feature 63 small residential lots suitable for detached single family residential development and a one-half acre park. Lots#1 through#38 are located on the perimeter of the proposed Sector E/F plat and ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmi Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 6 of 23 would be developed on somewhat larger lots with traditional homes. Lots#39 through #63 would be smaller and narrower than the traditional home lots and would be developed with cottage homes that would be accessible from a public street and/or an alley. The lots in Sectors E/F would range in size from 3,000 square feet to 4,638 square feet. Traditional home lots (#1 -#38) would be 50 feet in width and 79 feet in length. Cottage home lots would be 37 feet in width for interior lots and 42 feet in width for corner lots, with a uniform depth of 87 feet. Access would be from the public street system and from access tracts in the case of Lots#29 and#30 (access from Tract B), and Lots#10 and#11 (access from Tract E). Cottage homes would be located in the center of Sectors E/F.andwould generally have access from the public street system and from alleys. Lots #57 and #58 would have driveway/garage access from the 20-foot wide alley (with 16 feet of pavement) and would front on the common open space. . A'sidewalk/walkway would provide separation from the park and lead to the front yards of lots #56 through #59. Sidewalks for Sectors E/F would be located on one side of the street only, on the perimeter of the cottage home lots. Proposed homes would be two-stories in height and would transition down along the street resulting in appropriate residential scale and massing. The cottage homes would feature reduced front and rear yard setbacks. Front yard setbacks would be 10 feet and rear yard setbacks would be reduced to .5 feet. Lot coverage would be approximately 35% for the traditional homes and 40% for the cottage homes. The cottage homes are proposed as "zero-lot line" homes where useable side yards are created through reciprocal use easements. This configuration would result in the creation of private yard areas for cottage homes that would otherwise have no useable private outdoor yard due to the reduced setbacks being proposed. The individual size of parcels proposed within Sectors E/F would be as follows: Lot#1: 4,638 sf Lot#22: 3,829 sf Lot#43: 3,146 sf Lot#2: 3,952 sf Lot#23: 4,062 sf Lot#44: 3,117 sf Lot#3: 3,952 sf Lot#24: 4,052 sf Lot#45: 3,108 sf Lot#4: 3,952 sf Lot#25: 3,951 sf Lot#46: 3,000 sf Lot#5: 3,952 sf Lot#26: 3,951 sf Lot#47: 3,000 sf Lot#6: 3,952 sf Lot#27: 3,671 sf Lot#48: 3,000 sf* Lot#7: 3,952 sf Lot#28: 4,243 sf Lot#49: 3,187 sf* Lot#8: 3,952 sf Lot#29: 5,061 sf Lot#50: 3,096 sf* Lot#9: 4,034 sf Lot#30: 3,950 sf Lot#51: 3,146 sf* Lot#10: 3,868 sf Lot#31: 3,850 sf Lot#52: 3,528 sf* Lot#11: 4,402 sf Lot#32: 3,950 sf Lot#53: 2,828 sf* Lot#12: 3,975 sf Lot#33: 3,950 sf Lot#54: 3,146 sf* Lot#13: 3,005 sf Lot#34: 3,950 sf Lot#55: 3,261 sf* Lot#14: 2,607 sf Lot#35: 3,950 sf Lot#56: 3,242 sf* Lot#15: 4,202 sf Lot#36: 3,950 sf Lot#57: 3,000 sf* Lot#16: 4,202 sf Lot#37: 3,950 sf Lot#58: 3,000 sf* Lot#17: 4,202 sf Lot#38: 3,943 sf Lot#59: 3,404 sf* Lot#18: 4,202 sf Lot#39: 3,280 sf* Lot#60: 3,325 sf* Lot# 19: 3,952 sf Lot#40: 3,146 sf* Lot#61: 3,000 sf* Lot#20: 3,444 sf Lot#41: 3,146 sf* Lot#62: 3,000 sf* Lot#21: 4,612 sf Lot#42: 3,146 sf* Lot#63: 3,242 sr (*denotes Cottage Home Lots) Net density of the development on Sector E/F would be 11.7 dwelling units per acre. ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmo _. Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010,SA,PP, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 7 of 23 Access to Sectors E/F would be from NE 6th Street (via Duvall Avenue NE) and from Bremerton Avenue NE. Street names have been identified for the proposed road grid and are as follows: Chelan Avenue NE (north/south entrance road from NE 6th Street), NE 5th Court (east/west public street), Bremerton Place NE (north/south public street on west side of plat), Chelan Court NE (north/south alley serving cottage homes), NE 5th Place (east/west street in center of plat), NE 5th Street (east/west street on south portion of plat), and Chelan Place NE (north/south street on east side of plat). Public streets within the plat (Chelan Ave NE, NE 5th Court, NE 5th Place, NE 5th Street, Bremerton Place NE and Chelan Place NE) would have a 38-foot right-of-way (with 28-feet paved) and would feature sidewalks on one side. _Streets within E/F.would.feature..8-foot.deep planter..islands and sidewalks on one side, and a landscape strip on the .opposite side. The .applicant.'proposes the use. of. landscaped "neckdowns".at the intersections to reduce the.hard surface and to provide a tree canopy. The combination of neckdowns and planter islands would create.-defined..on-street parking spaces and reduce the width of the travel lane to 20 feet.:Rolled curbs have been used by the applicant elsewhere within The Orchards and are proposed by the applicant for Sectors E/F. Resident parking would be provided for in two-car garages. Guest parking would be accommodated on driveway aprons, and through on-street parking. The applicant has proposed 239 parking spaces as follows: 76 traditional home garage spaces (in attached two-car garages), 76 off-street parking spaces on garage aprons of traditional homes,50;cottage garage spaces (in attached two-car garages), and 37 on-street guest-parking spaces. This would result in 3.8 parking spaces per each dwelling unit in E/F. Sector G -- The 9.17-acre Sector G would be developed for..attached.single:family townhomes on individual platted.lots. The units would be attached in groupings of two, three and four units. A private street system of 20-foot paved streets would serve the plat. Proposed lots would vary in width and-depth, but would average 33 feet in width and 80 feet in depth. The average lot size would be 2,640 square feet in size. The size of individual lots within Sector G is proposed as follows: Lot#1: 3,992 sf Lot#20: 1,869 sf Lot#39: 3,790 sf Lot#2: 4,094 sf Lot#21: 2,845 sf Lot#40: 3,322 sf Lot#3: 2,983 sf Lot#22: 3,491 sf Lot#41: 2,832 sf Lot#4: 2,263 sf Lot#23: 2,791 sf Lot#42: 3,945 sf Lot#5: 4,008 sf Lot#24: 3,652 sf Lot#43: 5,523 sf Lot#6: 2,529 sf Lot#25: 3,069 sf Lot#44: 4,193 sf Lot#7: 2,151 sf Lot#26: 2,310 sf Lot#45: 3,260 sf Lot#8: 2,211 sf Lot#27: 2,002 sf Lot#46: 2,208 sf Lot#9: 3,483 sf Lot#28: 5,312 sf Lot#47: 2,208 sf Lot#10: 3,066 sf Lot#29: 3,339 sf Lot#48: 2,558 sf Lot#11: 2,209 sf Lot#30: 2,671 sf Lot#49: 3,569 sf Lot#12: 2,187 sf Lot#31: 3,012 sf Lot#50: 2,207 sf Lot#13: 3,062 sf Lot#32: 4,032 sf Lot#51: 2,207 sf Lot#14: 2,596 sf Lot#33: 4,113 sf Lot#52: 3,741 sf Lot#15: 2,192 sf Lot#34: 3,277 sf Lot#53: 2,911 sf Lot#16: 2,341 sf Lot#35: 2,728 sf Lot#54: 2,463 sf Lot#17: 3,897 sf Lot#36: 3,445 sf Lot#55: 2,332 sf Lot#18: 2,852 sf Lot#37: 2,809 sf Lot#56: 1,991 sf Lot#19: 1,952 sf Lot#38: 2,446 sf Lot#57: 2,756 sf The net development density would be approximately 15.9 dwelling units per acre. A large wetland (106,722 sf) is located on the west half of Sector G, south of NE 6th Street and adjacent to Duvall Avenue NE. This wetland is referred to as Wetland #7 in the mitigation document for the overall Orchards project. Previous approvals for site development recognize ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departme Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA,PP, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 8 of 23 the applicant's intent to retain this wetland and to allow filling of a small segment of the north end of the wetland for the extension of NE 6th Street, and expansion of the wetland on the south to create an open water component. The wetland would provide for wildlife habitat and also would function as a large detention pond for surface water runoff during wet seasons of the year. The applicant has proposed to meet the mitigation requirement for a wetland buffer. A 50-foot average buffer is required around the defined edge of the wetland, with a minimum buffer width of 20 feet. The mitigation document provides for narrower buffers to be approved by the City next to Duvall and NE 6th Street if necessary. Buildings,within Sector G,would be two-stories in height and would feature pitched roofs. The architectural style would be similar to large single family residential homes. Attached one- and two-car garages are proposed as follows: 49 one-car garages and 8 two-car garages. One-car garages would have parking aprons capable of accommodating one additional car, the two car garages would not include-a parking apron. • (Proposed site landscaping includes native and ornamental plantings surrounding the structures,:.and.individual courtyard trees associated with driveways. The applicant is proposing a private gated road system for Sector G. The streets would be NE 5th Court, Elma Avenue NE, Elma Place NE, and NE 5th Street. City standards presently do not allow private road systems that serve more than four lots not fronting on a public road. Under the Demonstration Ordinance, the applicant is proposing.a..30-foot wide private entrance road with 20-foot wide travel lane, vertical curbing, and a five-foot sidewalk at Elma Avenue NE, and a 26-foot private road tract featuring a 20-foot travel lane, rolled curbs and a 5-foot sidewalk on one side throughout the remainder of the plat. The roads would be widened to 28 feet in order to accommodate a total of nine parallel guest parking spaces in three.areas (northwest corner of Elma Avenue NE and NE 5th Court, northeast corner of NE 5th Court and Elma Place NE, and west side of Elma Place NE near the southern boundary of the site). Additional guest parking for 11 vehicles would be provided in three parking bays near the center of the site, and on individual garage aprons. Secondary emergency access is in the form of a paved 20-foot vehicle access lane from Duvall at the southeast corner of the property to the interior of the site. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on May 28, 1996, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for the Proposal. The applicant filed an appeal of two mitigation measures, and the Hearing Examiner remanded the matter back to the Environmental Review Committee to consider new information. On July 2, 1996, the ERC issued a new Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated. The appeal period ends at 5:00 pm on July 22, 1996. At the time of the preparation of this report, the applicant has stated that they do not intend to appeal the environmental determination or mitigation measures, and no appeals have been filed by other parties. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The applicant shall pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee for the proposed project. The fee is assessed based on $75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project, and is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Generation manual. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the recording of the plat. Compliance: The applicant will be required to pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee prior to the recording of the final plat. ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmc... Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 9 of 23 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee for the project. The fee is based on $488 per each new single family dwelling unit, and is estimated to be$58,560.00. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the recording of the plat. Compliance: The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate mitigation fee prior to the recording of the final plat. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay the applicable Parks Mitigation Fee for the proposal. The fee is estimated to be $530.76 per single family unit. In addition, credit may be given to reduce the fee if the applicant provides the required bicycle paths along Duvall Avenue NE.as mandated by the previous environmental determination. The Parks Mitigation Fee is due prior to the recording of the plat. Compliance: The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate mitigation fee prior to recording of the final plat, rather than prior to the recording of the final plat. 4. In order to mitigate the potential impact of vehicles impeding access for emergency vehicles in Sector G, the applicant will be required to provide 20 on-street guest parking spaces as shown on the proposed site plan for Sectors E, F and G (by Dodds Engineers, Inc. dated March 1996 with revisions noted as Revision No. 1 date June 19, 1996) and adequately post and mark the 20-foot travel lane as a fire lane. Posting and marking of the fire lane will be subject to the approval of the City of Renton Fire Department (Fire Marshall). In addition, in Sectors E/F all alley's shall be posted with "No Parking"signs subject to the approval of the Fire Marshall. . Compliance: The applicant has increased the width of the road within Sector G to 28 feet in three places in order to accommodate nine additional guest parking spaces for a total of 20 on- street guest parking spaces. The applicant has also agreed to post and mark the streets and alleys within Sectors E/F and G subject to the approval of the Fire Marshall. 5. In order to provide adequate secondary emergency access to Sector G, the applicant will need to provide a minimum 20-foot wide secondary emergency access as shown on the Site Plan. The applicant shall clearly post and mark the emergency access as a fire lane per the Renton Fire Code and is subject to the approval of the Fire Marshall. The use of reinforced grass paving will be permitted subject to the review and approval of the Fire Marshall, and provided that the driveable surface is adequately delineated such that emergency vehicles would be able to discern the location of the emergency access. Bollards within the roadway will not be allowed, however bollards at the edge of the fire lane with a chain across is acceptable, subject to the approval of the Renton Fire Department(Fire Marshall). . Compliance: The applicant will need to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division and the City of Renton Fire Marshall that the requirement is being met. 6. The applicant shall include in the Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for Sector G, a provision authorizing the City of Renton to enforce the parking section of the CC&R's, but at the expense (including attorney's fees) of the applicant. The City would be permitted to utilize this authorization only upon a written finding by the Police Chief or Fire Chief or their designee(s) that a public safety problem is presented by lack of or inability of the owner to enforce the parking section of the CC&R's. Compliance: The applicant will need to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division that this Mitigation Measure is being met. The applicant will need to provide a letter stating that they will meet the requirements of Mitigation Measure #6 prior to the recording of the final plat. ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departme Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 10 of 23 7. In order to mitigate for potential environmental impacts that would occur as a result of the proposal, the proposal for Sectors E, F and G are subject to the mitigation measures previously adopted and known as "The Orchards Mixed-Use Development Mitigation Document': The Mitigation Measures specifically applying to the proposal include: Al, A2, A3, A4, A5, A7a, A20, A21, A22, A23, A24, A26 a-c, A27 1-6, B1, B2, B3 1-6, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, B12, B13, B14, B15, and B16. Compliance: The applicant has stated that they understand that the previous mitigation measures continue to apply to this proposal. They will need to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Development Services Division that the measures are being complied with. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various City departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. DEMONSTRATION ORDINANCE The City Council determined that The Orchards, Sectors E/F and G was a suitable project to be considered as a Demonstration Ordinance in the R-24 Zone. Council will allow up to one project per zone in order to permit development of a project within the zone that varies from the standards of the Zone. This is permitted in order to determine the best way to amend a given zone, in this case, the R-24 Zone. Council determined that the R-24 Zone as presently drafted is internally inconsistent and so rigid as to prohibit, as a practical matter, development within that zone that complies with the relevant policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Orchards is one of three undeveloped sites located within the City that is zoned R-24. The results of the Demonstration Ordinance will be utilized to determine proposed changes in the R- 24 Zone so as to permit development consistent with the Comprehensive restrictions on the remaining R-24 properties. A further purpose of the Demonstration Ordinance is to provide a residential development which meets the City's land use development goals to create new residential neighborhoods on large parcels of land in a neighborhood development style and create high quality infill development that increases density while maintaining the residential character of the existing neighborhood. The Hearing Examiner is designated as the official for the conduct of public hearings. The City Council maintains final administrative authority with respect to action concerning subdivision and land use approvals under the Demonstration Ordinance. The Development Objectives of the Demonstration Ordinance are: a) to permit flexibility in development of a residential complex that exhibits the following characteristics, while maintaining compatibility with the underlying character of existing Renton residential neighborhoods: (i) sufficient density to meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan; (ii) physical feasibility given the underlying property features; (iii) economic feasibility; (iv) pride of ownership b) to provide increased availability of residential development to meet the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the State of Washington Growth Management Act. ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departme, . ' Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 11 of 23 c) to allow the City Council to determine whether introduction of flexible development standards will enable the creation of residential developments in the R-24 Zone which address the City's development objectives. Regulatory Objectives: a) The Demonstration Ordinance creates a residential development which provides and opportunity to: (i) evaluate new types of subdivision and development standards in the.R-24 Zone, prior to codifying those standards in the City's development ordinances; (ii) evaluate existing Code provisions and-modify_those provisions, as appropriate, to meet the City's objectives for residential development in the R-24 Zone; (iii) evaluate compatibility between the City's regulations for residential development in the R-24 zone and existing Comprehensive Plan policies, and refine those documents as necessary to meet City objectives; (iv) evaluate procedural obstacles in the platting and development process for the R-24 zone, and refine/streamline the review process to address those obstacles; (v) advance the City's policy of regulatory reform. b) . -Provisions of the Demonstration Ordinance shall include the minimum requirements for the ..protection of the public health, .safety. .welfare and _aesthetics, adequate public services,and safe and functional streets and thoroughfares. c) Development would need to be compatible with the underlying character of existing residential neighborhoods and achieve consistency with the stated purposes of the R-24 zone of encouraging coordinated development of new residential neighborhoods, following a more traditional urban development pattern and allowing for a mix of single family and small scale attached units. 6. CONSISTENCY WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA Section 4-31-33 (D.) "The Hearing Examiner and City staff shall review and act upon site plans based upon comprehensive planning considerations and the following criteria. These criteria are objectives of good site plans to be aimed for in development within the City of Renton. However, strict compliance with any one or more particular criterion may not be necessary or reasonable. These criteria also provide a frame of reference for the applicant in developing a site, but are not intended to be inflexible standards or to discourage creativity and innovation. The site plan Review criteria include, but are not limited to, the following:" GENERAL CRITERIA: A. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ITS ELEMENTS & POLICIES Sectors E/F: The proposal is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential Planned Neighborhood (RPN). Platting of Sectors E/F would create new residential neighborhoods in a traditional neighborhood development style consistent with Objective LU-K. Lots would range in size from 3,221 sf to 4,653 sf that would be developed with detached single family "traditional" and "cottage" homes providing for consistent with Policy LU-44. A one-half ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departme.__ Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 12 of 23 acre park would serve as a focal point and common open space, meeting the intent of Policy LU- 48. Policy LU-60 would generally be met as Sector E/F is located adjacent to a major arterial (Duvall) and to a center (NE 4th Street). And, the development would function as a traditional single family residential community, although on smaller lots. Densities proposed would be below the maximum allowed 18 dwelling units to the acre per Policy LU-62. Policy LU-63 is met as the proposal would be 100% single family homes. Other policies of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element encouraging small lot single family development would be met (H-10). And Policy H-13 allowing single family development to comprise up to 100% of new units in Single Family/Multi-Family Mix areas would also be met. In addition, policies regarding residential streets would be met. Policy LU-70 states that streets should be arranged as an interconnecting grid. Sectors E/F would not have any dead-end streets consistent with LU-70. Access would be from collector streets and not directly from an arterial in accordance with Policy LU-72. Narrow streets within Sectors E/F would allow for emergency vehicle access but would also address pedestrian safety through the use of neckdowns, consistent with LU-73 and LU-75. Parking would occur on one side of the street and adjacent to the sidewalk consistent with Policy LU-74. Twenty-foot wide alleys or private streets (Chelan Court NE, and an unnamed east/west alley between NE 5th Street and NE 5th Court) would comply with Policy LU-76. Sidewalks would be provided-on one side of the street only and would be inconsistent with Policy LU-77. Staff will recommend as a condition of plat approval, that the applicant be required to provide sidewalks on both sides of the street within Sectors E/F. Trees would be planted along residential streets consistent with Policy LU-78. Policies addressing the subdivision of land call.for a development pattern consistent with Renton's older neighborhoods (Objective LU-O) and the subdivision of land into blocks and lots that minimize walking distances, and with lots fronting on a public street or park (Policies LU-79 and LU-80). Platting of Sectors E/F would be consistent with the smaller lots and arrangement of North Renton. And the plat would be organized into reasonable size blocks and lots would front either on a public street or park, consistent with Policies LU-79 and LU-80. Sector G: The proposal is generally consistent with the RPN land use designation. Platting of the parcel into small lots for attached single family ground-related townhomes would not be considered to be traditional, but the platting of lots and opportunity for owner occupied townhomes would be consistent with Policies LU-42 and LU-44. The large wetland area could be considered to be a visual focal point and meet the intent of Policy LU-48 even though passive amenities such as benches are not incorporated into the design. Sector G is located adjacent to Duvall Avenue NE and is adjacent to the NE 4th Street Suburban Center as designated in the Comprehensive Plan (consistent with Policy LU-60). Then density would be within the maximum 18 units per acre as stipulated in Policy LU-62. And the proposal would result in 100% single family attached townhomes consistent with Policy LU-63. Platting and development of Sector G would also be consistent with Housing Policies H-4 which encourages small lot single family development, and H-13 with allows single family development to comprise 100% of new units in Single Family/Multi-Family mix areas such as the RPN. Residential streets policies for interconnecting streets (LU-70) would not be met. The applicant is proposing a system of private streets with gated access and cul-de-sac for the townhome community. This proposal differs from City standards and is presented as part of the applicant's response to the Demonstration Ordinance. A secondary means of emergency access is provided on the southwest corner of Sector G and connecting to the cul-de-sac bulb. The proposal for narrow private roads in a platted lot scenario is not presently permitted under City Code, but could be permitted for a condominium development rather than a plat. Staff supports the reduced road widths for the site. ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departme Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA, PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 13 of 23 Access to Sector G would be from NE 6th Street, via Duvall, and would be consistent with Policy LU-72. Policy LU-73 would be partially met through the provision of narrow (average 20-foot width) roads, but the Environmental Review Committee has expressed concern that a lack of guest parking could result in the narrow roads being blocked and impeding emergency access. The applicant has responded by proposing that the road width be expanded to 28-feet of paving in three places within Sector G in order to provide an additional 9 parallel parking spaces. The nine additional parallel parking spaces and the developer's proposal for rolled curbs would result in closer compliance with Policy LU-73. On-street parking would only be provided in limited areas in parallel parking and guest parking bays. A total.of 20 guest parking spaces would be provided, and apron:parking at individual units would accommodate another 49 guest vehicles. Therefore, Policy LU-74 would only partially be met in Sector G. Policy.LU-77 calls for sidewalks on both sides,.and Sector G proposes sidewalks for only side.of the street only. The proposal would not be in compliance with this policy and staff will recommend that the applicant revise their plan to provide sidewalks on both sides of the street. B. CONFORMANCE WITH EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS The following requirements and development standards contained in Section 4-31-7 Residential - 24 Dwelling Units per Acre Zone (R-24) of the City's Interim Zoning Code (adopted June 1993) requirements and development..standards are applicable to this proposal and are summarized below. A .thorough discussion of the development standards is included under Section 7 "Consistency with Preliminary Plat Criteria, b) Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Designation"below: 1. SETBACKS Sectors E/F: As discussed in Section 7 below, the applicant has requested that reduced setbacks be allowed for the proposed traditional and cottage homes. Required front yard setbacks in the R-24 Zone are a minimum of 15 feet for theprimary structure and a minimum of 20 feet for attached garages which access from the front yard street. The front yard setback of the primary structure may be reduced to 10 feet if all of the parking is provided in the rear yard of the lot with access from a public right of way or alley. The applicant proposes 15-foot front yard setbacks for the traditional homes (Lots #1 - #38), and 10-foot front yard setbacks for the cottage homes (Lots # 39 - #63). The traditional homes would have garages that would be accessed from the front, and the cottage homes would have garages that access from the rear via alleys. Therefore, proposed setbacks for the traditional homes would be 5 feet less than the requirement, while the cottage home would meet the development standard for the front yard setback. The R-24 Zone requires a minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet. Proposed rear yard setbacks are 15 feet for the traditional homes, and minimum 5 foot setback for the cottage homes. The applicant is proposing reciprocal side yard use easements for the cottage homes to allow a useable private side yard in consideration of the reduced rear yard. Required 5-foot sideyard setbacks for both traditional and cottage home interior lots would be met by the proposal. Corner setbacks are required to be 15 feet, and the applicant is proposing 7.5 to 10-foot corner side yard setbacks. Sector G: The townhomes would feature 8-foot front yard setbacks and 15-foot rear yard setbacks. Front yard setbacks would not comply with the Code and are being proposed through the provisions of the Demonstration Ordinance. Rear yard setbacks meet the minimum requirement of the Code. The side yard setback for the unattached end of the structure is required to be 15 feet. The applicant is proposing reduced sideyard setbacks of from 5 to 8 feet for the two affected lots: #1 and #48, however, the area contained in common open space tracts adjacent to the sideyard would provide the visual effect of meeting the setback requirement. . ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmi. Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 14 of 23 2. HEIGHT The R-24 Zone allows building heights of up to three stories or 35 feet. The proposal would feature units that do not exceed two stories. Thus both Sectors E/F and Sector G would be in compliance with this requirement. 3. LOT COVERAGE Sectors E/F: The R-24 Zone permits a maximum lot coverage of 45%. The applicant has proposed building coverage of 35% per lot for the traditional homes and 40% for the cottage homes. Net site coverage for Sectors E/F would be 23%. Sector G: Individual building lot coverage is proposed to be 45% for Sector G. Net site area building coverage would be 21%. 4. PARKING REQUIREMENTS: Chapter 14, Title IV Sectors E/F: City Code requires single family residential homes to have two parking spaces per dwelling. Tandem parking is allowed. The proposal would comply and would feature 239 parking spaces as follows: 76 parking spaces in traditional home garages, 76 parking spaces on traditional home parking aprons, 50 parking spaces in cottage home garages, and 37 on-street guest parking spaces. Sector G: City Code requires single family residential homes to have two parking spaces per-dwelling. Tandem parking is allowed. If the provision for guest parking is required, then 1 guest parking space would be required for every 4 dwelling units, however, since townhomes are considered to be single family attached homes, the guest parking would not be applicable. In any event, the, proposal complies with the Code requirements. For.the 57 proposed townhomes, 134.parking'spaces are proposed, 65 garage spaces, 49 parking spaces on garage aprons, and 20 guest parking spaces. 5. LANDSCAPING There are no specific landscaping requirements noted in the R-24 Zone. Sectors E/F: The applicant has submitted landscape plans for the proposal. The plans have been reviewed by staff and appear to provide adequate landscaping for the site, provided individual homes are landscaped by the occupants. The cottage homes rely on the use of the proposed side yard use easements in order to create usable private yards for residents. The applicant would need to record these easements with the plat, and may need to further define the side yard area by using fences between the units. Staff will recommend this as a condition of Site Plan Approval. Sector G: The applicant has submitted landscape plans for Sector G which provide adequate landscaping of the site. 6. REFUSE AND RECYCLABLES COLLECTION &STORAGE Sector E/F: Refuse and recylcables would be stored on individual lots and collected by Waste Management Inc. Sector G: Refuse and recylcables would be stored on individual lots and collected by Waste Management Inc. C. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND USES; Sectors E/F: The development of Sectors E/F with detached single family homes on individual lots would impact the surrounding properties during construction as noise, dust and traffic are generated. Additional traffic would be generated once the project is occupied. Ornamental landscaping would be introduced on the site, the residential population would increase, and noise ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Departma i Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 15 of 23 associated with residential neighborhoods would occur. In addition, the domestic pet population would increase as a result of the new homes. Comments have been received from the day care business that abuts Sectors E/F on the south. Concerns have been expressed about construction impacts and impacts to the children's day care once the project site is occupied. .The applicant's construction mitigation plans should address dust and traffic impacts, however additional measures may need to be added as a condition of Site Plan Approval, due to past impacts in the construction activity that has occurred on the overall Orchards site. Staff recommends that the .Examiner consider an appropriate fence, wall or other separation device be installed on the south property line in order to reduce impacts to the adjacent existing day care operation. Sector G: The construction and occupancy of the townhomes will increase noise, dust and traffic, introduce additional residential population, vehicles and domestic pets.to.the area. These impacts would not be considered to create undue hardship to surrounding properties since the Forrest Creste site to the north is undeveloped at present, and the commercial site to the south is also undeveloped. Staff recommends that a fence be required along the south, east and north property lines of the homes to create a clear separation of Sector G from other uses. D. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN TO THE SITE; Sector E/F: The proposed site plan would develop a vacant and cleared site with a single family residential neighborhood featuring 63 homes and a one-half acre private park. The design includes innovative features which provide for greater utilization of land in order to provide home ownership opportunities to Renton residents. The previously approved project for the site, which is still valid, would allow for the construction of 108 apartments, 28,000 square feet of commercial development and parking associated with both uses. The current proposal for 63 homes.would be expected to result in fewer impacts to the proposed site and is supported by Staff. Sector G: This plat would allow for the construction of 57 townhomes on individual lots, and would represent an opportunity for home ownership for first-time buyers and others. At the same time an existing wetland would be retained and preserved with an average 50 foot buffer. The previously approved project for the site, which is still valid, would allow for the construction of 105 apartment units and associated parking. The current proposal for 57 townhomes would be expected to result in fewer impacts to the proposed site and is supported by Staff. E. CONSERVATION OF AREA-WIDE PROPERTY VALUES; Sector E/F: The proposal would result in a designed community where homes are owned and maintained by owners. The property values in the surrounding area would be conserved and enhanced through development of the 63 new homes and private park. Sector G: The proposal would result in a designed community with townhomes that are owned and maintained by the homeowners or a homeowner's association. The property values in the surrounding area would be conserved and enhanced through the development proposal. F. SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY OF VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION; Sectors E/F: Public streets and alleys would be developed within the plat. A 20-foot travel lane would be maintained on the public streets, and 16 feet of the 20 foot alleys would be paved. Lots#57 and #58 would have vehicular access only from a public alley, and guest parking would occur on adjacent public streets. This could affect the efficiency of the alley operation, if ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departme 'Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 16 of 23 residents or guests utilize the alley for parking or loading/unloading. Staff will recommend as a condition of Site Plan Approval that the public alley serving lots #56 through #63 be widened to 26 feet of right-of-way with 20 feet of paving, or, that Lots#57 and #58 be increased in depth a sufficient distance to accommodate a minimum 18-foot garage apron that provides two guest parking spaces with sufficient back-out room (minimum 24 feet which may include the alley). Planters would define on-street parking bays, and sidewalks would be constructed on one side of the streets Staff does not support sidewalks on one side of the street only, and will recommend as a condition of Site Plan Approval that the applicant be required to redesign the plat to provide sidewalks on both sides of the street. Sector G: The applicant.is proposing a private road system within the plat as part of the Demonstration Ordinance. Streets would be 20 feet in width, with three sections of 28-foot road width to accommodate nine parallel parking spaces. The ERC.has imposed Mitigation Measure #4 to widen the street to 28 feet throughout Sector.G, or to provide,adequate guest parking aprons and to sprinkle each unit. This Mitigation Measure is the result of life/safety concerns and is the subject of an appeal by the applicant. Sidewalks are proposed on one side of the Sector G roads which staff does not support. As a condition of Site Plan Approval, staff will recommend that sidewalks be installed on both sides of the street. G. PROVISION OF ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR; Sector E/F: -The proposal will result in.the construction of two-story homes which would not impede .the provision of light or air. The applicant will be required to meet City Code requirements with regard to street lighting. Sector G: The proposal would feature private streets. Staff will recommend that City lighting standards be met unless reduced by the City's Public Works Department. This will be a condition of Site Plan Approval. H. MITIGATION OF NOISE, ODORS AND OTHER HARMFUL OR UNHEALTHY CONDITIONS; Sector E/F: It is anticipated that the greatest number of noise, odor and other potentially harmful impacts would occur during the construction phase of the project. The applicant will be required to submit a construction mitigation plan for review and approval which addresses the construction impacts of the proposal. The existing children's daycare business located on the south side of Sectors E/F would be considered to a sensitive to construction impacts, and as such, a condition of Site Plan Approval would be to construct a solid 6-foot high wood fence along the common property line prior to the commencement of site construction activities. Sector G: Construction impacts would result in noise, dust and odors. These would be addressed as part of the Code-required construction mitigation plan and do not need to have further conditions attached to the proposal as part of Site Plan Approval. 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED USE;AND All Sectors: Sewer/Water/Drainage: The applicant has been advised of additional connections and facilities that would be required for the proposal. Improvements and extensions of the existing City utility ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departme; Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 17 of 23 system have been accomplished in the vicinity of the project and by the applicant in anticipation of site development. Police: City of Renton Police would serve the proposal. Presently, vandalism has been problematic on the portions of the Orchards being constructed. With occupation of the new homes, crime associated with vandalism would be expected to be reduced. A number of police responses would be expected as with any neighborhood, but would be less than with the previously approved apartment and commercial uses anticipated for Sectors E/F and G. Fire Prevention: The applicant will pay a Fire Mitigation Fee to help alleviate impacts to the City's Fire Department. The construction of 120 new units would be expected to result in fewer calls for service than the previously approved 213 apartment units and 28,000 square feet of commercial uses. Parks and Recreation: The applicant is proposing.a private one-half acre common open space park within Sectors E/F for the use of the residents of that sector. The applicant is being required to pay the applicable Parks Mitigation Fee for single family homes for Sectors E/F and G, and to deed right-of-way for the accommodation of a bicycle path. The applicant is also preserving the existing wetland and buffer in Sector G which could result in passive recreational opportunities for Sector G residents. J, PREVENTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD DETERIORATION AND BLIGHT. The proposal would improve the appearance of the area, which has been previously cleared. 7. CONSISTENCY WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT CRITERIA Approval of a plat is based upon several factors. The following preliminary plat criteria have been established to assist decision makers in the review of the plat: a) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Designation A thorough discussion of the proposal's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is contained under"6. Consistency with Site Plan Review Criteria, A. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, Its Elements and Policies" above. b) Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Designation The proposal site is designated Residential - 24 Dwelling Units Per Acre (R-24), on the City of Renton Zoning Map. The proposed development would allow for future construction of up to 120 new residential dwelling units. Sectors E/F: Minimum lot size permitted for detached single family homes in the R-24 zone is not specifically addressed and is therefore assumed to be 4,500 sf. The proposed plat would provide 63 lots for detached homes ranging in size from 3,000 sf to 4,638 sf. All but two lots would be less than the 4,500 square foot development standard, and this is one of the features that the applicant is demonstrating as part of the Demonstration Ordinance. Staff supports the proposal for lots of less than 4,500 square feet and as small as 3,000 feet for detached single family residential dwelling units as proposed for Sectors E/F. (The City Council on June 17, 1996 adopted the new R-14 Zone which allows for lots of 3,000 square feet for detached single family residences). Density in the R-24 is limited to 18 dwelling units per acre for parcels that are greater than five acres and less than 20 acres. The proposal for Sectors E/F would result in a net density of 11.7 ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departm4 Preliminary Report to the Heating Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 18 of 23 du/ac. The Zoning Code also states that 50% of the dwelling units must be single family and 50% multi-family in structures not to exceed 8 units per structure. However, recent changes in Comprehensive Plan policies are not yet reflected in the Zoning Code, and those changes provide for up to 100% single family units in the RPN land use designation which correlates to the R-24 Zone. Therefore, the proposal demonstrates a modification to the Zoning Code that is not yet in place. Staff supports the applicant's proposal for 100% single family units in Sector E/F. As part ofthe Demonstration Ordinance, the applicant is requesting reduced front and rear yard setbacks for reduced front and rear yard setbacks for both the traditional home (Lots #1 - #38) and cottage home (Lots#39-#63). Front yard setbacks for the.R-24 are required to be 20 feet and may be reduced to 15 feet or 10 feet with certain provisions. Front yard setbacks for Sectors E/F are proposed to be 15 feet for the traditional homes and 10 feet.for the cottage homes. The..applicant is demonstrating a reduction from the requirement for 20 foot setbacks for the traditional homes as none of the criteria for reduced setbacks as allowed by the R-24 Zone is met. However, since the cottage homes would have parking accessed from the rear via an alley, the 10 foot front yard setback meets the provisions of the Code. The R-24 Zone alsorequires that lots adjacent to.some.other zones including the R-10, shall not have a front yard setback of less than 15 feet. This provision would apply to proposed lots#29- #34 which are adjacent to an R-10 zoned parcel (Windsor Place Apartments). For parcels #29- #34, 15-foot rear yard setbacks are proposed, thus meeting the development standard. The,R-24 Zone requires a minimum depth of 15 feet for the rear yard setback. The applicant is proposing 15-foot rear yard setbacks for the traditional homes (Lots #1 - #38) and 5-foot rear - yard setbacks for the cottage homes (Lots#39 -#63). Staff supports the applicant's proposal for reduced front and rear yard setbacks in the R-24 Zone with limitations. The minimum front yard setback of 15 feet for the traditional homes is acceptable, and the front-yard setback for.the cottage home complies with Code. The 15 foot rear yard setbacks for the traditional homes is supported as,the new R-14 Zone permits 15 foot rear year setbacks for detached single family homes. However, 5 foot rear yard setbacks for cottage homes located on alleys are only sufficient if the useable side yard easement is accepted, and if the plat includes fencing or another means of defining the private side yard areas. Staff will recommend that the applicant be required to include fencing or another acceptable means of defining the individual side yard areas. The R-24 Zone requires minimum 5-foot sideyard setbacks for interior lots, and 15 feet sideyard setbacks for corner lots. The applicant is proposing 5-foot interior lot sideyard setbacks and 7.5 to 10-foot corner lot sideyard setbacks for the traditional homes (Lots #1 - #38). The corner lot sideyard setbacks would appear to be larger due to the inclusion of common open space at the corners that would visually extend the sideyard area. Five-foot interior lot sideyard setbacks and minimum 7.5-foot sideyard corner lot setbacks are proposed for the cottage homes (Lots#39 -#63). The applicant is proposing that reciprocal use easements be created between the cottage home lots in order to create useable side yards. Staff is supportive of this concept and for the reduced sideyard setbacks. While we cannot recommend at this time that the reduced corner lot sideyard setbacks be adopted as a Code provision, it appears to warrant demonstration. The R-24 Zone requires a minimum lot width of 25 feet for interior lots and 35 feet for corner lots. The applicant's proposal for Sectors E/F complies. Lot depth is required to be a minimum of 50 feet, and once again the proposal meets this requirement. Sector G: The 57 lot townhome proposal would be considered to be attached single family homes based on an interpretation of the R-24 Zone by the City's Zoning Administrators. Minimum lot size permitted for attached single family homes in the R-24 Zone is 3,000 sf. The ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departmc, =. Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G L UA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 19 of 23 proposed plat would provide 57 lots for townhomes attached in groupings of two, three and four townhomes. All of the lots would be at least 3,000 square feet in size. Density in the R-24 is limited to 18 dwelling units per acre for parcels that are greater than five acres and less than 20 acres. The proposal for Sector G would result in a net density of 15.9 du/ac. The Zoning Code also states that 50% of the dwelling units must be single family and 50% multi-family in structures not to exceed 8 units per structure. However, recent changes in Comprehensive Plan policies are not yet reflected in the Zoning Code, and those changes provide for up to 100% single family units in the RPN land use designation which correlates to the R-24 Zone. Therefore, the proposal demonstrates a modification to the Zoning Code that is not yet in place. Staff supports the,applicant's proposal for-100% single family units in Sector G. As part of the Demonstration Ordinance, the applicant is requesting reduced front and rear yard setbacks. Front yard setbacks for the R-24 are required to be 20 feet and may be reduced to 15 feet or 10 feet with certain provisions. Front yard setbacks for Sector G are proposed to be 8 feet. The applicant is demonstrating a reduction from the requirement for 20 foot frontyard setbacks as none of the criteria for reduced setbacks as allowed by the R-24 Zone is met. Rear yard setbacks are required to be 15 feet, and the applicant is complying with this provision of the R-24 Zone. Staff supports the applicant's proposal for reduced front .yard setbacks in the R-24 Zone with limitations. The minimum front yard setbacks.of 8'feet is acceptable since a parking apron would generally provide additional building setback from the property line. The R-24 Zone requires minimum 5-foot setbacks the unattached side of the.structure. Corner lots, however, must have a minimum sideyard setback of 15 feet. Only two corner lots are proposed,. Lots #1 and #48, and sideyard setbacks are from 5 to 8.feet from the edge of the building envelope to the property line. The applicant is providing open space tracts adjacent to the corner lot sideyard setbacks that visually extend the setback area. Staff cannot recommend at this time that the reduced corner setbacks be.adopted as a Code provision, it appears to warrant demonstration, in light of the open space tracts provided in Sector G. The R-24 Zone requires a minimum lot width of 25 feet for interior lots and 35 feet for corner lots. The applicant's proposal for Sector G generally complies with the exception of Lots #9, #10, #18, #36, #38, #43, and #44 which have reduced lot frontage, but which when averaged with the rear yard line meet the minimum requirement except for Lot #38 which would average 23.5 feet in width. Lot depth is required to be a minimum of 50 feet, and the proposal meets this requirement. c) Compliance with Subdivision Regulations Lot Arrangement: Side lot lines are to be at right angles to street lines, and each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the Street Improvement Ordinance(Code Section 4-34). Sectors E/F: The proposal generally complies with this criteria. Lots #57 and #58 would achieve access from a 20-foot wide public alley (Chelan Court NE) with 12-feet of paving. Lot #21 is a pipestem lot and would front on a public street, Lots#29 and #30 would achieve access via an access tract (Tract B) and Lots #10 and #11 would achieve access via an access tract (Tract E). The tracts and pipestems would be a minimum width of 20 feet, with pavement widths per the requirements of the Street Ordinance. Proposed public alleys would be 20 in width with a minimum of 12 feet of paving. Sector G: The proposal complies with this criteria. All lots are configured to be at right angles to the street lines and would access from a private road system. ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departme...- Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G L UA-96-010, SA, PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 20 of 23 Lots: The size, shape and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Sectors E/F: The applicant is proposing variations from the strict application of the R-24 Zone as permitted by the City Council via the Demonstration Ordinance. The variations in the size of lots and minimum area are discussed under "Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Classification"above. Sector G: The applicant generally meets the requirements of the applicable zone with regard to lots. Variations occur in lot width but averaging of front shows that all but Lot#38 complies with the minimum width requirements. The variations in the size of lots and minimum area are discussed under"Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Classification" above. Property Corners at Intersections: All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way except alleys,shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet(15'). The proposed property corners would meet the minimum radius of 15 feet at the corners of the plat where they intersect with dedicated public rights-of-way. d) Reasonableness of Proposed Boundaries Access Sectors E/F: Access to Sectors E/F would be from NE 6th Street via Duvall Avenue NE and from Bremerton Avenue NE. Sector G: Access would be from NE 6th Street. An second emergency-only access would be provided from Duvall Avenue NE at the southwest corner of the plat. Topography Sectors E/F and Sector G: The site is relatively flat with the exception of a steep slope at the eastern edge of Sector G where the site slopes up approximately 28%. Clearing has occurred under previously approved permits. Relationship to Existing Uses Sectors E/F: This parcel is located directly south and adjacent to a 63-unit townhome development that is presently under construction as part of The Orchards -- Sector C (also known as Peachtree). South of the site is an existing children's day care business. To the west are the Windsor Park apartments. Duvall Avenue NE is located on the east. Sector G is located across Duvall to the east. Sector G: The parcel is located south of the proposed Forrest Creste townhome project. While the project has been approved,the site is still vacant. e) Availability and Impact on Public Services(Timeliness) Police and Fire Police and Fire Prevention Bureau staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development, subject to the condition that the applicant provide Code required improvements and fees. ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Departm.... Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA,PP, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 21 of 23 Recreation Please see the discussion under Section 6. "Consistency with Site Plan Criteria, I. Availability of Public Services and Facilities to Accommodate the Proposed Use". Schools The proposal is located within the Renton School District and students would attend Maplewood Heights Elementary School, Highlands Elementary School, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. As of October, 1995 enrollment in the schools was as follows: Highlands Elementary 576 Maplewood Heights Elementary 541 McKnight Middle School 850 Hazen High School 1,046 According to materials the applicant has submitted, the School District has indicated that they currently do not have statistics as to the capacity of the schools. Development of Sectors E/F would be expected to generate 27.9 elementary students (0.443 X 63 units), 10.7 middle school students (0.171 X 63 units), and 9.1 high school students (0.145 X 63 units); or, a total of 47.7 students. Development of Sector G would be expected to generate 25 elementary students (0.443 X 57 units), 9.7 middle school students (0.171 X 57 units), and 8.3 high school students (0.145 X 57 units); or, a total of 43 students. A letter of inquiry was sent to the Renton School District and they have indicated that the School District would be able to handle the impact of the additional students estimated to come from the proposed development. Storm water' The applicant will be required to provide stormwater facilities to meet City Code requirements and the King County Surface Water Design Manual with restricted release rates per the original overall site plan for The Orchards. In addition the applicant will need to demonstrate through a revised Wetland Mitigation Plan, that the wetland occupying the west side of Sector G functions as a stormwater detention facility. A System Development Charge will be required to be paid for proposed Sectors E/F and G. The charge is based on the total new impervious surface square footage as reflected in the final design. The charge is determined as$385 per each new single family lot. Water and Sanitary Sewer Utilities Sewer: The proposal is subject to the City's System Development Charges, East Renton Interceptor Special Assessment District, Water: The proposal is subject to the City's System Development Charges, and water mains would need to be sized to meet requirements of the Renton Fire Department. Sector G would require that a 16-inch diameter water line be installed in Duvall Avenue NE. Street Improvements: Sectors E/F: The plat would be expected to generate 10 new vehicular trips per day for each new single family home. A traffic mitigation fee is assessed for plats, and the fee is $75 per ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW DepartmL-:_ Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA,PP,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 22 of 23 each new average weekday trip, or $750 per each new lot. This fee is to be paid prior to the recording of the plat. For 63 new homes the fee would be expected to be $47,250. Street lighting is required to City of Renton standards along new streets and streets adjacent to the project site. Minimum lighting levels would need to be met. The applicant is proposing sidewalks on one side of the streets only, and City Code requires sidewalks on both sides, with curb and gutter. The applicant is proposing rolled curbs which varies from the City's requirement for vertical curbs. Sector G: The plat would be expected to generate 10 new vehicular trips per day for each new single family home. A traffic mitigation fee is assessed for plats, and the fee is $75 per each new average weekday trip, or$750 per each new lot. This fee is to-be paid prior to the recording of the plat. For 57 new townhomes the fee would be expected to be $42,750. Street lighting is required to City of Renton standards along new streets and streets adjacent to the project site. Minimum lighting levels would need to be met. The applicant is proposing sidewalks on one side of the streets only, and City Code requires sidewalks on both sides, with curb and gutter. The applicant is proposing rolled curbs which varies from the City's requirement for vertical curbs. H. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommend approval of The Orchards, Sectors E/F and G, file no. LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with ERC Mitigation Measures: The applicant is required to comply with the Mitigation Measures which were required by the Environmental Review Committee's July 2, 1996 Threshold Determination. The applicant is required to continue to comply with the applicable Mitigation Measures of the adopted Mitigation Document for The Orchards Mixed Use Development that would pertain to the current proposal as stated in Mitigation Measure#7. 2. Sidewalks: The applicant shall be required to revise the Preliminary Plat and Site Plan to provide sidewalks on both sides of streets within the plat. The sidewalk design is subject to the review and approval of the City's Development Services Division. 3. Reciprocal Side-Yard Use Easements: The applicant shall record the proposed reciprocal side yard use easements with the plat for Sectors E/F. The easements shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Division and the City Attorney. 4. Side Yard Fence/Wall: The applicant shall install a fence, wall or other suitable means of defining the side yard use area for each unit in Sectors E/F. This shall be shown on the Site Plan and referenced in the recorded easements as noted in Condition#3 above. 5. Sector E/F-Perimeter Wall/Fence: The applicant shall be required to construct a 6-foot high solid wall or solid wood fence on the south boundary of Sectors E/F upon completion of initial site grading and prior to the commencement of the remainder of site construction, in order to diminish impacts on the adjacent children's daycare and single family homes to the south. I , ORCHARDS.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Departme.._ Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner THE ORCHARDS-SECTORS E,F AND G LUA-96-010, SA, PP, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 23 of 23 6. Sector G - Perimeter Fence: The applicant shall be required to install a 6-foot high fence and/or wall along the south property line and along the rear yards of proposed lots#28 through #48, and on the north side of proposed Lot #1 in order to provide clear separation/buffering between Sector G and adjacent land uses. 7. Sectors E/F- Garage Aprons: The applicant shall revise the Site Plan and Preliminary Plat to widen the public alley serving Lots#56 - #63 to a minimum of 26 feet with 20 feet of paving, OR, the applicant shall revise the Site Plan and Preliminary Plat to increase the depth of Lots #57 and #58 in order to accommodate a minimum 18-foot garage apron that provides for two guest parking spaces with sufficient back-out room (per City Code). 8. Lighting.Plan:.The applicant shall submit a lighting plan for Sectors E/F and G subject to the approval of the Development Services Division. The lighting plan for Sectors E/F shall meet City standards. The lighting plan for Sector G shall meet City standards unless reduced by the City's Public Works Department. 9. Homeowners Association: The applicant shall establish a homeowners association for Sectors E/F and a homeowners association for Sector G in order to maintain common plat improvements including landscaping, private roads and/or access tracts. The homeowner's association shall be established and recorded with the plat. EXPIRATION PERIODS: Preliminary Plats (PP): Three (3)years from final approval date. Site Plan Approvals (SA): Two (2) years from the final approval date. (Extensions may be requested.) ORCHARDS.DOC SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E., W.M. — — 1 L, • .I —� .1 II it i• t RAC}c e..ee. b,R nler rr- 1 I °pE M.ry ..w—•�. __._ � _ .TRACT C 'o I 1 • l f ��� » �: moo• �r TO III ; ��.__JI u !,� I'i 7 7. ]] j 71 �]. )' .I .B .n1�Q.B A9 .I. _.I 17 __I '{,J—JII) (i I i l L___. 9 I•] I I\ I — — j :. i /I I " II . ' �� 3..., '/ I I I 1•" 70 i' I '�' I I /I Z� � \ f• CI '7L12, ,e \• • • 1 t� o'® 19 1 0. i✓%J//, ...uo r< 1�i I] iir • is I��( �` Ie1 II—. ..I a 1. I S�.I 67 1 l"I // I-- 1 39 ! N U z ikmnIiii\ liWili,t gr" : le : ;72 00 1 m39 I I ib i,,, \.. i • ..�1 e [ 111, ilt* 44 - w., ■ L � ■ 9 � , .-v NOTE. a. , 1 I/ ,B I .. lira a �oeo .!��g 1 /Ili* Aii, 4hirit OJ1v + ,, 63 • a 3B .0 41 47 43' 13 yy B w'ar'Q��cri'nb/i c ! IL • , _o I 2• a 9 e l B 9 Ip II l 3 _ - ! —II— `I. I• ¢ T 4t Q.z o r II i' a•eac. 73 7s ]. 7, 7B ? 2 y Q¢. I SECTORS E a F• .�m1 4I. I a] SECTOR Cs . �,06b' U �:_ i 0(3 3''w - ay---_-a._w 3 Q vW, ' . , 2• o a O LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTORS E I F ne Swot 05r of tro NorW»,quarter of Ne Cwlnea.,quarts V uo ee,u....t q,..,e o,Bction n.Terwn�p n.13.W.Ranee B Ill 66001 I m of EXCEPT Op Eaat.fos >,,,,, ,B ,v, ,,E,,, Owner/Developer Engineer/Planner/Surveyor 6. y 0) °r'41s ro+..a3 Nor.b e.ee record.,.�a.raoxg No.c.n.Ee o .E ,. gua»s of u.e SwU.e.t quarts 1%O-1.dn�Av NE.Sato IW HE Bwlu]4205 .�v.e1+ W 13.666,quarter of Solon 10.Te✓.rop 13 Hcrtr.,Rarga 5 �.+y. }' Ea.,.wHa EXCEPT 1!7 Ea.,61 feat Wool fa 1366 even.BE.e. ery P�'e G1Yey 00 Bp11pi"O'wA ) , .¢m.e. } 6+n.90.4[O FZCfTyhe�,ease r wE.6 was,e.o�'� T. e•e-nlb Cauc,.Edgar Jes�PEp E�.re j N patron of plat..In I t106,1.1-n]6 w Gb� B'�9w J Q .01v1al�m�l,a,301. n velure n3 of P1eu,a,p.ge Tot f1ab,Za5-,b,T'T'Pi y' LY Tb.IPcworg to ]30941. A U W i v . K... T IF TOTAL p ¢ rt a— SITES LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTORS ; Sgg „; ,,,,a,,,�,„e,,,,,,,e,.,,,,,,,e„ B,,,,,,,,,, STATISTICAL SUMMARY n"e Q u Y .. .f q..e.,u. f.,...an em P u.Save..6 quart.of Section 10.1066613 North.nge East.WMENCET w Wort.]feat Weef fv 136Wn Are..BE a, EEC 063E SECTOR G SCALE: 1" = 50' .. ..e a. b:1.�bt e: I,y.e..r.wr�„ 'R.eard.,g TOW!Are. ,B.acr,. ,9 e>.. pare lNbOB.q M1 99.]Bp h BeA36.q rt »quarto of w Buooaat quart. ProFo.eE wee or We,. no oe.e.t quarto or!action IO Tay.nlp 23 Nortrt Rarg ZIPug.EEPPrg rwPos.._R-]. P-61ISNINI a r.fO.]Ac] o '`1 • u.�16 vnwe+fceT tti Wort.,f.et W.er Nor 13h0 Ares SE o ` Bne car: y o.a � t n.M to lcrg Cwnty ey e..e r«we.e velar Rcwarg Na Sowt Yeas 032000.f305 of ER] B]DN ar flOSbf G] 60619.r f]IS6 or total ow r r VICINITY MAP »O!CA LE 95054 • • 5 l l -I(�C" L . ii.Qiii 1•/: I !: • r_;�'1 R I I• II �' • W ird di ^ I4`�0I . . -- ._f" �. � •(✓L_( i._( '—/0.. �-_ 1_- ___--.--_� e_. -1,�+'.. -am i. . ... , 'In "IV J ` Iram • w.u. .. .e ;•::--. II (.9 VW - p( - ' - a I iWJ lI ' l < N Ili• t MOW t 1 - ' i II SI � , p rill fill ratr•�--�..✓ •} ' ' Of :I.N.li u' L - : ir.41e, . ---s• ---wgfA) '01 ,4,,inlp., ,..1 - . . -;1. Et_t_fr1;1 i R - lail!, AL : ,., . Ili �� 1 �yrti ^ J (.;s ,�� 0.�•fu.o7 TM e.B-- --E ei�� 1p r1 I�� 1 II :! 4a A %IPA ,.. t'.31 1: 1, I! NI ' a1, ,• ii ,,,, G-- -i.,...,,:-.. �,- '0Zs r'V-CS —r.. . 1„ -., =- G, 411 01il . 4 RI 9 * W.,AMr tortw A,ML.e.1 - - - - �1''�- \ , n ✓4h AA ril gry 1 / . Iii °D_. co. O 1, A) t \1406. .. 'f),(11, • . _ -N,N, GN g qe;� 9, ' si: 'e,,,,,\ . e e-s>.-. 43-eci.$04 P .1110r4-!114 ..., . 1.- riffit:sirittl-.**—"---L-- N,tirt.-,eis -!'------ iiii- - -•- . . - ,: --.!s•,.. ma -1114111104\..,,,,,,e,..,,,,•,,,,77,,• Toti v-vp kali. ,,,,,,,„404-P..451.% 11 e .411.1m"j151&& r".. It.. '7,Miriiirly , " i.4..11....'.._.".. 4701i, 1101 041 I I I Ir. - Ai! ':4.je: 14 i PI!!9-41 kiiii_ttli -i'mv. A ' til '>� o,E 'k1.j' %ram ' 1ikk•�a'>q+Y_ _. i _-tsitifittieA —it-- ' ,,mLiii.#110 ri'k'',.,::Ii ,Iii ,.. 6-trA, oftli 1,-,._, ,.Weimar, -. -44tit sg: .......m.r4.„iiiiiiLliat IA?Air, ,r,*1.16,,,411,11,.,,,, , , , .., ,.., . r,s., 1,„. 21.„ , -- , rict . ....lori • . .. ,„cwwir.4f, . ..„,„.. „... . , 4 semiito - ,0,.,./ , t� Tyd . ae*e sa 0, TWP. 23 N., ROE. 5 E., W.M. ;;' PLAN OF THE ORCHARDS DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. �!;.�4+�.°`",�.y ---"��°'"�'��. —_ CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING ' t _r_ SECTORS E, F& G s 4205-IA01N AVE.N.E-SUITE 200 ; gi 4 BELLEVUE.WASHINGTON 90002 yb,iTti!ti) 'ORTHWARD PROPERTIES { 1560—1.W AVE.NE..9U/lE 100 (2081 88l-2072 —--- dE:eEwE.WA 98005 • • LI. 'oil, 11 N BiiI III If a R; ,.i °�A'1 231 41 13, ItI IIII —— a I I! —_ §§"-MI:���'I -'ems, 1 3 .-1 ii/ . t. ti 1_,, -_ 0 __ IF/4 ., , , , „, + II) d j - - \, \ / 1.I 1:. ‘"‘" ". \ I/'I 1 3 Elnk u A ' `� 1 3 I ------ 7 I I m IL; o t i. r., T IA �� si rg1 #ii nr atm ( �------)II,) i 'I O I' �\ .151.1 ,riii511 , , rn r : -- �I I2 . i o?rQ sae.ge S� A j /�� 1 £Is ' ' y IiI il Bali fill"--i0 j/a�- / ji ^ I y .� .� F .� .� )� , IIII filN ca — - - -- \. ----- wrAU An�L� --- - I i \- 4 -- 01 . 1 I i . g 91 o / .0 d ---.,,.,. / ill c ,: . ---.....,..'',.. __________„/. . • Nil Va > / y,,/ ,.... - {•ti 3 • i- , H / i li----------- 1---r------- /(iii. . • • SEC. 10, TWP. 2$N., ROE. 5 E., W.M. n° m DATE JANUARY 1996 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY OF THE ORCHARDS DODDS ENGINEERS. INC. 9I—iiki1'�u D•�` co, S m DESIGNED CRA/G a KRUEXER CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING w^ ,DRAWN EL.KENDALL SECTORS E, F al 0 } El^ ^ Aao6-I.Bn�AVE.N.E:SUIIE]00 �{ O APPROVED R.W.CEASSEY NORTHWARD PROPERTIES a1 _ BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 9600) - V CRAG a KRUEGER 1560-140R1 ALE N.E.,MOT 100 V ����iii� R PROJECT wPACER Ekury E.WA 98005 [eD61 Bes-�Bn • . . r • •. . • . . . • . . .... • . •till , SEC. 10, TWP. 2.3 N., RGE 5 E., W.M. 1 1 - sector G . i ' ' • • • • - .E. -_. _ _.,,}N.' , • .)I,II.• .r ;I It--•,1,,. • • ..„. .. - Setbacks Rao ExIldIng BEftratIon.ICY . r.ict tr..bt I I I I • I I t t I 1 ' '• I'''t ( ,'•MT,c 7--,--.-____ ,,,,,,s„ _7—.7, 01410-01.../5 TRACT 0 ':, 1 1 I i ' - : ..:.••:..,. 11:: .tr. ,-.7 ; 4. T44.. . ,.., .... _sq---• ' ::::::' •,ii,'„; •-•,• . 77'''SV:7" 1 • , „ap.,•._ , , , , „ „ „ x IT '^• ''' 504' 2 I "I ri!x I 2^ I 't I I . 30 ItI. I I 4) I It' tl 'it.'"—ItIttIttl.1r---1 [--- 11--f-.IL. II , 2 Irge a I• •--B -.1,re,E...45."ril:,:‘,...16. ,,4.5..,-l', ,:.-,A- '— . 'I. ' .1 ). .'''' ''' 1 .4, I • 1 , 10 ..'.' • 't'' ..?.',..e1;37.7,, ' I 1 1 ''li r 1 ,1 I 1 '' ..0. • ...2. , I I 20:4 1 25 r• 24 4: 234/0'': 22 .•4 21'. 9 , 1 , 1 ,,,,,T•• 1 1 •VD,8,; ,..4••' ' .... 1.1,,.1 , 1 i( ' . .4.‘ , I I ''''.4 ' 2 • • ...v,',2.*P-4, '. .. ' . i t ' : 2, 30 ---. ','t''''. , 1__ -,... .,:‘ 2 , ' /' 4.,'! " alTii,.... ,i'A. -• ''• • . ••••'-''...1 _ 1 ,..7...— ,0, -• l r' •' •., , . 11.?., 1..;_04.f. •.e:;•,_ _ ...' 1 . ,;,,' .... • " ; •-, , i . . i i, , , 1,, . 1 , , , . ' 2,,.. ,. .-- .1•---'- ' , -,-•31 : 7 . — L_. • ,?...T..; ; 11 I ,.., 1 S. A i. 1 i,....;:,,.,•.,:',,,,;.' 44;.. .'_ • :''.':..:-'; ... l' t.121...7...... ,,2 1,; 1 o I 111111 • ) Oror ... . TRAC:A .,• : .,03... ,I,....' d 12 : 32 : : ' • 1....• 50 • • 19 1 / . ; 61 : 1 /1 I Z .•4 P; , , s..N. ,a , OPP.SPACE 4.44' i. ... ..0.. .,, I , ., .1 ,i, , .. ; • . i li 1 k .., 0 il 1 \. / --7 '111111 Will\ \ - -T.!: ,, 51 _ ..4•, , 1 I ';': 1.,... ... :, Al -, 77., j1 1, ...,•• i:., . . ....,__. ., .11 .. I 1 - .,.. /. 4111110 I \y ligart \ • 22.e., i' 2 I ? .1 : 4- ". ,..' • 0/ . '... , ;i 1 : N I l• ,. 41• 1 .1.' , 4., ....• 5" 1 t.' — - ' ;,.._-....; ',.., •.: , z) ?., Le,' n 1\ 4 12 r. , -.1 , - • - 2;• • -1 •, 'T.".. ' -, i 2 i 4,.. \'' 4 '1 I '-:'‘\:•:::• ".': , _ • t . t ,. .,,,,,,,, ,,,,, ,,, , , _ „N___} , ,4>'.• .I ' III!, ;2„,., , • , w , r1'-'-'-,, '-'' r''.-' ' : ''' : ;".'i':'.7-:-'''----,'Ip 1 , 1,,.. ...1:..• n .• '----f‘ • . i , i. .7__ 49 T:0 " ., .:\F.,..•' , \gll,', ., . ,, - • CO •$11;,,,,,. 0 Z -'.-.7.- • nu 0' .. 4.7:,..„T:,.::::µ:t.‘'s'Is•7"0:4.;:441.F.--•-:.:1'.:‘:1 1 ' I I ,.. 555 Uso'agora.,of 1 I • Ts5',," II ' 31 • 21" Ilf t 5-••X tu r---- --, . . ; CI 5 Ds dohs.EXv 2 ' \ '• i . ,,, ! 31 9 .1 T.: .' , 1,i 2, 1.4 , 2 •1 ' ' 9 ---.... A I .- ..-'' 1''. 1•• ,... Cn 1 :1 32 , ,. ., • , . , , , ,, , , , . , sl ; ',---„„-, ,.. 39 9.40 1 1 AI 8.42 9 43 9 44:a • • • FC Ci) '"--.' 1,-- ,..,••.' '...--'. ,-,; .--; i :- T-" " ! , -, r• , . °, , .t. •' ;11., i , il • 3q, () 141. .,,.. IRADITIORAL 152TTES-(Lou 1-,41 ' — ' 1 r • '/ , ,, , , i .TRACT F I : ..... T44:::' tU%3 1112 Cor. 11. • I Ms r. I i''''iFx CU, . Q. 10 CO Er:, . /5• 4 • "' .4., li 011111r; .,..,.(d 4.. '.1/ '.• 22, . .0 2 ,1,7z- , aw, ?„' ''., iti Z 14,. cz,-0,1•., ..' ,.., ,.. ,,, e w .,, ---,---. , ---- . CD l'- c..”...4505E6-(Lea 35-631 , . . r I . 5, . frst. IO• . ' I I . i . ' r if•, gm. ___.-45---- E-- . ".tIre.2..• :• I 5 6 i CC, I'd 141 3 El..tOt ,I 4 r. 5 ..; 0 ..• 1 ;., 8 '.. 9 :,. 10 1 11 , . , •.4 ,' , r . 22 23 li 2A : 25 Z 26 21r 28 4 ••- •••• • ,r` ,.,.....• uT2 or ;Tog a„c cc., ,.52•• 6. ' II •L , K 7 44 •so TO SC To . to I, 1.7...t• ••;.. " ,/ '''' „, - 1 • I/ ` • 0) CC CC; .• . 11.0601. . \ 044.011... 40401. •1 -----*/ SECTORS E 4 F • .71'.,' ,.....,..c...,. •T CO re.2'ed . — , -... l-EGAL DESCRIPTION SECTORS E I F tu 11.1 T.Erarth.lf of Ow Mortar.quarts or ... ,., En Irleerner/5urve or 0) CC . of Ow 6outrusa gags Of emotion 0.Tc/soap"Noah 7,.. Owner/Developer . EN.ii/r1.,EXCEPT Igo Erat.42 fag Uwe,for 156.Swans 6 Doe..Eng....go- . IF'fj•'; , '' "IA WM1 c'tt"'""‘.2.31.5515717..'or 1.."'ac'Tfortgrorit7a..""'*or ana'ngeo.70.3.'rquartor.. .. . . ...Sou.set quarts of.ctlar 10.,..Pop 23 TR.,Rang i., of ..1..e„..205,,,,..L.c,01.75::::•wce2....,.............E ,......, Fill1116 RR Gago5.151.6-Ersvoyor -- -4"..--,-- - --- qi, '• .1 1 1 X. ""--6TT-E"' Re...,,,,..,„„Ordar,,,d,e.0:1.....o.ion 11.Le..,,s racacriga in Volans 113 Of PRI,at Req., STATISTICAL SUMMARY To.0061665-1511 re 3 • - • SEC. 10 TWP. 23 N. RGE 5 E. W.M. r " y. — � r� • • _ + • _ I— 1 • • • 4 • .. m = - - ._._ ___K.m nitttar __ -__._ _ __ _4-_ ,•• '1 1RAGTc_ , w, TW.GTB r-r ros><lr„AZ__ `/dm-- _ _ � .. N x r •B R. . ,�-;,r-- ,,._rin,I. 1 ! r--- f--- e 0 ..I 'Iimil�/�� , ,,,AL ,,,, ' e. -�.�1 • R e - Y !y• `../ - r •i'�-1 r---, !1!: ,•a t ; i' -Y g'..;sia II :� I a� i�� �):.1.., �..>... 11 I I ,11111h111111 / ,e� .-; IIII i��11 I I� ,4. .... .li. t r. �_--� _-- A3 _d rr�;m I ] li I I,I' I� ` - Mille `'- ... I' i 1• TA { camil —Q R .d % ww, // ttI: I I ,, rt I varac ,r R , ,,, 1I /, , ,,,3--, , ,,, ,.., ., • It ;6 . :% ' ,.., z, .,,, ,,, 23 Z_ a ' ' ' __ " _ . . 111 V �, aA;-x. .. •1 35;1'.\ ~,)LJ r y'°5 CI r I rl. R'i JAt'r.r i B I�'-- y' R L-,�.r J R .11 '•I - I 8 A D U '°B•"..'"• a �eru•e 1 »_ F.n.„,n.„,,F,r,in.,. III w l`\ R I )It. 1 R j I 1� '"fi ��% 7 O co r w� ALLET 4I4 IT T I. ` '� 11' ',1 LI 4 �6 _ : ' • r1 �'- i j r i 111 •�r i' 1 R' y}3 I. , 1 `, ,,„ V l'WW 3B i y- I r 1♦I I]L 1 t3: 4.I. I Q o {m I'I� \t \ °� � Ie.r..�i.),r.r�u) I>m I Im"'I i)m i r--� A .L Y II � ips� j II , -)r , �'__' L), I L,:- I-)--'' L_ I I--1 n Yi >»° I ,1 e�0• \ y �\ 11 I 11811149. AL •1 r 1 �e ". -I ON I �. — °" »e `.' y�i F� � �� 1-��I •ram I' cc IL r,.r> 'in 61 ffF•�'.Ir 04i`t ' ..._ A h • ^/• ��. I e�� I l I•. 1 >o •o o }. j ; . • ti �[ �;1. }B ;9 2 o Q 1 II II ' 1 B I 7 :.I 3 4 :I 5 1 B ,I � ��r .r I� rl u .r I ; � ii�%i�i "_>• _J __ N �� Qo it)Y 'r I yz r 1 7 ..1'1 yu.r• I yN,r i I y _ I ym✓ yR.r ` ..I __ � .cCeb '• > z• ) x n z, .n w mB•�e� J • Ba.� 3 vwi�oW �� W •iu• u II, SEGO �,�..»� f SECTORS E g F 1, ,.. I 1 w 2 p"'.. U til W 1 BEGTOfL"E•F CO LEGAL DESGRIPTIOIofWm�� ar^• Owner/Developer Engineer/Planner/Surveyor ]>rbrn wn8• ceee.r Ju..r...,c m I To ea,•h lrl.a usu+.� �v e i rt..— er. aN+. Ow •l Al�u..rl UdT Av+.+BL« RwV.✓e R ]Ci•NBN Avw+ME [•ca'.,4 ld try��r•rpe�vd/Wr e!Ho.BAn.IB. dIOMn+,GA YQ'Yl-W 1u YM Ntu]N j R/ Wdwe GrY Mllrn/.OY Jw+.PE.-E^9>"� y '‘'‘1 W i�� I >" w r el U+rw.«..w^r er r)+Bow+...rf+^r cw..c...brn L...-n�A r'""u"•�rarlig.q.+9r-r NM�� To of B.cue.p.T«NrP I>>ron).p.r,B.a IOY.LY..i P1B.- .81 e or.L.3.33 a l quo. .�Oro,.1>BN.".v BE... .I.nOe)T.,-n}. l� Wl '9 Oor.^Y•'y R.oare.4g�b+ T.L r10.)D5D-,Dll V R 3 — ��® `� xe0 exCEPr u+.G°A1a or ME. ur Wrt P rae..:,In tarNor R.u.nge• i SIC¢ m. w.e..vr.n•re.I..•r rt • STATISTICAL SUMMARY �' I U1:::: LECsAL DESCRIPTION BELT RECT . SECT ° co al« a �y ----o. >°AAle r4 ti/brow ,B.O>B.9 rt,b ;�I��{•• �, .I """"....of"*".IC.A,•rA7165 ,..6.dE« Total )MiOB•4 ti)BB>wr 00 • . TOT ...': v1M+Ett�R r wu«•q I••>dye uN.2.ra�.'0� uwbr M LouLau R]. R-l• _.....a.r r, v-B.r9.r r}r5•or wur.�asr i TIIIIIIII;11111 e'�:�:'b:�vt yam ia°�°�,ry/R.Fc•-e b)�.I.(Os}.�, � SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E., W.M. 1 r K — —....- - ,> ti / IT .Kew • 12' 4]' , / I i Ave.;er T. ; • o�� SCALE: 1" = 40. .4 TR4cr Tv "� _ `'•.B.re�m '�°TM°T' �/�, �1--i VICINITY MAP oi. n \ /art ..NAP. _ ' '•- :J_ ` _�. .. • r 41 I( OBE -'S,s.. AL —_ _.1d BBu l Owner/Developer Engineer/Planner/Surveyor -44. Y I m'6..w:NTNE-B I"mm 50.to IV. :]� :� "P o 28 21 e^"]M m 26 25 24 13 22 21 d I A2' •2 omen..-me a�'"^^. V? ^' c 1 .,Pia-Surveyor Z 5 — -- .—__ • r I' LEGEND ,]w•]BeB-]Bn a '" a I o —' °�Adp4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Qi 31 T • -r �.:i.� '\• 70 I. —o— cdi T.c ewrl..+d�r a T.c.IomwEeT CUMBER v'RE ecui.IEbi GARTER W w '� i is ...ER EAST.WO,EXCBPT IRE EAST 42 rEET MERE.,_ ; 11 a nc eartwEer adnrea o BECTKN m.ra,� �P».lanw ru>ce B 1,,,,,,j,] B \� �I • eM CONVEYEDBy DEED f£GOrAED IImER.�COfAEGM.e.n.BDBF.br59 i', e,,, r, BEUER CFTC EC TIRE.T RAE RCP SBT...A OT O6 RIE23 NORD, AN E1ER 32 . 19 A BX MI EA T.WM ET TUERTER 6 PEETiTWERETOwIY,iP».Io EMI CBE 55 L Ebi,Wn EXCEPTT E EAST Al E?TOE�6 FOR OBTu ANEMIC BE b E 5 Z Z a e • EXIBTPG CONTOUR CONVEYED TO KING SOOTY BY DEED RECORDED ACE RECCTAEG NO. W R W PARK 58 I 61 rNld�GRADE CONTOUR e.nAem i II I. N_ 33 OPEN SPACE ', II n. • I.. W�,I 51 o' 62 ' IS �a /` c� 'c Im -1 \ i iI 10'TRACT JR RIB' r0•rRAn CO a 34 1 56 63 11 a' s Y 1 rr 4' 1� I l 1 -I Q 9 I_ NC ROlICO CURB 4. e tt 35 \ ` v im- 16 a cuT]rR(BP) CO R CO r 49 li\,: A SECT/ON A-A tuotu o o 4 I� ENTRANCE ROADWAY SECTION �� �' 36 55 54 53 52 51 50 9 .. 15 'a . No scut N 48 I .8 W Q LA ` c l `LI � pQ1 31 • 11 41 ei h. I4 R• ,B' r ro' Q W Q 3 Qh Q r , 46 J V—s-CDVC T `NONC RUM:,CURB N.u �,u 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 13 I vorwuA BARRING currcR lTrol oz3rtl�nmY' !n'Jw ac.N ` i.,....4 QRACY A ' —� I454 ^. SECT/ON B-B 11 �I TRacr F TYP/CAL ROADWAY SECT/ON �ISCA 1I 2 3 `1�4 5 6 � 8 9 10 �lt 23' °P W �'N�rt .. N8•0TT 14 =60301', SECTION C-C SECTORS E 4 F •]' °2 PUBLIC ALLEY SECT/ON NO SCA, 1 . 1 I 95054 l' II ': i SEC. 10. TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E., W.M. �-��� I i• I -. - � r IIi I 'i ' • II I : \ SCALE: 1" 40' / A,..... o " iir NN VICINITY MAP 'y'' •' _ s•Z • E fir.•• " I —T" TRACT a Owner/Developer Engineer/Planner/surveyor / \ .d Rep"u� Oadda E.g.v..No U o 'tMON A NE.&uu lm9 Q�i-MBN Cv".+NE (NW 1.114126 Wu MO ° ,: ! ii% �— 1v.y•Pia-I''''''' -< „ I `,;� i (� LEGEND n ' � ,i.Ila,,,ll.r�/Ibtk,�:��,4 -1' ii mown,.wLEGAL DE`vCRIPTION �Z W` I 14.1 NOON ON.Goo.half au.,aw....�r,w So....m"^� Illw 'a \' f �-�_ � 1� e- w4TER .m.w.w+P 13 w.v.vengw N •�r �fl�i E...u✓/M1.E%CER°.W•• ,.. „a, a�..�..E.. Wpm 'M. w K Ga^1 by��.KaNd rd�RcudNg N°. Z 7 ♦ 3 \1 � ��I F ' ' \1 _ 6,,,,,4RY HUM taN..E, ,w,an....,M.^-o7-,nP�]„w,,,.Z. l7 S m TRACT A t R 4I, a-' Ee w E..t.W11.ExCEPf d.Ww.4e Iw.LLsee1 Iw eBN nvwr e£.. v I o II _Nme _ EKIBTNG CaN,a1R .v KN3 C�'^'Y by d!r"co•d.d vd.Rrvd J"°' WW I: APE .P._� E o ■ 4m FNEu 4Ra°E=wane WI'r, 1\ rai--:Wila •� ! �+ �v tiiirilt rik 8 // __I 11111 ito,"=-.....31110 Ir411* • Stillirl* lai 11, o I. �`\� ,'. `',. i/I I ilia r �� L....�xi..w............�..:?r,.,•,41nRJra...=.,. CEMENT CONCRETE KRRCAC CURB', � �IP� s'CEMENT CONCRETE yoERAtr Q C '3 1 .. eo i 0 i li SECT/ON A-A 'i .y=1 �� � �, ENTRANCE ROAD SECT/ON CI,` Z W NO SCALE Q e I I 1401117 x _ u if I �116, � likilliiiiiii I6•PfiVATC ROAD!FACT FACT F I7 ea=°m \ � • .• \ Ji 11. wA�'» _ , /ti WO ?f /.� s %. I i f- x Ta$c-•c. Mil/ L / .it / , rsl.� 1 I 11 cEMENr cnNERET[Ra/m CVRe a'�m W, Se -"� CONCETE CUEDCONCR 1C 90CRAlrc lalla flit SECTION B-B TYP/CAL ROAD SECT/ON t ! j �I Ess " ii f J. V'_ , rA• J' No su<E 1 / .•E•.cE.+c-VE c�E acc r.ea•mrAw eovmr SECTOR C= • I G,_��Eo_ - POLL MODS / 95054 . . . . . . . . . . . • . SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E., W.M. r -__ ._ ______ ..,..2_ . , ,... ..;._.___,_.____,.._,,,.„A„---_,_-._--------;----. . . ... ---..\ , . . . . .. . . _AgI----------.TRACT 15 , . Till .___ __________„N-______ ,, , SCALE: 1" = 40' : 1111111:07 MAP W411.6 11111 Owner/Developer Northsamn pr.,.•ros. SAO.ILO.Ave NE.Sul.100 VICINITY NO SCALE c-——-511-ED t0 .. P. •' ' . . '....3t; F:g.1,Ezne;.,.r./P..E14mner/Surveyo'r Efollevuo.U.see01 do 8 , .2otectt Edgar bros.PE-Er Bloom- . 1 re222r.21211.'2112/7"' Z 3 'g Pi° 2 1 LEGEND , 12062 BM Ili. am 0. 4774,,v,,, • iiiii ----to----s. STORE,MAIN o GAM.2.531 ci :.,..rI12,11=2:4•Pltrt'•IrRolOr LE6AL DES I •.--. ,‘ 3 . 0 MIIM.111. 161. =MM.,.. .111 •W .gr 11 —sI-- WATER TOP Etou.1.11 or Oss Nortbast quote.of Po Booloast quarter. or VP!APRs..quarto.of Sactico IC.TotostR3 23 Rang;.,. W 5: ',2,•' '', ,^.: East.WM EXCEPT tI33 Illosta2 foot....sof kw 130.Avas.74, Liq .1 '• r7 42 \\ TRACT A !, , , .... t FN. --.--... •ANITAIET SEILER 671.91=172,321 '"cII..d...'''''' Th•North half of Wre NoOnsast quarts of ths SoutPoast quarter. Z D ,..? '' tj i: r ADAC \ ii 41 1 ,,,,,,,, of toll PotAtt.st quarter or Emotion 10.loArohlp 23 North Raga OPEN WAGE • // ,: a! 1 . L 40 ii EXIST.CONTOUR ;;;;AEIIIIt.o.c.'”•10I'ICEP7 COL.'.TOVelstod".'r'ocor'.7.0"'ILedrI"Roc..c.rI""71ParNo" PNIEP GRADE CCNTLAPI illElt ii NMI ca?"AL'\ Z • ,1,1 /, —41111, row Ira 11 . c)•. :,. 4 , ,,7 '\ IIII _Etillit 0 a .2 • // ___• \eiriv4 4:11114144114,456. \110111,01 . - . V Ia.. V ,. ••,c ci) 4 (,) r....,....,„ r:-... '' - (tip • .. Thvati5 li ,— cc, -4 ku Lu s? V . / i I. • i ra• i:. 4111;TRACT E illyiti*Hr 4 sie7 iti . cn 0-,, • --.41#/iltrilAll's.• i. LINA,",ONC0,01-vrFrICAL COW 3'LEVEN,[(Nal,SIDCWA, .. -1C4 (21° CZI..3 CZ' T4cc`---.., "‘C;1 1.) , EIVTRANCE ROAD SECTION (D i-,-.. N..N.... cc 1( 5;f:',:';:y 411114.4 . -1111011031 illi lielt,1 11116\,3041411 ZACT F ‘'i .55•',ware ROAD nu, r,...,..:-,..,. ii tuE'rLaNf.„--NN _.„_, os . ..N201 10' .. 1 1 5. CCU.'ct. c I Is mut -....- ,....a....,1 ^,la,., , ''-'1(-- 1 , Q. ..;...., if'20 Nutt ........_ . ON.1.5 , IA' .,.. . .•..... .. . 17,,,r •, '\ 23LEPER 1. •I , r : , II • a.,"CoNCRUE NOtilO CURS ____\ ,'.,: '',5. _____. 1 5'alq.Nr CONON,WENN, ".... 25 114111 2E5 'j .. SECTION B—B TYPICAL ROAD SECTION \..... NO 5C.Na A2' _... 318.9.01.1010 606 QT • SECTOR G i / 95054 • 4 `►,l i .__ , . _' s,..'. r— • illitt.—,/,';;:'---." , kfril ibh2----. .- . . ` I!I IIIIii1!g ; 1'I Ey III V £, L , s;Ii ! " ' I s.,iy' EW f=. -_-- �I�III�I11Iiii ` 1IVf �i1 `%%; I11Ahl• �;s,1mf ,II WII� ''`_ ! -�WCI� I:In■■IIIIG< I, III' Iri5 � Ii:1rrrhi.: .;i lIInI i IIII I I�II ■ i', 4UULIIIII ✓. - I iLl . , II,I I.,�� ,II I • ,I EMIIMOVV1 : ; ii 21Yi �/ , I I I 'si 0 III I, I IiIrO "1 ill I .�00ls. 10 I I II I I` I I iiinwn ' ll,...� i19 III ®rli 's'si III \' `,_IIfrni iil i -- I II I. IIII�UIIUIil ...., i 111 1 %.(_ � `I 1 ;,_ . :: :. l III ill I '' II { I-` , , ;lIIII - I Ili II II 111115k.„: ,I d�gil '/' i 1 I I II p I 1.' iiiiiif s'.5�4fq',,„,,�"/,,"%.". I I II S I I; III I II '� y ;%s%:./"......,.. I � I I� fYXiTf'i'�i(fi/Illlifll[lflflllili2i; \ i aS: a thfiiiu III IIIII I IIIII III I I . \� Ji 1 'I I I' it • f•,as„rr"ifri,zr,� es,; I I I I I 1 . 4 y:n7 % j II _-_._ _% ISA NORTHWARD T H E ORCHARDS G ISLO HOU,AVE.NE BELLEVUE.WA 18001 RENTON, WABHINGTON 190L7 191-111L . . . -•,-- , . ) . ,, Vfrft-',.•... • I lilt:,'....f...,..... 1.17.11, -1/ /eZ..,..i?..7.7.••.-.;:.:3,..-•• Ni.••• •-....:1;:: . I I' al 1 1 ,..- • -.--.:..' : :i.. - I. wipmmiminiu 1111111111P . AmIll• —,1-.: 1 ,LI'`.., . • 7.•.:,' ' 10: . " i .' il 4.t , .. • - , 11 . 1,4,4,-....-r-4.b 1 , I, i • . 1 17711 Id, • HIMIIIIIIII liw! j_j j 11. 1,, ,.. ili 11),i, 1 . r k N ----m ‘"'Ls "'s"s'Is I IIIIIIIIIIMV 11 '111111111111111MI, I . 2or 1 III 11,1 . . . . 1 k nitiu 11 1 • . sik4kak .IN II ,I t'Iu 1 Vizi Acc,i2..,e-,-- iii• 1, 1 1 . . . ----... .,... - WNI'l 1.14C11 I • .41111ffilinrL PIA,;11) 11 , lk%MilialWiV, ;?- M ' 1 :- Iiii, 1rP1.7)0 I ?/Z=.i '1171%t•\,- 1-'. ..'' ill I f .....c----------:--,-;.. ;,.:. ,- 10- `. I i ii I ffir- 1 I filiiilillP lz: -- VTOPH:thi l''•:Wi:M.V.i . 1 r"\s'''''''''li,.V.•1.41N . ksii ..7-....q! 1-m..7---7111.11A , • ijt IIIIIIN-- `,.„,„,,,,,,,,::r 11 I 1,-,,,,,•••• •••••!,..;.Z 1 . Iii Fra, ...,7 4 , di inmiliilizi; 1111111111111 '', li , -,Nliti o ir---7.FF.k.',/1 23-1, A . ' 1 -ir..ai i III ' 1 ‘e • 111‘ 1 $, •2 iii 1 ,__ nr ID:, , •...g .1! rril 'F , .. ,) iiimmunin , 1 IIIIIIIIIIIII i j I . . •,____\ __ •-.r.,...._------..-,- .1.? —j IIi r I1E taimffimErn- nr s: IIIIIIIIIIIPY IA' ,-,-A ifiriP 1 ' imilimm !1 ' . illil Mil Iiiiill 11 111111 MEM, .4. .., I 1 liummw, I,' lill / •i,.1 semnimmiii IF .., :VI—C.rT \)11 '• - IIIIIIIIIIIR s 1 '-i-,i ! .A 1 ' :h; .• . r._..............,1,-..‹,......__ .__,, , , win ------... ii'd.'' • > V • 4.2• -5,-;.--. . 1 • . i . NORTHWARD THE ORCHARDS G . 15LO 140th AVE.NE BELLEVUE,WA 98004 1200 141-112L RENTON. WASHINGTON '\ { \ W11,-„,,41 illith. IIII� I Il;iSss: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII°`` ' MUUMUU! II ,i1, 1 I I,IU,,,,,q,z,► ;iili 1 . 4,, I„: , ,1 • ,, „tiiimmiIl k.., ._r___. -------..‘..4- , 1 1 - il 1 :JiI1TlIi •1111 ! i ? I, j ii a'a; bi ,� \ iiiiiiiiiiiinini Il ;�,�, j II +I ; IIIIIIIIIII r6g1 < _ 3 'Ij col„\ 0"—Zi-ii alum ,?� 1�0 \till L;i-�; '. vi :r,lI . MIS ,_ ,,_ , --! II��IIIII 11 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII! ��, . �l, ;;` IIIIIIIIIIIIIII , �I i �I I falli It: 4111 . VII' � '' �`'l` - 3 EI IIIIIIIIIIL'I. ''I �� lowc- ;'' "IIIIIIIlII I III F ��:� " III i�l' • '1 j 4 IIIIMIInIIIIHIf_' Ilmu� ,11 III puuuuuuuMIN: 11 I ,•- IIIWIdO 1, _.. I . h tS ' ./ • 'i//:,,.,. • NORTHWARD T H E ORCHARDS O NOTN NP. EGLL9Wfl,OA �l006 RENTON. WASHINGTON • ) I I I` g • I TwE ORCwARDB I �7e I I I'll �— SECTOR'C' I 9 c j nh _ t .— I M Q, - -PE^ TC¢X E• En 5. vE e•-!. -_ - l yes ' / .[e•e+a•w yar• °° a'aa ! '-b='f.�.�i�1" _r410''�� :,1 no:,:cv•5w _ .. - ° .=fie' �s O -.WI .c°•=r1:Op� t - I �s YD O O°OOe n !{ '.w i ° e It.nl -Li• �� �!.: ,��iri iI N�1P %O °- _ _ . r; \ i f! a.... _3 :�^ "° )g s °_ ,70.-t , , E _ �. e.° d l� is . - ire" . �� '� Oill i! �> ei'..ro.=niL FEAce wP✓a • p4/ !`�,:.r• serra nA+G t, ION* o% _l. VII .I I(&1 Ji,I a � roFn �, cfE xe e w �. I /,r a do /i�! d ��� oil 9 }I' ,� - °iiinrad& ° r% ,lisol iii„,.i IPS. 88,a'a'OS • P �r " - 1' � Npr...ON!,G El.YE6b• �.` •Quo �■t 1111111 � ° Igs. �ell E. - �� - —�' .c p , d TOR'G' '.' 1114. �� �oql \-+V 'e �� - II�� .,--,1 OFf1Ne.J al,f I. f� �O I _ la ilik.ap . I 1 ''A%V--.'-i:'!•,� tlii o%- ?1t, _ °° 1-1 j 1111 Si �'Il-l' .�I: 1 1(. 1 I. .. ii.� •,o a o 1�7 L�i� Nil�b"P 161 ro•� ''+ o1 Y` 1 1'1.6�n ee`iLV I ,Q ,. - °� .©p �It fit i at i • }f i 1� °i�,says• PII=lly. • V.113'a!� '��p�o+ A L"l<' a '� '� �� is �2d 1}1 i -� T;l-,,,,.. ,-,,,,,,,,,,,?,:a.l;,r•�':. i ' ��( t �z° �..o ° $OO a4 AI i !w li a '� z = = i x,.s, ,e - Imo, -,�.�, _ fil a= ,• .®; 'I , cc��,,ff o w ipi I E II 1�1 �.�11 ^n �/i%' ' D•1 �a-vLfI ° ° 7:�� b R11'V` fir o° 110 € i o :� tee. .�. Y, ,. i a SECTORS E s F M:�R: •e e..."K"o°o e E. °o° g �F•L<TTED SECTOR G ,,,,,�,�\ _ �.• „e,_ • I I �1�i t1t;V;1�1�p.e/e;.�..w�'�/ i1 /;�w�.p'-,�. /;��1 �i1 1;�TV1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE 1t'L1ti1L ULGd1ULNLtz11ri1 Lf ILL 11[i1J��11>11x'IS 1i I I L[�J s- SYMBOL _ BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME •SIZE A COHDITIIO SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE OuT ITTII6 __ ��ONDITIION Pawn By DscIduoua Trees-medlumllsrpe �- . •, STE I • Lupe.Sbubs ' a 4:e•+.ecCe esv• g a oe nec�, roeeee ex s-+*ay mloc(OD I Mbe•� wr w', Be�ro e... .t : we.e••sa Chem-. to 1.W W 9v+x•bc'e ., �• ~ a 5e.ye•ts+e.• E��e ad:.'Co.pecu u.ye 5pwei 2,•a,e•v•w �.�cTR Accsnl Deciduous Trees-Ilowe=Inpllrul=Inp_ _ "A., .ew• �• ~ •'Tao Geeemr•Ee e+4coo a croe e•e n•ro•r attuao ut Tall tied. .•e,.•e ce.•e•cegeeea Small Shrubs mo a-is a m•d.•dG Narrow Declaim".Tress •sUg• •iz.g n.o- ..••i..•cal e n u g mew fwe.w Eimer Gdw.w Ae•iw ocY•v O a ••e.•ee .•��o.erod e•c d'•va wY,„ R,e.d, we•d.eic„•..g P. do-gem, �.deerro...rdd.. O Eve.pro n Trets__ —__—__- a 1O'oe.e e.e u'•d� wo<.•Ms• eee 9:,.zey c y„•rdil w e..cow�ge•az+.i ce g.• :+ / 'I Oroundcorer S Accents1 gal e•peu•.. .•oc w fp Ace:::EvsrareeeneTre eq,.c.e .e,c da••B•B /�I :v'Y�e• •,w �5pec�.g°i�vey.i�L.p•c e•�4• Colo-wad. eehc"w. :e;w L-1 •v - Yww• Law and Rough Sr... ••••d,uncerio-. Bed Marta: TY Q RENTO:N:::::::::::::...::.::.:::..<::>:::.::.:::.:>:>:>:>;:.::.: PUB HE' .LN ;v.•'. AGENDA: ' » : > <>ginig < >> :giigM. ; «<> :OMMENCINGAT i... ...►<(.;:)<::;;.;:<:.:.;,::::...:.: :m. or.:,e...,p..:,pp..�c.f o. :n:..:;.; er. . .:::Y:::>: nd not nec sanly the order m wh�ah :.......:.:...::..:............... the:;;will:be:heard PROJECT NAME: The Orchards, Sectors E/F & G PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 57 attached townhomes, each on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of an approved wetland mitigation plan. Location: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street. PROJECT NAME: Cedar View Mausoleum Phase II PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-96-067,CU,ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks a conditional use permit (CU) for the construction of a 1,293 sq. ft. mausoleum at Greenwood Memorial Park. The 90-foot by 17-foot single story concrete structure would contain casket crypts and niches for urns. The mausoleum would be built near the northeast corner of the cemetery site and would be 16 feet in height. The building will feature stucco covered concrete and granite facades, and a concrete roof slab. A cantilever concrete retaining wall having a maximum height of about 3 feet will extend outward from the northwestern corner of the building, and concrete walkways will abut the southern and western sides. The proposal requires Environmental Review and a public hearing for the CU permit. The project site is located within Aquifer Protection Area Zone 2. Location: 350 Monroe Avenue NE. • AGNDA.DOC ®�= DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING June 25, 1996 DEI Project No. 95054 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Subject: The Orchards - Sectors E/F and G LUA-96-010, SA, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Kaufman: We hereby request that the Determination of Non-Significance (Mitigated) for the above project be remanded back to the Environmental Review Committee for reconsideration. We also request that the scheduled public hearing for the site plan and preliminary plat be delayed pending this reconsideration. Thank you. Sincerely, DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. Representative for Northward Properties wizte5 J Craig J. Krueger Vice President -Planning cc: Dick Gilroy, Northward Properties 4205 148TH AVE. N.E., SUITE 200 - BELLEVUE, WA 98007 (206) 885-7877 FAX: (206) 885-7963 CITY. F>REN C RRENTPLANNIN >DIVI I, u G N AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the ' day of �ti_k,U. , 1996, I deposited in the mails of the United Stat s, a sealed envelope containing �yV� e Y,u.Yu.► r t�-eSDr i-- , L.li A- -'6-010, sill-,PP) t—fr C)1(r 0o6rat.S 1 coc_A-vr‹, ff/r-e .61 claitect /7/2 I q I, :, documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Nor, cra, -1 rttecj&r A- pyk.c + l.D r414_toccret Pa - zeS iYe)rr Ins. �in>- — r Imo- ..-- ctN- oc MP. Rt . —613 h\-• K ` ` ;,\ftvl L.Sextf- L t4 .-DV. i` .` ,, (Signature of Sender) al(„2,{,L__ 0-4,20--t) , STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that /%11 /1/ 6,0/G4t signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. --- Dated: 7 / 7 (it, �� - C . 4 zd �3'. a ,,iir, Notary Public I- :nd fort tate of Washtirt3n._._ - fL d� Notary (Print). 4/4 A 4 :/"mil.'-,ti 1/ E172_ My appointment expires: / Arr'��i '/, Project Name: brr-var8S , Sec rs G., F av,d G. Project Number. q(o — 010 ) Sf} `PP) EC. NOTARY.DOC lr TRA fr4176 ITV'S JV:. l� IJ edV WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Natural Resources u;• ,�ENIVIF€R M.B�}��HER rC�}}mmrus io e.e yxy(p.�.# ubllc Lands PUL-I KAL `edW�I illAM Supervisor • DATE: June 28, 1996 TO: Gregg Zimmerman City. of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 FROM: David John Weiss Resource Protection Specialist South Puget Sound Region SUBJECT REVIEW OF: The Orchards, LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF ACTION SPONSOR: Craig Krueger PROJECT: Land Conversion, Timber Harvest [] We do not have an interest in the above project and have no comments on the proposal. [X] We do have an interest in the above project and wish to make the following'comments: A *forest practices permit will be required for the harvest of timber associated with this project. cc: Dave Dietzman - SEPA Center - Lands and Minerals DNR SEPA#: 010364 • • SOUTH PUGET SOUND REGION 28329 SE 448TH ST I PO BOX 68 I ENUMCLAW,WA 98022-0068 I FAX:(360)825-1672 1 TTY(360)825-6381 1 TEL:(360)825-1631 O 18 Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPERt JUL 16 '96 06:48AM DODDS ENGINEERS, INC P.2/4 ® �* DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING SUAV EYING PLANNING July 15, 1996 DEI Project No. 95054 Ms_ Jennifer Henning Project Manager City of Renton Planning Dept. 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Sectors EN and G, The Orchards Project No. LU'A-96-010, SA,PP,ECG Dear Ms. Henning, Per your request, we are submitting the following information as part of our preliminary plat application for Sectors E/F and G of The Orchards: 1. Three(3) copies of an expanded site plan for the Cottage Homes (alley Ioaded)in Sectors E/F that front onto the internal private park. This plan shows the pavement width of the alley, the back-up space provided, and the walkway access to the front doors. 2. This plan also shows the use easements for these Cottage Homes, whereby the homes are designed as zero lot line homes without being located on the actual lot line. The result is more useable side yards without the added cost of 1-hour fire walls per the Uniform Building Code. The use easements will be established and enforced through the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the subdivision plat. 3. Please note that we are not proposing use easements for the Traditional Homes(along the perimeter) of Sectors E/F since these homes will feature more traditional rear yards. 4. We are in agreement with mitigation measure 46 regarding the City's enforcement of the parking section of the CCR's. The one clarification is that the expense of this enforcement should be the responsibility of the owner, which may be the applicant (in the near term) or the homeowners association when the development is completed_ 5. As a clarification of the parking provided in Sector G, we are proposing the following minimum number of parking spaces: Garages (1-car) 49 spaces Garages (2-car with no apron parking) 16 spaces Apron parking 49 spaces Guest marking 20 spaces Total 134 spaces Ratio =2.4:1 4205 148TH AVE_ N.E., SUITE 200 - BEL.LEVUE. WA 98007 (206) 6e5-7B77 FAX- fPnR1 JUL 16 '96 06:49AM DODDS ENGINEERS, INC P.3/4 Page: 2 Ms. Jennifer Henning7/I5/96 g I do hope that this clarifies our plans for Sectors E/F and G. We do look forward to gaining the required approvals and starting the construction of this neo-traditional neighborhood_ We believe that this will be a positive addition to the City and will meet the needs of the City's housing market. Please call if you need any additional information. Thank you. Sincerely, DODDS ENGINEERS,INC. Ofiod Craig J. Krueger Vice President-PIanning • • • 950541#9.doc; 07/15/96;Pg: 2 JUL 16 '96 06:49AM DODDS ENGINEERS, INC P. • ®Dr. DODDS ENGINEERS, INC. CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING July 15, 1996 DEI Project No. 95054 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Subject: The Orchards - Sectors E/F and G LUA-96-010, SA, PP,ECF Dear Mr. Kaufman: On behalf of our client and the applicant,Northward, we are hereby withdrawing our SEPA appeal of the Determination ofNon-Significance(mitigated) issued by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Renton, based on the revised mitigation measures published on July 5, 1996. Again, please note that the applicant is Northward, per the required application forms, with Dodds Engineers Inc. as the representative/agent for Northward. We would like to offer one clarification for mitigation measure#6 regarding the enforcement of the parking section of the CCR's. The expense for this enforcement should be the responsibility of the owner which may be the applicant (in the near term) or the homeowners association once the neighborhood is completed. We do appreciate the cooperation of the Environmental Review Committee in their review of the threshold determination for Sectors E/F and G of The Orchards. Thank you. Sincerely, DODDS ENGINEERS,INC. a4eXj" " Craig J. Krueger Vice President -Planning 4205 148TH AVE. N.E., SUITE 200 - BELLEVUE, WA 98007 [20S) 985-7677 FAX: (206] 085-7965 , City of Renton STAFF Department of Planning/Building/Public Works REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE July 2, 1996(Remanded by the Hearing Examiner) Project Name The Orchards, Sectors E, F and G Applicant Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers) File Number LUA-096-010,SA,PP,ECF Project Manager Jennifer Toth . Henning -IFg 0.11.mm J 0a... Sr. 4.ea Ae q - — — - t,�`F r a 9 �R auto f/ ,,c� I I I# 0- - - O.c.M,CIa l 1 a a.n •^IS u - ft." ,11•Ir. 11.1� Ac. N _ I_ •.tl 2[ UNION i10 ,. - CONDOMINIUM. sl..a N.r•h = o W '1I� \..••n ..a1a . Z e I II 14• 0 x Saha.0ia.r»I 401 Z. - \ ! 11 ea;7p• •� I 2.A5 Ac N a Itl it li,• 1 as.(�.. F LISAdJ E 7 • 0. a weer 'I 1 dt .s...AL:::,.::. u III 0 i .I •Iona ur• s Iaan .an' i..r. 141. +a.. 41•• • •0 r011ie.1!1 O ISch... 0 I {03 N3.,nm a4L a YII- {..1 1,nh I to Ac . •• m T .. 1.9 diAa aic0{..a. : c Bemis Craig .• in:y��I=� g4 j4�I W i�� -'4 ©: I .2 4 51 14--—...fs . J •i«� !. EL".—. L. O.�• O • ..a-ns ��-i •C' ® —^i' aI N5 t I. —�.. 1!!. 11 . wa- zIn o w.t� a0 , •• / o '"^ Iw." a•. >-ll • 17e s 2-I �..Si 00. �' Ay • v. . ,S• \t. l .\ n. .S A II [F 3 .I B I OS=Ae. - �.. • / II, I oa\e'Ere- C i tI-I .w.n..... a Icol •�3'�9�a�{1 X".�; ,,if. �J !..6.„,,,�"� e i' ,•- •-- - a.• _.. • e•l {.um.. 5 -.'u l 71 I ,' f1 �� 5r11 sr fr A(5(II(.,(S67 tff Ir PJ r ie • . -aNj —' I.Ih •— 1 w fn..r � � 7�'I) Wm f,PAIN; i I r TM" .'YK`''' „(3iON0(ST •; © , ► .S0 A ° 7 N •. •.I { c • v� il. 1.\s 11a t' '1 (lag CI; ...E.1,..87'7 I''' Ilill'1.1 .;.-' s ',..1.1.34 j ;! /9/..,...._7,4 ,,, L /1 1'54 1 ® 'G.§ %L_' ,' r „.3 __ii.ii_____ ti,:,, . , ... . I a J ` j• • 1 1.),E� 011. ., �yso Ae J11�� al I a 01{.. .• w : .4 W Y i _l-re:;::::.,,lt • I . 1- ;J��77.1:off 4. �' Q a - �, • " _w 1� •© �\ I (J' an{!Q� Q: ? i.ZAe .y. • Wa 2 I _ s 3 I�'11 5'nN ���_�: E J 0 g o (-t11+. , '°"a- g 5a i F. la i 1 °f0raO r .. .r " ,out. 1 K • eL-- Y;a ©• I• I• .; _ .> " I i. ig 'I RI »!� 4.'4 �kSTEET . ®t 'I I' .jrScj ' "� 7.; °' -� i m,•;IH_3N.E---Pa TH.THt.A ant-,St•rt,,.b,. .1it.t r.1r...,:.treta=..,f.^ . _. mac r} }. .1'4a: �n � .. .; :E"_'s�•' 12�'H-_r•. ��—rST..?+�•-�},,•>�-Sa' . t y, I. l .n..II. .1 a i mn Liao ua •i e' . f:'..�- iw1 I. a'ns 7' u ZI I^ I �A t.`.Ir=1�'. �• ''•• •.Y�.? - ,�+�,p1 ..' I . 0 LL� �. I•rl r UI�� ;❑� r`i =1� . ..116 tiS . J 1 i.--- .r.S Y _ •..Jig,' 8"•:w v•t -..w a:_ I I I, -W`. ill n.\'t __ _ _1_�—I- - __ n._ - Vl.Y o o o ! ^L-Y! e. o N».......r.'_.___.__- 1 vo IJ I Project Location Map ERCRPT.DOC City of Renton PB/PWDepartment •onmental Review Committee StaffReport • The Orchards-Sectors E,F and G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF July 02,1996 Page2 of 11 Project Description The Orchards is an approximate 62 acre site in East Renton that was approved for mixed-use residential and limited commercial development. The Site Plan was approved in phases, and single family homes and townhomes in Sectors A, B and C are presently under construction. Sector D was approved for 63 apartments, and Sector E/F/G were approved for 212 apartment units and 28,000 square feet of commercial development. Since the project was initially approved, Sectors C through G have been rezoned to R-24, and the applicant has discussed alternative ways of developing Sectors E, F and G. The applicant entered into an agreement with the City via a Demonstration Ordinance in order to propose development for Sectors E, F and G that generally meets the criteria for the R-24, but which demonstrates flexible development standards to enable the creation of residential developments in the R-24 Zone which address the City's development objectives. The applicant proposes to combine Sectors E and F and plat 63 lots suitable for the development of detached single family homes. Sector G would also be platted, but would develop townhouses on 57 lots. Separate access would be provided to the single family and townhome developments, with no interconnection. Access would be from NE 6th Street and from Bremerton Avenue NE for the single family homes and from NE 6th Street via Duvall Avenue NE for the townhomes. A secondary emergency only access would be developed on the southwest corner of Sector G for the townhomes. Development of Sectors E/F would create a neo-traditional neighborhood with a total of 63 traditional and cottage homes with a small private park as a focal point near the center of the community. Traditional homes would be built on lots that average 3,650 square feet in size, while cottage homes would be constructed on lots that average 3,250 square feet. The cottage homes would be designed as zero lot line homes where useable side yards are created through reciprocal use easements, thus providing for private yards on the smaller lots. Attached two-car garages would be constructed and guest parking would be accommodated on driveway aprons or via on-street parking. The proposal features grid streets and alleys for access. Trees would be planted on both sides of the streets and sidewalks would be provided on one side. Landscaped "neckdowns" are being proposed at intersections to reduce the hard surface and to provide a tree canopy. Sector G would feature townhomes in buildings that feature from two to four units in each structure. Private 20-foot wide streets would be developed in Sector G as part of the demonstration project. Attached one- or two-car garages would serve each unit, with guest parking accommodated on most of driveway aprons and in parking bays. Building heights would not exceed 35 feet. A large wetland which occupies the western one-half of the site would be retained and enhanced. The proposal would include a wetland buffer and would feature a trail within the buffer area. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Mitigation Document was previously issued for The Orchards. For this new application, an environmental checklist and addendum to the Supplemental EIS for The Orchards was submitted. The ERC has the authority to issue a new environmental threshold determination for the project (based on the environmental checklist) or issue the Addendum and retain the previous Determination of Significance (DS). In any event, staff will recommend to the ERC that the Mitigation Document not be superseded by the ERC's action and that the Mitigation Document still applies to the proposal, unless specific measures are modified or eliminated by the Environmental Review Committee, or if the, mitigation measures are applicable to other sectors of the Orchards, or required only of the previously approved proposal for apartments and commercial development in Sectors E, F and G (and which would not apply to the current proposal). The proposal requires Preliminary Plat Approval and Site Plan Approval, with a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner to the City Council. Variations from Code requirements are being considered as part of the Demonstration Project ERCRPT.DOC Ordinance and will be decided during Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review processes. i Renton PB/PWDe Department r City o.f p onmental Review Committee Staff Report The Orchards-Sectors E,F and G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF July 02,1996 Page3 of 11 Project Location Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall; Sector G is located on the east side of Duvall Exist. Bldg. Area gsf Vacant Proposed New Bldg. Area gsf 63 sgl fam homes 57 townhomes Site Area Approximately 18 acres Total Building Area gsf RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommend that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF X DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. X Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 da A eal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The applicant shall pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee for the proposed project. The fee is assessed based on $75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project, and is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Generation manual. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the recording of the plat. 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee for the project. The fee is based on $488 per each new single family dwelling unit, and is estimated to be $58,560.00. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the recording of the plat. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay the applicable Parks Mitigation Fee for the proposal. The fee is estimated to be $530.76 per single family unit. In addition, credit may be given to reduce the fee if the applicant provides the required bicycle paths along Duvall Avenue NE as mandated by the previous environmental determination. The Parks Mitigation Fee is due prior to the recording of the plat. 4. In order to mitigate the potential impact of vehicles impeding access for emergency vehicles in Sector G, the applicant will be required to provide 20 on-street guest parking spaces as shown on the proposed site plan for Sectors E, F and G (by Dodds Engineers, Inc. dated March, 1996 with revisions noted as Revision No. 1 dated June 19, 1996) and adequately post and mark the 20-foot travel lane as a fire lane. Posting and marking of the fire lane will be subject to the approval of the City of Renton Fire Department (Fire Marshall). In addition, in Sectors E/F all alley's shall be posted with "No Parking" signs subject to the approval of the Fire Marshall. 5. In order to provide adequate secondary emergency access to Sector G, the applicant will need to provide a minimum 20-foot wide secondary emergency access as shown on the Site Plan. The applicant shall clearly post and mark the emergency access as a fire lane per the Renton Fire Code and is subject to the approval of the Fire Marshall. The use of reinforced grass paving will be permitted subject to the review and approval of the Fire Marshall, and provided that the driveable surface is adequately delineated such that emergency vehicles would be able to discern the location of the emergency access. Bollards within the roadway will not be allowed, however bollards at the edge of the fire lane with a chain across is acceptable, subject to the approval of the Renton Fire Department (Fire Marshall). ERCRPT.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department onmental Review Committee Staff Report The Orchards-Sectors E,Fand G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF July 02,1996 Page4 of 11 6. The applicant shall include in the Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for Sector G, a provision authorizing the City of Renton to enforce the parking section of the CC&R's, but at the expense (including attorney's fees) of the applicant. The City would be permitted to utilize this authorization only upon a written finding by the Police Chief or Fire Chief or their designee(s) that a public safety problem is presented by lack of or inability of the owner to enforce the parking section of the CC&R's. 7. In order to mitigate for potential environmental impacts that would occur as a result of the proposal, the proposal for Sectors E, F and G are subject to the mitigation measures previously adopted and known as "The Orchards Mixed-Use Development Mitigation Document". The Mitigation Measures specifically applying to the proposal include: Al, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7a - e, A19, A20, A21, A22, A23, A24, A26 a - c, A27 1 -6, B1, B2, B3 1 -6, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, B12, B13, B14, B15, and B16. Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided .in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. General 1. The applicant shall apply with all applicable City, state, federal and other jurisdictional regulations, codes and policies governing the project and site. 2. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate submittals prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, according to City of Renton drafting standards. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000, 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000; and 3% of anything over $200,000. One-half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. 3. The applicant is required to obtain a Construction Permit in order to accomplish site work and installation of site improvements. 4. The applicant will need to submit construction drawings for street lighting and each utility. These drawings will need to be on individual sheets. 5. Construction plans must comply with the City's Drafting Standards. 6. Temporary Erosion Control measures including, but not limited to dust and mud control, street cleaning, protection of existing catchbasins, wheel washing and construction entrances shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. 7. A construction plan indicating haul route(s) and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. Haul hours shall be restricted between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. 8. Construction hours shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Saturdays shall be as arranged with no hours in excess of the weekday hours, and no Sunday construction. Transportation 9. The City's Transportation Impact Fee will apply to the project as discussed in the mitigation measures above. The applicable fee is $75 per each new average daily trip and is payable prior to the issuance of the building permit. ERCRPT.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department ronmental Review Committee Staff Report • The Orchards-Sectors E,Fand G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF July 02,1996 Page5 of 11 10. Full frontage improvements are required for Duvall Ave NE including, but not limited to, sidewalks, curb & gutter, pavement, channelization and street lighting. 11. Full street improvements including curb & gutter, street lighting, paving, street signs, and sidewalks are required throughout the project. 12. All street names and numbers shall conform to City of Renton street naming standards. 13. Streets within Sectors E & F shall be a minimum width of 28 feet (except alleys which shall be 20 feet in width), with a 5' sidewalk on both sides of all streets. 14. All roadways in Sector G shall have a minimum 20' wide pavement and sidewalks on both sides. The 20' width minimum shall only be allowed if adequate parking is provided for guests and visitors. 15. Pedestrian linkages shall be provided to facilitate access to public transportation and Duvall Avenue NE. This would be imposed as a condition of Site Plan Approval. Storm Drainage 16. Detention and water quality facilities are required in accordance with the King County Storm Water Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton. 17. The conceptual drainage plan for the project has been reviewed . 18. The Surface Water SDC is assessed based on the total new impervious surface square footage as reflected in the final design. The charge is determined by multiplying the gross square footage of the site area by $0.129, for the multifamily units, or$385 per single family residence. 19. A level two drainage study has been submitted by the applicant. Water quality treatment sized for the new impervious surfaces subject to vehicular access is required, all to King County SWDM Standards. Wastewater 20 There is an existing sanitary sewer in Bremerton Ave. NE, and an extension to the East Renton Interceptor in Duvall Ave. NE. 21. The Sanitary Sewer SDC is triggered and will be assessed at a rate of$585, per single family home site and $350, per unit for multifamily sites. 22. Provision for sanitary sewer connections to the neighboring properties shall be required. This may be in the form of stubouts from one or more manholes with accompanying easements, or by full line extension. Water 23. This developer previously constructed a 12- inch diameter water line in Bremerton Ave. NE and water lines in Duvall Ave. NE and NE 6th Street. 24. The water line in Duvall Ave. NE shall be required to be extended the full length of the property frontage on Duvall Ave. NE 25. The Water System Development Charge (SDC) is triggered at a rate of$850, per single family unit or $510, per unit for multifamily. 26. Water service stubouts or extensions are required to the neighboring properties for future possible development, including further possibility of looped systems in the area. These may be provided through easements and extensions or full frontage improvements. ERCRPT.DOC City of Renton PB/PWDepartment vnmental Review Committee Staff Report The Orchards-Sectors E,Fand G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF July 02,1996 Page6 of 11 Fire Sectors E, F and G: 27. The applicant is required to pay the applicable Fire Mitigation Fee as discussed in the Mitigation Measures above. The fee is applied to Sectors E, F and G at a rate of$488 per each new single family unit. 28. All roadways are required to be painted and signed per City Ordinance to identify them as required Fire Department access roads. Sectors E & F: 29. The preliminary fire flow requirement for Sectors E and F is 1,000 gpm. Fire hydrants with the minimum fire flow are required within 300 feet of all new single family structures. The number of fire hydrants required will depend upon the size of the new single family structures. Sector G: 30. Fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems will be required if the applicant chooses to build stacked flats. However, as the proposal is for attached townhouses, no fire sprinkler or fire alarm systems are required in the townhouse buildings. 31. The preliminary fire flows for the townhouse structures is 2,500 gpm. One hydrant is required within 150 feet and two hydrants are required within 300 feet of each structure. 32. All Fire Department roadways shall be paved to the entire 20-foot of required width. Reinforced grass paving will not be accepted for fire access or emergency access. 33. Access roads can be gated if made with a Fire Department approved method of opening the gate. Bollards are not acceptable. The applicant is encouraged to contact Renton Fire Prevention to determine an appropriate solution to the access gate. Police Services 34. The applicant is advised to coordinate with Renton Police Crime Prevention for recommendations to reduce possibility of vandalism/crime during construction and operation of the facility. Building Construction 35. The applicant's soils engineer shall approve the footing excavations prior to placement of any concrete. 36. The applicant will be required to follow the recommendations of the soils engineer in the geotechnical report. Wetlands 37. The wetlands shall be monitored by a wetland specialist for the duration of construction. Reports shall be submitted by this specialist to the Development Services Division monthly. All work within the wetland or buffer shall be inspected and approved by the wetland specialist. Solid Waste 38. Garbage and recyclable deposit areas and collection points shall be easily and safely accessible to hauling trucks. ERCRPT.DOC 'City of RentonPB/PWDepartment ronmental Review Committee Staff Report The Orchards-Sectors E,Fand G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF July 02,1996 Page7 of 11 Parks 39. As discussed in the Mitigation Measures above, the project is subject to the applicable Parks Mitigation Fee. The fee would be applied at the rate of $530.76 per single family home. All of the proposed units within Sectors E, F and G would be considered to be single family homes. 40. The proposed open space to be located within Sector E/F does not meet the standards established by the City for open space and could not be counted toward a reduction in the Parks Mitigation Fee. Parks Department does recommend that a four-foot wide striped bicycle lane to be located on the west side of Duvall which is consistent with the previous development proposals for the site. The appropriate percentage of the estimated cost of this bicycle lane could apply toward a reduction in the Parks Mitigation Fee. 42. The applicant will be required to revise the landscape plan to replace proposed Acer pseudoplatanus with an appropriate substitute tree. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development? 1. Surface Water/Groundwater Impacts: Surface water impacts have been previously considered in the EIS and subsequent Mitigation Document. However, the applicant was required to submit additional drainage analysis for this proposal, and that is the basis of ,the following discussion. The proposal would change the character and quality of stormwater runoff. During construction, silt and other sediments could be washed from the site downstream unless construction mitigation measures are in place. Run-off from Sectors E/F would be collected in catch basins and piped to oil/water separators prior to discharge. The runoff would be routed through a grass-lined biofiltration swale. Runoff from the off-site drainage in this basin bypasses the storm drainage system in Sectors E/F and G through a separate tight-lined drainage system. Discharge from. Sectors E/F and G. would be directed to the enhanced wetland area in the southwestern corner of Sector G that would also function as the stormwater retention and treatment basin. Since the existing wetland (referred to as Wetland #7 in the Mitigation Document) is fed and supported by surface water runoff, the loss of storm water or surface water through development of the proposal would eliminate the only water source available to the wetland. Surface water treatment through biofiltration is considered to meet or exceed surface water removal expectations if the water is retained over a distance of 200 linear feet and the slope is no greater than 2 to 3 percent. The applicant's biofiltration swales were designed to provide treatment prior to discharge of the waters into the wetlands. The project site is located entirely within Zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area. Development has and will result in an increased amount of impervious surfaces and of increased flow rates, and a decrease in groundwater recharge to the aquifer. To mitigate, the applicant is proposing a series of biofiltration swales and detention areas. These features would slow the rate of water flow, improve water quality, and provide for infiltration, thereby partially offsetting the loss of groundwater recharge. Existing Mitigation Measures adopted as part of the previous Mitigation Document for the project site would still apply. Specifically, Measure Al and A2 state that compliance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual and the requirements of the City's Aquifer Protection Area Ordinance, do not necessitate further mitigation. Mitigation Measures: None required beyond those already imposed by The Orchards Mitigation Document and applicable Codes. Nexus: Not Applicable. ERCRPT.DOC , 'City of Renton P/B/PWDepartment ronmental Review Committee Staff Report The Orchards-Sectors E,F and G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF July 02,1996 Page8 of 11 2. Wetlands Impacts: Sectors E, F and G included three delineated wetland areas: Wetlands #5, #6 and #7. Wetland #5 is a Class III wetland 3,485 square feet in size; Wetland #6 is a Class III wetland 6,534 square feet in size; and Wetland #7 is a Class II 106,722 square feet in size. The previous environmental documents considered proposal to fill Wetlands #5 and #6 and to fill a segment of the north end of Wetland #7 and expand the wetland to the south. The Wetland Mitigation Document considered these actions and required replacement with new, restored or enhanced wetlands on the site in order to mitigate for the filling of Wetlands #5 and #6. Those wetlands were subsequently filled. Mitigation for Wetland #7 included restoration of the disturbed southern portion and western edge of the wetland; provision of a buffer; limitation of excavation within the wetland, replacement of filled wetland areas at specified ratios. The applicant is required to meet Mitigation Measures A19 through A24 with regard to the referenced wetlands. Mitigation Measures: None required beyond those already imposed by The Orchards Mitigation Document and applicable Codes. Nexus: Not Applicable. 3. Transportation Impacts: The revised site plan for Sectors E/F and G of the Orchards will generate an estimated 1,034 daily trips and 104 afternoon peak hour trips. This represents a reduction from the traffic study conducted for the 1991 Draft Supplemental EIS which estimated that Sectors E/F and G would generate 1,821 daily trips and 200 afternoon peak- hour trips. The effect on six area intersections does not adversely affect the expected level of service except in one case, the predicted Level of Service (LOS) at Duvall Avenue NE and Sunset Boulevard NE would drop from LOS C to LOS D. (Note: LOS D or better is considered acceptable based on City standards). Proposed development of Sectors E/F and G would result in increased traffic during construction and occupancy of the project. These impacts include, resident traffic, construction traffic, noise and safety. Mitigation Measures B1 through B10 adopted for the previous project would continue to apply for this revised proposal with one exception. Measure B4 would be replaced for this proposal, by a requirement to pay the City's recently adopted Traffic Mitigation Fee. The fee is charged at a rate of $75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project. The fee is due prior to the recording of the plat. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee for the proposed project. The fee is assessed based on $75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project, and is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Generation manual. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the recording of the plat. Nexus: Traffic Mitigation Fee Resolution and adopting Ordinance; SEPA 4. Fire Prevention Impacts: Development of the proposed 120 new residential units would result in additional impacts to the Fire protection services in the area. As a means of off-setting these impacts, the City has imposed a Fire Mitigation Fee on all new development within the City. The proposal would be subject to the single family residential fees of $488 per each new unit. The fee is payable prior to the recording of the plat. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee for the project. The fee is based on $488 per each new single family dwelling unit, and is estimated to be $58,560.00. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the recording of the plat. Nexus: Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution and adopting Ordinance; SEPA. ERCRPT.DOC `City of Renton PB/PWDepartment ' onmental Review Committee Staff Report The Orchards-Sectors E,F and G L UA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF July 02,1996 Page9 of 11 5. Parks Impacts: The proposal for Sectors E/F and G would generate approximately 200+ residents. This added population would contribute to the demand for both private and public recreational facilities. However, this proposal result in less impact than the 360 residents that would be anticipated for the previously approved 212 apartments in this area. The applicant has proposed to construct a one-half acre neighborhood park for both passive and active recreation in Sectors E/F. In addition, portions of Sector G would be retained as wetland and wetland buffer. Landscaped paths to these active and passive areas would be provided. The project is subject to the Mitigation Measures as previously adopted for The Orchards. Mitigation Measures B14 through B16 applied to the project and required a system of pedestrian and/or bicycle trails in wetland buffers, the deeding of additional right-of-way in order to accommodate a bicycle path on both sides of Duvall Avenue NE, and to pay a Park Mitigation Fee. The Parks Mitigation Fee is currently charged at a rate of$530.76 per each new detached single family unit and $354.51 per each new multi-family unit. Sectors E/F and Sector G would both be charged at the single family residential rate, since the project would be comprised of single family ground-related units, each on their own lot. The applicant would also be required to provide a four-foot wide striped bicycle path on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE. The estimated cost could be deducted from the total Parks Mitigation Fee applicable to the project. The proposed neighborhood park does not meet City standards for neighborhood parks (5 to 10 acres in size) and could not be counted toward reducing the Park Mitigation Fee. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall-be required to pay the applicable Parks Mitigation Fee for the proposal. The fee is estimated to be $530.76 per single family unit. In addition, credit may be given to reduce the fee if the applicant provides the required bicycle paths along Duvall Avenue NE as mandated by the previous environmental determination. The Parks Mitigation Fee is due prior to the recording of the plat. Nexus: Parks Mitigation Fee Resolution and adopting Ordinance; SEPA 6. Police Impacts: The addition of 120 residential units would impact police services by increased annual calls for service. The previous Mitigation Measures document requested a surety device for the multi-family buildings to be valid for a period of three years. Since this proposal would result in fewer and a different type of dwellings (single family homes and townhomes instead of apartments) than previously approved, the recommendation for a surety device may or may not still apply. Mitigation Measures: None required beyond those already imposed by The Orchards Mitigation Document and applicable Codes. Nexus: N/A 7. Air Impacts: The proposed development would affect air quality through the generation of dust during construction, and from the operation of construction equipment and vehicles. These impacts are considered to be temporary in nature and were considered during the previous environmental review. Mitigation Measure A27 was adopted to reduce impacts to air quality and required construction mitigation that are also mandated by City Codes. Mitigation Measures: None required beyond those already imposed by The Orchards Mitigation Document and applicable Codes. Nexus: N/A ERCRPT.DOC City of Renton PB/PWDepartment ronmental Review Committee Staff Report The Orchards-Sectors E,F and G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF July 02,1996 Page10 of 11 8. Private Streets-Access for Emergency Equipment Impacts: Private streets proposed within Sector G would be 20-28 feet in width, and would allow for a 20-foot travel lane and guest parking (9 vehicles in parallel parking on the street). Guest parking would also be accommodated on garage aprons in all but 8 units within Sector G. Townhomes without adequate parking aprons would have two-car garages, while townhomes with adequate parking aprons would feature one-car garages. Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street border Sector G on the west and north respectively, but neither of these public streets would provide for guest/service parking, therefore all non-resident parking would need to occur within Sector G. If the 20 guest parking spaces were occupied, and overflow guest/service vehicles were parked elsewhere on the private street, emergency vehicles (especially fire trucks) would have trouble reaching the townhome units. In order to mitigate this potential impact the applicant will be required to provide 20 on-street guest parking spaces as shown on the proposed site plan for Sectors E, F and G (by Dodds Engineers, Inc. dated March, 1996 with revisions noted as Revision No. 1 dated June 19, 1996) and adequately post and mark the 20-foot travel lane as a fire lane. Posting and marking of the fire lane will be subject to the approval of the City of Renton Fire Department (Fire Marshall). Mitigation Measures:. In order to mitigate the potential impact of vehicles impeding access for emergency vehicles in Sector G, the applicant will be required to provide 20 on-street guest parking spaces as shown on the proposed site plan for Sectors E, F and G (by Dodds Engineers, Inc. dated March, 1996 with revisions noted as Revision No. 1 dated June 19, 1996) and adequately post and mark the 20-foot travel lane as a fire lane. Posting and marking of the fire lane will be subject to the approval of the City of Renton Fire Department (Fire Marshall). In addition, in Sectors E/F all alley's shall be posted with "No Parking"signs subject to the approval of the Fire Marshall. Nexus: SEPA 9. Secondary Emergency Access-Sector G Impacts: The proposed emergency vehicle access to Sector G would consist of a 20-foot wide paved lane from. Duvall Avenue NE at the southwest corner of Sector G. Approximately one-quarter of the emergency access lane would be located adjacent to and between townhome units #21 and #22, and this section is proposed as reinforced grass paving. Bollards are proposed between the edge of the reinforced grass paving and the private street. City Fire Codes do not allow the use of reinforced grass paving for emergency access lanes, although the Renton Fire Department recently granted permission for a demonstration of this type of surface as an emergency access fire lane in another phase of The Orchards (Sector C - Peachtree). The Fire Department has not permitted the use of reinforced grass paving in other projects within the City, but has stated that any application of this type of surface would be studied on a case-by-case basis. Secondary emergency access to Sector G utilizing a section of reinforced grass paving would only be allowed as a demonstration project. The driveable surface would need to be adequately delineated, so that emergency vehicles would be able to discern the location of the reinforced grass paving, and the ' surface must be engineered and constructed to support the weight of fire apparatus. The emergency secondary access will need to be a minimum of 20 feet in width and be posted and marked as a fire lane per the Renton Fire Code and is subject to the approval of the Fire Marshall. Bollards within the roadway will not be allowed, however bollards at the edge of the fire lane with a chain across is acceptable, subject to the approval of the Renton Fire Department (Fire Marshall). Mitigation Measures: In order to provide adequate secondary emergency access to Sector G, the applicant will need to provide a minimum 20-foot wide secondary emergency access as shown on the Site Plan. The applicant shall clearly post and mark the emergency access as a fire lane per the Renton Fire Code and is subject to the approval of the Fire Marshall. The use of reinforced grass paving will be permitted subject to the review and approval of the Fire Marshall, and provided that the driveable surface is adequately delineated such that emergency vehicles would be able to discern the location of the emergency access. Bollards within the roadway will not be allowed, however bollards at the edge of the fire lane with a chain across is acceptable, subject to the approval of the Renton Fire Department (Fire Marshall). Nexus: SEPA 10. Parking/Emergency Access Impacts: Traffic flow on the proposed narrow private street within Sector G could be impeded or blocked if vehicles are parked along the street. This impact is of particular concern with regard to emergency access. ERCRPT.DOC • t ity of Renton PB/PWDepartment ,onmental Review Committee Staff Report The Orchards-Sectors E,Fand G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFJu1y 02,1996 Pagell of 11 Mitigation Measures. The applicant shall include in the Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for Sector G, a provision authorizing the City of Renton to enforce the parking section of the CC&R's, but at the expense (including attorney's fees) of the applicant. The City would be permitted to utilize this authorization only upon a written finding by the Police Chief or Fire Chief or their designee(s) that a public safety problem is presented by lack of or inability of the owner to enforce the parking section of the CC&R's. - Nexus: SEPA 11. Incorporation by Reference-- Mitigation Measures from The Orchards Mixed Use-Development Impacts: The proposal for Sectors E/F and G differs from the previously approved apartment and commercial development proposal for these areas of the subject site. However, several•of the mitigation measures adopted for The Orchards Mixed-Use Development would still apply to the proposal and are therefore incorporated by reference. This measure is recommended in order to mitigate for potential environmental impacts of the proposal that would be the same as previously considered during the previous project application. The applicable Mitigation Measures are listed by number below and a copy of the Mitigation Document will be attached to the environmental determination. Mitigation Measures: In order to mitigate for potential environmental impacts that would occur as a result of the proposal, the proposal for Sectors E, F and G are subject to the mitigation measures previously adopted and known as "The Orchards Mixed-Use Development Mitigation Document". The Mitigation Measures specifically applying to the proposal include: Al, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7a - e, A19, A20, A21, A22, A23, A24, A26 a - c, A27 1 - 6, B1, B2, B3 1 -6, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, B12, B13, B14, B15, and B16. Nexus: SEPA E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report.. I ERCRPT.DOC • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF APPLICANT: Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers) PROJECT NAME: The Orchards, Sectors E, F and G DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant proposes a new site plan for, portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 57 attached townhomes, each on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of an approved wetland mitigation plan. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section 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 43.21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. The 15 day comment period and the 14 day appeal period for this project will run concurrently. The comment and appeal periods for this project will end at 5:00 p.m. on July 22, 1996. Appeal procedures and the mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. PUBLICATION DATE: JULY 05, 1996 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 02, 1996 SIGNATURES: ai-,,,-6-- ,, ,,,______ tze G mmerman, Ad i lis rator DATE partment of Planning/Building/Public Works - m Chastain, Administrator DATE Community Service Department 4 //1 Lee " - 7" 7 - Y6 eler, Ire hief DATE Renton Fire Department DNSMSIG.DOC • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF APPLICANT: Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers) PROJECT NAME: The Orchards, Sectors E, F and G DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 57 attached townhomes, each on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of an approved wetland mitigation plan. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. General 1. The applicant shall apply with all applicable City, state, federal and other jurisdictional regulations, codes and policies governing the project and site. 2. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate submittals prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, according to City of Renton drafting standards. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000, 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000; and 3% of anything over $200,000. One-half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. 3. The applicant is required to obtain a Construction Permit in order to accomplish site work and installation of site improvements. 4. The applicant will need to submit construction drawings for street lighting and each utility. These drawings will need to be on individual sheets. 5. Construction plans must comply with the City's Drafting Standards. 6. Temporary Erosion Control measures including, but not limited to dust and mud control, street cleaning, protection of existing catchbasins, wheel washing and construction entrances shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. • The Orchards,Sectors E,F&G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF Advisory Notes(Continued) 7. A construction plan indicating haul route(s) and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. Haul hours shall be restricted between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. 8. Construction hours shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Saturdays shall be as arranged with no hours in excess of the weekday hours, and no Sunday construction. Transportation 9. The City's Transportation Impact Fee will apply to the project as discussed in the mitigation measures above. The applicable fee is $75 per each new average daily trip and is payable. prior to the issuance of the building permit. 10. Full frontage improvements are required for Duvall Ave NE including, but not limited to, sidewalks, curb &gutter, pavement, channelization and street lighting. 11. Full street improvements including curb & gutter, street lighting, paving, street signs, and sidewalks are required throughout the project. 12. All street names and numbers shall conform to City of Renton street naming standards. 13. Streets within Sectors E & F shall be a minimum width of 28 feet (except alleys which shall be 20 feet in width), with a 5'sidewalk on both sides of all streets. 14. All roadways in Sector G shall have a minimum 20' wide pavement and sidewalks on both sides. The 20' width minimum shall only be allowed if adequate parking is provided for guests and visitors. 15. Pedestrian linkages shall be provided to facilitate access to public transportation and Duvall Avenue NE. This would be imposed as a condition of Site Plan Approval. Storm Drainage 16. Detention and water quality facilities are required in accordance with the King County Storm Water Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton. 17. The conceptual drainage plan for the project has been reviewed . - 18. The Surface Water SDC is assessed based on the total new impervious surface square footage as reflected in the final design. The charge is determined by multiplying the gross square footage of the site area by $0.129, for the multifamily units, or.$385 per single family residence. 19. A level two drainage study has been submitted by the applicant. Water quality treatment sized for the new impervious surfaces subject to vehicular access is required, all to King County SWDM Standards. Wastewater 20 There is an existing sanitary sewer in Bremerton Ave. NE, and an extension to the East Renton Interceptor in Duvall Ave. NE. ADVNOTES.DOC/ • The Orchards,Sectors E,F&G' LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF Advisory Notes(Continued) 21. The Sanitary Sewer SDC is triggered and will be assessed at a rate of$585, per single family home site and $350, per unit for multifamily sites. 22. Provision for sanitary sewer connections to the neighboring properties shall be required. This may be in the form of stubouts from one or more manholes with accompanying easements, or by full line extension. Water 23. This developer previously constructed a 12- inch diameter water line in Bremerton Ave. NE and water lines in Duvall Ave. NE and NE 6th Street. 24. The water line in Duvall Ave. NE shall be required to be extended the full length of the property frontage on Duvall Ave. NE 25. The Water System Development Charge (SDC) is triggered at a rate of $850, per single family unit or$510, per unit for multifamily. 26. Water service stubouts or extensions are required to.the neighboring properties..for future possible development, including further possibility of looped systems in the area. These may be provided through easements and extensions or full frontage improvements. Fire Sectors E, F and G: • 27. The applicant is required to pay the applicable Fire Mitigation Fee as discussed in the Mitigation Measures above. The fee is applied to Sectors E, F and G at a rate of $488 per each new single family unit. 28. All roadways are required to be painted and signed per City Ordinance to identify them as required Fire Department access roads. Sectors E & F: 29. The preliminary fire flow requirement for Sectors E and F is 1,000 gpm. Fire hydrants with the minimum fire flow are required within 300 feet of all new single family structures. The number of fire hydrants required will depend upon the size of the new single family structures. Sector G: 30. Fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems will be required if the applicant chooses to build stacked flats. However, as the proposal is for attached townhouses, no fire sprinkler or fire alarm systems are required in the townhouse buildings. 31. The preliminary fire flows for the townhouse structures is 2,500 gpm. One hydrant is required within 150 feet and two hydrants are required within 300 feet of each structure. 32. All Fire Department roadways shall be paved to the entire 20-foot of required width. Reinforced grass paving will not be accepted for fire access or emergency access. 33. Access roads can be gated if made with a Fire Department approved method of opening the gate. Bollards are not acceptable. The applicant is encouraged to contact Renton Fire Prevention to determine an appropriate solution to the access gate. ADVNOTES.DOC/ i o The Orchards,Sectors E,F&G - LUA-96-010,S A,PP,ECF Advisory Notes(Continued) Police Services 34. The applicant is advised to coordinate with Renton Police Crime Prevention for recommendations to reduce possibility of vandalism/crime during construction and operation of the facility. Building Construction 35. The applicant's soils engineer shall approve the footing excavations prior to placement of any concrete. 36. The applicant will be required to follow the recommendations'of..the soils engineer in the geotechnical report. Wetlands 37. The wetlands shall be monitored by a wetland specialist for the duration of construction. Reports shall be submitted by this specialist to the Development Services Division monthly. All work within the wetland or buffer shall be inspected..and_approved by the wetland specialist. Solid Waste 38. Garbage and recyclable deposit areas and collection points shall .be easily and safely accessible to hauling trucks. Parks 39. As discussed in the Mitigation Measures above, the project is subject to the applicable Parks Mitigation Fee. The fee would be applied at the rate of $530.76 per single family home. All of the proposed units within Sectors E, F and G would be considered to be single family homes. 40. The proposed open space to be located within Sector E/F does not meet the standards established by the City for open space and could not be counted toward a reduction in the Parks Mitigation Fee. Parks Department does recommend that a four-foot wide.striped bicycle lane to be located on the west side of Duvall which is consistent with the previous development proposals for the site. The appropriate percentage of the estimated cost of this bicycle lane could apply toward a reduction in the Parks Mitigation Fee. 42. The applicant will be required to revise the landscape plan to replace proposed Acer pseudoplatanus with an appropriate substitute tree. ADVNOTES.DOC/ CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF APPLICANT: Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers) PROJECT NAME: The Orchards, Sectors E, F and G DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 57 attached townhomes, each on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of an approved wetland mitigation plan. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th Street MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee for the proposed project. The fee is assessed based on $75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project, and is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Generation manual. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the recording of the plat. 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee for the project. The fee is based on $488 per each new single family dwelling unit, and is estimated to be $58,560.00. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the recording of the plat. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay the applicable Parks Mitigation Fee for the proposal. The fee is estimated to be$530.76 per single family unit. In addition, credit may be given to reduce the fee if the applicant provides the required bicycle paths along Duvall Avenue NE as mandated by the previous environmental determination. The Parks Mitigation Fee is due prior to the recording of the plat. 4. In order to mitigate the potential impact of vehicles impeding access for emergency vehicles in Sector G, the applicant will be required to provide 20 on-street guest parking spaces as shown on the proposed site plan for Sectors E, F and G (by Dodds Engineers, Inc. dated March, 1996 with revisions noted as Revision No. 1 dated June 19, 1996) and adequately post and mark the 20-foot travel lane as a fire lane. Posting and marking of the fire lane will be subject to the approval of the City of Renton Fire Department (Fire Marshall). In addition, in Sectors E/F all alley's shall be posted with "No Parking" signs subject to the approval of the Fire Marshall. 5. In order to provide adequate secondary emergency access to Sector G, the applicant will need to provide a minimum 20-foot wide secondary emergency access as shown on the Site Plan. The applicant shall clearly post and mark the emergency access as a fire lane per the Renton Fire Code and is subject to the approval of the Fire Marshall. The use of reinforced grass paving will be permitted subject to the review and approval of the Fire Marshall, and provided that the driveable surface is adequately delineated such that emergency vehicles would be able to discern the location of the emergency access. Bollards within the roadway will not be allowed, however bollards at the edge of the fire lane with a chain across is acceptable, subject to the approval of the Renton Fire Department (Fire Marshall). The Orchards, Sectors E,F&G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF Mitigation Measures(Continued) 6. The applicant shall include in the Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for Sector G, a provision authorizing the City of Renton to enforce the parking section of the CC&R's, but at the expense (including attorney's fees) of the applicant. The City would be permitted to utilize this authorization only upon a written finding by the Police Chief or Fire Chief or their designee(s) that a public safety problem is presented by lack of or inability of the owner to enforce the parking section of the CC&R's. 7. In order to mitigate for potential environmental impacts that would occur as a result of the proposal, the proposal for Sectors E, F and G:are subject to the mitigation measures previously adopted and known as "The Orchards Mixed-Use Development Mitigation Document" . The Mitigation Measures specifically applying to the proposal include: Al, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7a - e, A19, A20, A21, A22, A23, A24, A26 a - c, A27 1 -6, B1, B2, B3 1 -6, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, B12, B13, B14, B15, and B16. MITMEAS.DOC/ • MITIGATION DOCUMENT THE ORCHARDS MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT The Environmental Review Committee for the City of Renton issued a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for The Orchards Mixed-Use Development on August 9, 1991. The Supplemental EIS for this project has identified a number of possible mitigation measures for adverse environmental impacts that were considered to be significant or potentially significant (as defined by quantitative measures whenever such measures were found to exist). In some cases, such measures do not exist and it was left up to the responsible official to determine whether additional mitigation measures, if any, are warranted to protect the environment. A number of chapters of WAC 197-11 speak directly to the imposition of mitigation measures. The relevant chapters are cited below. WAC 197-11-060 Content of Environmental Review states that agencies shall "carefully consider the range of probable impacts, including short-term and long-term effects.' Impacts shall include "those that are likely to arise or exist over the lifetime.of a proposal", or, in some cases, even longer. WAC 197-11-330 Threshold Determination Process requires the responsible official-to take into account the following when determining whether a proposal has significant adverse impacts: "The same proposal may have a significant adverse impact in one location but not in another location;". " "The absolute quantitative effects of a proposal are also Important, and may result in a significant adverse impact regardless of the nature of the existing environment"; and, "Several marginal impacts when considered together may result in a significant adverse impact." In reaching such a decision, SEPA states that the responsible official shall not balance whether the beneficial aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse impacts, but rather, shall consider whether a proposal has any probable significant adverse environmental - impacts under the rules stated above. . WAC 197-11-448 Relationship of EIS to other considerations states that the general welfare, social, economic, and other requirements and essential considerations of state policy will be taken into account in weighing and balancing alternatives and in making final decisions. . . . The EIS provides a basis upon which the responsible agency and officials can make the balancing judgement mandated by SEPA, because it provides Information on the environmental costs and impacts. - WAC 197-11-660 Substantive Authority and Mitigation requires that mitigation measures be based on policies, plans,'rules or regulations formally designated by the agency. It also requires that mitigation measures shall be related to specific adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in an environmental document on the proposal: 'After its decisions, each agency shall make available to the public a document that states the decisions. The document shall state the mitigation measures, if any, that will be implemented as part of the decisions, including any monitoring of environmental impacts." (WAC 197-11- 660 (1)(b)). This document is intended to meet this requirement. As well as analyzing the environmental impacts, the City of Renton, under its land use provisions, must assess its many objectives and goals and decide how this project furthers or conflicts with them. Some City goals may be internally conflicting. When this occurs, the City believes that the SEPA process mandates a close environmental analysis to determine priorities. If the priorities are established and the project is able to mitigate its impacts sufficiently, then the City believes it should proceed. This document presents mitigation measures necessary for the ultimate construction of The Orchards Mixed-Use development. THE PROPOSED ACTION Northward Development Company is proposing to develop a 62.3 acre site in East Renton as a mixed-use project consisting of 121 single-family residential lots,68 townhouse units,275 apartment units, and 28,000 square feet of combined commercial and office space. The site is located to the north and generally west of the intersection of Duvall Avenue N.E.and N.E.4th Street, and it is currently covered with second growth forest except for two single-family houses. The houses and much of the forest will be removed for the 1 • proposed development. The Windsor Place apartment complex lies to the west and south of the site and the proposed Forrest Creste project site abuts the north edge of part of the site. Honeydew Elementary School and playground also abut the north edge of the project site. The anticipated population living in the project is 898 persons. On-site infrastructure improvements will include the construction of streets (N.E. 6th Street, N.E. 8th Street, Anacortes Avenue N.E., residential collector streets and internal drives and parking areas), sidewalks, street lighting,and water,fire,and sewer systems. On-site recreational facilities will include a recreation center in the townhouse area consisting of a 900 foot meeting room building and an outdoor pool;and two 3,500 square foot recreation buildings with an outdoor pool, Jacuzzi, weight room, meeting room, small kitchen and management offices for the apartment units. The project is contemplated to be constructed in phases and requires rezones, site plan approvals, and demolition, filling, grading, and building permits. The existing zoning consists of R-1, R-2, R-3, and G-1. The project would require that all of the R-2 zone and approximately half of the R-3 zone be changed to R- 1,thereby creating a large R-1 zone for the 121 single-family lots. The other half of the R-3 and virtually all of the R-1 zone would become a Contract R-3 zone for the townhouses and apartments. The remaining portion of the R-1 zone would become a Contract B-1 zone for convenience retail and office space. A. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 1. Surface Water: The site is split between two drainage basins: a west sub-basin of about 14 acres and'an east sub-basin of about 49 acres. While some off-site flooding occurs near the site on N.E. 4th Street, the Utility Systems Division has determined that it is not attributable to either one of the two drainage basins which overlay the site area. The existing drainage patterns will be modified on the site due to development of the residential and commercial areas and of the necessary road improvements. These modifications do not have-signiificant impacts however, as they do not affect flows into the two drainage basins. During periods of construction activity and because of the increased amount of impervious surface,in the completed project, the character and quality of stormwater runoff will be reduced below what it is now on the site in its natural state. The impact however, is not anticipated to be a significant one. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: Al. None are considered necessary. Because the proposed action must comply with the requirements of the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and because the proposed !action will have no off-site surface water impacts which are not addressed by .the KCSWDM, mitigation of off-site adverse surface water impacts will be achieved through compliance with the KCSWDM. 2. Groundwater: The project site is located entirely within Aquifer Protection Area Zone 2. Currently, all groundwater recharge Is not affected by any substantial development on the site. With the project,there will be some loss of recharge due to the increased amount of impervious surface (about 41% of the site will be converted to impervious surfaces). Long- term slow surface water flow rates will be changed to rapid short-term flow rates with some accompanying loss of recharge. The contaminants entering the groundwater from the project are expected to be of the type generally found in residential areas and to pose no significant threat to the aquifer. To mitigate the impact of the increased amount of impervious surface and of the increased flow rates, the project contains a series of biofiltration swales and detention areas. These !i are designed to slow down the rate of water flow, to improve water quality, and to provide for infiltration, thereby partially offsetting the loss of groundwater recharge. To reduce 2 adverse impacts on the aquifer, the project does not propose any uses which involve the large scale storage or production of regulated compounds prohibited in APA Zone 2. Additionally,the project will provide sewer service for all uses on the site. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: A2. None are considered necessary. Because the proposed action must comply with the requirements of the City of Renton Aquifer Protection Area Ordinance, adequate mitigation of potential groundwater impacts will be achieved through compliance with that ordinance, including the restriction on the storage or production of regulated compounds. 3. Storm Drainage: Presently storm water is transported through the two drainage sub- basins by a series of swales, seasonal wetlands and culverts in the wet times of the year. Storm water in the west sub-basin enters a partially disturbed swale/wetland via a manhole at the north end of the drainage basin. (The manhole is the exiting end of a pipe which conveys stxm water underneath the playground at Honeydew Elementary School and onto the project site.) The storm water then flows through the swale/wetland, continuing to the adjacent property to the south where it eventually enters a 24" culvert leading to the 24"Union Avenue storm drain. Existing storm water in the east sub-basin collects in seven mostly marginal wetlands during the wet times of the year. It first collects in one large and one small wetland, and the flows from both join and flow into a third small wetland. From the third wetland, storm water flows into a ditch along Duvall Avenue and into a fourth small wetland. Water exits this wetland and flows under Duvall via an 18' culvert and into a large, partially disturbed wetland on the east side of the street. From here, the water discharges into a 36' culvert which carries it back under Duvall Avenue. Once across Duvall, the storm water flows onto the adjacent property and eventually into the culvert system for Windsor Place apartments. The two remaining small Isolated wetlands serve primarily as detention ponds; overflow from them also enters the Windsor Place drainage system. The applicant is proposing a storm drainage solution, consistent with the KCSWDM, which entails modifying existing wetlands and adding a series of drainage swales. In the west drainage basin, the applicant proposes to fill the disturbed portion of the existing swale/wetland and replace it functionally with a vegetated swale leading into the unfilled portion of the swale/wetland. The wetland would be expanded and enhanced, and a drainage control structure with a restrictor would be installed to control off-site flows. In the east basin, the storm drainage plan also calls for modifications to existing wetlands and the addition of a series of vegetated swales. The configuration of one wetland would be modified and the wetland enlarged and enhanced to create additional detention capacity. A new vegetated drainage swale would connect this large wetland to the large wetland on the east side of Duvall via the culvert running under Duvall Avenue. The second large wetland would be expanded at the south end to provide additional detention capacity. The intervening marginal wetlands would be filled and the lost area replaced by new, restored or enhanced wetlands on the site. 4. Wetlands: To facilitate an understanding of the mitigation measures, a brief description of each of the eight wetlands is presented, followed by the applicant's proposed actions for that wetland, and then followed by recommended mitigation measures. The goals of the wetland mitigation measures are: -To minimize disturbances to existing wetlands that serve a valuable biological or habitat function; • -To protect wetlands from adjacent uses when such uses could threaten the biological or habitat value of the wetland; 3 -To ensure that there is no net loss of wetland acreage on the site; li -To replace, restore or enhance the disturbed portions of existing wetlands;. -To improve the quality of surface waters entering wetlands; -To improve the quality of surface waters entering the groundwater system; -To ensure the long-term viability of all post-development wetlands; To achieve these mitigation goals, the following measures will apply to all existing wetlands and newly-created wetlands and swales: RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: - A3. The applicant shall,in order to reduce impacts to post-development wetlands and swales, submit a Wetland i Mitigation Plan for all wetlands, wetland buffers, and drainage swales. The Wetland Mitigation Plan shall indicate construction details (including schedule), vegetation plans (except for unchanged wetlands), hydrologic regime, boundary and buffers (as appropriate) for each wetland, wetland buffer, and drainage swale. The Wetland Mitigation Plan shall be approved by the Planning Section of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of any site • preparation/building permit. A4. The applicant shall, in order to limit the potential disruption of the functional value of new biofiltration swales, locate these swales away from roads whenever feasible. A5. The applicant shall, in order to limit the potential disruption of the functional value of wetlands and swales located adjacent to high activity uses, provide fencing around wetlands and swales as required by the Planning Section of the Development Services Division. . Note To Applicant: In general,fencing of wetlands and swales is discouraged and should be implemented only when absolutely necessary to ensure the functional and aesthetic value of the wetland or.swale. The applicant shall include the proposed fencing, including the type and height of fence, in the Wetland Mitigation Plan (see above). A6. The applicant shall, in order to reduce potential adverse impacts to wetlands and swales, provide educational signing concerning the purpose and function of the wetland or swale at appropriate locations. Note to Applicant: Sign locations shall be included on the Wetland Mitigation Plan (see above). A7. The applicant shall, in order to ensure the survival of the wetlands, perform a 5 year monitoring program. The monitoring program shall be designed and conducted by a consuttant approved by the City of Renton. The applicant shall pay the cost of designing and conducting the monitoring program, including the cost of the consultant. The program shall include the following elements: a. An initial report completed by the consultant upon completion of the creation, restoration, or enhancement of the first wetland or wetland • buffer. The initial report will identify problems in obtaining materials, differences in sizes of materials than were originally called for in the approved Wetland Mitigation Plan, differences in spacing of materials 4 than were originally called for in the approved Wetland Mitigation Plan, replacement materials if necessary, and any other conditions that varied from the approved Wetland Mitigation Plan. Major departures from the approved Plan must be approved in advance of planting by the Planning Section of the Development Services Division. b. Twice a year monitoring. Monitoring will be conducted by the consultant in the spring after green-up (approximately May 15th after the vegetation has started to grow but has not reached a height where it would preclude an evaluation of secondary growth at the base of the cattail and larger plant stock material); and in the fall after the growth has ended prior to the dormant season, approximately November 1st to 15th. c. An annual report submitted by the consultant to the Planning Section of the Development Services Division by December 15th of each year. The report will include identification of all plant species, either planted or invading, measurements of relative cover and abundance of each, plant vigor, and plant vitality. Photo documentation will also be provided. d. Performance standards. The consultant shall propose standards for evaluating the success of the Wetland Mitigation Plan prior to the initiation of the initial report (see "a' above). The standards shall be approved by the Planning Section of the Development Services Division and address the following issues at a minimum: 1) Survival rate for nursery stock shrubs and native dug willows; 2) Survival rate for evergreens and non-willow deciduous tree species; 3) Percent of ground cover, planted or invader species, at the end of the first growing season. e. An evaluation. After the receipt of each monitoring report, the Wetland Mitigation Plan will be evaluated by the consultant and the Planning Section of the Development Services Division to determine if the Plan is functioning as designed. If it is not, modifications will be made to the Plan as agreed to by the applicant and the Planning Section of the Development Services Division. In assessing the success of the Plan,the performance standards will be applied. For reference,an exhibit showing the location and size of each wetland is attached. All the wetlands are dry during the summer and fall months. Classification of each was on the basis of the standards and procedures in the 'Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands' (1989): Wetland #1: Approximately 31,800 square feet; Class Ill; palustrine scrub/shrub. This wetland is a long, narrow swale fed by seasonal flows emanating from a manhole drain. Much of the north and center of the wetland is barren and portions contain refuse. Vegetation on the non-barren portions of the wetland consists of willow, alder, vine maple, shrub, and slough sedge. Functionally, the wetland serves as a water retention and detention facility:water in the wet times of year is trapped here. Due to the lack of vegetation, the wetland performs little biofiltration function. Only passerine birds inhabit the area, so it does not serve • any special wildlife function. 5 Proposed Action: Fill the disturbed northern portion, create a new partial drainage swale, expand the southern portion and construct a drainage control structure. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: A8. The applicant shall, in order to limit the potential impacts to water. quality, fill only the disturbed northern portion of the wetland/swale from NE 8th Street southwesterly for approximately 480 feet. A9. The applicant shall, in order to reduce the impacts to water quality, replace the filled wetland/swale with a new swale running from the existing manhole drain tape unfilled south portion of the wetland. .I A10. The applicant shall, in order to reduce the potential impacts to water quality, replace the filled wetland/swale acreage with the same acreage of new wetlands on the site. Alternatively, the applicant can restore or enhance existing wetlands on the site at a ratio of 1.25:1 of restored or enhanced wetland to filled wetland. 1 All. The applicant shall, in order to limit the adverse impacts of the proposed development on the existing water quality and habitat, provide a 25 foot average buffer around the defined edge of the wetland,with a minimum buffer width of 20 feet required. Note 1 to Applicant: The swale shall meet the requirements of the KCSWDM. The swale; area that counts toward fulfilling the replacement area requirement for the filled wetland areas on the site shall be determined during the site plan approval process. Note 2 to Applicant: The applicant shall provide a drainage control structure for this wetland which meets the requirements of the KCSWDM. Note 3 to Applicant: The amount of filled and newly-created, enhanced or restored wetland area shall be determined during the site plan approval process. Wetland #2: 1,307 square feet; Class Ill; palustrine scrub/shrub. This wetland is also a narrow swale. It is mostly barren and vegetation which does exist consists of a small patch of skunk cabbage. A narrow band of Douglas fir borders a portion of the wetland. Functionally, it serves only as a water retention and detention pond. Only passerine birds inhabit the area,so no special habitat value accrues to the wetland. Proposed Action: Fill the entire wetland. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: Al2. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate the water quality impacts associated with filling the wetland,replace the filled wetland area with 1,307 square feet of new wetland or 1,634 square feet of restored or enhanced wetland,all'on the site. Wetland #3: 67,518 square feet; Class II; palustrine forested scrub/shrub. This wetland has two lobes of approximate equal size which are connected by a narrow swale. The northern lobe contains vegetation on the north end and is . barren in the center. The vegetation consists of dense western red cedar and red alder with an understory of hardhack and slough sedge. The southern lobe is a dense hardhack shrub swamp bordered by willow and red alder. Each lobe has 6 narrow swales protruding from the central portion of the wetland. The swales protruding to the east are small and mostly barren. Based on site visits and the mix of vegetation, the northern lobe appears to have greater functional and aesthetic value than does the southern lobe. Functionally,the wetland serves primarily as a water detention and retention pond. Biofiltration value is limited due to the barren portions of the wetland. A small colony of mountain beaver was identified as were passerine birds, indicating that the wetland provides no unique habitat. Proposed Action: Fill a large portion of the northern lobe and much of three protruding swales; reconfigure the remaining wetland and expand using a benched slope to create an open water component and an emergent marsh. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: A13. The applicant shall, in order to limit the potential impacts to water quality, fill only the two eastern and one northern protrusions and a *mall segment along the western edge of the wetland. All fills shall • be limited to an area necessary to accommodate the new streets and to accommodate the minimal required residential lot sizes adjacent to the wetland. A14. The applicant shall, in order to reduce the impacts to water quality, replace on the site the filled wetland area at a ratio of 1.25:1 of new wetland area to filled wetland area or enhance or restore existing wetland areas on the site at the ratio of 1.5:1 of restored or enhanced wetland area to filled wetland area. A15. The applicant shall, in order to limit the adverse impacts of the proposed development and streets on the existing water quality and habitat, provide a 50 foot average buffer around the defined edge of the wetland,with a minimum buffer width of 20 feet desired. Narrower buffers may be approved by the Planning Section of the Development Services Division next to the road alignments for Bremerton/Anacortes Avenue N.E. and a new neighborhood street at the north end of the wetland if necessary to prevent the filling of wetland areas merely to create a buffer between the wetland and the • new road alignments. A16. The applicant shall, in order to limit potential water quality and habitat impacts to the existing wetland, not excavate the existing wetland to create an open water component. Note to Applicant: The amount of filled and newly-created, enhanced or restored wetland area shall be determined during the site plan approval process. Wetland #4: 10,019 square feet; Class III; palustrine scrub/shrub. This wetland contains very little vegetation and for that reason, its main functional value is as a water detention and retention pond. As is the case with the other wetlands in this part of the site, passerine birds dominate, so the wetland also has no unusual habitat value. Proposed Action: Fill the entire wetland and replace it with a biofiltration swale connecting Wetland #3 and Wetland #7. 7 r ' RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: All. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate potential water quality impacts associated with filling the wetland, replace the filled wetland area with 10,019 square feet of new wetland or 12,524 square feet of restored or enhanced wetland,all on the site. • A18. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate potential water quality. impacts associated with the filling of the wetland, provide a biofiltration swale connecting Wetland #3 and Wetland #7. The swale shall meet the requirements of Mitigation Measures A3,A4,and A5 above. Note to Applicant: The new swale shall meet the requirements of the KCSWDM. The swale area that counts toward fulfilling the replacement area requirement for the filled wetland areas on the site shall be determined during the site plan approval process. Wetland #5: 3,485 square feet; Class III; palustrine scrub/shrub. Vegetation consists of creeping buttercup, blackberry and Douglas' spirea. Functionally, this rather small wetland collects and discharges groundwater but does not perform any significant biofiltration purpose. The wetland and small surrounding area provide habitat for passerine birds'and a variety of mammals, including mountain beaver, chipmunks and chickaree during the wet seasons. During this same time period coyote, raccoon, and skunk probably hunt the area for salamanders and Pacific tree frogs. Because of the small size of the wetland and the short duration of the period of standing water,the'wildlife habitat is not outstanding. Additionally, no endangered or threatened species were identified. • Proposed Action: Fill the entire wetland. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: A19. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate the water quality and habitat impacts associated with filling the wetland, replace the filled wetland area with 3,485 square feet of new wetland or 4,356 square feet of restored or enhanced wetland,all on the site. Wetland #6: 6,534 square feet; Class Ill; palustrine scrub/shrub. This wetland is primarily a drainage channel and,vegetation consists of skunk cabbage, slough sedge, and Douglas' spirea. Functionally, it serves the same groundwater collection and discharge purposes as wetland #5. Because of its proximity to wetland#5,the wildlife habitat values are the same as those for wetland #5. Proposed Action: Fill the entire wetland. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: A20. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate the water quality and habitat impacts associated with filling the wetland, replace the filled wetland area with 6,534 square feet of new wetland or 8,168 square feet of restored or enhanced wetland,all on the site. Wetland #7: 106,722 square feet; Class II; palustrine forested and palustrine scrub/shrub. Stormwater enters this wetland from an 18' culvert running under Duvall Avenue N.E.and exits the wetland through a 36'culvert running west under Duvall Avenue N.E. The main function of the wetland is detention during the wet seasons of the year. The northern two-thirds of the wetland is classified palustrine forested because of the dominance of an Oregon ash/alder overstory. Trees in the surrounding vicinity are red alder, western red cedar and Douglas fir. The 8 _ �j r i • southern one-third is categorized as a palustrine scrub/shrub because of the overstory of alder, black cottonwood and big-leaf maple combined with an understory primarily of hardhack. (Overall, the understory varies greatly throughout the wetland.) The southern portion of the wetland has been disturbed through tree removal and filling and is dominated by off-road vehicle tracks and refuse. Functionally,this wetland serves as a large detention pond for surface water runoff in the wet seasons of the year. It also provides habitat for birds and mammals typically found in urban areas. In the higher elevations on the edge and off the site to the north and east of the northern two-thirds of the wetland, evidence indicates the possible intermittent temporary use of the site by pileated woodpecker and large raptors. Animal species on the site include chickaree, chipmunks, and mountain beaver, coyote, raccoon, and skunk probably hunt the amphibian populations in the area during the wet seasons. Proposed Action: Fill a small segment of the north end of the wetland for the construction of N.E. 6th Street as recommended by the Transportation Services Division; nxpand the wetland by excavating to create a deep water component and terracing the side slopes; provide a 25 foot buffer between the wetland and Duvall Avenue N.E. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: A21. The applicant shall, in order to reduce potential adverse impacts on water quality, restore the disturbed southern portion of the wetland by removing the refuse and eliminating the disturbances to the land contours. Similarly, the applicant shall restore the Duvall Avenue edge of the wetland by removing the debris and improving the vegetative environment. A22. The applicant shall, in order to limit impacts on the existing water quality and wildlife habitat, provide a 50 foot average buffer around the defined edge of the wetland, with a minimum buffer width of 20 feet desired. Narrower buffers may be approved by the Planning Section of the Development Services Division next to Duvall Avenue N.E. and the new N.E. 6th Street if necessary to prevent the filling of wetland merely to create a buffer between the wetland and the streets. A23. The applicant shall, in order to limit potential impacts on water quality and wildlife habitat, not excavate the existing wetland to create an open water component. A24. The applicant shall, in order to reduce impacts on existing water quality, replace on the site the filled wetland area at a ratio of 1.25:1 of new wetland area to filled wetland area or restore or enhance existing wetland areas on the site at a ratio of 1.5:1 of restored or enhanced wetland area to filled wetland area. Note to Applicant: The amount of filled and newly-created, enhanced or restored wetland area shall be determined during the site plan approval process. Wetland #8: 4,356 square feet; Class III; palustrine scrub/shrub. This wetland is a low, wet depression which is about 80% barren. The edges are bordered by slough sedge, hardhack,willow, and some alder. Functionally, it appears to serve primarily as a detention and retention area for water flowing into the culvert under Duvall Avenue. Its barren nature provides little biofiltration or wildlife habitat value. 9 • Proposed Action: Fill the entire wetland to accommodate the road alignment of a new N.E.6th Street as recommended by the Transportation Services Division. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: A25. The applicant shall, in order to mitigate the water quality impacts associated with filling the wetland,replace the filled wetland area with 4,356 square feet of new wetland or 5,445 square feet of restored or enhanced wetland,all on the site. Policy Nexus: WAC 197-11-660; Environmental Review Ordinance, 4-6; _ King County Surface Water Design Manual; Comprehensive Plan I.B., I.C., I.D.,I.E., I.F., I.G., I.H., 11I.D., 111.E.,and VIII.C. 5. Wildlife: As is apparent from the above discussion of the wetlands on the site, the wildlife community varies widely but contains species generally found in and adjacent to highly urbanized areas lacking unique habitat features. Besides the seasonal wetlands, the wildlife habitat consists primarily of second growth mixed forest made up of coniferous and deciduous traes,a variety of ground covers,and high and low shrub understories. No wildlife species are found on the site besides those discussed in the wetlands section above. The dominant birds are those found in and near urban areas: no water or wetland- dependent bird species were identified, and no evidence of extended or heavy use of the site by large raptors was indicated. Mountain beaver is the dominant mammal on the site, and during the wet seasons of the year raccoon, skunk, and coyotes may hunt the wetland areas for amphibians. Because of the planned removal of most of the existing vegetation, the size and composition of the wildlife community will be changed. Most existing animal communities will migrate to the remaining limited habitat areas nearby. Urban-tolerant animals will remain on the site in landscaped areas and-where tree cover is maintained or replaced. Conversion of the forested areas into fragmented forests within residential areas will favor edge species of birds. Based on a tree survey of the property and on the proposed site plan, approximately 180 evergreen and deciduous trees of greater;than 8-inch diameter at breast height and 88 other trees could be retained. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: A26. The applicant shall, in order to limit the impacts of the development on the wildlife community, prepare a Landscape Plan which retains significant trees on the site and which provides for a variety of landscaping elements. The Plan shall be accompanied by: 1) A tree survey of the property indicating the evergreen and deciduous trees of greater than 8-inch diameter at breast height and other trees that could be retained;and - 2) Proposed performance and replacement standards for new landscaping elements and retained trees, exclusive of those in wetlands and wetland buffers,which shall include provisions for: a) Replacing all retained trees greater than 12 inches in diameter that are more than 15 feet from any structure with 3 new 2- inch caliper trees; • • 10 b) Replacing all retained trees greater than 8 inches but less than 12 inches in diameter that are more than 15 feet from any structure with 2 new 2-inch caliper trees; and c) Submitting a written guarantee that any new landscaping element that dies during the first three years after installation will be replaced. The Landscape Plan, tree survey, and proposed performance and replacement standards shall be submitted to the Planning Section of the Development Services Division for review and approval as part of the site plan approval process. The Landscape Plan shall contain extensive landscaping around the perimeter of the project area and at other appropriate locations. Specifically, landscape elements around the perimeter of the site shall be planned to establish a consistent overall character for the proposed project or for distinct portions of the project. Landscape elements shall also be of sufficient density, height, and variety to provide year-round screening between commercial and residential uses. Policy Nexus: WAC 197-11-660; Environmental Review Ordinance, 4-6; Comprehensive Plan I.C., I.D., III.C.,and III.D; Landscaping Ordinance 4-31-34. 6. Air: The EIS considered the impacts of and possible mitigation measures for air pollution caused by particulates, carbon monoxide, and construction activities. Particulate levels were monitored at the S.E. District Health Center at 12015 N.E. 4th Street, approximately one mile west of the project site. Samples taken in 1985 indicated that the air quality was well within the national primary standard and the, national secondary standard. Because the project site is in an area of lower traffic congestion than is the monitoring site, it can be anticipated that air quality is even better at the project site than at the monitoring site. On the other hand, particulate emissions from wood stoves and fireplaces in the residential portions of the project would degrade the air quality in the area. Since the site is in the City of Renton's 'no bum'zone, no particulate emissions will be generated by the burning of land clearing debris. No monitoring has been done to confirm actual carbon monoxide levels at the project site. The site is outside a designated carbon monoxide non-attainment area and is within an "unclassifiable area". This means that modeling would likely indicate that occasional violations of the standard would occur. The increased traffic generated by development of the site will increase the ambient carbon monoxide levels in the area. Overall, construction activities could adversely impact air quality through the generation of dust from land clearing and grading operations, as well as from the movement of construction vehicles on the site. These impacts will be only temporary in nature however, and are not expected to have a long-term significant impact on ambient air quality. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: A27. ,The applicant shall, in order to reduce the potential temporary adverse air quality impacts of dust generated by construction activity, prepare a Construction Mitigation Plan. This Plan shall include the following elements: 1) a temporary erosion control plan; 2) a provision for wheel-washing vehicles prior to leaving the site; 3) a provision for. periodic watering of the site to minimize dust generation; 11 4) a written agreement by the applicant of its obligation to pay to the City a total of up to $5,000i within 30 days of receipt of invoices from the City for street-cleaning costs in the event that the applicant does not complete required street-cleaning activities; 5) written acknowledgement by the applicant of its responsibility for repair of damage to the public right-of-way, when such damage is defined by the City as having been caused by construction vehicles serving the project,and with repairs to be provided by the applicant in a manner which is consistent with City standards; 6) an educational program for equipment operators which emphasizes procedures and techniques for limiting the impacts associated with the operation of construction equipment. j The Construction Mitigation Plan is to ble approved by the Development Services Division,in advance of issuance of a permit for any element of the proposed action. All elements of the Construction Mitigation Plan are to remain in force and effect during all site prr:paration and construction activities. The acknowledgement for repair of damage to the public right-of-way is to be approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department and the City Attorney in advance of the issuance of a permit for any element of the proposed action. Policy Nexus: WAC 197-11-660; Environmental Review Ordinance, 4-6; Mining, Excavating, and Grading Ordinance,4-10; Comprehensive Plan I.B. B. BUILT ENVIRONMENT 1. Transportation: The traffic study conducted for the EIS estimates that the project will generate 3,924 daily trips and 412 afternoon peak-hour trips. When these trips are added to the predicted 1993 traffic volumes at the six area intersections analyzed,all intersections would continue to operate at Level of Service (LOS) D or better. In fact,the project would adversely affect the predicted LOS at only one intersection: Duvall Avenue N.E. and Sunset Blvd. N.E.,which would drop from LOS C to LOS D. Based on City standards, LOS D or better is considered acceptable, so the project would not cause traffic operations to fall below City standards at intersections in the area Most of the project-generated traffic is projected to use either Duvall Avenue N.E., Bremerton Avenue N.E.,or N.E.4th Street. This usage pattern is a result of the proposed internal project street system, which consists of a series of dead-end residential streets leading into new neighborhood collector streets(N.E. 8th, N.E. 6th east and west of Duvall Avenue,'and Bremerton/Anacortes Avenue N.E.),which in turn link to Duvall Avenue N.E. and N.E. 4th Street. To comply with City codes, the applicant must construct all new residential streets and neighborhood collector streets to City standards, which will make them of adequate size to handle predicted volumes. Presently, N.E. 4th Street is a fully developed major arterial. The widening of Duvall Avenue N.E. from 4 to 5 lanes is in the City's Six Year Transportation Improvement Program,with preliminary engineering studies scheduled for 1994. With respect to parking impacts, the project is providing a total of 1,327 on-site parking spaces,which exceeds the City's parking requirements. Conequently, the project would not cause any adverse Impacts on the parking supply in the surrounding area. Truck traffic in the area will increase during the periods of construction activity. Because this traffic will operate prior to the installation of any traffic improvements adjacent to the project site, it could increase the risk of accidents on Duvall Avenue N.E. and Union Avenue N.E. Truck traffic after completion of the project will be minimal, as it will consist only of delivery vehicles and occasional moving vans. ti 12 Transit service is provided to the project area by Metro routes 111 and 147 on N.E. 4th Street. These routes provide service to downtown Renton, South Bellevue, and downtown Seattle. According to Metro, a proposed service change for 1992 has been proposed for route 240 to serve Coal Creek Parkway, Duvall Avenue N.E., and N.E. 4th Street. This route would operate seven days a week and provide direct service to downtown Bellevue, and offer connections at the South Renton Park and Ride with Metro service to downtown Seattle and South King County destinations. This route would become the main transit service for the proposed project. To mitigate the increased demand placed on transportation facilities by the uses in the proposed project, a variety of transportation mitigation measures are being recommended. They can be grouped Into the following categories: a) Physical improvements to mitigate the dependence on single occupancy vehicles by encouraging the use of the proposed new transit service on Duvall Avenue N.E.; b) A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) designed to decrease the dependence of residents on single occupancy vehicles; c) Participation on a 'fair share" basis in the NE 3rd/NE 4th Street Traffic Benefit Zone; d) Support of the Duvall Avenue N.E. widening project to mitigate traffic impacts on that street;and e) Facilities to encourage the use of bicycles for commuting thereby mitigating the impacts associated with dependence on automobiles. Additionally, mitigation measures are proposed to lessen the impacts of construction traffic on adjacent streets and residential areas. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES:. B1. The applicant shall, in order to reduce traffic impacts associated with the dependence on single occupancy vehicles, provide direct pedestrian access routes from internal residential streets to Duvall Avenue N.E. to encourage use of the proposed new transit service on Duvall Avenue N.E. Pedestrian routes to Duvall Avenue N.E. must have hard surfaces and adequate pedestrian-level lighting to provide safe use during low light hours. The pedestrian routes and lighting shall be approved by the Planning Section of the Development Services Division as part of the site plan approval process. B2. VThe applicant shall, in order to reduce traffic impacts associated with the ; dependence on single occupancy vehicles, also provide the concrete bases and necessary easements for two transit shelters on Duvall Avenue N.E. to encourage increased use of transit. Location of the transit shelter bases and easements shall be approved by Metro, the Planning Section of the Development Services Division, and the Transportation Services Division as part of the site plan approval process._. B3. The applicant shall, in order to reduce traffic impacts associated with the dependence on single occupancy vehicles, prepare a Transportation Management Plan (TMP)with its first application for a Building Permit for any element of the project. The TMP must contain at least the following provisions: 1) A transportation coordinator to promote and coordinate the use of public transportation and high occupancy vehicles; 13 2) A free one-month bus pass made available to each new tenant at the time of occupancy(peak hour,two zones); 3) A free one-month bus pass made available to purchasers of new homes (peak hour,two zones); 4) The distribution of site-appropriate transit and ride sharing information to new tenants and home purchasers,and annually to all tenants; 5) Secure bicycle parking in, or reasonably close to, each multi-family structure; 6) An annual transportation survey and monitoring report submitted by the transportation coordinator to the Transportation Services Division. B4. The applicant shall, in order to reduce project-generated traffic impacts on N.E.4th Street,voluntariiy contribute a maximum'fair share'traffic mitigation fee for the NE 3rd/NE 4th Transportation Benefit Zone of up to$288.00 per average weekday trip,attributable to N.E. 4th.Street. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is to be established at the time of application for a Building Permit for any element of the proposed project based on the number of average weekday trips attributable to N.E. 4th Street_which are generated by the elements for which a Building Perm is"it beingsought.-The fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of a Building Permit. If the applicant cancels the Building Permit in ' writing, then the unencumbered portion of the fee plus accrued interest will be refunded to the applicant. B5. The applicant shall, In order to reduce project-generated traffic impacts on ' Duvall Avenue N.E., deed additional right of way, if necessary, on Duvall ' Avenue N.E. prior to widening of the street to 5 lanes. _The applicant shall receive a credit toward the Traffic Mitigation Fee for the value of any street 1. right of way which exceeds that required by City ordinance(s). B6. The applicant shall, in order to reduce traffic impacts on internal project area streets, construct N.E. 6th Street and N.E. 8th Street as full width neighborhood collector streets. The applicant shall receive a credit toward the Traffic Mitigation Fee for the value of any street right of way which exceeds.~that required by-City ordinance(s). The applicant shall be reimbursed through a Latecomers Agreement for the value of any street improvement(s)which exceed that required by City ordinance(s). B7. The applicant shall, in order to reduce traffic impacts on Duvall Avenue N.E. caused by construction vehicles, provide temporary traffic control measures on Duvall Avenue N.E. during periods of site preparation and construction. Temporary traffic control measures and any proposed hauling route(s) shall be approved by the Transportation Services Division prior to issuance of any site preparation/building permit. B8. The applicant shall, in order to reduce noise and safety impacts caused by the operation of construction vehicles on nearby residential streets, limit construction vehicle access to the site to Duvall Avenue N.E. except for construction of the residential area directly off Union Avenue. B9. The applicant shall, in order to reduce traffic impacts caused at 1-405 and N.E. 4th Street and at I-405 and Sunset by the operation of construction • vehicles during peak hours, restrict hauling activities to the hours of 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM or submit a hauling route for approval which avoids these interchanges. 14 B10. The applicant shall, in order to reduce the noise impacts on residential areas caused by construction vehicles, restrict construction activity to the hours of 7 AM to 8 PM, Monday through Saturday. No construction activity shall be permitted on New Year's Day, Thanksgiving Day, the day before Christmas and Christmas Day. Policy Nexus: WAC 197-11-660; Environmental Review Ordinance, 4-6; Washington State Second Substitute House Bill 1671 (SSHB 1671); City of Renton Six Year Transportation Improvement Program; City of Renton Resolution 2769; Comprehensive Plan I.A., VII.A., VII.B.,VII.C., and VII.H.; Northeast Quadrant Plan. 2. Public Services: The EiS identified a number of potential impacts and possible mitigating measures for police and fire service,schools, and parks and recreational facilities. a. Police: The project is located in District Nine of the Renton Police Department. This zone is primarily in residential use. The response time for emergency calls averages just under three minutes and for non-emergency calls just under ten minutes. This level of service is provided by a force which averages 1.9 officers per 1,000 population. The residential portions of the project are anticipated to generate 400 annual calls for police service and the commercial portion is anticipated to generate 75 annual calls for service. To maintain the current ratio of officers to population, the increased demand placed by the 898 residents and the commercial tenants on the police force could necessitate the addition of 1.7 officers to the Police Department. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: B11. The applicant shall,-in order to reduce the potential impacts on the existing police force, voluntarily provide a renewable extraordinary police services surety device in an amount up to $18,675 to be valid for a period of three (3) years,-and to be approved by the Police Department and the City Attorney. The surety device is to be provided prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first multi-family building. The surety device will be drawn on in the amount of $75 for each multi-family residential police service call that exceeds twice the annual average number of calls per multi-family residential unit in the City of Renton times the number of units for which a Building Permit is being sought. If the surety device is drawn on in an amount less than $18,675 in the first or second year, the amount of the device for the subsequent year shall be reduced accordingly. Policy Nexus: WAC 197-11-660; Environmental Review Ordinance, 4-6. b. Fire: The project is located on the eastern edge of the Renton Fire Department's first response area. First response fire service would be provided to the project by Fire Station #12 (the Renton Highlands Station), which is located at N.E. 9th Street and Herrington Avenue N.E. Currently, Fire Station #12 is staffed by 5 • personnel and is equipped with one engine company and one aid car. The Fire Department estimates that the proposed project would generate approximately 50 additional calls per year based on the average number of calls for projects similar to the proposed project. Response time to the project from this station would range from 5 1/2 to 6 minutes. According to the 1987 Fire Department Master Plan, an acceptable first response time is defined as having 5 firefighters on the scene in 5 minutes or less. Acceptable emergency aid response time is defined as having an aid car on the scene in 3 minutes or less. 15 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: B12. The applicant shall, in order to reduce the potential adverse impacts on first response time caused by the additional demand placed on the Fire Department by the project, pay the City of Renton Fire Mitigation Fee in effect at the time of application for a Building Permit for each element of the project. If no fee is in effect at that time,the applicant shall either sprinkle eachiesidential unit or pay a Fire Mitigation Fee of $564 for each unsprinkled single-family residential unit and $433 for each unsprinkled multi-family unit. Note to Applicant: If the applicant_cancels the Building Permit in writing, then the unencumbered portion of the fee plus accrued interest will be refunded to the applicant. Policy Nexus: WAC 197-11-660; Environmental Review Ordinance,4-6; Northeast Quadrant Plan. _ c. Schoolst The proposed project is located within Renton School District No. 403. Students in the area attend Maplewood Heights Elementary School, McKnight Middle School, and Hazen High School. Using the Renton School District's student-per-household multipliers, the project would result in 134 elementary school students, 42 junior high school students, and 37 high school students. In September of 1990, Maplewood Elementary School was 3 students below capacity, McKnight Middle School was 285 students below capacity, and Hazen High School was 434 students below capacity. Depending on the timing of occupancy of the various residential portions of the project and depending on future enrollment trends,the project could generate a demand for student spaces which exceeds the capacity of the above schools. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: B13. The applicant shall, in order to reduce the potential impacts of Increased demands placed on the Renton School District by project residents, pay the City of Renton School Mitigation Fee, if any, in effect at the time of issuance of a Building Permit for each residential 'element of the project. If no fee is in effect at the time, the applicant may voluntarily pay an amount determined by applying the King County School Mitigation Fee for the next closest school district to the project. Note to Applicant: If the applicant cancels the Building Permit in writing, then the unencumbered portion of the fee plus accrued Interest will be refunded to the applicant. Policy Nexus: WAC 197-11-660; Environmental Review Ordinance,4-6. d. Parks and Recreation: The project contains active recreational facilities for the residents of the townhouses and apartments. For townhouse residents a • recreation center will be provided which contains an outdoor pool and a 900 square foot cabana/meeting room facility. For apartment residents, two recreation centers will be provided, one at the intersection of the new N.E. 6th Street and Bremerton Avenue N.Ei and one in the apartment complex east of Duvall Avenue N.E. Each center in Ludes an outdoor pool and a 3,500 square foot facility containing a weight room, meeting room, small kitchen and management offices. The townhouse recreation center will serve the 68 townhouse units, and the two apartment recreation centers will serve the 275 apartment units. • 16 Passive recreational open space in the project includes the wetlands and buffers and the landscaped areas surrounding the townhouses and apartment buildings. Additionally, pedestrian pathways are planned through each of the apartment areas containing recreational centers. Recreational facilities within a three mile radius include the playgrounds at Honeydew Elementary School, Kiwanis Park, Windsor Hills Neighborhood Park, Highlands Neighborhood Park and Community Center, Liberty Community Park, Cedar River Community Park, Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park, and the proposed Heather Downs Neighborhood Park. Maplewood Golf course is also near the site. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: B14. The applicant may, in order to reduce the potential impacts on existing park and recreational facilities, incorporate a system of pedestrian and/or bicycle trails in wetland buffers, portions of wetland buffers, or along drainage swales, provided that the trails not infringe on the inner 20 feet of any buffer. Trails should meet the standards of the Parks Department. The location of trails shall be approved by the Planning Section of the Development Services Division and the Parks Department as part of the site plan approval process and as part of the approval for the Wetland Mitigation Plan. The applicant shall receive a credit toward any parks mitigation fees for the value of recreational trails and facilities constructed. The eligible trails and facilities and the amount of the credit, if any, shall • be determined by the Parks Department. B15. The applicant shall, in order to reduce the potential impacts on existing park and recreational facilities, deed an additional right of way, if any, necessary to accommodate a bicycle path on both sides of Duvall Avenue N.E. The applicant shall receive a credit toward any parks mitigation fees for the value of the bike path right(s) of way dedicated. The amount of the credit shall be determined by the Parks Department. B16. The applicant shall, in order to reduce the potential impacts on existing park and recreational facilities, pay a Parks Comprehensive Plan Mitigation Fee in effect at the time of issuance of a Building Permit for each element of the project. If no fee is in effect at that time, the applicant shall pay an off-site Park Mitigation Fee of $180 per multi-family unit and $150 per single-family unit. Note 3 to Applicant: If the applicant cancels the Building Permit in writing, then the unencumbered portion of the fee plus accrued interest will be refunded to the applicant. Policy Nexus: WAC 197-11-660; Environmental Review Ordinance, 4-6; Comprehensive Plan ViI.H. and IX.D.; Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan; Bicycle Trails Master Plan. 3. Utilities: The project site presently is not served by water or sewer service. a. Water: Given the proposed uses, the project would generate a water demand of about 89,800 gallons per day. The existing municipal water system has adequate capacity to supply this projected demand. The applicant is proposing to extend • the existing 12-inch water mains located in Union Avenue N.E. and Anacortes Avenue N.E. to the site. The on-site distribution system consists of 12-inch mains serving 10-inch mains looping through the multi-family developments with 8-inch 17 ti branches where necessary. The single-family, lots would be served by 8-inch mains. Fire flow at.the site is estimated at 3,000 gpm which is considered adequate by the Fire Department RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: None are considered necessary. b. Sewer': The project is estimated to generate an estimated peak waste water flow of 180 gpm. Presently, the sanitary sewers In the East Renton area are operating at or near capacity. Since capacity is not available to serve the project site, the applicant is proposing an interim sollution which entails an interbasin transfer of flows from the Upper Heather Downs basin to the Lower Maplewood basin. To accomplish this transfer, it is necessary to construct a lift station on the parcel to the south of the project site as well as a force main from this lift station to the intersection of N.E. 2nd and Monroe Avenue. When the East Renton interceptor line is installed to serve the Upper Heather Downs basin, this temporary solution would no longer be needed. This proposed solution is in keeping with City of Renton Rn,'solution No.2764. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: None are considered necessary. • 18 li 4 ,• i . , . : ---•-------------.--7----Wi;sr : •••,---I .I.:. . -----... --a -. _ _ ------.N----"•''-9_ 7 / ' : ' )i y•.e.:' \ Wetland 2 r--ip'l ( 'Y' _..----_ ., , . kii• •C... ..11(1, :0. .03 acre ---Nit , 1 ,. ... • ..,*::. ...____ . . .. , : ...:,,,:-......__ mi::::§& , ..., , 6 -..,---) .,..t - 4....o,' •v-q r.,-...,.. : 1-9:.) '.6N.%t§.k.. 1 - \...k---, 1.... • . .. . 4: / ceN;;talacnred: . *:,:::.•,( •11 \ l •• •i A •• ili ..F.,:- 0‘..: \\\. t \d"C' t ' I III': ) ...:::::::.:::........... c...,- 1_2•-. _ ., _ -/-\._!, -------- --/..., 'i:iiMii •,-< • .:.,,....: 1 i N, 1. i• 1 . ;•-., 0 -- , . ..s.?„%v o ----2 -....:-\; , . • . ....). ,. 0 , i. ,.- .-.-.---::::-. d „ , (,--. :::„. Wetland 4? :--• -. , .1 • . , • ci .z....e. .......: \ \I: .- . . 4 , . • • _ • MI A 1.-:•••5"N r--I Q __) .10 acr „gel; 1 • - ••:-:•:-.::• ••::,i,i i..., ..„„.„,„ . . . • ••t •"•.:...-:. ' --rs„"c--,---, ..- r-,:----:-•:•--- — . ..,-,, ,,, w,. .... ., •- - - E . lAilrfw .! - . ,_ ,-..7 I-- ' . .::•:::::',..,...,:,„:::::.:,. I : ., 7/r\____1_,..c .:::: .t '41 I') .s.' • *--\ / .1 k 'New \_..? Q \..1 ist...--1.4. 6 Mi:i. i.::, - i N /.1 -ii•-•-• u: . cz) \i\\:\:\..\\ ,i:— '13 kc•s. 1 ::.010:' Wetland 7 N... Wetland 6 :•,;•g;:::.. .,.. i ,ii.i: : • 2.45.acres. ! , ,, •:•ii::•:•••:* I ,*,:.::•/::.:•:.:.. ! r ..-... ..,../ . i I : .15 acre Lj-- • :,:•:•:•:•::......--. , ..i.-:.:. ‘ )10 ••-• -:--'..li• i_i lin:;:ligiiitiN:lii. '', I,9 LI_ . z N , • 1 . ' .sii:: ;I•iiiiii,,i,i.i...:•.••....- • 1 •li mil=Nuo•S=s1oEEE;- • I ;77. *•:::..• •::,,:-: - .r / • \.. • , 1 . s 1 I I 0 d*" . .•• . • II. The Orchards Supplemental Draft EIS . A s _ _ — . 1\ „` ' `" CITY ERENTON LLB .. Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator _.- July 03, 1996 Mr. Craig Krueger Dodds Engineers, Inc. . 4205- 148th Avenue NE, Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98007 SUBJECT: The Orchards,Sectors E, F &G Project No. LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF Dear Mr. Krueger. This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee and is to inform you that they have completed their review of the environmental impacts.of the above-referenced project. The Committee, on July 02, 1996, decided. . that your project may be issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with the following conditions: See,enclosed Mitigation Measures document. Because the Environmental Review Committee imposed specific mitigation measures rather than issue a Determination of Significance, there is a required 15 day comment period during which comments are solicited from various agencies, jurisdictions or individuals (including the applicant) who may have an interest in the Committee's decision. The required 14 day appeal period will run concurrently with the comment period. The comment/appeal period will end at 5:00 PM on July 22, 1996. Following the"end of the comment/appeal 'period, the City will finalize its Determination, unless comments received require a reevaluation. WAC 197-11-660 states that the responsibility for implementation measures may be imposed upon an applicant only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse impacts of the imposed action. Since an environmental impact statement has not been prepared for this project, any mitigation measure established by the ERC not directly attributable to an identified adverse impact is deemed to be voluntarily accepted by the applicant. Staff urges you to contact the various City representatives, as appropriate, (e.g., the Public Works Division) as soon as possible, to obtain more information concerning specific mitigation elements recommended for this project, if you have specific questions. This information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and will enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. Appeal procedures and mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. 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 July 23, 1996 at 9:00 AM to consider the Site Approval and Preliminary Plat. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (206) 277-6186. For the Environmental Review Committee, •Cfl'‘i i,./ ts\*-- VJen ifer Toth Henning Project Manager cc: Northward Properties; Mr. Gary Merlino; Ms. Ann Tibbott; Ms. Annette Hicks; John L. Scott Land Development; Mr. Ronald Knight/Washington State Properties DNSMLTR.DOC 200 Miiii Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 [mil h; n�nn., ,.&,, �.r1%rnr..rinrl mnlnri nl ',(./nncl nnnwmnr ..A.,--.,.: CITY .JF RENTON, IA z Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator July 02, 1996 Washington State , Department of Ecology • Environmental Review Section - PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 SUBJECT: Environmental Determinations Due to additional information being provided by the applicant, this project was remanded back to ERC by the Hearing Examiner. The ERC issued revised Mitigation Measures which are enclosed. • Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee on July 02, 1996. The Environmental Checklist was previously forwarded to you. - DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED - - - THE ORCHARDS, SECTORS E,F 8, G . LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF - • - Applicant proposes a new site,plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the - - west side of Duvall Avenue NE•and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel :that .was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. • Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be , subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public. - streets and,: alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The - approximate 9-acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved. - for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 57 attached townhomes, each on its own lot.. Private - road tracts would serve the development.. A wetland within the site would be enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of an approved wetland mitigation plan Location: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th St. • The 15 day comment period and the 14 day appeal period for this project will run concurrently. The comment/appeal period will end at 5:00 PM on July 22, 1996. Following the end of the comment and appeal period, the City will finalize its Determination unless comments received require a reevaluation. Appeal procedures and the mitigation'measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. 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 July 23, 1996 at 9:00 AM to consider the Site Approval and Preliminary Plat. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing.- If you have questions, please call me at (206) 277-6186. - F the Environmental Review Committee, Clue Jennifer Toth Hennin Proje t Manager cc: King County Water Pollution Control Division, Metro Department of Wildlife Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources Don Hurter, Department of Transportation Sue Rumery, City of Seattle Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Rita Perstac, Puget Power AGNCVLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 I s 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 ORCHARDS,SECTORS E,F&G LUA-96-010,SA,PP,ECF Applicant proposes a new site plan for portions of The Orchards. Sectors E and F are located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and consist of an approximate 9-acre parcel that was previously approved for apartments and commercial use. Under the current proposal, Sector's E/F would be subdivided into 63 traditional and cottage homes, which would orient toward a small private park. Public streets and alleys would serve the homes, with sidewalks provided on one side of the street. The approximate 9- acre Sector G parcel is located on the east side of Duvall and was previously approved for apartments. The applicant proposes to develop 57 attached townhomes, each on its own lot. Private road tracts would serve the development. A wetland within the site would be enhanced, enlarged and restored as part of an approved wetland mitigation plan. Location: Duvall Avenue NE and NE 6th St. The 15 day comment/14 day appeal periods for this project will run concurrently and end at 5:00 p.m. on July 22, 1996. Appeal procedures and the mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. 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 July 23, 1996 at 9:00 AM to consider the Site Approval and Preliminary Plat. If the Environmental Determination is appealed,the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Publication Date: July 05, 1996 Account No. 51067 dnsmpub.dot • SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E., W.M. - y..d -- 4. - - \ --� -'- --- - . N.a3t., — •• uI T' FgOC ON E K•THD116ET N A; _."aE_ � m ° . � n� _ 3 601••f-" / I' E - • ----__1) � , a �11 - _-_ T�uvc ablr � ' -�l D} ] }4 , 73"•iI3} �t }I , 14] , lm • T a r-I In 1 f I II•!®I 19 I T�vTI �_ r41„ illi ���� �--- j/� �i J i aw.o_ L-- JCEH± 1i • — T '� J( ) i� W -__ p m o L ! ,, \ �■. 1. J �1 / // rR! for Z_.__-_HE 'Flit 63 I II I .^Il 7 S I t.[ 1 ///' 4KI, ��.4 Cesare a11 I . 1 sw,abi,,.. r_ l Z .J 1 L J r— __ _ _—__ — lc —'__ i L____J ?j �A II• 1 �— fitt vat WW N r. ] 1L1 NOTE.Emr.half Brmmtbn' iil Aa 1 __ I / 4441 IJ V Twah the baaeao'n or � �.'� ' Fil I I ill i. 0 Iw��{ T COI ` 1 � db to e� �� '�! 3B 40' 1 41743CC : iIi i /7.1.1Q cn W ,,,, - _ 1- -_ I] TRACT F l „; vi I� • W U r•i 1 i 7/!://-_,: 1 } 3 4 5 6 l 1 8 9 l 10 , II 1 N" ltl l l i!I i it / �i LI J ¢ T W a2 of -- "- , t _ , __ , t _ -- "- -I 1-- I It , Y I —--- ` -, ) }} 23 Z4 3rawl 28 Q • • .. SECTORS E 8 F ! • -ter NBB•a ew 6 m; N 0 a a I SECTOR G _ _ I_ - 5 • a U I 3 2•W Zo 1 • e O LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTORS E 4 F W The sa w s 0 t half of ths Nweet quart of tee sousast quasar - V of Ps Southwest quango'of&action 10.To alp 23 Nor,Forge 6. EXCEPT d"Est 42 feet,,seer rs 13S,Astrwer BE es Owner/Developer Engineer/Planner/Surveyor y y I r `e =owey'end'by close recoreee veer Recording No.6n„55 Noruwere Pr Engineers,is. opst;m Dodds Nodes,The North SP of the quarts or ale Sou.sst quasar 560-SO.Ave.NE.Butte 100 4205-I69t Ave se NE. • 1 .sr or Ve Southwest quasar of 6eNrn 10.Township 23 Nor.Ringo 5 Bellevue,.995005 &Se 200 IWWY' a t W11 EXCEPT W East 41 fees these/Sr 130tN avenue BE es rd GIY Iewe,WA WO. _`7' 0..... ee Y s err e Y E�aw d&Oveyed to I,E �ythby clew recordedDu,om-�Rocs.,No TeL r]cc}i.i-me-oa�a Crag Glaser,.PLe w.eye. � Y Q',-', IN eI 16.Orchards, F1 of platted in q j rn I.ee.esdee to Voles n3 or Pute,et pegs Tel r]Db]ears-Tan .. t. u 6.Rs evg w Yaob]3o961 m 31 j: i v Y re an TOT ' m V�3 k • a- SIT* LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTORSG V U r'� ,T 3 al the t al...to te,,,eeet quarter Tour a&e23 Nor.Range s STATISTICAL SUMMARY �� bouth,.st quasar or aeration b.TowwMwp}3 sort Forge 5 3 n C r U �/"J of W _EXCEPT W West 42 feet thereof tor IN.Avenue BE as SECTORS E e F 6ECTOF G V SCALE: 1" = 50' / K 414 °' J L ;9i e°�6 3 e"°ea'°° F'�'g"°. Total Arse /BE3 ae.m 994] /9n acres FD ac1e• 30eb08 eq-h esq R Ts,Awlsq h The North f or the et quarts of Ps SouYmet quarts Proposed Swear or Lou ',',O i?i of uer Southwest quasar or Beaten 10.Taron;p 23 Nor.Forge 5 Z ugwFEsleuo/WPrepesed R31, F-}, I u t 10 a' .,EXCEPT W West 42 feat User ra Bet Ave,.BE.as gut- ay Dad. WOO•I.r042 fn.J come,.to Kug Canny 5y deed recorded war 12ecs0vg No. BIu Coverage 641-1 West Arm, 109}00✓.1301s of EF, 69600 el.flea or Gr 16569 el.IMO.el tote)saes 1 VICINITY MAP No WALE 95054 . . • ' • • . . . • • ... -.4? • •': '1.4t,., ....=Z-.-- ... _44 ,, , • • _..,- - - .. '-------...":=•--------..- 'et!... •••*. •- ,•• • -. -----:--- •-,.•-•,,-`• - V. , . d'7..31.71V 41:oilimm-''ilillPIL--':alma_ --=---.'-------- fr ••.,. ••r#•" •- - ,. dØL --, •,.::./ -- '''''="-----.........::, --- .tr• '. ' ...776F-.--- — -----4111--Ummil .- _.- ..---- ..4.• .:' -45 L i•• -.. %. 4t, : .. .,1„.:____ _ _. 77t.: ___:_ ......c. ..._.....146...:: . _ ..,1,.. .i:4. , ____ _. ---. ,,,,..- „, ---- -=-,, • ...,,,_-g 4 ....., .4 ---ti • .„Fftt,..-_.---. -...... . .-- J.,,.... .7.- -:-_., . ..,.---wmil:•... --...,..,e,' • :::•-..,4___-=immilmimon4.4;;;„mai... "ra;.;;„_-.." „,....„. • .1., .4 : ,1._ ,..- -. .,.....--. --spit ii - •. -..,.•.--.•...,:i---_,,••:..... --,....---,..:- •%:•:::=-75i= g .El . -,;•"' ''' Ell= Epp. ii,E,.1,1i.0._... •4,.z.•.••••:. 34. •_. ..I... . - •2:-14:4!..MI'.!' NMM it •':"---- ir 4:41, - • •••0• •: ._. .._ . t;e•V• . ..:-IF.:,.....dem. ".....11..•11e, um ....1 .....: ‘_..,! -* 11.,__-_ -r.',...,..= um 2 .iivS14.. __ i *V,/A.....I z• -.0, Intl.4 ..7-- 11111.M11.1. .t' . 1-.,--',..licie li. — - ITIL-F-7-. -7"7';,=.- '' ' '-i:=;:•:.-- - - -- :111111.111.11.1-- —.1,34-.... . P•'-'41 P•1;..V".- -.7._. -- - -''M:- .1111 III III . .-.--- Nr • • . =1111.. .....17 • 4{ 1-' .*:: ". ...4111 IN 741.-.47-,r-. ..ii - . _.--. ,,,,.,,,..1 . .,.... Nie• • -, ,..-- s- •,"fe, ,,...••••_ -- „.,...„ ,.,,. _____.„_., ,.._ -1,,.4 _ .. or ......1 . ,AnIt ,, _ „ --7 . . .„. . i. •t./.., '. .. "-. ill' '.. i Afl L• . .-.lg.,-. • - -- - ,,_A;,,, 4,,, ,I:.• in; pi r..•-•-••_.•;••••:•..• .=-.. ••••, . ' .. , -...,, •_,.. .. -•??,:. .._,,g .,.;, no -,,:. .11„_„4,0,0"0.1„:„.!! .., ,„._•47,:-,_..• .,c,,,w -.;:.,2-:!).,.1911._'',';'- -!'•111ig II iu,IN'. ' 1.. •LI,Pnci.,-.4i44,.-15-: ..,I.ra----! ?-:-, .-:t-!: . .__ ---------•1- --Ji7:!:7--..?-:bow-.'46,, ..-111!14 i; ! ',.Y . ,.;="".1.,„...,„igiks.....:%-.. ... „.=,.,..:, __.=.,, ase._1111.?. 6.4:_-1,..ou;;;frow.„zp,:-...7f--,,, I .-- 111 . 'itz--! • i. ,i-v. . .k..--umint"-- --, - --...,•.••a.,_. , ,...r.... ai In= .--------"--T-'=;,..14;11 =-...-.-c-,:•.=• . ... 1 ii-r--i ' 'I 1;.17--= z_—..,q,..,. ...,,_,..,..,.............,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..„: ,i „...„..:,.. .......,„,, ..„...„..:, ,,,...„,„,,.. _ __ ,,,,..„ ., ,,. ..,„:•,1 0 mil 9-,._,.._,- ,,,.• a.... .,::,:,;;:.. ,t. ei ...,-•_ iiiiii.,M1-.....i 1 , -V Ir.1,•. x.F.(701- • ' illra- 2:ar.-...ff -ilinWN,1t.g,%• ...:::::•,-:&-F-: - ,•vm.•.:. ,v- -Im;.v. ,r,--!gfq: -Kr< ••:::y•- •••,:•;-7.-- -14--1--2-•-•.- -wilila'-_-,,,-Aii,; !.;V:;.•- •-••• Whato4411"."..-. .. ------' Ili .-iiM.,1)..mtirt' • - ekisthao4iiitill. -.-.:_====....-.1.4 '. til1 • :,,,t..,..: ,-.1.,.--,.•:,•-,...-_-,::._-.1f-...--,....-......-..,...,•-j..,-:: -..,':.-.._••::,,..:••,-.•;, ,:-.-'•.-......': ::,:_;,,'..-,-;,;;:..,3:••:..."-,....'r'7.-.:sr7,.;.:.;;..i:-.:-.?..,..-....';'7-,-:: "..:•.;"--'-':::::.:-.f:•'."7.::-.":-:;•-•-;.------.7-:?;::--:,;...".!A!'..:2":'--:_;:-::: i;:-..-..s".'.,:":.?..f.'"-:: ::-...--.,‘..--.,----:"%-:---;:v:"2;- 7'..::-. • .%-:i-, •6. T 181 E OR C.111 A RDS • NORTHWARD HOMES FRONT LOADED PRODUCT TYPE • IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING • .,. .. ,I. ...••-- .li. • ' ' • •• ...÷.:. ' - triP ± • .. ...-7..:.- --'••-•- . --......-. ...-- .--- •,i -4*-, •2 t. - -Vs•••••4. •k ' .. ,r_" . --- ---------=_.,..1..i.)••'. .4 - .. • dier'- 1 ti,k,'a.- 1.) ... ,''''',...‹......-•-•-------;?-5:..... 4.' ...... , , . ••-.•• - —. • _ .....• • .. - ., , ,. . ..,. ,,-.4 , ,4-.6 ...ii fi.al- 11••• . --. ER.•aiwf-, j:,,,T*-• •: .2,•:,','I. 112.142.1:1121MI min rr,-,• ;,./4".1.4iil"I I I '-1 I=•••• Ill III!=1*.-;;; PI:r. - 0 VIM 0.1"W' filli iSPSN„ ::•,sAit,, •..,.:.s:4-.1.1iiiiift!-..2"-___.k...;.!wil,_,„•••, , -I... : . •., ) ,....,,.... II• .... .,.- ; •."-;II•II Fr 114?....171,T.,..!..,-.afit,... ,64-M• al. - • •• Ire ••• 3 .•..:• -"-... •mov=------=--.== • i....1._-•-wa.—.1 1 , ,,,,t .•••-:','.i f.,ii,,•.10i ri.r , ...--7,..............,:.reitivw,t.'.1'"',,,,;,5-!:', ..--_---____- -_--___ __=-- 7 ....„,__''' '.. ... ....,..' ''''kr,'''',.?:'..,,•.; --:*" ..11.f. ' -."11.2.7.61111111111EN.....--%:'4?`"."...;".;,/'......°_,,.qi••• '''''''''"m.' rill••!,. I I.1 I 111411.13 . ."--7zira,•-.77-7 Ps. •st:...,* Ili — -- ---- ..;,:, ".tt: '. . ;,:•.%,-.. .............-.....-...?„,... . .., , „., III! In "r+A'••'',- 7."Mti .' .0 .' • ;:t"?,•.,.4. ' '''' .7' • ''.-'''./7.7. V'''''''...'-'4::1•.; l'i-1-45 , ' '''.r";.:1.jr.', - ....."7.7%WT-..V". q-----""4.74 .k: 4 el-"'"---.- in ...;.•• •*. ir=").,..-4,„.a... .4 1 ••. • ,,, •...., _ , I . 1 •••••• - - ,.' ilt-- .z4•-••••-•-•:' -.. "• 17.-:.. -- - ' •v.-, • ' •••• ' •1 - •---1-- ••'••• -•• 1 •,•••-;a in a , ,--. ---'.— — `v• II NM r ' , ..1e;.•i!,;,'....;-4:'r--:;-:'; . 4,-.°--,1... . :- .1. .pf-:',,, '..,..:-,z__•'_!::::,!. ,,f5, FE.r.;I:.:! I lEttAi.- i.A':v..,_ 1 IV?:;0,-:1 :::".-//: - :rh:?•24.i.!,A-rail':ri...L., • .-% 1 •......-0,,i .;;f4-,• -_-lima-.4-. • __7.:(•!•,. . -,-.• 7,..,..i.c...,,m--.m.: . • --••••=e I 2..();!'r..,":..1.....1•E';i E 14:-77::..,i, ,:.;.---)Fciz 3 ' ":10.: I.•".'e'-' •-•--..--- :..?"'7).91 11111:11.-2-.• .'-';';AI' ..1 "'- t5-1:r----:411#14:-..,-- ....• • '7'17-A'47.''kg.:1i-4. 2.2:r"." i 1.....,,.., ._;::.-mr.. ',,-,4 774.4 L,_-,.......,,,,.1„,„111..._ ;,: ,.,I-.•..7T —6„ III 11. I ::--ig:/#1:: .-1.A.-•,...5:-,-..-.-..//-;---?r.11.:..4......&-----m... ...-,,I.1.11.Pm..,, ,'"-[-•-''' 1,..,,eir-,,-,mvzi;A*1 g e_.-- ,,,,... ....=rg vfl ,i0.311:0 milli mils!,feriptr=„1:;.m...,fot$FIL !or.7soorm ".-V.Z..oi,-;',. „0 ==.:4;-9.4^4d.... -=--___-_, — ''.‘ ".1.,•.=at'Ci.l'4 er,,,le:-. *0; ilK„,./. .—_..,....A.....,. .11 — .-.-..:. a 0,,, ;,-4:„A w,,,i,.0„,-;. ..,. - ..im-,: ,,-.7, ..,livill ___,,..,„ ,,__, _ r..4....... .....„ri., ... ..,.... .% , , li9b=.dakd=;;•Lr,:t...=T_.-==:.:7va-x-.4r.•.z.:;'_'A-p -_iklio.-*ipk,•Ak-.i••===- --==u;_INNP - -- -.....,if-:,_?:-;::-•'",-_--!--;-:..Y•r_5,:1-...-:?'.,:...7-1:::-.4.--..:_r•=1::.1%,..5.,-.5:77.'.; ;CF.74;:;e4:%''':114''..:,.'f..13:f. ,.1'..;t-::::::!::::-2.:%.r.X1:#-.;:4',-7,:-,; -= '..?;.;;X.--: :::::-;:::.:;.?;.;.-11...".:r.-..:,:::':::::.75-..j::4V_Pi. :::la:i :--,:_i-..:ir.1",'E:::.:-":*":"; .. ..•",.:::::..:;:::::;-:-.‘--.;:::.7"5"::::,:':*--..;:::',..,;Y.:'!. 1 -'-':....,:7;;.i'l'T.': + THE ORCHARDS + . . NORTHWARD HOMES - REAR LOADED PRODUCT TYPE IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING • • ---sue sx� - ='•'r , �•; — Y •• y C 2 �'.{J1�v'{pJt �{Md+ J/r. .��- 1. stir I,�71 "fillingebr,f•- ---...som.:---. - • • A . 1- '. -•,Yte,) '' .- -Z.". ". P•iff% '4'' %.,t -•• ..... --.0."°'''°,•••.-......- vaii..._, 4.. . !Is- • ..e.151eik-4. . ili MCr -t401.1 11.1 ' '."� .f' ,�I•'f,• --i:!i*r . ,r-f:, ,,q•� r: { �• ''6" a Y I I:. s+� ei '.1 : '41 �15ii it '4i r 'FIT:rim/ �; !'�'r �r r• l. • l':: • y 1._... �X,' .r r !' , ir &Y. '....�I��1p ,' Iti T��.ip!i a•'� r-^Y•• ;r:..• tC�r.,'"I'-"I'nRC 3 :l .p ry f 1 IA�RI �.'e'(t.,, 1 w r k .A3,. rU i, Y, I.t • ': •.em t,:�l••.:I'•, ' � �i� �r 7•'Y' '�a'u�'... ..mir C',:1�A!r. r 1. t) i. r � .1 att,�� 'ems. -'f.i.i;7 i� u::- v �:,::�` � r..,�� ._ ...• . .. _ , e h I d TRADITIONAL HOMES I5•olmiN• 41-oI t ao 0 8•0 . !i 4-ei ID-o MIN, COTTAGE HOMES ?V FI2RG4+ r DRIVING L. b ff.ANSRI5W1.1D t3V ir?Mal FRONT LOADED GARAGES 13I-0 MIN, 2. 1-oc Gue411-0gI.1c REAR WADED GARAGES daryr fARKINGi A r.GN I 1 et."'l+�YcND I ti L, IoiQk 3•o Raw lo•o 1 town-F.ohEMENT uT:i,:•rr •. STREET SECTION .... THE OR CHA R D S •�• NORTHWARD HOMES ' I VER SON ASSOCIATES, INC ARCHITECTURE AI N D PLANNING • SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E, W.M. \ r l i 1 / ..L 11 1 III Setbacks Sector G-r I r \ _ _1, , i e,.,.m„ - __ -_---'` - __ _ - - - L \ - .._.-. .. .. Guilds,Separation:lo• r.=;:._:..>.>. <I e \ q• - - -- - NE aTe - - - __ - - - _ _ •` NBa•:] Y r . C p� ff�.a, BTll�r ;. .. = iT�.l :Dj;n_'---,I ; -mom._.._ °�G- "-r 1.rrr�- -0�1\ TRACT c �IW* o,b:f - = \ o e • r II y r �,_ ,o 1 2, y�._.. •I i•.e_ ..f.02 na II s '`f'r"� i� ', °/ee'e�;Y` {G' • r--"-� m? se I n �,'1 err, —: 1r1r�� ra---i r--I-1 • r.L'e /,'�I�' '-L - °,_ '� - I' ° l\ .`.. . or I.Lab .r ,9 >x r' ai c 33"tsiZ)»Zi� It of I\ n ai a7 \ -\-, `1 0B»cea 46a 4p` ! • \+' c n.3m /� I,i?., 1 I .� t 'I _\\ /(f. i, e>° '44 ` + I' _\ , ss \L J L L \ J I'�' . 'I I ,,, f _ T'I I r---�- _ a �" L °� \'e °`°`-.A,` A' \, I I ' '.`L, �_h:/''-._ }- -_-_; •� -,2•,) ;/ // ::T�..... • e CA rl. u.-u I 1--- ' \ n>............/ A.� A.A. • _ '�i I ' , _ , ' 3, _ mr �_i_..y • 3�sa.N III •? a ^ _ ,_\ ° -r,-ram -\ 1a - - \ae!I > '.;'t I/ I1 rl �\\ a \ .� 1 _ jL, \ i '6° I 1, ' TRAt�rA �- $',•1 h ' ' r. I. / 1 1^ I 37 'I L _,, C�-__01--J$ 1:•�I 1�9 I Q� I I \�v/ ul °io:» W o° �' ° \ r •\ ----• 1 IL > j d vs,eo � " 5]e mi'o '•49 V2 ry • 52, e 33 ' 2 I �EN.BP •I �Y-- fl• I� • br ` 11 ''h > -_ ---- T R r /2 E� �� IfiM L l r-r -7 = of J,39 -d Oil, W o A »o 4 \ \ '\ s :r y. \`t-_st.� JI 111 GI ,1/ l / >]e I e 16l 1 �� Q,Z .I \ - \ _ ~-_eiJP ^ T�� a'4 jI . I b (:\ 11111116 611�g ri 999mIL \ \ r ,a-'-"'; ' ' 'J •ls 'I / L11i.• - - °'`Ter J / g5r sl I,' N - • Ali I � \m9 _I II AI-Y \ , 2p m �b ffi I. .,. 1 r ( r r r .. I . .. �tK 6 in ' Jan �/ i" /1 Im^ W '..ry=" ° 36 55� 54 I,_ L ` �� r, i' J :,3.e O/- Ili _Ea.MI e. adl°ie I,� �i' n .r n - 3�i°.. p�.... pti3..IF >2.r8 t�sl $I5m •-- � - l " .Im.r 11`R I'i I'•y A 6. _ I n % �, it E � 'I Avast.NE.to be dmimtm� ! II _,y_ -� 1 ` I, I>us erl V„a..f 4 I� L 1I ,dcs.r I 34 W ,N.ae,.,d.o"�' 1]' 9„ - mcJ J L G L L_'t I,- ,• -__°�__�. r--'�_� 1 �-F. �`r nNir r ,,, 712,1 • ���.1 II •In,`aa sr\I $ ` < "5YC At�'T,• J /'4 _s. , ,.. I' \ R I a14> I'$ I '\ d ¢� 135 °• �'f, u, rll, u, r'ss _l� \2 __ J^ '• `- 1i '" ' ram l_ I -'.... - I .,II yie - 1 1 i,`_.i J�1 46 ; "!, ( /�>o rJ. ?] ,22 14•h• > #.r i� 39$r4m$ '4I $r41-$1.43 r44 to L'.J_ _�.J� 2 I I`R c 1I _ �. - :m - Q _ __ - >u it-I r• >in err lr r _ r 1 1\, sll I•- CC , Jobs - Setbacks Sectors E/F I 1 1 •,..-.._ _,NlL��,l\ I _'I L , , •I i I a .A51 I' `-- -J '•, 1 / 1 ` ,\ . 2.Aodr - Q y TRADITIONAL ACMES-<Lou 1-3B) "�"_1- \a J ae J L4 J,LB J _J _.'L__f.r s r---- I I Y;IlTie.,,,..,,,,,,,,...,,... a\�'.`. - IA -- i E V Bide w"� "�> \\h,\_ - p- ea 'i n; 1 1TucrF ti I' `-" 2 Rm. Illy'' " $ " 1 / p� �y�w� e ,—� of n z9 W Qo COTE 1, 5`<L 3 I •'f��39 r --� r--� ---i r-- -�-1 _'° ° " n Y. �.J. k '� •l �, _--s, �� ,ter B-b3T I - 'o ,IiI --1 r---A r---1 r, r - 41 Z Bide comas.) I I I 1 1 I __r -d - I ,•G y eurERt��� / / _—-I.r-, ^N. tp I.' O t,•I Rea, 5'<at ally) 2!i r-j I a> j I>^3 . L>4. I. I 5 13 6 I a T e l 6 1 9 $I 10 4` Im I ��/t'; b:�f,us I I `.:o $ Jr ¢ U. F`�`W� ___ I L> 3.2 .La r 1 I>e° r ° rL r I f. _ _ J ` Q `<200 ' I L s, L o 1 ___' L___A L___ �__�J ___J L_�_J L___ p / 6.---'-J s2.r,2 ..A 2.m" 25;•26,_ 21R ° SO bl �T•+s )1' 1,v°f - I>. .r 1 ix'.'''23,o.r,an.• s.B.. Z Q¢a I.i - NEBm•ms,I "' - sm so 5° bmbml r, ro e, l�l.; l - i . ` [un re.i>e.K{ess r „ .>J t__ __.__----J. Q CC Q' 1,I I I _ 'SECTORS Egg F 3r ill :' 2 '/ NBBmTSw btlbml N .J O Qo3 a ,W SECTOR G \ �S K� E RLB,t 3 U � I� x;,,: a u 111I , I I �•,n 04,7 �N Q W LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTORS E a F Thof e South MIf or the Northwest garter of than Southeast garter •. 1,V' j II of BouYwest ganm or 0ecdrn b.To,Mup]3 No.tht Range 5 000� Its IW W W t. r East.WfL EXCEPT,,East 4]fent thereof for 13Bth Avenue BE.as Owner/Developer Engineer/Planner/Surveyor y 2 cavgm aJ tlem recorded t"da Recwdirg No.b4n4BB. Northward Proper C,eee E:glwers.Inc. The 4 North half of C Northwest garter of tsar est ranter Ow-Ibdh Ave. Eu En-ine Avarua NE. tM 8,uts..e.t Saner or Section b,TowWxP Z3 North Rerge 5• ',�._ 6ellevw,ulA tar]00 W .' Eest,WH.EXCEPT tb Eeet 4Z last tsmmf for 13BY,evmwe SE.es Co"ect•Richard Glbay Bellevue.ulA'�T con mo,AL King Corny at pees vesper urger Recordingplatted No. em-AlA C,mact Edge w"s„.17-Engine j T ALSO EXCEPr'that portionor NE.SN Street as plettm In TeL<tC6)lbl-n}6 T Ueig Krueg -Planter e II n"b•Rersrtivg N,1eYaCb'eM3o96L °d in velure n3 of Pbts,et pegs el.[}Cf.l BB5"lBll�'Plb.-6wayw q y Q I I. _ ra attt cR .: .-. iiillir III---iia a SITS LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTORS6 �x , k aT a eb Bo h helr u N,r ea.t ga er or a ew thm.t„e s • STATISTICAL SUMMARY GTA p ` / tsar eouutueet gaper or Bectlon lo,=p]3 Ncnh Rerge 5 i z East.WH.EXCEPT than uYat 4]lost tlmeof for 1381h Avow BE,es SECTORS E.F BECTg2 G t> 1 p SCALE: 1" = 50' / ° t` ^" °T B, >etl uq y ay deed re,wdm t"de Reewdeg N,. Te L,t n,ft f BEG awes s .q.rt.f 9n awes ao q.ft., o r�ni91 era Bbll39]t otel Arm 3B4boB a 99,bte l&IP%a MOO ewes The N MIf of the Northam quarter of ten Southeast quota orwsm sasrber el % Pwthwmt rarer or Section IO,Township 23 North.RangeZwing Ea»tog<Rep,em R9Za R-]a 5.-lE E i ban WH.EXCEPT tsar West 42 feet Warner for I3Bth Avarua BE.es or m co under — conveyed to King Cny lay da recorded Recording No. VICINITY MAP CT NurnIrr No SCALE ° pO950545 THE ORLHARD9 I I I Pi CI p —- SEOTORC' ee !e9 — I SECTOR �, 1 �4Ia" �" ...R. 6T „ _ . �Me� ts23i C -.4,.....1146X..0 J. _--=.�•��ia a- a. //-�- ,mbr+mcwrr.5 vJ C ° • r'1 - °O N i✓�4�1vII0. ga`^ �70.�qirpri,W "' ^I f•2 ? �"' °C. p0 a to,0001;5 ••p oli .416 •• : ,0 U IIII 0-, ••litor-e,--2.:.-,-,4-. `6 V-',1 • --CI,* '5:4 • . 1 ‘n 4-1 11 * rim : '*X0.0 .,#. . .RmENis L talc I JP ) G.tTEo e�_, �" ai'v.RYJ,ZNL FENCE Po... �•��� eFp Ij' THE CRCNG�S yy;. r gim `J' I SECTORS E F. �■ .4 S , r � i, tail �A�.-I se 1 STATE 6 � pane . _ I--� /��� : CI -o t .7.,•'.t4J 'giro- g /wosoicT eeT opc a E I I l`/�,, �l 4 1 , /-/l:•1 WE-LAJD Jp41� " O ! p0' T. - /. .. I J-0(il' .p�L1 ' • _ � ti,- ` tgl ii II*1 . I I !e'PvcL IMITi W Ex.vF(x- .,`m Q,0� • naI� N O w.1- E CIVIL(A y F.crsx.He/vcabuWr _ a � �' ` ��° + �Owe ill it, ava a TE-i�TROCHRGDs a �/ •i ,��` A � > 2 /�c 44:7 _ 4 ° 07 41 . 44 c'-7 E- " — 1 A W DCN6J(PMH• l ; ' 1hTk , .' q 4 . �a 0A, e.mopa ,ao ;90 `e 1:ill '3 FBucauET II �� si • 'it'll r:pp -♦ e' •vasi f .4 � oe , , p✓b -- ` r r iv� bT 1,t•1'dt,kr, g3�a , ,� a ��� 1/K•vb�� . ,.iii��° 13 O `^'p A b ;lR, e GO[/I `,'I.�_3A�_°X°°_.r`r,nf�� ' V�j T.... o D3 c1 ��,'l WEII.W04'1 d•em AI- i p'��,.A 00,1�-.i d of `� / -nEw F2 TLC,!c OI;�( ® ' i.> r , lit,Ir p •• e lip* H U "" \j O. areia'e,cr.tue.e ee¢ee �• • e,. SECTORS E 8 F . oanoga:s�dloo°-_ 7� ..._�ot4A?�S. e op �e .PLATTED • SECTOR G.- I I I \�/ f `1 j�jam ( PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE .UN.ULU u I•d @�LT=t.\LF iA LLLAXLM sosIe .� SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE 6 CONDITIION SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE 8 CONDITIION �E I` � Deciduous Trees-nrodAm/luq� I I Largo Shrubs Drawn By MAWSPE ecm',Me^ae Breen ae • rcsded be,S +n I �a C� BatEn n vn pan w, °,rom•� '.efull a s'oc Mears'bomb CKrI,�W Tereus.m.e,a W va vi�e a Euoymu.A.A.Compacts' w.nged SpI42MA4 a Revisals Accent Deciduous Treee-11 werInurfrulting non a nr m„ e'b'O'e°p e42r4'On nap�� Wen B.B neronie aquuoiiun Ten Oregon Crepe e� o.mvg ebepp ,Ed la a.Gppleencrna sp, Oeg.b v //;" Small Shrubs �I~e epp a mo ming. .viaug Uroey Tee. /� .,Ecuare couri,e.' Edwerp Gouty deans bu✓y................ Narrow Deciduous Trees �n / Barberry o+oc ing�u.e messed I_I pyva cei p Cads,a wo,.a�.g pee, een-b,enc ed E.e Iler cremate womema o c,e• eompe, .wvPonyee. ,e„pm wny mu o Hug e Eva rgre pl Trees n • p Je pn ar cete de. to base p.B , enaQ H e s..-ui ea ubby cnq oiI g.e pea.,aotsuge m-�aeu es F.e / , /"' GrounEeover 6 Accents +'pots• •2+•ec en ® Aec5eniEvergreenTreee �a5epuoie roe base B Bacimm,e -• / '*P^!'dem1. • co .,•, rsgpecCng ey w u..pecver denea ▪°Ca L-1 ▪.pm Lawn end Rough Gress vnce tee apennwuem. Etmt Unto: I m 2 . -i D m z m 1 * • z Alliim°ifiliA ". / WA. :•Z• • ¢" ' r00(Do 0D=` OOO�ot,l t�( , ) ..1.)0 742, P* j 1�0 10'SETBACK I O . I. le p 1 . „cnn ;"tit it 0091 A l,o un�11 al 1 ,-�3i� 1 :1 1'` fii��r�� C I *I .A• — N ii ni0. III �� m AL!► • o% hQ pimmil WW1 / I - N loll ot i dLv- .b --- ---- P Alli N m PUBLIC ALLEY 20'ROW N 14 �! '1 .1 K !� . , . 1 . IlW •- liir p: 9 N co -Di m ((.�77 ( I O rip C liMi/< D �I O �Li7lJI_o , I,�� Zmime • I .I /'O r ffL �l�,�ado I� !-:4 ,' 11 ��I 1111IL /mI ra <E c� do 0 p _.. . A 1,1„,,,.., lir. , _,,,,,., .,,,,,- , • . • W A ,,��� A , '-i —'L�J L—•_/ sti .4'SIDEWALK-. •' 1 .. GUEST PARKINGI# Niii, 1%11Ir . 9 m m y TD Ti'E7 • , JULY 19,1998 - m FEV0O"B ar 03 COTTAGE'a 9 _HOMES_SITE PLAN DOODS ENGINEERS INC.L E agEYINGL a 426 BELL 2 no SECTORS E/F-TFE ORCHARDS _._ PAPROV0i T CRAIG RKRUEGERR M c W OV ee00' �EBS�BT16i4S'-4)4'3 • SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N., ROE 5 E., W.M. • — I: � 43 : ' - - - \ • -11r,, com ma Poo norm 0 ` ear v - —� ,L. �l 1 u„, C..: \'` • . • ., B,,.cra MUD I - -N:\.-----NH. ar'Iy. .rN (#114) • ' (: U . � Oz F. t Zado - t IIC • . - , / ) . c. ` ' U o m A .. Waw CO 9 j y z ..h.r�.t, C tiLit_.! O°z • OW ..==='lirB r7-;----, ) i , IQ Ji H - 1,,,.: .i 1 i , o i-------- ) 1 1 'I i Ir ' v, - W a I R I�If C a Iti Oa ey I') / Q o R `1 j —` �� 1 i 1 I 0413.1 - / / ,�<,,.., a yre I 'SECTORS E - F �� € S.- ..I e3e`� �B•„s„ .Bede • N Q O2 kik Q i 3 < SECTOR Ca \ O C] 3 @ W • z II Cr 1 , Ana#x".11I YI�. Q. W • o 0 o O LEGAL DESCRIPTION T' 2 = To Bed toll w er NwNr.queer w Br Bwt]..et quarto V 1`. il •W Or 8aN]sl quarto or B.ub.V.TcmYip]9 North. D H orreyort�B recorOorl Not glover e. Owner/Developer Engineer/Planner/Surveyor y k Recortleg No m.Not her of Ur Nmlrrt quarter of w BM]re.t quarto eeo-MOO,A�a`SE.dune,00 at�uN,A.:.,.Xe. V r or Ns e..m.quarto or B.:tbt b,Tor,N¢])Nat„Margo e.lwew W!BOO, Suit.]00 �^ FAO.ON,EXCEPT ae Get tl raw u�r Id LleSt,rru.OP... Cr''''''Imve ofFey Y.l,WA aoos ac Jd b tr d Coot,by tl..a rcad.0 unto RceNg,rtl a .Mn W-AlA Edgo Jam.P.E.-E^9tr W Befle OLEO E)a.EPf tbn of NE.but Mn e.pet Tat 00••40-Rn Ore W lbsoc r-Marne J 'Lr t lb,fdmdYg Nee iLlat W]1O06L ed N vo1a*!IS or P4!.,.t page Net 00et B a,lariy,pLB.-9,rr a b Y.r; $n I rote,• 'O W iy o�I To Berth roll or Ow NMr..t quarto of ur BwNr..t quarto 2a 3 � m3 or On Bwuvtq:,or Ont.a,Tod=U Naul Ram e. l5 O Uo Em+rK.,ae,M.+4FX IGC.IPgI Ur Ylrt e]le.l uirvllar AdnO 6L. • JOB �/� HIie91 M Mf1it0L y d�f rcaio udr predag Nee ; Q p SCALE: 1" =50' / ^^ • North MII o,u.NWr..t qr to o B.ewur..t grti N a ¢ �L�� � N.Bwutrt 0.01on b,T Rom. Iv Yee.ICh.EMEPf ND YI..t e]few VObO<�tr.6E.e. o O ¢ e.g yea 4 deed recorded rdr Amor.,No. SHEET OF • VICINITY MAP 1 1 ,U 1NO LE Pew.' L . . SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N., AGE 5 E., W.M. - '..., ..• • ) ! • 1 . I 1 42' I 42', ' .------. tX § —j . •1 T-11-:27 —1-11--1-- . _ — _.......• • . 1 I I 1 _ ____ • . • . 111-1111----=-Y SCALE 1" = 40. \ (iII TR,:c "I'7 --... _., . - NE 671.1 ST. 4515Z 12•4504,0 lizt e,S_ 210 •0 30 - \-• ---- ----------- ,;-.733 •,-,----_______,, - 1. I VICINITY mAt= ao• 29 ialli i!, ,-- -- I ,_____--, t,e R•2300, L•3545 NO SCALE ;I:t4iNt i' 1 I 21 44 IIII I 1 l'A •... . , Owner/Developer -, Engineer/Planner/Surveyor ', 1360-=Tr:L.1..0 Dotl4N Ergtioare..154. 4205-ASO,Avarua NE YE.. . 26 25 24 23 1 22 21 .14.1 j 42. , 42. GAtervus,WA WOOS a051,11-n. 5.5116,43,UR.5.301 (52 I th: Ca.=Eager bre,PE.-.g.sar Z 2 < \4171..---- .' • \' • .) . r , LEGEND -00-5 STOW DRAIN R.Glatt,.ALB-.546,r 4 5 ' ....1 ' 6 a . 0 31 11. la , ._ . ' /.( CATCH GASN LEGAL DESCRIPTION cc2-' ,....;.-----. 20 11 j . WE 501.0.1 W ALF OF Te.NORTALEST 01ARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER III ei' 5 59 — • 60--- FA CF RE SOLITAUE5T QUARTER OF SECTION ED,TORGUIP 23 NOR..RANGE 5 EAST.LOU EXCEPT N.EAST 42 FEET THEREOF FOR 13STA APORE 5E.AS CONVEYED DT DEED RECCRDED GOER RECORDING NO.5.41,1.59 \ I 32 flA.1 I j .. 19 11 • -65-5 SANIT.Er BELLER 0 SS 551 RE NORTH RALF OF TNE NORT.EST CHARTER CF THE EOLITNEAST QUARTER 55 0 ‘.' w 2 CF THE SOUNREST CHARTER CR SECTION to.TOGISATP 23 NORTH.P.O4GE 5 CD(A Zi EAST,LIOLI EXCEPT TAE EAST 42 FEET THERECF FOR BST.AP..5.E A5 ExISTING C0001112 CONvETED TO KING co.,BY DEED RECORDED LNDER RECORDING NO FINISN GRADE CO.O.112 WANA90. LD LC, 0 r, I ,' I---- . --'''.\\\ PARK 1 1 58 I 61 4 P \-,, o2 4) 33 \*., OPEN SPACE 1 _t • I 1. 62 nr:1' A4 ..,, S" j.12 . ...,5 IJK1 10'!PACT .38'P/P .. 10'1WACT 0 0 ,z. c 11 /7 ea - - •i 1 I I 1 '..3 -- j J. IA il 1 Y I I __zm. _z_x___. st ci I: .- . ,T, -,..---_-_--1_- . .4 c= \-DONE ROLLED ORB CL.' 16 111\ I 4 SOEPALIL arP) et DORM(PLP.) 6,ecC-.1 CO 1•1•1 LUIZ. Ns I • i I g SECT/ON A-A 1:-.Lk, l•-• I 1" 54 I 1 1 EN TRANCE ROAD WA Y SEC TION 53 •, 55 52 ,j so 2 15 . .N1 :A . NOseer ..... El.. 1 t :"-1\1 1 1 t • Ns izz,-- 1 . 31 . '1 11 .117.P/P CD'IQ 11.21i • o ei, 41 , 14 1 •• —.1- _2„T_ , ,o. e TO Iszt.),..), It i' I I r- , o, • . Y . '' c ,4 !I J . 'N 11 1 , _ZT_— T __ It C'1 ''K o J i 4 j 39 40 41 42 43 44 1 : 13 DONE POLLED ..., 6 1 , SIDEPALP (GP) PARKING VALEPE INDICA MO N Gur1ZA • I t fil I ON PLAN .. e CC' 45 7.1 1 SECTION B.-B 2<c 0 / sRAcTy 1 1 1,01 ,; 12 'LI TRACT F TYPICAL ROADWAY SECT/ON . _ t .7111111i'--- .daft' , , ... , .1... _,._.c NO SCALE wwl-..... ...--.• .....' .''' .1' jj ""...... . . '-1 7 B. 2010/8 B. ' . 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 II • _2S___ .. ,) 1 ' \ __ - ______,______, .., • -.,... ,-. - ___•_____: ;w v ,_ NS8"01.15"LLI t------- ----"_s,, I 2 c ' -•2 SECTION C-C - SECTORS E 4 F 42' 42' PUBLIC ALLEY SECT/ON . - '. . NO SORE • ' I I ..• 1 . 1 I 95054 ,, • - . • , • . • • 1 SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N. RGE 5 , W.M. • ` u• - • w,hw i — SI� _ --\�c - __ � __ -„1-y- �./ .- :� m re.Tw-•neT - .. i: Tij O. • `�_� ..�`� I , t'Ts�1ii►11 4a�il��z_�' '�.`�'.1 i''•�.,(t'J)O.�;aI / _ .ate : ', �m f �fr V i-I 1•1• 'r ---i �11, - lirT J '4P4ria AZ sig_ ylp, PARK ,:I ��A : , • 31 Z o { 13 t ` OPEN SPACE ♦, X.P. k q e...y• x JAE,i�Issest .e r '� 1 i o ; ; . L I .a.,.` y�_ ♦� ,�■! I 62 ll A ' _ - i e T �'•• . . /i/t w` .' oi4,1 e'�. 1, ..M' Na i Y• .. �'- J^°w4 AV--1.•' _ 1- --- ----,.1,F1. < 1 ''V / . e�i1 I'� ? tip ;� �i W> a a i at• � I1.4me a�� w> Y I .I sJS g.,!.. ,•. :W.-i.ass.•R2.c` - I 4+ ( _ _ J L%- J,I /.� `� Vim\! .. 24s, �Q� � � � -t �4 a y1 �'r 1• 6 -4, z�_ - I� � _� J �, iP r t ® � :�L► ; z: - . fiftil D , 1 I� .� _ a 1 aB i`'`a `.4 -`—- , 1:- "t U L' •1,<!•*%V� Y; ]q Tr-- f _ e ah fir+ 0 • I•• y I 47 1, a3, la 1 'G7 �i - \� ° �' Y71 Q 71 it n �p� Los; �:. $' i i 4.- h �,� . ta�-� s ��ro �� NW r g:! trrncT P I: �i �1 litiT: - 1 �iF ate•.- 7 V'®iir�sa0' �� (,.i $ �� ` V 1� 70;9 - C',. Apr, L 1 ] S 4 j 1 I I t t'; c5 cc, °,[L•�. .�..�R iiiito".-4141,11,. r,_1`� d�� 1, 5 b l B 9 10 i t�. 1 III ��� , I I ___ L___j L_--. L_�_ L_ ' I - SECTORS E & F 2.0601. .] u• ......-?1 '/ �.+_tE�, f�„-q --c,,: eY '* +.'iiti,••n.�'4t'�N' r-• N 0 0 Q.3 - SECTOR G I„ ,Rt�, a U �3 3 2 W Zoe 1 . ' I .I Q� �toW 0 O LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTORS E a F W Tno South quarto or Se".eaw quarto Ci Jr• Sou~J Tall or quarto of Section 10,Tewnlp 29 North Rang.5 - W East.WM EXCEPT Pe East.,fat INN.,Ter 1364 mrn.n 213.POPSBE a. Owner/Developer Engineer/Planner/Surveyor • I �W..convagad N T e w Northost part Encode,ch aa.quarto I.ONortheavd N NE.et'It.100 -wnt�A a t quarto or Bs W,To"at+p I3 North ^B•S Loon WA °wu]W W¢ tr. Y t.WHO EXCEPT No East al lent Poo,r>Imo avenue BE e. �••Jefn Lerr I�<lA d gyp•midge�a�...PEPI�.v W of Paconve 6d to y ce""y c,Pad 10,'d.d o 23 sg tio.e 5 cdatan g �1 re . 0 Sq ALSO EXCEPT ttxt portion of NE 6th Bust as platted N Tot f]C6),.,-fR6 Rol GI.'f^!R- ¢ N ¢T as Mr n3 of run,at Peg• a••Y PLB.-brvyo. h d,No�.0629056t A Ve Tot OOP eee-,6TT m W z 1 ♦ II 4 u Orchards. m Q'3 Y.: TM ° .a.N..6 ,SIT* LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTORS x Tt.WW1 t„IforNo5.-nastq,.erta•efN•Sotrt4a.tcbarto STATISTICAL SUMMARY -- �'�ri ,it N.Be n.t quarts of B.etle Id,Te N 1p:3 Ne h Pa g.b �. - • a, /A East WM.EXCEPT 01•W:t,]r•n Owner for Bah Avon+SE a. morass E a• SECTOR 0 TOTAL " SCALE: 1. = 50. / sea,» aT n.4 i rs e. `°""y'y d.°d.wrd.d R.�rd�g g B�.� .t v]1 et.le... 37606 p It i.w acres 3.4, 25p rt./an acme 0.1736pti hall a B+raru+.n quarto a the Son/Pot quarter }db. a rtas er Lot. a B2, co n W'""=",a,,.— of Section IO•"7;:f]3 Nvut Rnrq 614 C Enatug f Rcpw•d R-], -], Eeu,wH.EXCEPT 1hs Wrt,l r. ttv.of Ta 13Bh Avaar 8E a. B14 Cev�ey• comagad to Peg Co""y by Esd',worded teller P+cwdlrg No. Bv.n Ns. g0]Oo.l.t3000f or EF) 60pO0.1.'ZOOS or I:1 b.b9.l.l]I31f or tool atut imtes VICINITY MAP ' . 0 SCALE C �`.NO95054 SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E._, W.M. • LI . , • , . • �I r ' 'lli� , , � 6.p l l f o . I 4], I _ Li - E , ,. _____ m I' Aim- . SCALE:lge.ALI L. a-wA. e - *----.� v VICINITY MAP •Val,. ',�+•• a 4 g `_ rRAcr e \\\l �, e/\ iry filft,__B-Tir=iwjf Owns veloper E�gineer/Planner/Surveyor en 9e¢�aae loz :]os 0 uE. Surto' I _ m�,\ -i3- Rme.'Pfe-a,.eye. .a N�1 LEGEND ]¢BT eaB-3B3T�I ` �� —= �� '��A �.0�M LEGAL DESCRIPTION �z z I` ` 'u' �� u- CATER 7/ZIBLZ;IXCEi'4.2;;35:72 W} Z. Q, m-- BAM/TART SEWER v e!ezamim.iawnlp]n"w,h Rage 5 3East.MIA EXCEPT tro Mat 4!net �w 13BN1A Ammo BE.mW� tOPEN C-NR'^'y b�l CvaB r r caper eWg Nepm\1 T CT A II� Re.umeq�.io orquener <1 SPACE P/i5rarw Re Nfleirtielrlilli J Be Ttw °rta cf p .ge 5Zou' � EXIST.CONTOUR 5.05ymtro County t 4]rest evml!w 1les A.vue BE.e. Z Z e r. e�.eye7 a Kbq remty ey ease.eoo.em�Re�eral.gvo./ �� am � Wu �1 • :':: ‘ ars—= %vow tat ,,. ow, sp F 111011, r--3 11101110 WO FIN.GRADE CCNTCUR W 4 ) WO.3. --- "ill . 474144101M 1011 ¢,,„ .TI i. \ 1101. ..,,,.,.... I. ..ii Cr Virrifit'"itl 'Illr, �� Pooti, do ~g-A \ � �� TRACT E\\ /q41hllhi ��w.....v.. I zs_, Q 0 A 9 CEMENT CDNGirti r. -''. RfIC KRTiLAC LVRB \ m 1' • 0 S.CEMENT CONCRETE STDE"A, O C/] cc Q m A • � SECTION A-A 2 Q Ql 0 3 I; �� �� • ENTRANCE ROAD SECT/ON i 1 1Vill '/ � � ND SCA, QQ 6.UWh E_sE E `� 0 -- 2. O�m 111 n.Ec-ca, e rk �DT`woAR, \ ® Es'Rarvns ROAD TRALT 1141111Wfr,. '\. IOW . 4. /' inlirire,14.1w / ��k., n,,-,. ID 10' I 5' an —�I lx _t— as NI 1 O' BUFFER__ J �� BALT "•CEMENT CONCRETE ROIED CURB q Z• W - O U: Je. �� ant 25 s'aMENr eavwETe sDEwAN.r 4 C . E=_0GE C ,E..ID_E AccESB w v��eme � SECT/ON B-B r -- '^,'':/../..'/f«<"' TYPICAL ROAD SECT/ON ti / / NIOS 0-1.15'W 606DI' NO scat[ 4]' I SECTOR G `e55�_,I.-,D�ED _ED_.-B • G- I ' ' . -95054 ' • i<y `, I ' 1 nnnwmmu ,'-_,IE d i• 1 ' I;V 1 ,...... I��;I j �I, 11 im ..ii -------,, ` '\-•*- r—r-4,1 , „ nos ' ,... IIIIIIIIIIII il 1 tik oL i �1.I.�.? IIIIIIIIIIII.'IIIIIIIIIIIIIMI € ,77,h ..._IIil 1 $i Ali ... --j IV'Miu 3: 1 1 . "v`4,0,: A j �, i t 1'-� //k% �I� sac r�la yyr!,r �� \ jdllllllllllllllllll•, II ,, s, �Ilf! nL 41 0/,,,,,v F ` �I�l• I i • III\� I\/ U '�;;, wiii. Ii- :2 ;vS I I j%�%I'♦Ill�ah, II iiiii$ \ ..d.ii.,%. 1i¶ IIIIII I i I_ili 'I� r ,.,.,ax IIIIIIIILS' '`I ilk I!!lIIII,':,i' , ," ill 1 ,n IIIIIIIIIIIII m\ ' / ."\ .. 0l inn ili; ;Il / i i .1�.1 'II, ill��n� ii 04.... a IIl�laei�!I��11�l,.4' a 1111111111111 a W1� xala {a \11` 4e II,' N �Ii, �; Olt , _�.-- \:: I Jai x`` +` 1114f�'ym i .--ix �` , ;; IIIIIIIIIIIlxI'' li\�\ I ,a 'a{ILa: I 13 111111111113Ma 1 ILIA Ifllmlllf;. nr —MEa l `de IIIIIIIIIIIIl,>' IL i . ..0 P II�,lI/ii�im/i`l.7. Fria , i . I'.V....N: NORTHWARD , THE ORCHARDS G IS{O 140th AVE.NE BELLEVUE.WA 48001 • 1200 ilrnac RENTON. WABHING70N • Icy._ :.61\`�`,. -J _ °` 1111: • - IIIIIIII— IICII�' � hill iiimmi t II I:" M IIIIIIIIIIIIII PI I I O\sk, ij3 I,5` ' 111)i 111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIr. .IIIIIIIIII III! 'a 1111; l'g IliilillE l `11111111111111 Ie`` ` 1111 ' j Ior 1 3 llll .kv '�n -� ''.._' ;;i III I' • 1 -Jill III • • ' 11:iI�� \ i \,,`� ll ?' • `ll f4 • + II i�\l � rvik . ':JU y���W,lk IIII lilii 00l .> F1IIII- l\ lI� .n J 7! F • IIIIIIIIIIIIII'! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111, l —, ,_ l' aII i��%/ % '^ I IIIIIIIIIIIlIV �N:` ,, IIIIIIIIIII1 1 C 1 `��� tl �1= H1It{ 3 • IIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIII 1 iiiiiimi� mwmu .I ; , rI F • NORTHWARD THE O I\C I— A R D S. \-]I 1 0 HOTH N.B. `�C eeuewe.WA 4.006 • moo 14-1=1. RENTON. WASHINGTON i._..WL, ._ ._4.m'.1,._:,,,,,-;',;..7f.:.t-,.,, ,V.,!:' tti mmmmmn (; .. „I% It.!' rA:_, '` '3 ,M„,„,,,_....,2,,. 7.....,",,,4,:,;,,,„l.-„, 1OIII, . 1ii1 ,j",1 lq --..... _ W..7 ` 1 UUU � „IImlllul l't � lik ��. ,i r�b T l � F'l_L7—.a I . 114 tamimmnn I0Illllllllllls i �I� ` s \ 9i1 -711 Li, 11 nnnmwmir mi �, '. �/� III, • ��IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII�I ' r I?kI 'I II.... mnMnrilu - ; �.., ;, -- IIlliPliII kiL yl__-��� ,i tiro 1iiih 11i1111ii11 i 1 � ... ii • all�lulllllllllull''%4° ++ ++ ii • � 11.1I �II1 ' ;I...'.."„..1.,.._s�Ymcy,„: .,,, I III �i''g;% I! . ��C.', _•�.r 14.4,4�ifa I III 1 trip- --,-6.;------,-, .„00005 , 15 fi�ll� N..ail m. 1 1 I ,, P 3IIIII11111 I I_ `'"�I115 , 1 I'll! II .. \ r 11), ,,,,1 0; iL ,, ,, w II1il `'i ril risers I'iill� sfiitaiiiiiiiiii-lii i iin':i's-ma�y// iCL!L'r 'LiiiiiL1il�2• gar; . l�v, Il .t '„I I u471 r � / Li�,,.� " 41 ,,,elffig_iiici:.iL.,':;:iit:....:„.:.V`Y' • NORTHWARD THE ORCHARDS G ISLO 140th AVE.NE BELLEVUE.WA 98004 i700141-1126 RENTON. • WASHINGTON ' ' SAN,pi S c 'e August 22, 1996 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT PLANNING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CITY OF RENTON APPLICANT: Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, Inc.) AUG 2 31996 The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP RECEIVED LOCATION: East and west of Duvall Avenue NE at NE 6th Street SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To subdivide Sectors E and F 9-acre parcel into 63 lots for traditional and cottage style homes; and to subdivide Sector G 9-acre parcel into 57 lots for townhouses. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on July 17, 1996. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area;the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the July 23, 1996 hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,July 23, 1996,at 10:20 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Vicinity map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Preliminary plat map Exhibit No.4: Site plan for all sectors Exhibit No. 5: Site plan, Sector G Exhibit No. 6: Detail of cottage homes, Sector E,F Exhibit No. 7: Site elevations of Sectors E,F Exhibit No. 8: Site elevations of Sectors E,F cottage traditional homes homes Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, Inc.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 2 Exhibit No. 9: Street section of traditional and Exhibit No. 10: Elevation drawing of townhouses, cottage homes Sector G Exhibit No. 11: Cross-hatch drawing of entire site Exhibit No. 12: Previously approved site map. Exhibit No. 13: Trip Generation Chart from Institute of Transportation Engineers The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by JENNIFER HENNING, Project Manager, Development Services, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055. This application is for a preliminary plat and site plan approval for a project that also has a demonstration ordinance attached. The purpose of the demonstration ordinance is to provide residential development which meets the City's land use development goals and creates new residential neighborhoods on large lots and in a neighborhood development style that creates high quality in-fill development that increases density but also maintains residential character. The demonstration ordinance allows the applicant to go outside the boundaries of the code and propose features that may or may not be within the range of what the code allows. They are not all necessarily supported by staff or the City, but the applicant has an opportunity to present and argue various aspects. The City does not have to approve it. This particular proposal is zoned R-24. If this project were not to happen and the previous approved site plan were not to happen,the zoning on the property would eventually revert to R-14. The Examiner stated that since this project may be approaching major deviations from existing code, this was more than a normal land use hearing, that it was actually determining certain policy issues which possibly deserved greater explanation and exploration than may be contained in the staff report. It was changing code, changing zones, changing road widths,changing platting requirements, and not things that are usually done at a land use hearing without exploring the positives and negatives. Ms. Henning explained that the Orchards is a residential development that was approved for a variety of residential and some limited commercial uses in 1992. It is located north of NE 4th Street and on the east and west sides of Duvall Avenue NE. This particular proposal is for Sectors E, F and G. Sectors A and B were approved for detached single family residential development and are presently under construction. Sector C was approved for 63 townhouses and is presently being constructed. Sector D was approved for 63 apartment units, but has not come in for building permits yet. Sector E was initially approved for 108 apartment units while Sector F was approved for 28,000 square feet of commercial development. Sector G was approved for 105 apartment units. This is a new application for Sectors E,F and G. Sectors E and F(hereinafter Sector E-F)would be combined for the platting of 63 single family home lots. They would be small lots for detached single family homes. Sector G on the east side of Duvall would be platted for 57 small lots that would have attached townhouses. Sector E-F is 8.83 acres, Sector G is 9.17 acres. Both sites have been graded and cleared as part of the previous development approvals and within constraints of construction permits that have been issued thus far. Sector E-F has a one-half acre park located in the northwestern portion which would serve as a focal element for the proposal. Of these 63 lots, Lots 1-38 would be located on the perimeter and would be called traditional homes. The center lots, Lots 39 through 63,would be smaller and narrower than those traditional home lots and would be developed with cottage homes. Where the traditional home lots would be accessed from the front yard with their garages,the cottage homes would have alley access for the garages, or what is known as rear- Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, Inc.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 3 j loaded. The size of lots in E-F would range from 3,000 square feet for a cottage home to just over 5,000 square feet. The lots for traditional homes would be approximately 50 feet in width and 79 feet in length. The cottage home lots would be 37 feet in width for interior lots,42 feet in width for corner lots, and a uniform depth of 87 feet. There would be public streets with tracts that would access some of the lots in the corners. The cottage homes in the center of the site would generally have access from a public street system and from public alleys. There are four lots focusing on the park. The two center lots,Lots 57 and 58,would have driveway garage access from the 20-foot wide alley,and a sidewalk off the public park that would allow access to the front yards. The proposed homes would be two stories in height and would be configured to have pitched roofs, articulation, front porches. The traditional homes would have garages accessing off the street. There would be stairs or ground level entries with front porches. This particular housing type has a sense of entry, an area of parking for residents and guests,private area of yard and landscaping. Even though they are somewhat close together on narrower lots, it achieves a neighborhood feel. The rear-loaded yards,or cottage homes, show the pitched roofs and porches. For sense of entry,there are alcoves prior to entering the house. The applicant is requesting that front and rear yard setbacks be reduced for the cottage homes. The front yard setbacks would be 10 feet while the rear yard setbacks would be reduced to 5 feet. The lot coverage would be approximately 35%for the traditional homes and 40%for the cottage homes. The cottage homes would feature reciprocal use easements so that they would have useable side yards. They have an alley with a parking apron that is actually not functional as an apron,so parking would occur on the street. They would have front yards. What is being proposed is a side yard that is useable as the yard space for the particular unit it adjoins. There would be fences erected front and back between the homes and the side yard area becomes the yard space for one or the other home. Each home would have its own exclusive side yard. While the lots would have a five foot setback from the property line,the use easement would be configured as part of the Codes, Covenants& Restrictions(CC&R's)that would be set up by the owner and between those who buy into the project so that the understanding is this becomes the yard for this home. There would be a maintenance agreement established that allows the owner to still come into his yard and repair something on his home. The size of the side yard would be approximately 25 feet at its widest and 10 feet at its narrowest point. It would have articulation and private spaces. The corner lots then end up having a side yard on the street side and also in the area between the homes. Staff would require these fences to ensure someone has a private yard area. Staff has concerns about maintenance,but the applicant states they would have the use easement and maintenance agreement as part of the CC&R's of this development. The reciprocal use easements allow for the creation of private yards as there are no useable private outdoor front or rear yards because of the reduced setbacks being proposed. The minimum lot size that would be proposed in Sector E-F is 3,000 square feet and is allowed in the new R 14. The development density that applicant provided is 11.7 dwelling units per acre for Sector E-F. The primary access to Sector E-F would be from NE 6th Street and would be flanked with ornamental landscaping. There would also be an access from Bremerton Avenue NE. These public streets would have 8= foot deep planter islands and would have sidewalks on one side. The sidewalks would be around the perimeter of the cottage homes in the center of the site. There would also be sidewalks that would be part of the overall outside street system along Duvall,Bremerton and NE 6th. All homes in this sector would be inward focusing. The applicant is proposing landscape neck-downs,or extensions that jut out which create parking bays on the interior. The intent is to reduce the appearance of the hard surface and to provide tree canopies. These planter islands help create defined on-street parking,but they do reduce the travel lane of this public street to 20 feet. There is a 20 foot travel lane section, 8 foot in the neck-downs for parking,rolled curb with 4-foot sidewalk on one side. Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers,Inc.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010'SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 4 The Examiner stated that the City had strongly objected to rolled curbs in the past, preferring vertical curbs, and asked what their position was at this time. .I NEIL WATTS, Plan Review Supervisor, Development Services Division, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055, responded that there is a variety of pros and cons between the two types of curbs. There is a feeling of aesthetics,that some people preferred the look of a vertical curb over a rolled curb, and there is a perception that it will restrict parking up on the sidewalks. There is drainage control with a vertical curb, but rolled curbs can be installed to provide adequate drainage control. People can choose to park on the sidewalks or planting strips regardless of rolled or vertical curbs. With rolled curbs there is additional flexibility for emergency equipment to use that area for staging;however,they could also drive up on a vertical curb if conditions warranted. With smaller lots the driveways are placed fairly closely together. With vertical curbs there is such an up-and-down appearance with sometimes 60 percent curb cuts versus very short sections of curbs. The vertical curb is not needed to define parking versus driveways. They are very difficult to construct,especially with the multiple driveway entries, and therefore more costly to provide. The City has allowed the use of rolled curbs in some portions of the single family portion of the Orchards, again in areas where there are mostly driveway and very short sections of curb in between. Ms.Henning continued that the homes would feature two-car garages and the front-loaded or traditional homes would have 76 spaces in garages and 76 off-street parking spaces on garage aprons. The cottage homes would also have two car garages, but lack the apron space and would have no parking for guests. Guests for the cottage homes would park on the street in 37 on-street parking spaces which would be shared by everyone. This results in 3.8 parking spaces for each dwelling unit, 'and the code provision is for 2 spaces per unit. Regarding Sector G which is a little over 9 acres, about half of the site is taken up with Class II Wetland and a 50 foot buffer. The applicant is subject to a mitigation document that calls for the retention of this wetland,the expansion of it and the enhancement of it. It is being used for storm water detention purposes as well as being kept in a very passive state. It is a visual focal point for Sector G and relatively undisturbed. The proposal is to plat Sector G for townhomes. The applicant is proposing 20 foot wide travel lanes with areas that are cut out to provide space to accommodate on-street parking. The proposed lots would average 33 feet in width and 80 feet in depth. The average lot size proposed is 2,640 square feet with the smallest lot size being 1,869 square feet and the largest lot about 5,500 square feet. The development density as calculated by the applicant would be close to 16 units to the acre. The buildings within this particular proposal are 2 stories in height with pitched roofs. They would be an architectural style which is similar to large single family residential homes. The appearance from the street would be of a very large home'with three single car garages. There would be attached one and two-car garages. The units that have one-car garages would have a one-car parking apron at a minimum. The units that have two-car garages would not have a parking apron. Each unit would have parking for two vehicles at a minimum. There would also be 20 guest parking spaces along the street. A gated entry is proposed off NE 6th which would result in it being a private, secured community,with a secondary access off Duvall from the south for emergency vehicles only which would also be gated.. The applicant is proposing that the connection to this emergency access be a transitional material such as reinforced grass paving to be allowed on a demonstration basis. That has been approved through the Fire Department on a conditional basis with appropriate markings. The applicant has gone through the Environmental Review Committee(ERC). There were two Determinations of Non-Significance Mitigated imposed. Mitigation fees for traffic, fire and parks were imposed. There was a concern about the narrower streets and how emergency vehicles would get through if guests were parking in ' f Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, Inc.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 5 such a way that it impeded access. The ERC asked the applicant for revisions that show how additional guest parking spaces are being provided in Sector G, along with some requirements for posting and marking of streets as fire lanes and also posting of alleys with no parking signs. The ERC also had concerns about the emergency access at the south end of Sector G, and an agreement was reached with the Fire Department. There was also a mitigation measure regarding enforcement of parking on the private streets being proposed in Sector G. The ERC has asked that the City enforce parking requirements if they do become a problem and that they bill the owner/applicant for fees, including attorney's fees, if necessary. The applicant requested the payment of any possible fees be tied to the ownership or the homeowner's association. The last mitigation measure was re- adopting the previous mitigation measures such as wetlands and storm drainage that apply to the prior approval. As part of the site plan approval criteria, a number of items are considered for compliance. In Sector E-F the proposal is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan(CP)designation of residential planned neighborhood. Lots 57 and 58 would have public alley access of 20 feet in width. There would be 16 feet of paving proposed by the applicant,but staff is asking for an additional 2 feet. Alleys are not generally primary access. This is one point of the demonstration ordinance that is unique for these two homes. The problem that has been identified by staff for these two particular homes is addressing. Deliveries could be a problem. Mr. Watts explained how Lots 57 and 58 would differ in terms of mail, garbage,vehicular access. Ms. Henning stated that policies in the CP encourage small lot single family development and that it comprise up to 100%of the new units in a category such as this. This accomplishes both.The 20 foot wide alleys or public streets that are being proposed do comply, but the sidewalks being proposed on one side of the street only are inconsistent with the CP. Mr. Watts discussed the grid street criteria and pedestrian facilities for Sector E-F. Ms.Henning explained that the concept the applicant was striving for in Sector E-F was similar to the smaller, East Coast towns with the village green or the common area,tree-lined streets, a little slower pace. The narrower streets hopefully slow people down as they are traveling. The policies of the CP also call for subdivision of the land in a development pattern consistent with Renton's older neighborhoods,and the subdivision of land into blocks and lots with walking distances that are minimized and with lots that front on 1 public streets or parks. The platting that is proposed in E-F is consistent with all of those policies. Pertaining to Sector G,the proposal is generally consistent with the land use designation. The platting of the parcel into small lots for attached single family ground-related townhomes would not be considered traditional, but the platting of these lots and the opportunity it presents for owner-occupied townhomes is consistent with policies of the CP. The wetland area is considered to be a visual focal point which meets the intent of the policy, even though there are no amenities being incorporated for active or even passive recreation. In this • instance it is more important to protect the wetland than provide an amenity. The density of about 16 units to the acre is within the maximum of 18 units per acre that is stipulated in the policies. The residential street policies for interconnecting streets would not be met under Sector G. It has a street system that is comprised of private streets with a gated access and a secondary emergency access. What is being proposed here is a gated community on a private street system where our codes normally would require a public street system. Mr. Watts explained the City's policies with regard to sidewalks on both sides of the street. Staff did not support this particular project to demonstrate sidewalks on only one side. • • Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, Inc.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 6 • Ms. Henning stated that for Sector E-F the applicant is proposing reduced setbacks. In the R-24 zone the required front yard setback is a minimum 15 feet for the primary structure,,a minimum of 20 feet if there is an attached garage which accesses from the front yard street., This front yard setback for the primary structure may be reduced to 10 feet y all parking,is provided in the rear yard with access from,either a public street or an alley. The applicant is proposing a 15-foot front yard setback for the traditional homes, and a 10-foot front yard setback for the cottage homes. The traditional homes would have garages that would be accessed from the front and the cottage homes would have garages that would access from the rear via alleys. Therefore, the proposed setbacks for the traditional homes would be less than the requirement by 5 feet, and the cottage homes would meet the development standard for the front yard setback..1 The front-loaded garages for the traditional homes-- the minimum setback there for the front yard is to be 20 feet to the attached garage. The applicant is proposing 15 feet. While the primary structure meets the setback,the garage does not. In the R-24 zone a minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet is required. The proposed rear yard setbacks for the traditional homes do meet that requirement, but the cottage homes have a rear yard setback of only 5 feet. The applicant has proposed the side yard with.the reciprocal use agreement to offset the lack. The applicant is meeting the minimum side yard setback for both traditional and cottage homes. The applicant is proposing a 7.5 to 10 foot corner side yard setback instead of the required 15 feet so that some additional areas can be maintained in landscaping tracts. These common areas and open spaces would be maintained by the homeowner's association, and they would have accent plantings and landscaping that was seasonal and a focal point. The townhomes in Sector G feature 8 foot front yard setbacks and 15 foot rear yard setbacks. The front yard setbacks do not comply with the code, but are being proposed through the provision of the demonstration ordinance. The rear yard setbacks do meet the minimum.requirements. The side yard setback is required to be 5 feet unless it is an unattached end of a structure which is required to be 15 feet. The applicant is proposing reduced side yard setbacks of from 5 to 8 feet for Lots 1 and 48 at the north portion of the site adjacent to the NE 6th Street entrance to provide open space tracts separating the units from the incoming street. All of the setbacks for the unattached end of the structures are met. No tot lots are being provided in either Sector G or Sector E-F. There is the half acre park space available for Sector E-F which will allow open play. There will be areas that the children can ride their bicycles on such as the sidewalks. Sector G does have useable rear yard areas for the most part. There are a number of open space tracts in both sectors that are available potentially for some additional landscape treatment or recreational treatment. The R-24 zone allows a maximum lot coverage of 45%. In Sector E-F the traditional homes would achieve a lot coverage of 35%and the cottage homes would achieve a lot coverage of 40%. In Sector G,the individual building lot coverage is proposed to be 45%which meets,the maximum allowed. City code requires single family residential homes to have 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit and this proposal complies. The applicant's landscape plans provide adequate landscaping for Sector E-F,provided that individual homeowners landscape their yards in the private areas. The cottage homes do rely on the use of the proposed side yard use easements and staff would recommend that these easements be recorded with the plat. The applicant is proposing to have fences defining the side yard areas. In Sector G there would be more area that would be maintained by the homeowners'association and less private yard space. ' • Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, Inc.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 7 Sector E-F is located north of an existing commercial day-care facility and single family residential homes. There are multi-family apartments located to the west and the Orchards is to the north and east. The applicant will be required to provide Staff with mitigation plans on how they intend to limit dust, erosion and noise during construction. Staff recommends that a wall or a fence be provided for the business to the south during construction, and also during occupation. To the north of Sector G is Forest Crest, which when completed will be a 200 unit multi-family housing development. Staff is recommending that there be a fence constructed around the southeast and north portions of Sector G unless adjacent properties develop first and they are required to put in a fence or wall. In Sector E-F there are public streets and public alleys. There would be a 20-foot travel lane maintained on the public streets and 16 feet that would be paved within the alleys. There are planters defining on-street parking bays. Staff is recommending that sidewalks be constructed on both sides of the street as a condition of site plan approval. The problems of access for Lots 56 and 57 and the practical issues involved with their location were discussed. Sector G has a proposed private road system within the plat as part of the demonstration ordinance. Streets would be 20 feet in width for the travel lane. Three sections of that road would be increased to provide for on- street parking. The gated access location and queuing line would be located where NE 6th comes into Elma. Staff is recommending sidewalks on both sides in Sector G. Staff recommends approval of the Orchards, Sectors E-F and G with the following conditions: (1)Compliance with mitigation measures required by the ERC;(2) Requiring sidewalks for both sides of the street within the plat,all sectors,and that the sidewalk design is subject to review and approval by Development Services Division;(3) Recording the proposed reciprocal side yard use easements with the plat. These use easements apply to Lots 48 through 63 in Sector E-F. The language of those easements must be approved by the City's Development Services Division and City Attorney;(4)Installation of a fence,wall, or other suitable means of defming the side yard use area for Lots 48 through 63 in Sector E-F; (5) Installation of a perimeter fence along the south property line and along the rear yards of proposed Lots 28 through 48,and on the north side of proposed Lot 1 in order to provide a clear separation and buffering between Sector G and adjacent land uses. This condition could be modified if there are suitable fences installed on the common property line by adjacent property owners for any development that could occur prior to the development of Sector G; (6) Submittal of a lighting plan; (7)Establishment of a homeowner's association for the maintenance of common plat improvements. JIM GRAY,Assistant Fire Marshal,City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue S, Renton, Washington 98055, stated that the main concern of the Fire Department is maintaining the minimum width for emergency access for fire equipment,and that those areas that are reduced to the 20 foot width be adequately marked and signed.The fire fighting access to Lots 56 and 57 in Sector E-F would be the primary streets. The alley itself would not be used because it doesn't meet the 20 foot minimum width with the turning radiuses for fire equipment. This was something that the Fire Department had agreed to as a part of the demonstration ordinance. The gated access in Sector G is not the most desirable situation,but there are ways to provide the Fire Department more immediate access, either through strobe light access or activation. One other deviation that the Fire Department has agreed to accept as a test is the use of grass grid in the fire lane. • Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, Inc.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-01O,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 8 Mr. Watts noted with Sector E-F there is available on-street parking on both NE 6th and Bremerton that will be of some value for overflow parking. The main difficulty with Sector G was the lack of any off-street parking. The parking is limited to the project itself. With regard to,1Lots 56 and 57 in Sector E-F, staff preferred an alley to creating two pipestem lots. If these were created as a pipestem lot with one having pipestem access to the south and one with a pipestem access to the north,they would fully comply with City codes. In Sector E-F the radiuses at the corners all comply with City code and requirements for emergency vehicles. The turns into the alleys do not meet thei same radius standards. The alleys are not intended to be used for access for fire trucks or for staging of fire fighting operations. The hydrants will be out on the main streets. CRAIG KRUEGER,Dodds Engineers,4205 148th Avenue NE,#200, Bellevue, Washington 98007, applicant herein, stated they approached the City with a request for this demonstration ordinance. They wanted to work with staff in looking at lot sizes and setbacks for the various housing types in the PNR zone which was encouraging this type of development with the alley-loaded homes. Due to the changes in housing market and availability of some more creative lot layouts, applicant is'proposing to create the neo-traditional neighborhood ' consisting of 63 single family detached homes. Regarding the corner lots where there is enhanced and accented landscaping at the entryways into Sector E-F, there would be a privacy fence on the lot line that would delineate the private open space on one side and the common open space tract on the other. A common openspace tract was preferred to enhance that entry and the street-scape into the neighborhood,rather than putting it behind a fence. A portion of the R-24 code regarding alley access indicated that if there was a detached garage accessed by an alley,the setbacks would be down to 0,both on the side yard and on the rear,as long as you had 24 feet of backout space. What is being demonstrated here is that even if the garage is attached to the structure, a reduced setback from the right of way edge of the alley is acceptable. In regards to the corner homes,a minimum side yard setback of 7.5 feet,but it would average a minimum of 10 feet along the edge of that structure, is proposed. In order to focus on the alley from a landscaping and visual standpoint, applicant has tried to keep the paved width as narrow as possible to meet City codes. The landscaping is brought up to that edge,the two feet that is left over on either side, and then there is a 5 foot setback to the front of the garage. In addition the privacy fence that is constructed for those homes is then pulled back from the front of the garage so that there is a landscaping area on either side of the alley. LU80 does indicate that there is an encouragement for the'smaller single family lots fronting onto public streets or a park. This is a concept that has been used elsewhere,and while Lots 56 and 57 won't have the frontage onto a public street which is associated with traditional homes,those two houses are going to front onto a private park. Mr. Krueger pointed out the,differences between Sector E F and their amenities from a natural features standpoint versus Sector G. Regarding the private gated entrance into Sector G,he stated that there is a small landscaped island before the gate where the residents could punch in their code number and then enter. Between that island and the gate there is a paved area where they can maneuver in and do a turnaround to get back onto NE 6th. As far as the queuing,the residents would use one side and the guests would park their cars and call who they are visiting and get the gate opened that way. Obviously there are details to work out as far as practical aspects of gaining access. Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers,Inc.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 9 Applicant is in agreement with the staff recommendation for approval of the site plan and preliminary plat as part of the demonstration ordinance. Mr. Krueger asked for clarification and changes to the report and the conditions recommended by the staff regarding ERC mitigation measures, school generation figures and traffic generation from Sector G. The setbacks from Bremerton Avenue are 15 foot front yard setbacks for those homes per the R-24, and 15 foot rear setbacks, so it seems like what is in fact used as a rear yard, whether it is called a front yard or a rear yard, they both meet the setback requirements for that road. Bremerton Avenue NE has not been constructed yet for that side of the road. There is an open space tract adjacent to Duvall Avenue for a potential meandering sidewalk along that frontage. The open spaces would be maintained by the homeowners association. Sector E-F along the perimeter has been designed to carry on some of the landscaping that has been installed as part of Sector C and some of the other portions of Orchards along those street frontages, and those would be maintained by the homeowners association as well as the private park internal to Sector E-F. The yards for the homes in Sectors E-F will be maintained by the homeowners. The adjacent homeowners would also be responsible for maintaining the landscape neck-downs and they would also be responsible for maintaining the landscaping adjacent to the alley- way. The CC&R's would.be written to provide enforcement powers for the homeowner's association to come in and maintain that landscaping at the expense of the homeowner who is responsible for those areas. The homeowners association in Sector G would maintain all of the open space except for the private rear yards associated with the townhouses. The homeowners association would maintain the landscape tracts internal to the neighborhood as well as the townhouses. Regarding a tot lot in Sector G, applicant's market is directed towards the young singles and young couples, and doesn't see the need for that type of recreation. From a market standpoint the trend is towards reducing the recreational amenities within the townhouse developments just from an expense, maintenance and liability standpoint. Regarding the private street system in Sector G,because of the constraints in that area,the wetlands,the topography on the eastern boundary,potential commercial center on the south,and the fact there are surrounding streets,that to go with the public street and the wider requirements, it could pose some problems. With regard to the gated entry and delivery trucks,mail delivery, garbage pickups,etc.,they all have a code for access. BILL STALZER, 1925 Post Alley, Seattle,Washington 98101, stated he was the contract planner to the City of Renton in 1991-1992, and was responsible for the environmental and site plan review on the original Orchards project. Mr. Stalzer spoke on behalf of the applicant and discussed the issue of sidewalks on one or both sides of residential streets. He cited various elements of the CP regarding pedestrian safety,attractive neighborhoods and storm water concerns. It is applicant's position that there is an adequate policy basis not only to permit sidewalks on one side for these two sectors,but in fact that they end up as better overall solutions to the objectives of the City, both in safety, in terms of visually enhancing the neighborhood, cost of housing, and minimizing impervious surface and storm water problems that are actually better served by sidewalks on one side than on both sides. The type of street patterns,traffic volumes,comparable standards in other jurisdictions and pedestrian safety were all cited as considerations to be studied in determining sidewalks on one or both • Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, Inc.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010LSA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 10 sides. He concluded that the Peach Tree development was the best argument against having sidewalks on both sides of the street. DICK GILROY,Northward Properties, 1560 140th Avenue NE#100, Bellevue, Washington 98004, owner/applicant, stated that they have designed a product that relates to the marketplace,that they build homes to sell to the public that meet their needs. There is a variety of products here. Sector G as a gated community markets very heavily towards the single adults and they are very concerned about safety. He cited several different communities that have already been developed which meet different needs. He stated that both Sector E-F and G would not be developed at the same time. They would be on a different schedule,with E-F under construction this year, and Sector G next year. Also each individual plat, E-F and G, would be divided into several phases of construction. Ms. Henning stated that staff supports the phasing of these.sectors. With regard to the landscaped tracts,those are required by code to be irrigated. All landscaping installed is to be irrigated, and also staff would want maintenance by the homeowners association of all the common landscaped areas,the neck-downs,planter areas and such. 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 3:55 p.m. '1 FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant; Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers,Inc.)for Northward Properties, filed a request for approval of a Site Plan and Preliminary Plat unde'ij a Demonstration Ordinance enacted by the City Council. 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. 3. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M)for the subject proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site was zoned R-24(Multiple Family Residential)which could allow up to 24 units per acre depending on the particulars of the parcel. Subsequent to the submission of the application and the adoption of this site as a study site for Demonstration Ordinance purposes,the Zoning Districts were altered and this site would now be zoned R-14. The site is permitted to develop under the R-24 standards and as modified by the Demonstration Ordinance. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of Residential Planned Neighborhoods,but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. • Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, Inc.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page.11 7. The subject site consists of two separate parcels located east and west of Duvall Avenue NE immediately south of NE 6th Street. 8. The subject site consists of two approximately 9 acre parcels. Each parcel is approximately square with south property lines approximately 606 feet long and their north to south property lines approximately 650 feet long. 9. The subject site is part of the previously approved Orchards development, Sector E-F(the western parcel)and Sector G(the eastern parcel). Sector E-F is relatively level. Sector G contains a Class 2 wetland on its western half and slopes near its eastern edge ranging up to approximately 28 percent. As noted,the sites were cleared and graded under the previous approval, leaving them in a raw state as this proposal is reviewed. 10. The previously approved plan is still in effect and permits 108 multiple family apartment units on Sector E, 28,000 square feet of commercial uses on Sector F and, across Duvall, 105 apartments on Sector G. 11. The applicant proposes developing 63 single family detached homes on Sector E-F. The development will also contain a one-half acre park in the southeast corner of the northwest quadrant of the site. 12. The development would feature 38 traditional but small-lot single family homes on parcels ranging in size from approximately 3,400 square feet to just over 5,000 square feet. These lots would be a minimum of 50 feet wide and 79 feet deep. Lot coverage would be approximately 35%. 13. These traditional homes would have two car garages, an apron for two cars and available street parking. The total parking complement would be 152 spaces. 14. The remaining lots, 25 parcels,would be developed with what the applicant calls "cottage homes." These parcels range in size from 3,000 square feet to approximately 3,400 square feet with the predominant size approximately 3,100 square feet. These lots would be 37 feet wide for interior lots and 42 feet wide for corner lots and would be 87 feet deep. The reduced front yards would be 10 feet and the reduced rear yards would be 5 feet in depth. Lot coverage for cottage homes would be approximately 40%. 15. Four of the cottage homes would be located on Proposed Lots 56 through 59. These four houses would front on a sidewalk and not a street. The proposed one-half acre park would be located abutting this sidewalk. The two middle lots,Proposed Lots 57 and 58 would have their sole access via an alley. In other words,they would not front on any general circulation street. Proposed lots 57 and 58 and eventual homes would need special addressing consideration for not only emergency response but especially for visitors to these "hidden"homes. 16. The cottage homes would be developed with a concept similar to "zero lot line"homes. The side yards to two adjacent parcels would be combined and used entirely by one of the two parcels under an "exclusive or reciprocal use easement." Each home would have the sole use of the parcel to either its "left" or"right"with an end home having a larger street setback which would provide its side yard. To create private outdoor space,the"non-use"home would not have any windows looking into the yard. It would have the right to use the yard for exterior wall maintenance. Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, Inc.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 12 17. The cottage homes would have two car garages and 37 on-street parking. The total would be 87 spaces. The total parking for the sector would be 239 spaces or 3.8 per unit. 18. The proposed alleys would be 20 feet wide with 16 feet of pavement. The proposal has been modified and staff has modified its recommendation. As now proposed,there would be 2 foot landscaping strips on either side of 16 feet of pavement. 19. All of the homes, traditional and cottage,would be two-story, pitched roof homes. They would contain modulated front facades and porches. This would create a tiered streetscape. The overall density for E- F would be approximately 11.7 dwelling units peracre. 20. The public streets within this sector would be 38 feet wide with 28 feet of paving. They would be designed with 8 foot wide planter islands or parking strips and there would be sidewalks on one side. There would be a landscape strip opposite the sidewalk side. There would also be neck-downs or what might be termed protrusions into the travel lane at intersections to slow traffic and provide more ' greenspace and eventually a tree canopy in these areas. 21. The second phase of the current proposal, Sector G,covers the approximately 9.17 acre parcel immediately east of Duvall and south of NE 6th Street. The applicant proposes developing 57 attached ' townhouses. Since the applicant proposes platting this sector, each home will be located entirely on its own legal lot; The townhouses will have common walls that will correspond with the underlying lot lines. Approximately 2.5 acres of the site will be reserved for wetlands and buffers. The wetland is located along Duvall while the homes will be located generally on the east side of the parcel. 22. The complex will consist of groupings of two,three and four attached units. There will be a total of 17 separate buildings. The buildings will be aligned along a proposed 20 foot wide private road. There will be a landscaped turnaround at the south end of the site. An island of housing will cluster three buildings at the north end of the site. The primary access will be from NE 6th Street. The entry way will be divided to provide better access to the site'and will be secured by a gate of some kind to limit access to residents and authorized persons. A gated secondary emergency access will be located along the south margin of the site. This emergency roadway would be 20 feet wide and finished in a"grass- crete" surface'. The Fire Department wants it clearly delineated. This security access will contain a pedestrian pathway out to Duvall. 23. The 57 lots will range in size from 1,869 square feet to 5,523 square feet. The average lot size would be approximately 2,640 square feet. The proposed lots will average approximately 33 feet in width and approximately 80 feet in depth with some lots as narrow as just over 20 feet. The overall density of this sector would be approximately 15.9 units per acre. 24. The homes would be two stories in height. Pitched roofs will be used to soften their appearance. The intent is to make the clustered townhomes look like larger single family homes. 25. The applicant will be providing 49 of the homes with one-car garages and an associated one-car parking apron. The remaining 8 homes would have two-car garages but no additional parking aprons. 26. The entrance would be 30 feet wide with a 20 foot travel lane with vertical curbs and a 5 foot sidewalk on Elma Avenue. The roadways would widen to 28 feet to accommodate nine on-street parking spaces. Eleven additional guest or tenant parking spaces would be located in parking bays located in the site's center and on parking aprons. • Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers,Inc.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 13 27. The following is a table of the yard and lot size issues presented in this review: ITEM REQUIRED PROPOSED Front yard 20' front garage 15' traditional homes 10' rear parking 10' cottage homes 8' Sector G Rear Yard 15' 15' traditional homes 5' cottage homes w/side yard private space 15' Sector G Interior Side Yard 5' 5' -traditional/cottage Corner 15' 7.5' to 10' w/common side yard landscaping Attached Unit Side Yard 15' end walls 5' to 8' for units 1 and 48 Lot Size 3,000 sf in new R-14 zone 3,000 sf to two lots over 4,500 sf. No R-24 standards Attached dwellings may be on smaller lots. 28. All units meet the height limitations in terms of overall height and number of permitted stories. 29. The applicant also proposes reducing the right-of-way and driving width of the various roadways in the two sectors. Driving lanes would be at least 20 feet in the main,28 feet in Sector E-F,with wider access for on-street parking. The Sector E-F alleys would be 16 feet of travel lane. 30. In addition to the applicant's proposal regarding the various dimensional issues they propose demonstrating,they have also proposed installing sidewalks on only one side of the interior right-of- way for Sector E-F and on one side of G and they propose rolled curbs instead of the usual vertical curbs. 31. In general,the benefits or potential benefits with rolled curbs are they provide almost complete flexibility in locating driveways and require no predetermined site for the future residence. They are cheaper to install and they provide a uniform profile or elevation along the sidewalk rather than the rises and dips associated with traditional driveway curb cuts. Traditional vertical curbs provide a defined roadway and sidewalk thereby discouraging haphazard driving or parking along the street margins or even on sidewalks and parking strips or outside of the driveways, and they provide a more defmitive channel for storm water. Both systems have been termed unaesthetic by proponents of the other curb type. 32. Rolled curbs have been used in some cul-de-sacs;therefore, it may be unnecessary to demonstrate them additionally and await the issues that arise from those already permitted. At the same time,this would be in a more complex larger development where more issues could be raised and/or resolved by additional demonstrations. Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, Inc.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010!,SA,PP I August 22, 1996 • Page 14 33. The applicant's proposal regarding eliminating sidewalks on one side of the street also has pros and cons. More greenspace or, at least, less concrete results in less impermeable surface, less concrete reduces the overall cost of the development which might be passed on to purchasers. In the interior of this proposal any sidewalk will be crossed by a larger number of driveways as the lot width reduction will mean more lots and driveways in a given linear dimension. The elimination of sidewalks means that pedestrians and children in particular cannot negotiate a separate path immediately in front of their residence and in their immediate vicinity,but rather have to either use the travel lane of the roadway or cross a roadway to use a sidewalk on the other side of the street. Those stopping at a curb without sidewalk would not be served by a sidewalk but instead a lawn area,whether public or private. 34. Sector E-F's 63 lots will generate approximately 630 vehicle trips per day with approximately 10 percent of those being during each of the peak hours. The Sector G vehicle generation would be approximately 342 to 399 trips per day. Again, each peak hour would produce approximately 40 trips from Sector G. 35. A day care center is located south of Sector E-F. 'There has been some concern about noise and dust during construction and additional impacts after occupancy. Staff has recommended that a fence be erected to separate the properties. 36. Staff noted that the already approved proposals would probably generate more police and fire calls than would be generated by the current proposals. 37. As noted,the applicant will be paying a Parks mitigation fee. It will also be providing the half-acre park for Sector E-F and dedicating right-of-way for a bike path. Sector G will have the large open space mandated by the wetland preservation plan. The applicant was not predisposed to provide a tot lot. They are not proposing to cater to families with children on Sector G. They believe that the open space will provide for the recreational needs of the children or nearby parks can provide these services. 38. The side yard system proposed for the cottage homes by the applicant is not entirely unique. That system or one very similar in function has been proposed for a recently approved mobile home park. While it is a different zone,the concept will be tested just the same. It may not be necessary to have too many simultaneous tests of the same principles while not actively evaluating the success of the existing models. In any event, it seems that too much design has been invested in this idea and attempting to eliminate this feature would be too difficult. There was concern that creating completely owned private backyards would have created very deep lots,although that does not make it untenable, particularly since it would greatly simplify ownership and maintenance issues and might eliminate disputes. It would also allow additional window on one side. 39. As the applicant points out,the proposed townhouse layout is quite similar to the one approved by the City for Sector C. It contains the narrower roads and parking bays along the streets. The major distinction which may or may not be an important one is that Sector G is a plat although its similar townhouse function probably is more determinative. 40. The wetland;preservation standards were settled in the prior reviews. The wetland will be approximately 2.5 acres and will contain uplands.generally 50 feet wide. There will be some filling of the wetlands to extend NE 6th Street to the east to provide access to the.site. In exchange for filling a portion of the wetland,the applicant will be upgrading the status of the remaining wetland. • Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, Inc.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 15 41. The applicant shall clearly define who is responsible for the landscaping on both sides of the alleys. 42. The turning radius of the proposed alleys will not support fire equipment. The Fire Department can do its staging for fire fighting from the primary street and for Sector E/F's "interior" lots 56 and 57 that would have to occur from the open space to the west of these lots. 43. The applicant indicated that the resident mix anticipated for Sector G as well as the costs, maintenance and liability were reason for not providing a tot lot in the proposal. The applicant notes that their similar development in the existing Orchards has not attracted many families with children. Of course, the absence of such amenities in the first place could be a factor that discourages such families from residing there. 44. The applicant proposes developing the site in four or five phases over the next year or two. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Before reviewing the site plans and plats for Sectors E-F and G, some discussion of the overall proposal in terms of the Demonstration Ordinance is necessary. It was determined that the then existing R 24 Zone was internally inconsistent and too rigid,preventing development that was compatible with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore,the applicant was permitted to submit plans which could"demonstrate"why certain zoning and platting provisions should be altered. 2. The applicant has submitted a rather complex proposal that takes full advantage of the Demonstration Ordinance in many ways. The proposal is extremely innovative. The proposal introduces a wide range of new ideas or couples some older ones with each other. The applicant has attempted to demonstrate how these various ideas will work to create a unique community and one with a very distinct identity. The complexity of some of the ideas or deviation from what might mundanely be called the"tried and true"probably make the current forum, a mere land use hearing, somewhat inappropriate—that is,there was not and could not be sufficient time and background provided in one public hearing to fairly provide an opportunity to explore both the beneficial and possibly detrimental aspects of the various concepts. Normally,the City Council might hold a series of meetings to explore the ramifications of many of the concepts the applicant proposes. Unlike some demonstrations which are either temporary or can readily be fixed,much of what the applicant proposes will be permanent. With the possible exception of making the Sector G private street public,there may not be any good opportunity to provide remedies if it appears necessary. This office does not want to be viewed as a critic because it recommends against some of the applicant's proposed demonstrations. The suggestion that some of them are inappropriate is not itself inappropriate under the Demonstration Ordinance. The City Council permitted the applicant to suggest areas where it would like to demonstrate some development concept, but it did not mandate or require any or all of them to be approved. 3. As clearly noted during the course of the public hearing,many of the suggestions involve substantial deviations from existing code. In some cases more analysis and discussion even for a supposedly limited demonstration than could occur at one land use hearing seems needed. Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, Inc.) The Orchards- Secto Is E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 16 4. It is clear that reducing the lot size and with it one or more of the generally required yards(front, rear or side)broadly opens up the development potential of both subject sites. Actually, reaching this conclusion itself demonstrates that some of the other aspects that are proposed for demonstration may not be necessary. One question is whether attempting to demonstrate so much in these two associated proposals will make it hard or even impossible to measure the outcomes of any one part of the concept. Issues that need to be considered are not only do the ideas play out well to create affordable smaller lots, but can emergency services live with the potential impediments and will buyers "buy"this system. And ultimately, will these developments be long term viable solutions. This office does not mean to disparage this proposal, but small lots and attached housing has been done and in some instances it has eventually led to run-down housing. 5. The yard demonstrations generally appear reasonable. Clearly, if one is going to attempt to create relatively affordable housing, one major method would be allowing the parcel size to shrink. In addition,the Zoning Code and in particular,the new R-14 Zone,also establishes reduced standards for parcel size and for front,rear and side yards,thereby already establishing support for reduced setbacks. The most dramatic reductions are the proposed 5'foot rear yards of the cottage homes and the effective elimination of one side yard by ceding use of it to the neighboring lot. The cottage homes'five foot rear yards are offset by the proposed side yard system where abutting homes get exclusive use easements to the intervening side yards. This will create useable side yards although it is inevitable that incidents of"unneighborliness" will occur from time to time. Since those incidents also occur in so- called normal ownership the unfortunate incidents should not foreclose this alternative. The agreements defining these arrangements and maintenance and entry standards will need to be very carefully crafted to protect the,interests of both parties. After all the actual property owner of a portion of the side yard will not be aintaining or dealing with the landsdaping,barbecues or occasional basketball hoop or play equipment. 6. The one area,where the reduced yards may not work is the reduced yards along streets. The proposed community ownership of landscape strips in what would normally be corner side yards or setbacks seems inappropriate given both the maintenance responsibility of lawn care and the irrigation standards. It seems inappropriate to saddle the adjacent homeowner with a water bill for irrigating common property or el en public property depending on the ultimate ownership. In addition, installing separately metered irrigation in these areas and billing a homeowners association does not seem very workable although it might be possible. Since the main objective of these proposed common areas is preserve the openness of the streetscape,that might be more easily achieved by fence standards. The various setback and fence requirements seem sufficient to avoid walling off these proposed streetscape open areas and covenants can fill any voids assuring that these areas will remain unobstructed. At least, the ownership and responsibilities will be straightforward. 7. The private road system proposed for Sector G is not an entirely new idea. It is something that has been utilized in other developments such as Falcon Ridge(Cedar Ridge). There are benefits to the residents but it is less likely that it benefits the general public. The residents have a secure environment and gated access precludes unauthorized persons;from entering the grounds,but this is not a privilege which the City grants everybody. Many residents probably would like to preclude others from entering their neighborhoods,too. As indicated at the hearing,residents of this "private enclave" enjoy the option of walking on nearby residents'public street while not providing reciprocal walking rights or privileges for others in the neighborhood. The positive aspects are that with less outside traffic,the Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, Inc.) _ The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 17 proposed narrower streets probably make more sense,although the Fire Department is still concerned about access and circulation on the narrow streets. 8. Since the proposal is a demonstration project and there is still some concern about street blockage for emergency services,the applicant should create a reserve for the street and provide a contingency to actually dedicate the street to the City if it is found that an open,public street system serves the needs of the emergency services divisions and the residents after a two year trial period. The option to require any dedication should be solely within the discretion of the City. 9. The proposal to install sidewalks on only one side of Sector E-F does not appear appropriate for this development. While the applicant showed some positive aspects such as less impermeable surface,the clear lower cost of eliminating one side of sidewalks and the additional landscaping that can be accommodated, it seems that if sidewalks on only one side of a street have an appropriate venue,this small-parcel plat is not it. It would appear that the nature of the development could appeal to not only those"empty nesters" looking to "buy down" in space, but to home buyers who may be just starting families and are looking for smaller and presumably more affordable dwellings. These younger "starting out" residents might be just starting families and there may be more toddlers and young children. These younger children would probably benefit from being able to wander between their house and the next on a safe sidewalk. Both adult residents and young children should have the benefit of protected sidewalks in front of their homes. No matter how low the traffic counts,walking and tricycle riding in the streets invites accidents. 10. In addition,there is a particular policy that advocates sidewalks on both sides of a street. This is not a limitation imposed as a result of the R-24 zoning or even the platting ordinance. This area appears to have been specifically considered and appears settled when balanced against the supposedly positive aspects. While the Demonstration Ordinance does permit changes that seem appropriate, as noted at Page 11 of the staff report: "provisions of the Demonstration Ordinance shall include the minimum requirement for the protection of the public health, safety,welfare and aesthetics, adequate public services,and safe and functional streets and thoroughfares." This clear objective would not be met by providing sidewalks on only one side of the public streets. For similar reasons,while the applicant proposes private streets in Sector G, sidewalks should be constructed on both sides of the roadway system in Sector G. SITE PLAN REVIEW 11. With some of the general discussion of some of the demonstration aspects of the proposals reviewed, the particulars of these proposals will be discussed. 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; Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, Inc.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 18 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; I i With-the exceptions noted above in the discussion of the demonstration aspect of the proposals,the proposed uses satisfy these and other particulars of the ordinance. SECTOR E/F 12. The proposed mix of what are called traditional homes and cottage homes meets the goals and objectives of the Residential Planned Neighborhood. The proposal provides a variety of housing types on smaller lots. It provides a streetscape with homes with articulated facades and modulated rooflines. It also introduces some very innovative elements which time will test. There are smaller lots in exchange for a half acre park,exclusive use of side yards in exchange for almost no rear yards and narrower streets to reduce the sprawl and tedious appearance of pavement. The exclusively single family detached complex meets the goal which also allows 100%single family in the zone. 13. The proposal does not necessarily conform with all aspects of the Zoning Code. This is to be expected when a project is authorized by the Demonstration Ordinance to deviate from the rigidity found in both the Zoning Code and Platting Regulations. Conformance with actual building and fire code provisions will be determined after the submission of a building permit. 14. The applicant has proposed to vary front,rear and side yards as well as roadway width and public access. As noted above,the yard deviations seem appropriate except for the corner lots. While simplicity is not always the best objective, it seems that there should not be any reserves for landscaping which would complicate maintenance and ownership and billing issues. 15. The standard impacts will occur during construction and there will be additional traffic on area. roadways after occupancy. These are the normal consequences of development,and according to staff can be accommodated. The daycare center does appear to deserve protection and the applicant has agreed to screen it. Such screening shall be subject to review and approval of the City. 16. There should not necessarily be any untoward impacts on the general community other than the increased density and the potential for property line disputes. The Fire Department will be inconvenienced by the narrower roads and the neck-downs and will possibly have to set up staging areas in remote locations. These issues appear to have been reviewed by the ERC. 17. The development should not have any impact on!property values. 18. The installation of sidewalks on both sides of the narrower streets should assure that both vehicular and pedestrian circulation is safe. The proposal will ultimately serve as a demonstration of whether the narrower and somewhat constricted(by the neck-downs)roadways will provide for adequate circulation, particularly for emergency vehicles. ' Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, Inc.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 19 19. The narrower lots and yards will reduce to some extent the openness of the complex of smaller homes but the layout and the articulation of facades and modulation of the roofs should still permit adequate light and air to reach the site. 20. There appear to be adequate public utilities to serve this segment. SECTOR G 21. The proposed townhouse groupings also meet the rather broad objectives of the Residential Planned Neighborhood. The clustered, attached homes are designed to look like some larger single family homes masking their multiple family nature. They will have pitched roofs and modulated facades. They also open up home and lot ownership by actually creating platted parcels on which homes will be situated. It definitely provides an additional variety of housing types on smaller lots. The topography and wetlands features defeat the creation of a street grid system. With this in mind,the applicant has proposed a private street system which is not entirely in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 22. As with its companion proposal for Sector E-F,the proposal for Sector G does not necessarily conform with all aspects of the Zoning Code or the Platting Code. Under the Demonstration Ordinance this is anticipated. Again, conformance with actual building and fire code provisions will be determined after the submission of a building permit. 23. The townhomes with attached units would not necessarily have side yards but with the exception of two lots,Lots 1 and 48,the yards between buildings would meet standards. Again,the applicant proposes common open space to replace the needed side yards. In a clustered,townhome type complex this deviation appears reasonable. The nature of the complex is quite different from its companion proposal and common open space and shared amenities seem more appropriate. There is also less complexity with fewer such parcels which are also larger. The reduced front yards appear reasonable. The roadway width and private access appear appropriate as noted above and with the exception that dedication remain an option. 24. Sector G will create the same construction impacts and will clearly add additional traffic to the surrounding roadways after occupancy. Again,these impacts are expected with any development. 25. The applicant is preserving the wetlands features and buffering these areas. The complete absence of any recreational component varies substantially from some more recent models,but staff supports the applicant's proposal. In this Sector,wider roadways and signs are intended to assure that emergency access is not impeded. Again,these issues appear to have been reviewed by the ERC. The applicant shall provide appropriate delineation of the emergency access as approved by the Fire Department. The use of grass-crete paving shall be continued as long as the Fire Department finds it is acceptable. 26. This Sector's development should not have any impact on property values. 27. The proposed private street is of some concern to the City. It will be harder to enforce no parking restrictions to assure corridors for emergency vehicles. It also restricts access to this platted property by the general public. It appears that it could serve as a demonstration,but it really offers nothing new that does not exist in private non-platted apartment complexes. Nonetheless, it will be approved for demonstration purposes subject to the requirement that a reserve provision permit the City to require dedication if the private status proves a hindrance to emergency or other access. Again, it would appear Craig Krueger(Dodd Engineers, Inc.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 20 that to assure safe pedestrian access, sidewalks be'accommodated on both sides of the street. The additional width required by the ERC should also!assure adequate circulation. 28. The layout of the townhouses and the clustering should permit adequate light and air to reach the site. Coupled with the expansive wetland preserve,the proposal seems appropriately laid out. 1 29. The site is served or can be served by appropriate public utilities. SUBDIVISION tI I I. Preliminary Plat I j 30. With the demonstrations proposed by the applicant and the exceptions noted above,the proposed plat 1 appears to serve the public use and interest. The proposal appears to take advantage of the lesser ,i standards of the R-14 Zone regarding lot sizes and setbacks. Since the applicant has permission to pose a number of deviations from the standards under the Demonstration Ordinance,taking advantage of the R-14 District's lot size and in some cases yard or setback standards is appropriate. 31. The new lots ranging between 3,000 square feet and approximately 4,500 square feet meet the standards of the R-14 zone in the main and also appear reasonable given the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies. They are small and visually adjusting to such small lots and the streetscape they create will l take time. But they will provide the variety of housing types and lot sizes required by the RPN provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. l 32. The setbacks vary from the enunciated standards., Except for the side yards adjacent to some streets that the applicant'proposed for common open space,they appear to be reasonable. The open space reserves should be consolidated with the adjacent private lots. As noted,this will facilitate maintenance and financial issues. The applicant should be permitted to place covenants regarding the use and fencing of these areas. Since this is a demonstration proposal,the proposed yards are reasonable. Usable outdoor space appears to be provided for each unit. , 33. The applicant meets the standards or has reasonable alternatives for both the front and rear yard I; setbacks for both the front garage and rear garage served lots. 34. It would appear that staff supports the narrower than standard streets and it appears reasonable. There probably should be an option to remove the neck-down areas,particularly at the throat of the alleys, if those prove too difficult for emergency response vehicles. Since this is a demonstration, it might be necessary to remove those areas. Therefore,they;should be placed in reserve with the potential to be opened for street purposes and dedicated along with the rest of the right-of-way. 35. The proposed private street for access in and around Sector G has been discussed in other sections of this review. At the moment it seems like a reasonable alternative but subject to the exceptions already noted. 36. The proposed rolled curbs do not appear necessary to make this proposal better. As noted by staff some have been employed in some cul-de-sacs where the delineation of driveways on the curved bulbs can be a problem. But the narrow configuration of the proposed lots pretty well defines where driveways will be located. In addition, since rolled curbs have been employed in these lesser cul-de-sacs, it seems prudent to await a review of how they are working in those areas before extending them to this proposal. Therefore,the applicant should install the traditional vertical curbs in all platted property. I Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, Inc.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 21 37. In the main,the lots and blocks of Sector E-F are rectangular, creating a more traditional subdivision. Lots 10 and 11, 21, and 29 and 30 are accessed through private tracts,much like a private roadway or pipestem access. Proposed Lots 57 and 58 are"different" in that they have no traditional street frontage,with all vehicle access or"frontage" in the rear off an alley. Their companion lots,Proposed Lots 56 and 59 are also somewhat different in that they,too, have no true frontage street but are rather bounded by a street only on their respective side yards, again, with alley only access. These lots are significantly different but this office will join with the applicant and concur that there probably will be an audience for these "odd duck" lots. In conclusion, as noted above,the proposal definitely contains some very well designed and innovative elements. Many of them seem appropriate,but as noted, some seem either premature or inappropriate for one or both of these two sites. Clearly,the applicant's proposal precipitated some of the changes in the newly adopted R-14 zone and some just mirrored those changes. On the whole,the proposals are well thought out and should be approved by the City Council. RECOMMENDATIONS: The City Council should approve both the site plans and plats for Sectors E-F and G, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures required by the ERC; 2. Applicant shall record the proposed reciprocal side yard use easements with the plat. These use easements apply to Lots 48 through 63 in Sector E-F. The language of the easements must be approved by the City's Development Services Division and City Attorney; 3. Applicant shall install a fence,wall,or other suitable means of defining the side yard use area for Lots 48 through 63 in Sector E-F; 4. Applicant shall install a perimeter fence along the south property line and along the rear yards of proposed Lots 28 through 48,and on the north side of proposed Lot 1 in order to provide a clear separation and buffering between Sector G and adjacent land uses. This condition could be modified if there are suitable fences installed on the common property line by adjacent property owners for any development that could occur prior to the development of Sector G; 5. Applicant shall submit a lighting plan; 6. A homeowner's association shall be established for the maintenance of common plat improvements. 7. Since the proposal is a demonstration project and there is still some concern about street blockage for emergency services,the applicant shall create a reserve for the street and provide a contingency to actually dedicate the street to the City if it is found that an open,public street system serves the needs of the emergency services divisions and the residents after a two year trial period. The option to require any dedication shall be solely within the discretion of the City. 8. The applicant shall install sidewalks on both sides of the street; • Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, Inc.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 22 I 9. The applicant shall install the traditional vertical curbs in all platted property. 10. The neck-downs shall be placed in reserve with the potential to be opened for street purposes and dedicated along with the rest of the right-of-way. 11. The open space reserves shall be consolidated with the adjacent private lots. As noted this will i facilitate maintenance and financial issues. The applicant should be permitted to place covenants I regarding the use and fencing of these areas. 12. The applicant shall provide covenants that assure that the 1/2 acre park shall remain open to childhood play and permit the homeowners association to insitall play and tot lot equipment if they chose to do so. 13. The use of grass-crete paving shall be continued aas long as the Fire Department finds it acceptable. ORDERED THIS 22ND day of August, 1996. 1 i1 *La I FRED J.;KAU N HEARING E ER TRANSMITTED THIS 22ND day of August, 1996 to the parties of record: Jennifer Henning Neil Watts Jim Gray 200 Mill Avenue S 200 Mill Avenue S' 200 Mill Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Craig Krueger Bill Stalzer Dick Gilroy 4205 148th Avenue NE,#200 1925 Post Alley 1560 140th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98007, Seattle, WA 98101'i Bellevue, WA 98004 j Anne Tibbott Annette Hicks John L. Scott 17003 NE 28th Place 20548 SE 159th 3380 146th Place SE,#450 Bellevue, WA 98008 Renton,WA 98059 Bellevue, WA 98007-6472 Ronald R.Knight P.O.Box 6 Renton,WA 98057 1 TRANSMITTED THIS 22nd day of August, 1996 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator Members,Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson, Development Services Director Art Larson,Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann, Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren,City Attorney James Chandler,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Mayor's Executive Assistant I . Craig Krueger(Dodds Engineers, Inc.) The Orchards- Sectors E,F and G File No.: LUA-96-010,SA,PP August 22, 1996 Page 23 Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Valley Daily News Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., September 5, 1996. 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. Appeal of the Examiner's decision is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 11, which requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within twenty (20) days from the date of the decision. 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. • • • SEC. 10, TWP. 23 N.. ROE 5 E. W.M. "r.. .mow.„ • I_ >j • ,' TVGTG�` r;/_- _ Hi•Iw•lIR•r M •' • r1•aiv yuT• 1'1 ;1r'1 .w." _ �{ _ 4..w I • nuci C _ . ..mo.... ;` LYE ' � ,T' ,.y /y •1 (7"1: • �Jf l J. »w u ` n f I ` '' :\ lr mar- a •{ ' LLB.JJI 4d a ` 1�L14,_-�� 1. i , ,13 y ,�Y� k• �+• • i . . Elia!4 •..1 ., 6? • 717.. .. Pl-trwri ; -< R 3. Mill lir d , ,, ,.., .,,,,. �� ;-‘i • I . . . ,n I I 1 '1, ji` I,�,� WWI �J�'� �114:.:"r5.i. ...,..„,: , Z, ) Y , , ,.., . „ . . lil . f ! 1 • ...{Y. . 1 r c.o. (12 i i • • il ' ` S � r. �'� . �• :: lb . . 1 ,1. 44ra ..., 0.:17-.. 411114 ' CD f., .. • • ' a 2 allir) 3........•...,.3 0........4.,33.33 K 1 ,....:\' • ., 4. 41144 •• ' • .i i i , / .A 1 Altp jjj • .m 4 4 as •u •E [ I +� TMeo , ,..ill....,0&_.* a i - IyAcp p • • . ' Atli,-- . itt_os . woot / co . t Lti. w () k • .. nt 4, ... 1.7.44.9. .. . •r• %.:•.5.4.;. .*:.•'.•:'.1.:.•;`4.: !• 1/40 .. . ., l.. ..(( • r-VVOn a_ Ja . nr JT Je Z I.h Q ef.pl•.•4.c.[r:•w • N Lk O e'i SECTORS E F 4 4 ..env• —„, • SECTOR G 47.4A• -2t•°.. r...,c. a w • Kr•1..,.:. ` o a 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION eecTORo e 1• . ,u .IAA a wb, vM• v. ,q ..w TCW. .••,0.a•, V 0•w•wh.•.•q.•ur a Mgt,.0.r.AYp I/*AA • k! [ww.WM[Mce.l A. 4 low ,•w a 1W VA., A.A. » w Oner/Developer Englneer/Plamer/Surveyor H ,ef'•efra q...•,mar•••A A•w.va.v w•NUN wa,.re r Doom r g....hr.. Co - _ - __ _ — _yv-1, -_ __ ___ . v Avg.••/a A.tam.,gae.-.,M.MW.•.•*am', _ awr'1a- _ -_ ___ _ __ NO•1•GM, .1.WM•100 OM•PRA ! ; a w••w•A•q•.`ef et Mnr 1O.Tr."33 Nem R••p. --, - •tll•.n..!PA-YO* -Owe WO-- [A,AL[Mca.r A.[A•4 TM Ammo,T.WA•r../R M • G.YA.R,Du•e 6 wr`�sA WWI _ _ 1 ! ! ,...y.•,°\.T G°•,V W aw•.wo.•..•.Rww.••w Tel•qW wl•Ni••'1a w°. 4�a yr•A.m. .... il N ••TM•0.µ•O •Z[efT ti M•Ma MMa•A•Maw A'"'''. 4A 4 A.. I 11..PIA.m)pwM.,.A•vW•.•\..N•I MY.10 P.M Tat TJG•1M•YAlw.•il•Y.qm r F Y.Wwy•••1.O•IgYI- i i I- SIT LEGAL DESCRIPTION accTOR•6 u ,\` �'• ad l/T_..._ ll,°M•n,1.M•r w Mw..w q.,..,w WARY qa.,. STATISTICAL SUMMARY V tl _._ .Tw MW,.w•Ma••Mw..M)/r...e JI MAN Rp•► -- _. . -V+.1 nA,wit 10c1”w M.,4 Tow•rmm.N WM Amino••• 'WONT a•• IaGTOR6 TOTµ SCALE: t• — 50• () •, •w�w•JI';.MG•••••A•AAP•••••••Aar R•.•w••1• N 1 TAN Y4 )M•0•Y IM.•N wave MM4•q A•M Km ,MOI1 Al\•MOO•a• �Y q.MaA•./A As vw••Y••a M VA n • ••w°.•.O wIw6I Ma.•e N •1 00 w.. a w••s•..•.n ganef••Mon..p Tow.J)rM • L ".n•M)9•Pop* R•J4 13•14 WOO .,04 ac• ' [.w•w.44.T A,PAL 4 row Arse y W.•+wef 01 A AMA R'O••M+IYy We' •.Nm,•mpKeg Cr.•.w Om•/,.iI...wow MVA.y,p M••r•••w�. •A.100.1.,)O\a[e, WOO of TO\of 4, ROA w.T.JUT..,wui,.u' 1 1 VICINITY MAP .sum; 95054 • ' Toe DwCUARDO 1 ' I ' r iiT - SECTOR'O' —� I I I ,Ill iili • it �� h 1� 24°p•- -• •_ `� 1�r.i.'. _ .- .� .� f;j(°��Sc oo°-o�000 0 ....::" --"' iiirlilitlAW AV II) `t�l, ( P1L +e7 ó a � i !./off■_ • 1! aina /T� r, al GATED POUT , r•.io p, `'1• �,- T`o.�` faille o ' I o. .'.aa+ \ap+ce w.r "' 4 _ r�l `�,•�r \"iJ �y�`''�'•; • •l EEGTC4i E I•S ■` N I T �-rdl (�`•����ji `a IJI`. .i $11. G r c.Lh M.G i ' r 0 ;.�1 1••r AJ(/ O'1 ��l " o°oo:'nI �....•t. ■ illAi., ,\ III kw�; {' �•...a D .1,)7•Ve. I• - • �■ r,� a �� \`' p or.J of IPA J r- _y �� : air ••.• �• .�_ -;j{'j�j ` I I i �� ail � ':� !" 0 II I1T��I i I a�y • ■� ;�� ,C • •I • I i:{OI • *A 10 A • Awe SI I r • � :J�•<.O ' ok CO L�, +:\ .. —_ Q I ' w !I: • ii ' 1I • eCI`, =_ 'Ir� `� e`�1/ I d • 1.•TDw•O• Vt �� .��•� •; ' .,- 1 - .444,- 1 11 • _t �0 I' '4k ra x�"� � ` o'" .z»„ 4 3) of I y ofI: 1 I O � l :_ :i • „ + � J* `4`T�' l1IY -1.'.. rill ol ry�EE aT Ili9. Q �'- l • 1 ( 4.1 II '' ` °01y 1 "1 �0`10 ,ki & t 6,,, -I J ;eft•-.7., . ' ' :,- ;'. . i 'Alt atiallpo c-"<.7 S o400r.a:i.lo:NIo'/Oo$oa.�°,��o.o o, r.Oo. ',RATTED SECTOR G ..® °° ° • ' • �� �J �-(M�J NM••r•• �y�'LY.n�• /\�Kl'RJr�. .-L•r �� j� PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE 13 RIEL+TUJL�l.IUN A R U l�Ln�KIV@©Li�LI'E P° iL,(i->_1K ;,.-- 7vuBOl ,QTANIGAL NAME..- G4MM4N NAME__ilZEj.C4ilbitlia �YMLOL Le_YAMIGA!NAYL GOYYOY YAY[ LIEt L OM61TpOY ia�r Can L. D.UouoV•TgP-.T94•flnp• •.)s'«_{n Wa•LrV•! I«!rq••w•.wawa �.• jell Cotwv ua at. •"•"Cwa••at u� iww'r• . •o ewe' ow 6.•••r•-...• v.a•o•.any •••.«cn•. L ..or. '• iI. ..wrya • w •r•..i ......••r•u• •_•r Iwo. t.oy_.•w•••cr.••u- goer/.•.Iww Age.nl PTSl°V941 TILTI'.IIQlYEaflt0020.. ••• •vr•we w.a..n.a.RV r.Dw•rr P.a.,. • C. C.....Low••ao••'ap D.D Mew.wee.. Tr Par Pap • .. LZamaChow.,Chow., ■.•a.OUI.t•Owe/ r t .•..y 80....w«w Hutov...- u!T(!!! _ __ •�1___ a.m.M•wraw Pen Iwo." 3 t....r•oq Owe wawa w•ow I.• ....ammo•.• RKwpa.•..•of V ••ftN.•r.••Awe. �J� r,•••Vo•a•• Ve.c�•.v�p• n.•a...c••w•r C••••q,rMe owl O L.rp.•TII T.i.. ... .. -_••n_.-I..y .•..y.+y.. 'wr' S�• " • w c•wr ..u.••e.44 A.m..w.•v«• tna1 C•q.I•.I Accent Errpr••n Umn.•..a Lt /_,.j ar"Ee.•r Accent; ...pot*•«.f••.e ow � • 'y f•.I.a • •p Q t« Ow•••.s• I.r t• ",• .. ` Vvat«t•pyt«..• . ...MK. 1 aww•wa.w r',w Coto.••COW. L-1 - --- -- -- ---- - �..� • -- -.'. .. rN lbw*w••• -w.want.. F'_ - - - -- - air NLlbr ! £ ,. t 12 ��, • I' Ai ]• Ed umunnmul ��il�lli i :h I i lI,I"i II f I. � WIII ilhP' 0;1 : e , i; • YIBIIIIh �IEII •li�. i ,y 1;• Ii JJJ� ill air I 11 lflT1ITl1IflIm� ,�I�"I IIIIIIIIIII-:- 1, i11 ;: ;dil�r- ,np 9 ril EI p��`` I i . . „nu,umn�l11 inp :„. ,{11 � , ,,, II�I LIl►1�'� _ • mi • . _ : i,,, 1 'I• p _ ii\i\—_ nu: ..... 'L 'ICI '�,,rr. �i{ I • • I .U :.. M • I:4 . IIi1 I 115. ' •�—�: ill iIIiIn: • -.1 ';.• !! , f r �� �. r I��. a1 PR ` 1 f1. I ill la i''i lNllllllllll liiT 't \` ICjI, .1 ........ ( ,•I,i, — 14- I r JJJ \`` �L I I I -,. 1 �nr 11 . • I 'I ' IIIIIIIIIIII! ►. iI; .,i!. ® ,. umiiuininnl I Il l 11III�II1I11I IE�, .l�•II JJJ \irili II1b1,I f Iqf, 4 11/ 1111111111111 ,.p puny I;' II llz. ;JI, 111E •;_`.:•imiuura pill iv I „ I i\ �1._ II: �9r M� _ ,; '1r\ _! 7 1 .!.: r„ , llllllil i 1111C • •% ^ :I1: I1,11 MI Till 'li i i,in.. 4 ti. , �.• 'L_ pM'. h• I 1 . ' I NORTHWARD . T}-I E ORCHARDS G KiO HOU.AVE.NE • BEIIXVUE.aA 1E00.1 ri1NGTON 1200,arms RENTON. • .„- • • • 4 • .0••i*-I''•.:---'---------- 1- 10.- ..., .. ____ .. • - - • ....0, •,.-ogt,4 . ---___ Nonfflimm•-:::L.A,ficr••• . ... --- ggfr51:19fflill • , -- --- -=_._ • • ",4--- •,.2. .r% _ ------simm s-r-i 1 .----__-----,---t .. 4 .„.,,t... , - — ,,-. .g, a ...m.._,-- -- -----.,,.. ,,.. aTI. __---,...,"..........--- ._ ..,. .. . .... ____ , . ....--;:,.,1..,... . - .4-4 ..: •,.r.r.p.i..1...1% inns ..i,. ..,4,1,41 ii 1. II II ...p. ge..,::;;;:er,:0 1M. • ...I ii ii i -•• -" ' '-'-'.'•'• -=.---; i. '.! it77.44%....1.,4f1 Fli1;111:12. .: ‘... rj`...•. .1%,211112020Llai... mug ii:- ...• , ..,,,,tt ENEE =.... 4•• 49 ,MA 1.04... ....e,. • IihnlIgri.1....!' ,,, ,. ',I ot;"*.•••""-•-•1 • • •• • . "•.. .. .. Ilt -f==--f7= -- __:-.!.— rra •-r J . • . _ • # u• i..7".•:-.7-•, -.-= a:4. v4 NI . • 5:- 41.-04 1 ",• .for,..,?,„.- - --. - - - = •••••••'•' - •,,V70•••••!/•=i-••=1=1111111111:•" ".*7,k1,4e: ."—=—•=. .,8..e..,11,111111119.11.1a• —___.....— LA,. ,•. - •.,„w •--,•••77,.. v+.z41 ii •—"Jiminoll!'""IF,‘=•-Tr."--4r" _ALI. .---401W--7---r-- ---,-'--- .—= '-'--..•• •••••:•Y'.- 4. . • ....1.......i..... .=.r.116.-..--,6-:-.-...i."="Inirt.:0;1"11 - ••..• •••• ' ".-- " • ........-- $ • i --- -- - ... •-•7.------ • , V r-V' • -•7; 44 4.7, m =r:P-'"' ..:-. .,:s.:„-,„:„„;,,,- • '4.' fit'..:---m - -: --:,.••dar ' -., .."-S.-.:7; TIP. 7--`!z:-.14% • 1— — f ..esTirt••••••- ....-- A t ..- i'-')• 1,14 .411/4ifE a •nrg: . •:-.i.'=,**--• i't • • 1 . . 11,•"...7,-tfif ; • •, 41 Ns a *.= .'-'t- *.;-'t-•• = ' ,., IN NIP ',14 ',Ye.• ;Vs •,• ,II,VO: r......1 _..... . .... ..„....,. ,. . :_,..,,..,...,,,_............ . .,.,, ' .__!1::t: •'1..f.r .' .;42.1-1 RN is •— , !na:z •-•-- = . . mi me- ‘!.,-,,:I' P-4:';.,•ioe. 4:-.1:.. .__ •-...:;,:, ,.- ;•,,,. tr.,--1 ion c..4.4 11,,•,Vir••..'. MP, • A '..1 • .•• RAN. ',0 • ••••li 1 g ..:: j. :•.r.W.,./_ ./lb-;1 ;•:•••:' ; • .==,:- ---eszz,., .'.1•1111 . 1 = •.!,,I.if ray.1 .:,... iL-rd ....;*.1-.,-. .. ..........Ai.. . •• vir..,•Ae• -...... .P.:.=..::,i,ilr.==:.,:.,-1/;..,re.r_-.... ..,.-i,..„--.,1 _ .....24 ..e. 1 !.! ,,•fr.,_,_., V-%.7-1.:.... iti..r." -1./.....f:-zl: rir zi,r14.r.,,,;7'liiil'AVEI:r7i E,117.5 ppm.Lusolmnig-'7at i!';',• 4ilf!•---.gr-.1- ---r•-•%-f --. .`i :ca-...— '414.4 0 .s,:E =1 • - ••04 4,e,-,:--z-v:-,Fil,..A .::' .4:70....:.:'.=FE if! lt,rp,c...12 ..--. II r. T-7.:'••• ... ,rr# if.$4: 7:A.T.6._=-.L_-_"__= ....-- .,4.).'7...••• =""1, ,.. -__,771--:_ ____.....__N.-:.:: -.. • • ==MS.... 1/4' ' .•'/ ' ". ..."1,•:::::==`,517, :::.'"%jr -. .. ....tialfreklEigANV. ..... Zr---"-e9)/0000 '. /--.- ..,.....t/Z. 'f,....11: -',...t•g.'ri a..;4,..,„LI,7:7 0,...,,::::5,:c...5:.7..,,:!..,f.,ei-4,-.:,--,,..:,-.:-r.1-.---4..-::::-.4 r,".,:e_r-t.,-,--,s,--------".:: ,..-.7_:-,.- ...._ -.-=..=-A--:: --.7.--7"1.;"-•-•*4••11 4.;-;-''•/-• •• '• ' . • •.. - . . .1",- '•.!• :-..'.:-kr-, .... THE ORCHARDS • NORTHWARD HOMES . REAR LOADED PRODUCT TYPE IVERSON ASSOCIATES, INC ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING -4; `• i . I .- c' ) K,.., i I i 1 \ 11 1. . 1.;1 riTc 3 4 t I I t ,. 1 2 ,.....____I k... j LI ) J } ,..,___,,i,[41111 1!71-11 lilit- .1„.1 .,..,...___,_.....,.. " ie-,_ . NE Gth STREET . ....s-., ______•-_-_-_-__ ra.,...:„.„.../ FENCE DETAL Cf,-y-r-,:.. ...:s)G Cppi)oo MON AVENUE . i . t t,. r -', • .. 1 1 .. _ ....... ..• . . . • • 11 • 1 1--- i! 1 .1- 1 I 1..... r J 711 la - irt .. .,, , • , . . . . • 1 ... . , II , JIM! 1,___,11 ,iviira, ail' IL Tro'll , • . .._.., 1 1 \ •. • 11, R1MMIEl.I1aR1e/l1li—Ar"ImiiI1Il I 11 OAI1liWri1lni1 6-l'-i1..1.-1iI.1. !-''''%!,:-!Ar!c.!ur!.ii:i0.•i. . • Le '4L rNL.... IA..... .N....N.l 4. 11 :r.._ •: 1i,n;1 o:gm.(:11=. ,•/_—..I.,_7!4_•—,; - 1 i . 1 i"1 . r r u LEGEND ItreWU>2=LaZoLDzJ..,. _____ 0-ix::,:,ram g.,:=;:i.;.'• . , IS pl - , maii-1 L Z puTdOrnba,slooriflua ne•Ican Stool.wr. all teit - Al 0—g°,7.=;',°_,17"----- di • Ak II. .•• • , ; 1 . I. : ' . somi_j it N • 0 I =IV Mall 11, \,:-. , • , . -4--,,-- ,... , ,----,_Mato norchtrodti •• JaponcSe Flowerop crabapple Mit' Va 1m.alt Kilb V, . ...4, A --- .-rTh ' in"" 1 -.4,145.• ' : . • --:, -V...., • ;I - : . • -1_"=. Z, z • v.,..:t.,,,k...,. _ ,„...., 4, . , ,...v?",t-------G.: -T-A:4,, ..3 -.AI:. 5- , 1 0.10 '..".f. 4.4... ...,p'•‘=:;:e7-:', --.. '--,& • _ d.,7 •,-.',....?O'n,:...4.I- •- as 7,-15--- - ;.% 1-.:'2?•;-.Ali:..-q:,..til.-:.;_-;..,,,, _ _ --- _. , - ••.,..1-4r.A..ior,,Aa._ . _s,,,m,,:.,,,„...,z., ,:fq.41:77..i74:4401' -,-- =_. •-1 IMIKAi mi.,,,,iLt..,,,L.A4 ..._•:.--.,-fza- ---..__,--,_____,Th - LONIFOLE OETAL 4r# di/41: '-,t,:ra,z,.-= '" 1 1 1 2:4' ..;;;;;;;;;-is,7::: ,_;._,-,--77 ---,____,----,_,--n-j- THE VILLAGE ON UNION w.,,,„ 1.-...• '- -el ..°"' eS1 Girl ING CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN 1-1--Ts- • • • i r �y� a ?1F _ • a _ <.i3;• _�. 6THaCT,' i UNION 670 uUr .r�./ �'; -�'Y1v K I 9 D --- -�• •• ? Ili I CONDOMINIUM r� Slcvc Nor.,s - •• ce - !• t a p Y._. , f _ '. -r.. 1? , �l ' i ♦ E uNeTS 109 Ac.- �; ,�r.;` 1. P 14 I I IL.. „ 5 .�, � •.��•` '• •\ f = N - - rl 59 - IS I- '•16• �u, .4 0S15 S1 9�__ _ ___�1 School O,stnaf 403 - : \� `r1S� v , Li.,_, ' ni -• i ;= J e• 'Y.'r s : S'� I ;I ., 4 5 • Z \S\�'Y j�c�• 2. Ac \ �l�'' J.Vr�'� 5` a _ 1'b r LLI _ 36211 I _ E •T `-t A I ,� µ35 r' : ;;� Nii�r �N.E-6TH PL, a6 ' /.',T �56Ac I IS AEL_ '� I �J I' y '.-al�q ♦• y te�r! L - �-1 = c i ,I I •I•. _ �6�627 )7®' III , ®. '504S®I __ ••' 1 O ' r'� 9 ,•�� r' 'Clams _ ® _ I.R C ' -1- 4... Q ' 'tlr'-Rr,� I I 'i G_a - 7i`lE 'rr • • _r �t w e ro- So N Ei• )ssJl -_ use-col 6TH (cr PL. Q j'~ 1. .!;� :6t 2'' r(',v NI L} z4 t 3S IT i _� I°os7lc. l/]y.,, 'W a IQ "LJ 1{ ��;;� ^. is .A: • I - 1 sc •V'' �t 1 .''�• . jN t :7� �(,� -J O' 1,'e.r1j 'El25 ]¢ '1• 16 ❑a-, School O,str,c/ 40: itI r 4 I :6Dg. If: 4, Evgf , .ii: L.1 eL- ." ^�' c I r` - E 1- 1.36 Ac 1 z :• 11 'ID 9 •7, v iO �: I ' p ' 7�! ZF� II t4i Jni'•:JI' • o a ,�� '�7, 25 3% T� Ear; `n„fh -� h. I. ' a'a3L.A I-1 - .'_-� LL;' ( .n• =z'>f�� CP t r,' 2-61 Ac ^,16r 0.51 Pc. • ]�(� I '*1"r I +J� 14 rr IR I 14Xt- C ',. ^ •il ,� LJ ��• ti aE 2s I .'yG.3Q-4c, 1 ti NE, 6TH - r - - • _ I6S_L,. CIILD _: 4M'!44 [ 1], 1 ' 6i131.4 Ai a 1 .3 I •• I ,% .T., Li . _ ir, '- t- -ems , ^ .i I..:W,I',om5 2.31}�C. C '''sL a� 1 1. J Vl A CALIPER ,, , 'z°- +i: yWeter g, +1 S rJ { 1 OO ,J _-sit i 1; I M= r.i2` O I. n ,a IT `i ' e _ a i t :g .m ° I --- ��_---� 2 AC. r 4. aa .4 e» n q 4- T "'�16•r - , N W WEATHERS SR • s0 ll�� . 1 r--r'o! .5977 'a• tPy I�SSi �iG T.L.<7 rl.rat W ^ -,155 L ]i'• 1 , C. W.1 nrnsW15-4c, tIf. � Z1. 71,.1 4S6B97RI •+4 1137 IPIR0 II :6AK --- ;t.r.� 0.59Ac )T..Vn r,.' a Ll ry I (. NyBu6,.,4 P, ID a ,7D L T O 11 1 0 1 • =ERFYARD L WARE �.rzr•1 *L zr0 ?' ��lu> rm. • C4N0- f z 4 n _ _ , Z ® •2g �I A N� 5TH ST,_ a 1 r _ - c ,' I.0ZAc I2 • _1 LL I.W. Corue 7 _ 3 r aL.ur •i.L.zis! y -a - 'r I :rldx -<s.54 _-=3;=---. 14 •• ERITAG��•� - \ iri Q • � - rr • i .D�� 1 • U D © ter. _. i,z.•-t - 2 r- a_ -J� Ceti/ u x r u�1n- FCIREST ;5 _ .. ..._.J f 3 =- ! .t, 1 • r��e rL./os - fr7I-,�;611/��yy����T it '-R-'1 f Q (a) l JI.�J LL p' ,` ,:btu SP 06�-83 r 1_132 Ac. - •1 :Jr fa _ 4 I-t.A, - tt57_ e''� 9 .JLlS It IF.N e: ', �? 7 7J y`/1 lk tdd;) Sd Jaaip__ I 5 Y!02L 116r ` 1.77 Ac I i -I ¢ _--_12at1•j Tt_' I •~. r,y '7.76 A[. 4r 1 y, 1 D.40 A6 O : _tr Kg, ' ca.3 -Od Ac. I-,n 'lcLl `; r-t.tap ti P.�.P b L'(A., zFs I, °S 047 c l`'�- � r y, n5 {{ 1•Us �'J .'_�- I..3.6c.a• u.rry 1 _3 •0 1 a II; a i I.` -:.➢U EMI ,' It rt l« - � Z '+ n' 'i,y 7,55-•, HARRY A R11:MAN ::`I ; •ee hCY,6! -'0 _ Jo.j Do..,G Jc risen U ,FL 7.E6A, 1 rre! i .,,1 _ ' r A (I) 3z 450 Ac 2so . I' • - W - - --•-`I i JERRT C Y WU - ,a .n r r �L. THELMA McLAt�N • -c.01 E'DANIE;EON ~ �5 Ts I v :: 1 - ,f ^. ••, tro u ---- i I or of 'L/rf •� I I ' 7 Ult,F[. r�� I r N KY•.da f� -- - T. vs- 1f a gP.76_81---- ' - I I e4';� Y i ;,� 'la•J R ' I •,•�- �lLi ac V 0.56 Ac. c I j r� 1`0.3L Act? s •'I: ® 11 - J L -. i I• - rSe , I . I C ' I: '- 5 ICI ' -. ,'� I 'r3.a ' .,+ - I ` i i `tir' 0.91 Ac. A l u 1 ; o I �-- < ! 1, 0.5.•' _- ' 1 2 r I x (2) 1 ''S mo. 7I I :le At`3� ISIo rr r.3 ct teal - ❑'. . a 1 I li t �, I o ..I ` ! '' rr Sf w ' - v6 , /D - i I '' - I a a ' ] i • In.11. lc . I , •115! --i �o� I'- -1 • /q-�0D86tM; I i �7 •----rp 03 !ry ¢, Q .' a rc'7t ' _., ,-- ■ , ; / 'r 'Y�•.... I�-• `'°• Q.. i f?-�'j- j�i.'.r. I c y,,,c. II, 'L"" l.1",' `_ 1, :. 0.11 • y;,1 1 L .1„ r.S/. I ,I I ' III' _ 1 . •�.-;�i` 'nt.n , i° n,5 CJ I,�! l:i'' , J rf ',j�of S 1 ' '' 3,9.r i' :r0 •kJ? 200rr !rh 'ele ..I ' 1`' 1'15 Il_ ItO lL ' _..-- -..-- -- N.E.-I'-+ 4TN+---- f--ST ---.-,-.-.-..-ST '��I Qs,SV_-_^N.E: -.• -'H ST: _ ... .. ... -- _--_-_ ATLAS OF SEATTLE ' ATLAS OF SEATTLE 0 Aro1 Maps ate, e.M.re ,• - - "-' ^-'°" 370E CoavA1G,.TEo6' "��+[} �}, KROLL MAP COMPANY, INC., SEATTLE t°"s'°"')'I' �., •2 _..r-. -•c.w•-c"d...',.,;,-r_,...d: KROLL MAP COMPANY:1dC:11.t [..,i_f IN 700 FT- COPYRIGHT KROLL MAP COMPANY,INC. `" + i994 • .4 ; ) ) JUl Jl J � _ Ijiliuiiliiii i1P1.�'!'�Ii- Ili $I!. i NE 6th STREET GX.XrrgLE " `•"".•._ , _•;�,:� ^,„ yr I= Il'. J FENCE DETAIL v it E ' UNION AVENUE . . . L I '� J ENTRY DETAL 1 I GRASS LAW N �— � � i �; '�� GRASS LAWN l l r i - - � r ; • 7 ! _ _ a F. ,.1::..: rfEXGE 1 spy II M MI MI �d,4 A, A11 A /MI ^11 Mil ,I.w p , p p PpLE MIN rat f mi. .X.ea LAwx 4. IllS — —� :_ �!L!li ■� � Ir aalfimujoinSimi ii1 !t t .° aiXçraiil Ir$ ! r ■1 Ii `� piny i > 11 1mill ,I�iell�■• '■� �i� > ' ■ iIJ.1iJ ■ ��' M rEXGE— on.J LEGEND .... w �� mule e�le.nl ilro I•w —i it I1� i■� GRASS LAWN J'- "_aa� `mInkl lriltlllna /,' Pyrue Generrene•laezelene AVE1 _ #�` ���=�_ r•I � Cleveland Select Flowering Pea !JI ,■� ' ` �'. rn—LlmerdG nba�serrpcillup rC.TI A I 5 e tqum ` /���... 1 �i— I I I ' �^ I I TIIIIg rdele'Greenaplre'CO I ■■ �� �— o-LII Ile cLegl Llnden Pal III, 1- 1 ' ' ' _CarDlnua be lulus'Fas}Iglpf� Q�1 'a� ��� I I _ _ I _ I ® Narrow European Hornµep 111� .,/� / `_�� I, _ _Acer rubrum'BowhaE1. ' ��r _ 7�L� �. t �� I _ Columnar Red Maple,1^ /�'� LA. ro S _I I Mews norlbuneg / 'y Japanese Flowering Crabapple ma. -47 !Z 'rr. ..A'ku_! Yq'.b�� .Y iowEn A� __ _�:-`— Thd e,/ fbA sAN' ..;; ,h e,^...A4 II / I ��\ y T¢ �yy !` �,RES i ^ M1 _ifil7:1 % `���Y U ti� I�y IL ---v -- A . 3- ofLl. ` ,---.`—Mal -- LIGHTPGLE OCTAL I J :. - Br —� s ��� b,. e ero N..aGw THE VILLAGE ON UNION G. I.eTXE1)GSIGTZ ING CONCEPTUAL.LANDSCAPE PLAN zwz.XXp,w.eeeaa R061 ez:..eec raz Ia061 azzaero 1-7_r•- • 'ri " '.' + .,.Ca/• a :F - - �'tis=` �F 6TH CT.T UNION 670 •� 6. t.;° r; ``,'E•9. % .s 'I 9 ., 'I D•-, ' -!f.. •• 1S ]�'•• • - .1111 i CO 6DONi15 IUM.? S eve 1o9Ae.- .., :, •\O. l+�Y • ♦ r,\• ,•66 7. e�': _ 1144 I 11� I Z b (l�!4. ", A. ` 9 _ T f\� \�e\•. f ,t" a s ' 11 ~'pyy, !S '•I'•I sls „ ♦ 0.391.c I.__ _ _ ^ School DiSTrlct 403 �� ,t Y j I .0.9 I Lti] ,f 41 ;A41 •R 71 •3551 -al- '\�� �\ ♦ t I . •''Y r j L I-q�-$ J d�I l -9':*I •-3�ril.. I ® I ` .,r I� Z45 aC ., . ♦'\3• Qk,• q♦ Vlr3\ I. _ n�'•]t i �7,6 •I 1�� `-' W n I r.^ _ r 36Q. t 1 ��, o p `e ' ` , NI IEr 3 1 IY63° ?i : ~ ■U5'• ci, 4N.E.6Tk PL.a t�f:o. ®_ I %':!r r . n56Ac. 1 IS AcC7 r4�{ jy ,f1•• - ..3 .di 1L�J}'CI4.1 = 7 4. ® r i'W I I. :1�• 623 J IIt y. �. •s44! ®I _ -�:' 7l a " ' •LZI ~ \s. .Tf." I w 1 s. F. :". � , �.��,yl�� ', - •W • so 4u:Y.n 34�• I y G. _ _ 325.27 155.11 .os r----2esT'l l•ol ��/ 6rH /•��,PL. & 1 ; �;W - .5,■ .SOLI 2 1:12 Sp ? 24 33 n• i •=� I°_°0s1AC. ▪ .. w _ 1 -7•('-�I s• 'tJ I 1 '-i+.. s i A' !]'�I , lu Ie 25 U. E1 School Dlsir,ct 40 ,J it•PZaj i 'I V[� (i� , ;•,1i u:; ' !I ,s.1'fQ • 32 IN ��- w} I �.36 aC1 1 x <I .. II 1 IO 19 of ,4 i .r; 1; . .1 rs:, 2FI 1I 1Ri' .4?JI' .:i}, •4 ' 10 C •c•1,r2531 .'�t - Eori :rnlih -tee•' h• ,�,iII .q}�� L I I --^su•- '`I i'� n'• - ` Z .tom I 2,61 At •�I�0.61 Ac. W im I3 I4 ! 14a �f1��g'• ! 4 I�1+1.I`. i2.• 1n�IfTI 0... '� ��� ;. .' ra1 Ir9xR1 f'41r�+��� u +fie..:: )o ° _ ^l61 Its �I ]�rr.II( 1 taJl`£r'I�d'(s � 1� aL I^ �LP�I^ ii 2!© „ CJ 'RM `Sr 44r PJ ~ `Li' 2e z9 p�701 Io.3.Ac. S1 . sa .-1 1 1^ I .. i'.i . 1^1 1 et l.•.. .r ., '- y =i> •4. . � :)t :: , I v ...�,t s, 'I .. -;iT (° [�h• I 0 a N N.E. 6TH s '�. I - - !'4_.I •• _1 °` Imo° _-��.o ts..r_N,�, y,.. i,T ,._1 I I x 1 v T i I (3 I so I ::e R 37c.on I , "_39 �=_- _ _ _ _. I i �,b�.'� 1O rxl�Qt�.+7 ry•ILx . " -. d 1 S,I 1 (^�� o 0 ,.1T� ^ 5 '� � ,gnlll�LrMa 1 _ t'Ebtfi_?ytt}.r r 1 I-k 7I �'sl_ `�-�� I C.. W i I',o ms 2.31�1C. 1 C 'i7 ss s_ •�w, i , 'i `J oo J ♦Y',t U W A CALE/ER li I - :z. ` I� yWeter S� LIo d Y b Haiti C. • :!'0 a \_ IA I'' 8i i6�1ttl 17�j • N 8 El ! •' i -1 41 o I _ ® 2 i'C'.. -r E\•_ I 11 ° • (� _ • „. �� , v N W WEATHERS SR 0 I.8 C. �I' c :I .._.✓•.- '•.eL+6,' .M3� :IS 7S li ' I rL.<7 rl.rat i W .. .....IPIRH -. ....___ W ,.,� L7,33 C. •W,I�,n'Jr,r.l L ro T 0 P; I.s:Al. :s7: z x�1R �Z4s6 9 C L , r r[37 O.S9Ac J7,.,,,ID I;. 4 U N I 0 & 0 et i I E EDWARD L WARE ;I �Tt.2,4 Z• wl. Pa A•COND. s .re a _ • S rine ; .,I L. .za Al -: 3 i i Lo:Ac ® R JI s ry.E 5TH ST. R c 3 ! "'• in r.c.•r3 - y ,fy1 }}a.rrL� u61 I.W. Carve �•'� - \ ' 4 i • e ci ,,� • I� :am .�s4_� _��Q I7I U I 1�1 D2ERITAG..&i�-i•r rrt-�1 1 z: ..MMFORESTZ' r- �_I ®•i I • W y-G NUNIT,- EEI ^ii •• J _ L1 . _ m. ti I •� �q 4f•{+I r.t.lOL "��' 7f 11 �IZ4T8CONT 0• -� 1: a • ^ •..el s� s.-tv ., z[�' • ' SPC83• 1.12A[ IdvS' Sd JauJo--- `� .. 3U.0z S7 I t[ 1 w 1144 ;4.,6 Ac. i,' 4.od Ac. I•.n ... 1 m 9 C�40 Ac. .1 • vr--.-..3:4re f --- "'1:i ti• `.-"04!rt+^. i 1 i • T•.l.lr° = P.p.P&L co.: a YES ,S {I 1.95 ,+++�' 1.03 AIt;,a. surf.. I ~ _ ITS III El 134 • I [er .-•.'•?`�.rT I:0JAi HARRY A RITZMA4 , I t.d;_-2' I� _ IS'Y``''rJa Dov,d Jcnsen 9.86Ae1 `1. I $ JERRY C.Y. WU (I) g = i4+ - 4 90 AC ?� v I' _ ��� • ..{_ � •, - _tI.-__. {� THELMA N�cLAIyN , RO\ EI OANIE;SON :73_ 75 '•., :,i(- _.- ri I .I I ' i ' tro7j I �_- I I N 1 1 .4e •[/77 I,,, ' .. i 3.0]At. 7 ,� I o 7 0 S .M, I r- •T[.rTS .4 c v ' S)P..76_81_-__ I I c 1 t 1 I -1 3,90A 0.56 AC. l c o 011993EA J 1 -� i' .GI j .1-I . i .. •!.. , . • v Ll 52 r 2 T.I.Hd r I I TI I I u, , II, il I .l I( .. `,•W1 ' lol o 1 c 13.' «. o• a 'ip 04 A. I,•- I I I i `��►,r-'' 0.91 AC. z (2) ry I J _ ; ^.I o i I O•�t I I,I r/43 zl.43 ❑• ,, .. zcto, IC Q . y.I ]EAc`t°JI ,� 91; rir,r� roes- i ;I i ? '1 �I ` o 1 IIr NSI ,.sab i, .. I 0.86Ac. ,, ^�__�a°e3 21 Li, . a, d , 1,i a . '044Ac I; �l�r r OF•- I I I?P� [�Y%..'u7 I ^' Qitayl ��_ �7ra I x..v II• ,,.r- •..:�, ~ �'" of J ' '.I O S -' 11 W 'I •_ 1 „ I'la8hi `dI cj+.. '0 U i• I I 07•Acl • 1 :11 ,.Y ♦ it ,ram uSu I II I JJo!c I r • i*on 7so.M I' ¢ ,4,• 51443 (/3 4 iu7s ��! , Crs n I 7; _ /�� Jbe 1 5 I 140.2E ATLAS OF SEATTLE ATLAS OF .SEATTLE �`°�Maas are, Re°ro0ucoon in .e.MAr:.•. -_.....,....:,;. a n-.,... fo[w n pon.3,li T,�,]` :.e.MAN - 'Irc•oa•':•"a•s•c•n;:r,•...7.7; a COPvp!OWED i Ptivqitt.�s�++,,�D�ag,. KROLL MA_P COMPANY,INC., SEATTLE ..... : ...,,., AI..3.�s•Is••+.e KROLLMAPCOMPANY;119C.s, E�1 IN r POO FT. COPYRIGHT KROLL MAP COMPANY,INC. CITY OF RENTON Development Services Division 200 Min Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Gregory Bush ' Metro Environmental Section 821 - 2nd Ave, MS 92 Seattle, WA 98104 . - 1 . 1 • , . „..• „r-,-;,,,--,,,,,-,-,,-. - ce 1:, c.c)v-ci ,.;•,:•:1,; ,, .:, ...„ .;• .,t ,, - --7,-T-- . LI NvvAe'T1/4bbe11- . tioo 3 vie -2.64-k 'PI , 13eklevuet li.tk 9600e) - AlAtnekke.: Iftc.lc.s ., 2.054$ Se. 16gii 4S+ "Ve.y1.\11,Nt W-A- 015051 • , , Zolgoet L. ScArtr Lztici Deuelorrmer* "33e0o -.. Mel- 'Place se., suAc. 4so ePoeilevue• wet ism, - 2-om Id P • -iivictlitis . w64k iwtilm., ,) 'et? ro: -0.# 6. Poe ,... opl'O "? •„. • i ........ . , . --Z:_."-----r-- . . • r, �}y ?r �� f `ly " `, tvg- J -. -- - " ® I1 o. s :om jAr71.o MEI y >psr 0. s ; .bl,�., t®® f.li ® a NW i WA . Fa am ; 'MINI ..'..- -.;..,. . 11/ : ,: IMF,'t cr. 1 grA r2 ,Z,41111Earil.* e Kj1 IMI 0 1 ' ' I'0 PPIE"X°'1.1 " " 111Prif1215iltIr ,,. ..., a 1I s + °W4L `� .,� �.,.,., .,., S .=MzrQw r •-s,.---.ar-- ----.-.-_..-ilk lii 7 154 CI IL 0. m:�".,, d i . �i?��',i4 a el:�S��`'Yiwe_ �1].•:'...a•S e} ga $= '42ti"-': ' - 'ws J ■ 6 40 IL{s"a"e ®1.I (`' An .,, ® o mM.a'-,�� • �" ® ''WIN'S ACRE TRACTS '°`" ' + ."°"° ' "" L„' "® 1 I �el _IINftEORDED0,_-n , .