Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA02-012 CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER/LUA02-012 PARTIES OF RECORD . _ • . � ���C R R 11 ME D • Last printed 01/31/02 11:33 AM sigli cr I— Fte e . o ,C v 1fi Ie U C / .- .i - 0 lull JWEST ELEVATION SCALE Ls'.1'-m' I`C 'IV. C. Y9 8 . ep Y e1 '.: '--W \ III Ia11- 11111 I — 11- _ 11111 11 11 11% 11 ; G �I H , , (TA �I�IIIIIII _!I� MI , -Iilll��— ) q _ — Illlliiliii _;;y __ II J_ R. INK I _,I - Z `u nnu� nm rnnu = nn nm 11 — 14';11 u m �I W z Ilwn 11 � � �� 1 �_ _ /" R 11 I �_ Il o nul C� _iIIIIII =11liuliIiiI IIIIIfmi _�llilllllllill__ Ilulilili Wiliiilii III II __ _ IIIIII v, `'.I i I `11 11111 I 11 =e 1111 11111 IIIII r II EE 11, III rll 11 O W VaR .IIIIIII 1nulllio1 — Mil = —11liilllllll iilllllili Iill• ullli, Jrll __ --, erg_ �- IIIIII _ • 3 5 ■a 11 If1I1 — It 1111 Ilfll�■■ ^_ -- _- _ �_ 'I r W p 9 _ - — III S.aR �! '1 illllllilli! Illlllllil'. a = IIIIIIIIIII _ — uliiliiii IIIIIIIIIII II — E E e n■■; Q z II_ 8 — : / 1 _• WEST ELEVATION F'I MAW., a- eAS —.-- SCALE•W'•I'-m• • �1 •- FJ4�ur 1R+yil U ep1i....11 1imnIi—.1.-1.s.%....1.%,,.—. 7--1i-- / /l r , eb1G - 1111I1N1a11I11I11 11 !IUltIiI111 . I 1rL II, 1�' tea Be 1111 11 1 111 ■u■ ■r Ililiillll ��R lllliill' iilllililli — _■ - 1 1 11 �' 11-=11 == fl ■ 1111 1111 IIIIIIJI �::I= 1E ll I sue. E1 HE E+ - liliiiiilli illliliilii ��—11 —�_ II ■■11 11 1■ FftI1J1iL ! II n JI eT.`°J m i __ •• onro�a■ _ u 1■ In ■■Eo1! �— n■■ _ ■■ l■ II ■■ 1 ■■"a n ■ *tea _ iiiiilliiil iii _ liii:LII1 — mi MI— . I NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION A2.00 Sfi.LE•VE'.I'-m' SCALE.Er.I'-m' H3 • 30 T23N R5E E 1/2 1.6 f. ,((,'-,,,, --------I---1 ;�/%i� I I t R-8 F CA • �! } l------ 177th Ave. SE i-C�,f Pi) • . !Q • S 179th St / �' 0)/ 46". . . -00 c � �RM-I,& gR-S 43r� St. cow) ' i i fZiaC Q - ------ i i• �� 1 R S P1. 71 o(P), (co(P) I co C❑(P) N • y R N17I-. .--- -- I r L..__�� i iCO z M iml M — ' N t RI {R414 -- • ii ' R...-; 14 ._... L4 [ S_. .. .___ ----- ___. .--- --\ R-1(R-1.4 � t - - /% r - • =J 1-1 • \ _.... . SE 190th 1 — --I — R S 55th St. %• � I• i R-1 r _______, � "! 1 r . J3 . 6T22NR5EE1/2 0®0o T s- 0 ZONING i,aeoo 13 O c� • p "TECHNICAL SERVICES 31T23NR5EE1/2 ! A. zo 01n8/01 . . • . . i • •sewn oftlaglatorde '''LI i I. RENTON EV231-23-5 6 0 E• '''7,..,=.,t,.,•Vp,.......-,•-- 8, i ,.- (A) ,.• ....: " •--... 6 - PC....s. 47 i I. 7.z1.1-ti-'9'.`.•:F .i. . 1.134,. ilI ° Er ® ?• s., / f'i;----'-''--''....':-...9,, 1(... !Mg ® , 1 i., I • 84.7 1 • / et, 5`....:.:„.7,..c---,,- .... ., .s. 147111 ST.a e?.,i4 vA f'--. ,n-/- gr y/9'/Afit /7 E, pisNp....:„6.,000 6 0 1 . r 6;6 ,„, ,,„ 6 ,,,, i,..-1 s-pr: ' - --- ''''' ' .--.> ..11.-, %.-' ' 1 4 ill ‘s.) ::i)t,//' '...n figfik4:'S•''"I' 74. \ '288i t; 1::: 4 1/ u Czz,C E N E .1 „I :,•1 , •• „!' ,i'l e„. Wittik.A- V•41L-1'. 7i d-A \ 0 .. -. . ,:'a• V.V.gra _ '%, Ill iu le S; I if 7 ,f.... i.,..,... .. ‘,„'-',N011til CAN-US 0INDIN '1'; CZ:), '-.':•.',/.;i Ifi„: ,,jk .,V' to ,t, t2-.1-'... ,,,...,'`r.-, ' I . . ,., I c ‘,„•-•.,:l.„,,,,..t!,,,.... ,..." /41 iiiAirsTiieTe . Jili$L3i- —'.1"-.P''. ''' k-!--.)_ f.3 I • .. o t YALIAY yiEw 0 • . , P,.:://,',/ • . ',„ 1 - „;...._::::.-2/..,_- „0. 0- ,i@ -,..- •• ---...- , ,.• - •• ----- -",,,,,, r. 1:c:=3-_-__,•7°,.:1;r;•- [ •,..,--•s.w...7.. 4:••3145‘....ta....,t-..-.,. i. -...,4..1...., , • I . Ill a '' i i el 1 • ,... .L, . :1,.. t'I' : j 4 i I am 1 A' 1:111 fi- — 1:1 ° iii WI 191 E State of Washington ..I.. 71 ., • .;; 0.! '' . a . ,,, :i , os• I v t. i•.>..i .. ,c:00,,.- '-Tt, ? , •,, .:,c.: 3E.939.79 @ •1 1: ''. . . MI f INN m ..,. .F. et..7.7 .• 0.P.'e.; LI tAe.E • •a:. . 0 -- ' S. 45TH PL 1 .;.--,,,,,c-L--.-t,*.. 1401 Stet.of Washington o sag • ' 4, / J I.-35N-•-• 6, No..5 0 i! B • .. ,,,,,. ,. 2603A. • . ef" fi'ilLV,En 0.3''' . I . • 10.50094• • ..i? i/ • . '.. Fa ..., ... .. . . .. , i, .,,, v'•.5.02Ae. •; 9 ea„, . , . • T A L 1310' 1",91DIGI H-4 i'Lt PUB' • 1 P A______,,,...--.. ) • 61, 1 ...--,—'4.•"i Yr A COND.- • a v ._. . I ...I (2) 0 v, ; (I) g- 3.E.399-79 I30k. Lo--— 14T/Aa ® ®miss @ 0 R,, 4.61A0 i . g . ..0 il "rt • Ti . , , . 1.540, H 720 0 MA. V EI74 0.15 AA El vrt.qoADAe.a.14M. 4.; •-------r-'''..-6--,--,„,_-/,./.; 1 9ak 44196. i IM V ... . Mk. .3. MM I T PARK al , TRAcT I 01.- 3 S. 5IST •,' -950311,. ; 0 ,•. . 6:c^`. \‘‘Vp.,. 1 i L . I. ..'•' 1 .•; a.--,...7.-=‘,* ------..--•--.—...,—mi_._._ M m .,....•., -.1 .M (I) (Al SA 060-34[4 0 4.1 VIM S.,mu —11---- g II a 971AN - .', 3.9379217 r.. , r, 131',Zrosii° EWA 1 130,,® ® TaAei RS ell- @ ,,E4 9E039-1331H , , iiii f] E. Iii 1 . 5923/45. \.n _ as_.,.-„,,.....7-,7,--7,-,,S......77....---71.. ...r..--,,,,--.-.. .... ..-_,-...,ISENIX7=-2-1—i-----• ••-2ST--L\--- '•''''"' '' fl ' • LIIIITy • LEGEND ATLAS OF SEATTLE County Te...51No 0 Neu.Numevr 1099 i•t---.7.-i".--. -.7, -°:-.'"Ii- -.7.--S...- Cr:WM.11D A Pue1.39.04213 BY OW.. I=1 errata now .z.,---:.,=."—.---..r.r.:=zr..__, KROLL MAP COMPANY,INC.,SEATTLE stmt.* MI Short PlO1 5 P.17131.11 SCALE:I INCH•2C0 FEET . _ • A'\ TO FIRE ,,, JfI ..K17-11 N SYSTEM fP1 ,SNIN 1 • I sa 0 15 50 00 DDCV ASSY AONN)': I L -109 22•s 11 i 4 41 CASE,11/2E) IN CASE 111/9, =41.111,''=7,v 1 Loh. 30 ll REMOTE MEDICAL L.2 A . _ sw ^_ READ FOR 400 ....... ... ----------- , . TN V4 SY 43RO T FROM &N. 17413P.." • ........ -- . N 005534"E SUPPLY-......../ . --17 /..,,_ / / / - -, 11,112, ..x: - -1 Sfir+Lb-._ <7.---------_R. ..••• '-,../ BRASS DISK IN CONC // rAY .ei._ _41=---<r- 1 .',. ,KJ.Entt-zla.__s D....--!, ,..,.-•, ..:-.;,,, ,,,CASE(V9 7,/ . FROM FO . :----—-----, .. ,, 1 • '''. L 2Dffi --'Z---"Trmm:-'-'m..-T,,,- ....;-.' ' 'TT. WAIL'a' • . 1 CB TYPE 1 ': .72...\ / KENT ,,,,,/,c__ __ca --.....-4-,... 4A.....:-...„,,, 4.t:N. / EX CB ALL CLEARANCES SHALL MEET CITY OP PARK . i TEm113.111 RENTON STANDARDS. SIZE OF SYSTEM vl '.‘.**‘....', ,.....•'.. ' / SHALL BE DETERMINED BY SPRINKLER DESIGNER. A RIDE o cv :.T.21 WTA11141111111MINIft A ...... ---- Co, '41)....:.... C‘.•8 ... DOUBLE CHECK VALVE ASSEMBLY W ,;•\'''L :,o,;,,_._ ' 'N,,., -;,,,‘ _.,,,,,0 i , / NTS I, T 1: • !' , ' 4,4, .x‘\-; .. .CX !" )-: , - VICINITY MAP . i . ; .... .. s4-...N.,,>., ,...9,-, . NTS , ) ' \N .,i''' . , I.'2.' 1 /I• 11 A N 1 . ,1., ' Ir"-- - '''-'-'n ti n , -.. . LOT 1 \‘' 'k• ',"'s.. - . ,,,,,,,, ,73 • • 0.1-' / T /I 0 6 57,',.• 1 ••••- ..,'-,,,,,,,,,A,-.•4 /0 ,,t, •v ,5,, k• / • . CB TYPE 11-4e T N\'T`N. Si....1:::•••'''\\‘''.N.' '7'- N/ ,CS [ ul A,FHI.y .I 1 , „Ae.AN\ ,".\,,,, ,,‘V,„ --010116A/.. I ORAN/ t„., ''...., ''''' ''' 'NN-Y,,,L,, '•.. 'Ili\ ,,, 'R'• N7'.,",'N -. -' • VW--VFW/II ' 3- I 1 ' ' t--,I 411r,': , , . \ \,4,,..1.442 , / ,4ek\ \18 l',_77_-•K'''N- N, \\‘'....c,,,%:,L-,/, ----,--• l'.. , z , 11114 .,:i01 a = ro-"8‘... . .'..,,:, . 'INs,`,.,... .. ',rze-,' . , 1 ii ! . .1(.0 12TSD•0.5Z .' Lor .i 1 , li )11' N.' ;%*,..-... rr, I ', 0) ' •TYR, '.NI ..: . .... _ , ,„. • , . - 1,. r.,,. . ! , ',. 6 , , . 1 .1..:-..: - - ,i / -ii.z.. ".,-q)‘..• .3". '. ' 1 -1 :1-,.: , 1,, , . - um.AT.LEcr,..E4/\•. '' -, ,-- -Ns. ,' N., • ......1 ,;..; ,i • ., I T ' 7 - / / '‘‘' / .\• ' '.'• ' --' -' F.1 PA r ' gEk FFm115.0 ,-I '. N... / / i /Pr <'11,- ' ''‘,.:\t''ss:,\".,..J.::. . I •,, ',,' , . • ,,,,k,.,,,,,,,,,, , ".'' i "' - ...,,' '111SSS , i'',0,.:•_. -- '',,j„ i ',",.,,-. 0 [I., , ,,i. ' -..,-r -Rou.s.Tew—;- ,i\---"-‘--Is+ , ,... - • ‘.____1 '4'.:6 e.. .. '. '‘7- ' Ill "' '. IIIIIII „ N , -.----.......„. __ ..... /z. r.-'- • • IIIiimm—... ,11111:1Or --- ',N ' ' K WRINKIER ‘, ''' -s.-_, ....• Lon Tgsptnu"-T r .,-,— ,POOLm95.45 4:• . 1 _,..mrir .. l'.(,,T, . ''''' -'"-------- ''''`,-57;----7?----- -., -TOP.OF ME-- '--,-•11 .. ..•.- '''.. ..‘.. • ''''''?. . ‘.Z.,,:9?.5,,,AMF ci.... • •7 ;` -.•li ..-V•k 3,,y,.... ' . / ii % 7;e. .,e.•i 7..,•6E.,:rrGrwaLl!=VILE 1 ..1 ,, •.. ,.,N.,..,1,kki.,,,,, .., , s\s k t.., \.,,,v..%;_z.,-,'...__NAPLES____ 1 2-,O.AR.,A030E,,_ST040 . :Wm,. 2 '•-----_ A-, .„,, '.„. - _ i.,P i - ------4-\ - .4 . , ,40,A,'-Is,s..ildk, ,A ...:AA. mg 6 . I MBES 5/14/03 I d - :,:-41::,_:11..\LOMSITANHTHIL—EXST.':71....zSprii.,73(1°C1C-WCP:.77,77.7.,,—,,\.:',I_F:__7_1.7.--s__.1*/ ......447-._"ghla,.... .....e.. "iy'i.,1 _10."‘1..‘L.V1, T 1U . ...t 1115.1•r.1 • \V.i..11‘,.k 0 a.... ,.31..ix j , I I 1 4.7 ' •TO EXST STUB'-`---- • • . ----,....../-1- Ea'1 -'=--Li N'' k_ , . al -55,MIXIMillVaIlli61240.--.0•''• , • -- mil/, -„• 1 \ __ ,,,v„ ,,,-,-;-_,„1 l',.• --.,t_____ -.,,,,,, _ •. _ -0 0••4"J-•-a2t=--5 r--__-_-_-_--77-377 .-__.1--. -. • , --C WAIL \7-'- ... '''---,.. --'----- / MS— , \ si .,• SITE IAELOPMENTSEPOICPS .... ,, 210 208111 ST SE :. ,rI 1 F.,, -,GB____---__.,___-_-_-_______-.-L_:_.,-,.x\ I -,,, trso4o1,..si, -. , &BO ---, / - eCrrtiEu,WA 98012 I E,., TT8 '''--.... -1W‘l , (422)181-0892 — ---, ,\4 • • 0125)482-7190(WOO ,,,,, T' , ‘1 . I 1I I 1,4, . CITY OF RENTON,• '--`-",--;LEI.,,„:. , I. LI ,----.'" ,,,,EL=,,,,.-, - 1 ,,...,^;-1.z ...,z,-) .1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS II I 1, , CHATEAU.VALLEY ASSISTED LIVING 4- ,,r,...or AD s.s 4,11 PLACE - IN,NNO ERA"-DISK IN•ANC It A L 0,t,' \ ,-_, . CIVIL PLAN DESIGNED:DCD DATE: 1/22/02 'YE no DRAWN. 18 CHECKED:DCD SCALE: 1,30' ,ELD SOOK PAGE. NO. REVISION BY APPR DATE APPROVED: g,,c. 1 ,,,, 1 bINFCTUR OF K.,w0.5. __ _ ___ __ _ __ __ _ ______ .____ _ _ __ ___ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _______ _ _. _ _ ____ _____ __.•• • • • LINE TABLE cc 1n NON€9 CURVE TABLE CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER I- 1'=CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA LINE I DIRECTION DISTANCE CI 244000 4Z 09 01'06'20" LI N 89'0/'1 i"W 3521' C2 25 00' J9 25' 89''56'45" L2 5 00'55'34"Iv 26 04' It — i C3 22000' 8231' 21'26'08" LJ N89'OI'II"W 536' C: 22500' 68.J3' I]30'Oa` La S 76.09'04'E 5228' CONSULTANTS GENERAL PROJECT INFO LD I. - 05 2]500' 1439' 02'S9'S3" L5 S00'55'34"W 8435 • PROJECT ADDRESS: Q Q LEGEND O MONITORING WELL o UTILITY POLE T' OW R OWL CORNER OF DAMS AVE AND 545 H S. Q PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON POLE (.;-;�5•SIDEYIALK DAWS AVENUE A4pCIA1E5,LLCdlu((436)488-]4p0 lE DEYELOPNENT ERNCES `ApNF:(4Y6)48f-966T RENTON.WA 98055 OO Ex 53AIH 0 TELEPHONE CABNATE ¢ F GUY POLE 0.BOx e0Z 90T2 6 SIO 208N e -(425)48}ZI99 )_ I SIGN MAIL BOX µoWINV¢1E.WA 9 (4Y5)48}1089 BON•.WA 8012 NTACu PROJECT DFSCWPRON: ❑EX LATCH BASIN TYPE I O CABLE TV CABNATE m TWO POST SIGN ROCKERY CONTACT: Dove Dougherty NEW CONSLRU L B OF 4 STORY WOOD FRAME STRUCTURE, Q EX CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 a GAS VALVE ARCHITECTURAL DMIYIl JOHHSON LANDSCAPE OVER A PARTIAL BASEMENT FOR UTILITIES AND PARKING. i © TRAFFIC JUNCTION BOX O MON IN CASE THE BUILDING µLL BE lZ TS OF ASSISTED LM iAriOR/pVETART AAQIIlEC1S.NA PNON[( 1I0-f510 EN pRWP ONE:(4361]ll-SBIJ - y 1IIR COINSTRUCDON WRN AREA SEP va ALIS. I:'A TER VALVE ©GAS METER re SURFACE BRASS MONUMENT 6m54 S1H AYE.98�p00 FAY(433)iT4-T603 m 4NN ST Ax:(425)of-5T36 ANO SPRINKIFRS FIRE HYDRANT IC)TELEPHONE MANnOLEO-�Y STREET LIGHT MWDS.WA D 11iAci: MONDS. WA 9ep]p WNTA' cTry OF REMON PK NAIL • ONIi GREOORY 9 ,Lb ZONE ® WATER METER 155 POWER VAULT as DECIDIOUS TREE O FOUND REBAR a CAP STRUCTURAL ANN WwAM6ON ¢oTEa 1 /RRIGA TBON VALVE LIGHT POLE },� OF IRON PIPE CT FNPNEERNO ONE(208)285-4512 Earn,C°nwllmle ONE:(426)Da}3T80 ASSESSOR MAP NO.: 1 WATER BLOW OFF I L+ YARD LIGHT -• CONIFER TREE EX N'ATfR LINE LBO NRpcfRSONgO51�snTE SOf GNc(206)286-p619 BBOOS IJ6in Fl.NBOEOd sae]OI .Vp 1px LOTS 10,11: (/639180-0010 ' L — —EX SANITARY SEWER LINE gATTIE,WA CdITACP. mew.,WA 9 WNTACP. LOT 12: Y6391B0-0125 CD HEGDE v EX STORM LINE wARt¢tRITnTx Rex Coy°' LOT AREA ..................................... ---p--o IRON FENCE %KK TRANSPORTATION 12082J. SOFT. .....................................................x Yp PHONE ( LOCI MONO CA ACRES I,7 (••--........ \ pp r EC,'" F� LE DESCRI ON: 323 174,i3/ •-...•_ pp TACT: meNTAti: 6EE SURJEI' S On'S5'T4"l'✓__ —_N 00'5534_'E_ 8� _ •....... Fo / ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY _ln1 /J_ _° �iJ2L,,.' \f AMEC ONE (425)820-4 . mama PNONE:2(5Y6)251-p665 ZONING R OIREMENR: -_` lOpl re' N832 519�950100R,Salle E-f02 FAY(I )25f-0625 _ Q ,�+�� - \ \i POI TACu ent WA CONTACT: BUILDING HEIGHT: i2�WATER �^ 1 I`C1`G\ _ (� Sp°p •""ai% LSMAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 28;_Do; , -•-- I Y •I' :_ +'-� 1 'r \ LOT BUILDING FOOTPRINT 41,462.SF `•'3 T/-p ••`• ten-- ® — .4 �r�_ -a\�\'•,• LOT ARE BUILDING COVERAGE: 120,827.SF \!: L :'%--(� L2 C� �' i A •.'` b' ''':-. MAR.ALLOWABLE 65R ° I R, ` \ 5ID ASRE NC NO MIN. AFL 19•-0• '( •R�1 � ` `'•C \/7 'REAR MIN. NO MIN. ACTUAL 5•_D• �[ �'• °�� \\>\ �\ .°R \ PMKING CN.CULAnONs: �.�• • P c ` "•\•'„` 11� PHASE I&II j' , F Y • ``\ `:• PARKIN232 BEDS=B STAR c+1 STALL PER 2 FAIPLOY.S �I.. a 0 G '_;� 20 EMPLOYEESTOTAL =88 STALLS MIN 'I / l/ A. \ ,>>° G PROVIDED 103 STPI15 • T� {,/ 44t.1.4 �/ .��i, `\\'\• \ • HC SPACES 1 PE 20 STALLS 21'-Im" 21' 11$1"'! // \. COp1PAGT 6 '8a ` \�.• \ 6 STALLS COMPHC PACTEPROVIDEDE20 STALLS G ;S,w.. AKK...-to „ 6-• : `�\ STANDARD PROVIDED 77 STALLS -' • I , 1- '•• \ / BUILDING AREA CALCULATIONS: j I RA Neff. w 0 C G is >/.\\\. \ BASEMENT 40.0644 SF r, 114— ' I I Axes" . A a G ,f,” A`\ • \\'•. \/ ` ` 2ND FLOOR 40.103 SF FI 11 I ♦IIf\`�✓ fS• \ �( `��(� 3R0 BOOR 39,Z51 SF L_.f• I 'V. , !ob 6 '�•:`. .„\\. \ 0,s 4TH FLOOR 38.6fi2 5F ,�-, 4/ 'C / TOTAL BUILDING AREA 1Z9,241 SF L— );Ny � y � `&a IMio�oluP�vJous A/REIAM'DSCAPE ARu9Gisz sanogs: ���jjj ... \ (PLUS FIRST ROOK AREA) (66R OF TOTAL LOT) {f i j 16 T O „' I" M� �^qV \\, �,-'•. „ \\'\•' \ TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA (MX) 41,030 SF F. I.ti _ �b♦ `i_� 1 1 _ °°, Yl , ,,. .„.....:.,..,N ` ';�` ` PAVED VEHICULAR AREA 35,0DSCAPE AR SF • -° �Y ;:i"1�9�^a 4••/O WA, �I' O b �''•'`•\ \ \ .106 / INTERIOR EOLNDSCAPE AREA INTERIORUIRED IN (3]R) 12.856 SF F' Alarw , I ., -Niiiii, ,rs• , zlib, lik IT i•'''. L :N...tah.:46%" .....,..,,,,, 4., , .. . . ,. m `.40 ivitTr,,,,4,40 �2 �� P. N\ N VICINITY MAP y20-0• 240.. zo'-o•' _ ,f 9 �.Aic -\ '.Abe;`. Ij. 0 • Ill. , .0 oci ',.... N.., 44.: . 0 - war G 3c \, 4 •. � ' 4.4"y "*° 11_ _7 \ N \ , 5E YYY oe 7Ii ® - — — li I1 I@ r I 4 `4 _ '_—___ - __ N� N I .•.�. aa. iltIN TT`_- 1 - ���\�,+�-t/ ® y .�� `te1��.T_—7J LC .,Y�f 1 L .� �� n .wmmi • �a. a V °.�11 - NN I�=- Nii t�N =�! x� °p' �'_� �y: t. • •� _ _® ���� i � a}.. , �. --°I': ;I. q 12 X28 G2.-1C. a :L J��c.R1; `I �\ ° unc5 wT Prrz�ENcrcL AoJA -:^ � �" !(A► i i i__ 4: 'TO BUo G"� �_ _ �E pp{� I '-ram � fli'1� 4�� -ro r SITE PLAN A0 00 9� jjr O '.'J2B 6' f Fn e T�' _SCALE.I'.20'-0' .-_ s ge 1, �3° °s` • PLANT SCHEDULE 6 an w,TA.1�N mx9,.,x NA,,. HT Mom, • . -441 .� o ° 1 ° O 2T x e ax�x Cu d a� aA a .O ,MVO.M. _ 1I �� o® Aim. , o-� jI rtoxa CALIF. — — N — SHRUB PLANTING "¢." n.ii=`-I----, �.„..,„ eA.,Lv a I m..Aw.e wx II=11: SCALE.NOT TO sLALe ':11=u _ pl�'I__ - 0_ apvn new ,•uurei • IR�irnn:i.a .m OAR ' °AGP1L'O0' ?;1 11:11:11PIL;; _ O *A �rMFA„x.ATAr x1 I I` 'Ti To.... n l ,� !L E°,�a as- „°. P, '°'"A..I.0..., 2OAI,°x �ft �i-r'��`_- ROTALL..a.TOP a.00hALL 19 AT sA.e IT WO m MAMMY. 'x.._ .\r..:�J '=T E -t K;`.5<+�+Z" *r .IIREG WOW 91A�.o�.,.m,•w.u.m OR Lwme..x..aEVEN,..a.m,«Q. T.,,ow ed, ,aN.L. 1 ` :::..<�._,^.'>,..'.'e;•V ::.;.°aa ;!`►i.: m°e.,.E•TTREESTOOS+Aw TREE PLANTING DETAIL ® owx A.°TA, rp;.T �@ i z l .CO. ,p TT0 :' :;.� .41 .. / ER SCALE,NOT TO xALE , ° , ,eAL,ax 1 O 'C'REN•. '� ....i• 17 °ATLLLT�° § • E�• WM kA wcxw.nuA, woo ,�:' /a•�'I+°2�.'" rG ...;so fs CC . _ 110 a xrwA.a=eA ,eAuox � K� 11 ` `Q .' 'u =y .. SITE AREA ANALYSIS: Q ►J I. �Ay^� 1'•©0 `f';:V.1.. .' -ARKING $ C ' . 'kl.X N TOTAL PAVED SITEVEH AREA2 AREAS, ISSP S SP e° TATAP= s xr wx. g YY •j�•.' ' � :"Ri '�,`• �c •. \� N HATOIN6APEA 414635E uriuwLLAGTA BAMBOO lo-alx 1 (� " yr m .1 1 ET itt B To eE PATIO AR2A5� 9]90 SP ��n7 cOMPAGT L''` i, \ \ / LA OS...,AREAS aIP'A SF io-]I x t Tye •.v PARKING-10 G''� PERCENT OF SITE DEDICATED TO OIA � 'AV 7 A j:ID c !;'_ [�� \ LANDSCAPE saxs .P,�E°'.'1 .xe' `i.e""AwebA ;'ate 1 - 4_ C„-r, v m\ '°'' \•08 o A ,eAuox r9 p m I PATIO ._.I � ,_5:, \\ `ice-- // 1N ® Sew,d lL N ® WW1. ewrMo�x', 0 'C�_ \`� w I O A I �r� . Nee I I N\ QS ,.a4acoccA R�,c�Pa,u ✓.xr `' 1 ilQk"fr • a1. NI,,r .•4I. � • cry t\ c�s,.,_ � '�J Ioe ® ° �'dm.•.:' T.. ,oAuox -CD B �l�, :':�' QW ;ry' , ' ..,�, c p='�.. A! \ / �ueA�9 oawA a, o° �0 z F I� "o✓/•>_ •, / Im f3o� . 40 ` C..MPACT G •` . F \I 41 \ aucncA0.AeFwrovwo.+nle/4 lL f • •. } . A :`:s -•KING rim C• ^ t ,��A. ,S'{ wxlea®roan»Ie..,Iea ` ./"•G ,1'41 . I �`n '-- .'S , c •'�.;. �.6 \_: -102 �.-.'.'� w'"m'�a' Ce [0'1 cv ( t fR 1 .v ..�-`` 1 Qp' , C+ PM.V.VNmew ly,l U� \ 'a.\ / Imo .: 2 O ;�� :I 1,1 \ 'V uV I a� r O� iJ I �' w•IRKING.la ' `" t cc \\ A\\\\ CONTRAOTol.ro MID..a,Ax11T. '�'„ I \. \ a / \ '� �\ \ GENERAL NOTES: .,. ..m Z F.� � ' ......'� , FIRST FL.,EV.II4' I `f .'d{ ...;2:\ '`: `�-+ /OGL rz° \ I \ $v 1 efie`i_.y1 �^ 1 rrxa � z' I '• ' ti ati %�. J \.:/ I -AKING-'.¢ z¢ ' _ _ ]O © � �9 C '.w' FIST•'"'vec'.St"nen. ._l V ..a` t _ B. a / f ..,-,N. At 1- roz.o.,Aro...ma.�o...r.m..¢m m¢.m.°w"',. '.n'c'1e.i'ex.u�.e LL Z_W 'v \. .Q_ �I/ -. -ly. 04 !C` •.ru.rNrew.euuem.rezt :c.-_.e..v;- . (_ I 9 j°.2i •F�� eae.. N."""wrv."°.e.'°°1sm°"r'°esa.w`r°'''rac�.c '�".en.'° >1-1< I.��V�' , A,,_ W ^.'i + \ Dal EWA' °�..•vsp rmm. ai w�ArzW1- o..T. .rm �z • ,kaki TREE TOV��l3EMOVED[NPJ • .� e.� Q W Ft ...,ti-t- .C.C.00e_ . G.� n. =O.HAPLE9 C� `` M'ov°znr�e°.�.�e.Am�mm ar�rrn�ie...'w.....;.rA�.kr• W �• •1! O, •. "� I /HZ•[AP/.E ... 15•yAPLES 24•HAYLE 7 ...Pa.,' R^^n,• Tw•wwsLa..mlaia.....v..ouwnT.eun.e. I. 1., '`,C.''•C}1y-".t - - ld _, and r....�..o......e¢.aA°�.-.A>P¢...'e. Z �_` ,tom _ O`MAPLE- -�: T� `� 1 �$.,:,�,...s '� .> . tt�:1 ' . IC �' . ai... ..a.., �A•�.�� _I 'z FIR �� - - _ - ........, ��------'---- "� -- ---------- _ ss-- -. -- -- 75°h/Ab6E '1a, l2•MAPL7= �� '+mro1"'°`..'. .moo.wea m.:.°° �� ./.sue ¢rwrNn..euu.®vura�en w.ea.e..mn wn oewrmr I• • _ .-" ------- -I ¢m rnae.mv+.o6e a+.emr°re•"a'�earo♦ na.er..o.w°.o.ns M7:.cr:b.m'OGee:Fer6. nTWar yo uors A.yn"aro oA1e. IlmDrol CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN % "^ .:w °��so ro " . A2 ¢ 6» °P SCALE.I.•S.-0 .vw5 LINE TABLE • PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF •,0 6E0115,1i0,r1E EFL LINE I DIRECTION I DISTANCE LEGAL DESCRIPTION SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST W.M. 0 N 89'01'11"W 3521' LOIS TO,11 AND 12 ONE VALLEY PLACE,ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF,- 70:PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRIC NO.I,A WASHINGTON MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CITY OF RENTON, STATE OF WASHINGTON L2 S 0055'34"W 26.04' RECORDED IN VOLUME 125 OF PLATS PAGES 40 AND 41,IN KING COUNTY, �jVV//JJI L3 N 89.01'17"W 5.36' WASHINGTON: OAS IS TO CERTIFY THAT MIS MAP OR PLAT AND THE SURVEY ON NH(CN IT IS - IXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LOT t2 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS BEGINNING AT THE BASED WERE MADE P)IN ACCORDANCE WIT/"MINIMUM STANDARD DETAIL REBr ALTANTS L4 S 76U9'04"E 52.28'84.35 MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT NC THENCE SOUTH 0055'36•WEST ALONG FOR ALTA/ACSM LAND DILE SURVEYS'JOINTLY ESTABLISHED AND ADOPTED BY ALTA GRAPHIC SCALE L5 S 0055'34'W 84.35' THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 12.A DISTANCE OF 17E15 FEET,THENCE NORTH AND AGSM IN 199Z AND Ma.U0E5 ITEMS 1,23,4-6,510-11 OF TABLE'A'THEREOF AND(ID .. - 76ENUE WEST A DISTANCE H TB SUET TO M EASTERLY NARRGI O"DANS PURSUANT TD THETE'OF IS STANDARDS(AS ADOPTED BY ALTA AND ASCU AND IN J J CURVE TABLE AVENUE SW1TN,WTHENCESTA NORTHEASTERLYF52.210F ACTING ME F/OS 0'Y Y MARGIN OF DANS EFTEGT ON THE DATE V MIS TAND RDS()6 AN URBAN SURVEY CURVE I RADIUS I LENGTH J DELTA AVENUE SOUTH ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT WIT/A RADIUS CP 275 FEET,AN ARC BAD ((1:6 TEST) ' Cl 2440.00' 47.09 01.06.20" L£NGIN OF 170.10 FEET TO ME POINT OF BEGNNMC„' - - MOUND?H.]d/MA GSg9470 I Inca"90 IL C2 2500 39.25' 8956'45 (A FORMA OF SAID PREMISES IS ALSO KNOWN AS LOT 2 CITY OF RENTON LOT 'Ihr. SURVEY NOTES ' C3 220.00' 82.31' 2126'08' LINE Ail HAENT ILA-023-9L RECOdROEO UNDER RELICROING NUNB£R 9 7080 6 900.j INSTRUMENT NIKON TOTAL STATION DTM-AIOLC M KING cnu/n,WASHINGTON) SPECIAL NOTES & EASEMENT NOTES �9 (5 SECOND INSTRUMENT). C4 225.00' 68.73' TT3004" 1,5]1/11 METHOD USER:FIELD TRAVERSE WITH ACTUAL CS 27500 74.39' OZ 59'S3' 1.SUBJECT TD PUGET SOUND POWER&LIGHT COMPANY EASEMENT -I I IE.ME-130EMOE7NNTS AND ANGLES 0 - £X SHAH «SHAH I FOR CELTRIC UNE RECORDED N0.5699711. , 1111E I •S(,E DATE OF SURVEY DECEMBER 2000 RIM EL.=11259 RIM EL=11210 ITS DESFIPSON IS NOT SUFROEVT TO DEFINE ITS LOCATON. `1 BASIS OF BEAR/NG,PLAT OF ONE VALLEY PLACE • INV a =96.82'15"S INV EL =I09.80=8" 2 FASEJENIS&RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN RECORDED PUT I� VOLUME 125,PAGES 40&41,IDEA 8311 I509]4) I.E.=96.62'12'E I h I " 'ONE ' 'I�'O BENCHMARK CITY OF RENTON MON 41892 LE=97.82'12'SE V FOUND MON YDIIND PT NOR VALLEY PLACE'VOLUME T25,PACES 40&Al RECORDED UNDER ELEVATION=94.82'(25.90m) I.E.=109.32'B.W BRASS W9(IN CONC VICINITY MAP EX.SSMH :,I N CAg 11/97) 9RA55 D(SK/N CONC IX H EliP BENCHMARKS SET,' I = 04• I ( 9V CASE(I1/97) Po EL 111.41 RECORDING NUNBER 83/11509]A FOR LOTS 1O ri.&I2 _ =Ti7,9 ='M IN Q =88.21' 3 LOVE/JANT,CONDITIONS INSTRUMENT RECORDED U RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED w DO?RECORDING NO.8107.310439. B��ATI�BUSS DISK IN CONCRETE MON IN CASE 1` �_ • 4.DEAtARAVO&£COVE AS.�tD ENT RESTNNm a 99. ______""___"____"_-______\ LIABILITY BM f2 TOP BRASS DISK IN CONCRETE NLW w CASE' ., • 174 13' \. -"__ INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO 631101061f. �•�. g 323' - ` ELEVATION=11306' V) O 5 BUILDING RU &HEIGHTS b&A02 c) n L S 0055 J4'W - N 005,5'34'Ems" �• SEiBaLY(5 W� - f54 80' ]XCEED 120 ON LOT S IO 1L AND 12 NAY NOT W W 8234' EXCEED I20'IN NBGHT BUT NOT IXCLWING (� EX SSMH DECIDUOUS TREE 2 k 12 Wq TTR -- �2S �/ FOUND PC MON PENIIHOUSE FOR STORAGE EQUIPMENT AND ACCESS ❑ EX CATCH BASIN TYPE 1 J ----------- 00 / • A IF LOT 10,11,&12 ARE BUILT SEPARATE I - --�l\D •• INCASE(77 M LWVLCONIFER TREE 0 __ -�--- I t- ® ��2, C BRASS (n/s7) FRONT YARD 60;SIDE YARD 5;REAR YARD 10' ® £X CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 YY�` �_; g---�\ -' „ IF LOTS T4 1 L&12 AVE COMBINED FOR 2, r a 114` I ^� ...-�� ?� •` HIGH-RISE STRUCTURE THE:FRONT YARD 60', Z WATER VALVE HEDGE W( ' \l CT L2°' SIDE YARD 10;REAR YARD 40: FIRE HYDRANT o UTILITY POLE Q O R `..1•f �.,./G („'`3 T. \ / 5. MNNTENANCE&REPAIRS FORA STORM WATER DETENTION «CH -- L `•�' IX C8 POND SERVING SAID PRETOSES&OTHER PROPERLY,RECORDED WA7ER METER E- GUY POLE S Z d RlM Q.=f15.91• .+ •--- � '�1 \'`\ B• R1N Q.=109.4 UNDER RECORDING NO 8311010607. ® 1RRIGAPON VALVE o MAIL BOX Q p= �--_ r INV a =f04.57'-12' 6. CC DEVELOPMENT AND PERMITTED USES OF SAID PRFNLSLS g INC Q =ff292=8" P,;;, /I----- \, \�V . \/ CONTAINED M INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNOFR RECORDING N0. COm TELEPHONE CABNA]E ROCKERY m n IX ER \\�ST \\ 86092 0158. O CABLE TV CABNATE 9 MON IN CASE is-I `J11M EL=11255 `• ••`` •♦ ..\ 110 7.ROOD ZONE ZONE X I, / I`4VQ =109.55=e"� I \;\ - ® GAS MElEH OOFUlRON PIPE&CAP 4VE f '�. \••`•• N �.q OT TELEPHONE MANHOLE 7 PK NAIL ,q g ti 1, \N I1'� \• Y © POWER VAULT • • SET 1/2"REBAR&CAP P t E \\ '?\ '\" <C� / LICHT POLE LS#9470 . 4 I SIGN CX WATER LINE 1 ,, \ 7W0 POST SICN - EX SANITARY SEWER LINE I [-J • + \ \ \ ® TRAFFIC.Rlh'C770N BOX IX STORM LINE ti (rr. �j • I '�- •••••• -CYCLONE FENCE CI N • y,;• BB RIM EL=106.48 o ,-1`- 5'SIDEWALK +O • ' INV EL 10538'-> ''S�.i•.\ N. • I - 3 si N. j. 116 �\ '�•••. s FOUND CRY OF RENJON CONTROL MON 4/892 _-ss+ «CB v a =II 55 ` \ :�_ . \. WSOOT BRA55 W9K SET IN f0'OlA RlM EL-I15.92 v INV Q =111.35'-B" ' '' ` CONCRETE MONUMENT.LOCATED INV Q =ff292•-8• '' . : /I \ \ �`•`\ \ / SOUIHESSi0LLY OF SW 42ra SURETY ti r Nc'-G\ © \.• I� OVERPASS 0'SR 167(I1/97) I oI� ____________----=' I HOGS X �\ \/ IX C8 (n ' Q • • . From - TOTAL• •• INVRIM Q =104.10-12- g5AS5 Dl9C w CONC 120,82]�s�.H. `��\ 'Q "%��- \s \• .104 IN CASE(11/97) Lu 11(� 277 R" BAT fl LOT 10 r '1�' I / \ \� I I J N l$ I I" I ' I L 1 --I/7 «LB Dh.T4'\• `�• \\•• .fOzcs , TT • •N i• INV =rpr.74=12C. `•• vl 0 N, I I 'III,„�, RIM EL=99.46 I.,m. •1•.1 I '51 i/ \ ' , ‘. ;N •\ wV EL =9876_B" mih Q W 'I�yy o N ' :. NNk.N �w p «ST MN �1] I _ J �r/ � •• \ '�!„ I f� 1 Q R/M EL=121.91 12 � 1,, 1'''' ' \ . J' NV EL=114.Tt'-12•&8" nJ / Ir. { RIN fL='9.66 NA NA N Q ro I UTILITY FASAIENT'`,1 `. ``. '\ -------Z, TO J l � 'M INV Q =9.I36=12' FOUND PC MON e CO O �REL +B31N50914 �/s. \ _ -_�o m _ �• \i.:-.".--.--'....:---- NA INV ,\•,�'-.=\`\•\ \ IN CASE DISK(/91f NC+ma Ala ,T C A--- LC"---`--__ ------ ----- ,,1 `�,�,OT1 \\ •:�, «GB g m vj C�Q UNAB:TO n'=Uy-__ I . \ \ ` \ RIM EL 99.50 I 9 Q \i-- 1� L5 TRETE 8L0.. -- `\ '`•� INVO- =9A15'-12' 7 Q ' IhI __-___ .«]RUDm CURD',,, (• `- y41 'MAPLES � ; - -- \,I .\�`" CoQ2, I TR/M EL f2J.09' i_- 4+' : ,'\ ``` `'•` ,___ � _ :'+ Lt°Pu�-s MaPLe - . '\' - ��_ ss s oD•s534"w- ~ ' Z INV EL=1/8.39'-8' ��• , 4f, • ->�TJ'-UALUy EA$,liadc_• -_-_ ________7_,I. . ND96' T�V�\\� Oi \\ ^I!•+. - _ i�i�,APLE i - \ T -IXS4IR_--- 1�i �= -accNLt17J_�osD97a- "_ �___________ ' ,!' �'�t . 14f' ?^ARif�_ -`h --�- �� wvQ 539' z �.. ``• _ INV Q=1I9.80'-Jr \ r '2�_•FlR AJ _ _ ,.. _♦ 17f.79'i1• --_- INV Q=IT0.30'-12' . I--_-__T !`l 762• 5a4-_-_-f------__ --_;::3. .F-`---= �"V _- S 0035'3, Ply_ p Y• -- 1I. wV4=IIB.24=8' I __--__________ - \ �__ _ _ 1 • (_, �] 2g --��--__- _ ` �\ FOUND 1/1"REBAR& R U ti .1: I. a.e: 426 .- \I--``\\ I-\_CAP L�,(5524 -`YES, R=T]SOB .m NO.559-0 0-001 1�Zg ' �T,� I R1N 4=12A79' p�� • 7 - L=170.10 71/D (-.1,....., ,,, ''' MV EL=I19.80'-Nr• Ton=B].B7 j IX CB 1 \`'\ • I -OB Odte=352618" 41 I DRAM BAN r ..r RIM EL=13246 1 \ '\ co, MV Q=12996'-8' I O I I N of i ,\ ,� PER are or RENTAV tor Lw� �F�Mr ryl RE.ORD/ND ND.108-O2Y91• C/N NCI SEIR,noxc `\ �' RECORDING NO.9f08069008 I FOUND OTY OF Rev.,'CONTROL MON/1229 MIEN rALBOT RD S&45th PLACE • I I IN ASK IN CONGHElE/N CAS: DISK FOUND BRASS .. PC MONTALBOT RD S&S 43rd ST w CASE(11/97) (11/97) 1 or 1.91.9 SEE DRAWINGS) Y U v J W al@ 1 _ _ O a wIF _ • 1 11 1111 11 11 ■1� =' 'I— ° a „RJR I --- �---_,Illiiiill s 1— —_-- - �� lhim iiiiii = � ilii 7i'pn -_---_ --_- -- �rn 11 iliii Illill 11 iiiilii, �L °�RR I :: _ �]1L p1Rtii iiiLiP iliili — , 1.iil ___ _i,_ fi vrPLR = =- mu .... — EAST ELEVATION ECALE:Ve' I'-0• Io irD P. ® - Pocf i1I: IIINW R ■11 11 1111�11 �I �'�������� 11 11111�R iimliiiil _ uimliu 0uiiiiiiii� ulllliiii mimii mluul Q ¢ . — ii INN ii11��E1■■�■•�■■�■■ ■ IIIIInI ■■ ■■HEM ■■ -1111� 'lllllll/1111�"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIII 1111 "'� " - `.a 1iiim ■�■'u �' �1 11 11 m1 ■ �_ nn_ nn 1�11111� _W OF 11111��111 �1�11�1 ■ Illuiiilllil n MTNR 1ii1iliiii 1 i 1111111111 1 1 1111111111 I 1 1111111111 1 I 1111111111 1 I_ is*EtiR wz 1.111111111 S II -IIIII --IIIMIMIW t5 ----.......1111 .11 — — - EAST ELEVATION nn nn'�r- not — _ "`'IO+*� _ awry- I11111111 1101111 11110110 _ _ _ _ • . v ----M =- 1111 mill 11111 - n - �I —I SRO PLR--- ---- _ __ llllili ililiiiii — iiiiiiil — n T} = 11111 11111�.; 11111 _ n 'I aroma 1 liiiilii liiiiliii' Illiiillil ^ �� 11111 - 11111.E 11111re.nR _LL 1III = 111 _'- 11111 MI SOUTH ELEVATION �"� 15 e-a E:ve•.r-o• - I I I iI 0 I o/ #NN° y I, 0 11 o I 11 II p III Api a11 ° II e f�o II II'I ° II / I I' o III o ° H ° , , , \\, ' ' ° o 044, il o , / I , , 11 ---------------------------2._- alAillib roo I Y•.C^ <<.. � o i� °,' _�f \ xii/ \ 00 '1 — 10447:4„tl. ir VI. /4..,r, Nit,/414.1*‘. I %NA , 4k).;" 0 II a il g r I Ao o U 1 i iNf' ktiS ' II I ° ii-._ - - IIIIII II Im II 1 0] I I. im —_ I' r.IIrcII = IliI i allyII lir.. , �. 1 inility 1 I I I,I 1 Trri I BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN TA YLOR•GREGORY ARCHITECTS c CHATEAU.VAL'LEY CENTER �/�/ I -i RENTON,WASHINGTON "`"•:lag= • ¢oo U ,ft w . S. . • 0 U I • ¢ ¢ Q O Y Io o i ��� z O�� ` ` /.*so"... . -*,,AL. 147" 7:7W/' .4,,,„.*N . q '''4;: Ikiii ATAt'4,44/.r.* ,. 4.4,2,, „At*. 4,„*. , , 44*,: 'A ifs-' 717/Lr ' w_„ wOi'',... oN . 44r,,, „.. , _,J,:v .E!,_Aitt, ,A4 . ",,I# .3. HN 4 . . \ ‘ .,..o ter SI r' _ c..) oPA Nrr °N °,,\Ii. \ . ...--44.4 ?AN' . ,., ,Ti i lot, - -, 46,1-.. " C:1 ' g . • 0,1**• .,°14:1*Ini '*L.N,4#%e' d . . %. °44'4,7 140® +�4011i �'si , is_ Awn.11111 61.0 N E � :sts,�..,4fryj ,err:_ �� I �s, ,I'��► N A N H ' NI . eil Ina n :/ ii is i i III i A fix` A n r FIRST FLOOR PLAN u//�\\y D. rea. ^� �' SCPLE I I/d' I'-0' // fir+` V.'c mil% u.-wre A1.01 • . _ • . > 0 §lip 1 O ,7) Q ,‘ ..4 >- < F-•il '"S . - ‘.% , I . . ••!&• o 40' ':,, 'i• * ...** ° 0 44144), , . . ./ 4,44:40-'Av., Iii ph: 0 A At, fg Sir ‘ W lo • -501,--- . *N - 0 LPIIIL1 I A S * ' °4 • u Z 0 E-• >4 0 ,,111117*.cir•- . 4 1 2 g • - , '2.:.:',;‘.4.:44,...* . 41•1 4-- '..- ' '44 411 ° \ • E4 11111111ft ,:4e , ••• •k, rir441%- 44r-- "1111,1 MP%,' 4... ',.•)4/c Aim " .kii, Mk . Milig _ _ - Q 0.., ef'er i — 4,e;,,.., - 4,4„. .... ---0. 11--- •*"" s'..00's "-.' 1 •' lb • 411r44 4',.7 .,Pf& --,41:214.:LL—. ,A11,,:i , ,Mr_. ‘,..i . • •.--40 '*itv / .Z,,k, r--- 'AK Itt— '7W"-, —firc — :.- , v Le."4- c's mix lea W6/ 4> l• . _U.. _ ° n 11 - 11 " 1 • AO'‘ "IN A A A IP A SECOND FLOOR PLAN A 0' AA/, . • . T......x. ,,,, Ode JANUARY 17 20l6 . ' P ;,,_., • A1.02 i • p o e 99 VPi a /W Ve ' . . 4r4V / 4•:4-tlit1;-79#% ,.. ,,i._, 0/ 400„, , , 1, ..„. .t. t;rit. , * 4 _1 .4.4,,,ow.A,:: -, "7, irisotT,„ f,,,.4 4 _ . . v .4114A,.. 4. it,pWc • lir Nie, Ak„..*,, . ,s,,, -2" ,,,..rti • 7: eik, ..w ', . Art0.00. . ;‘, 1,7 ii, „ 4„,, 4 s `4 Z * * %- trk f,N d ivzi `• 2,® v�l W i., o *,.‘4* . ,_ le .74Y•ce4t4 . e ..kl..i4'....ilkrib..._ll p.ma _LIII .,,,, , A:4),AI' 44 . ..,t . -.Ni7.14,114 4,1407-74-724,,,,. - - - F ..„4- o 4eA4,6-12t. `• ]5F �,�,,,�* yy F - ._. 1 L�I PoYi��iN r' ._i I1.4;I e7 L 1 L L L �° L 1 AL • a TNIRD FLOOR PLAN - n SCALE,N6' I'-O' n d r .. . .... . , ... J- U) ipil EC I- bil 0 0 1,I .,... . 0 4eo/4 c' 4. 1\11AW , 0 y 411 ' N / .0.P. Arc4' 4 4 ' 0/ . , 4-, „wP/ 11411Pv‘044t44. • ill . 4 Z ',‘' • ii, ...Ac.,,,03---- 0 at ‘. i 4 C...) 0 N E.. 8 )4 ''' m 1.4 ,A,...4.,,5.0.... . , , dallr* (44 lb,0 • )-; a . . 4* .A:Vit Akkrh... r sit ,Arr ...,,,,, • ,,, g, O i E-• 0,- • N e • .1*g 4 .40,-,-*- resfr . c.4 ° 4.VA'6.'Is 4.11'!,1*- -At&"4:,(4i • '1/&4,"' ,- ° . g . . C.) . # 41<44‘; ., •••,44p,,,:.;,,, ___ INFL__ _JEL, oc INF ' °N...wast............,--- )...i, • .}:-..,.,\::ci4-40p40_4,1,„.,,o, ... ., • . 0 AW'ef'4.s'g .411V,, -1-4Sr *VIM ' 76mk= ' FAN Mal c 0 , . ,,,-,p,x,.. 41f., --111M0r- ..0-• !.6 L._',.. •1— -1 % e.,,,,,r: ,,ctilk ci, '... ",; M. .-,, .,.11 .•:--`•I_L-,.,,- M_ii ,- M.ffl.,..:, -Li . , .1 .-L- -WirW- 4 lb; # :,... ii.. inc, N 44.AK%A le., PIE lin '14 . a r..•-• ' r-- . •. .• ,v. ,-vA- fe RI - * / ,,,,; - </ - 4 AEI& ° Li A mil- A . • [ 1 eteN . A .. A V' A A A . A A • A FOURTH FLOOR PLAN V17 300I . M • -— - -1----- --- - -- ---- -------- - A1.04 __ _ _ _ _ •_ __ _ _ _. . __ __ - ' vex N. 1 • fith ---7----- 4:-4-, iii .. . / 4 ,r ... _ J' 4 • w 1 j + • 1 s 1 a� 7 / / / /. /�}, ' ` I - • • ;' a n. 1 i� wv • • t. IF 1� ! —a .. .! ft,. 7 I ,.'\''' ' -.' 1 ' . ! i r :,..ay _ ■ i'`,4 1 • . , ,..., -.4k ... 44.4. i M • • �r , j. 1 if f 'r, 1 , 1 ::...... l tc?.. ) Alp d 1 .• , � r � o tI. '►' 'r. , • v E r 4.tit Sri•..4 i AAA • . It .. I) C / .47 '.-'••--- ' '''',.....- i -.',.. ! j s ` ` rv. . i e ft ji 4.449.Lao .... 41. . 4It 4, • t.r to , i ii C .m K r' • �.t 1 t v w rryr� 4 7 . smi ,'�" ' Q / + ,4 $ • R • • t. , "., t3. `• ' 1, 3_ ?. _ . • . /1.7 if ye / *. , , of-. „, ipi-p-it. /,,,, . ..„, su (....5. , i, .!. ..,_ . . , Ili •� i ! r ,,� Valleyecaen Mdil Center t • 1L 1. il'''%• . - . Ir 1 .. A !r * ` "\'•.�,,' _ i ? Y t .. .fir, ,�- • • 1 - i King County , No- imil, a ur, ___... _. : City ofKent �• - r tit r N t• lg . . ,. . lb 4, r • R i _, •. c R:" �Ir y�. ). 4 ' s �► f 8 AQ/ 0 Lt ' w Y Ry r ` f i 1 1 , . .. ;. t, ., I- •••••• if 4 . 4 1 i:, t. !. III i* .. ` _ , • t' j 1 it F ryryJ ♦ r -(J r i t n, ,rs 1 Ore` , II i sa ' i ...'"...\ SITE xis, • e 1 lit - .l 'ir , . . 1,, i :alt ,,,,,,a. „1 e 14 ilk! 17.4. 1,74 r Y f ft r .a.#"mod` K ' ; ...3 1 , , ,9 . • 12 • , , (': ' - A;./. • : i ,«' ` vit �5 t vt ,7 . • t• ..., . / R • 1 '4 j y1 0;01‘,..• r r r Ir tiller r 7,1‘ it 4 ilif ....41t 11 100 ... dr ,1-1„. , .ii, f 14041111•411 . )% i. owiii ';' ''. ' ' ill*' 0 200 400 Chateau at V .............. 1 .•2,400 Davis Ave. So. & So. 45th Place �, Study Area „ 0® .4, Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning J?!A./R G f J Cartoon Administrator ��.L L G. Del Rosario mom. Corporate Boundary 05 April 02 • . { •• Date aerial photo taken:Spring 1999 ♦ . ••l , 'it R Special Event Parking Summary Special Event residents attending: Non—dementia units 164 Residents per non-dementia unit x 1 .12 Total Non-dementia residents 184 Percent attending (90%) x 0.90 Total residents 166 Special Event visitors attending: Non-dementia units 164 Percent with visitors (15%) x 0.15 Total visitors cars 25 Visitors (2.5 per car) x 2.5 Total visitors 63 Special Event total people attending: Residents 166 Visitors 63 Total people 229 Special Events visitor cars: Non-dementia residents 164 Percent of units with visitors x 0.12 Total visitor cars 25 Page 1 MillillIIIIIIII".-- , C/4.41-re..-!A4-, . ,,v,A,,Lay ct ona...,.. (Alt.. cy.• \I r. c A-if..5/ ri ir•) i . Fitioyin e6rr)0C-111:43^ liA il _ piket-0-11-16 A-k1M-ti S t S i • . 0 • -• 0 t, . ; .. . . : 1 , • • (YP‘I'll 140 1 .'• , 1 • ot‘ ' ..0(••,' r ' • 0•' : _ ‘,,,,ac.'6 WI) c9%5 i 1 ' 'C'z' \LIS • . ; • . ,. . I . LA'c..`•0' . 0.*1 x•t<4 I ":1'' V . • P 6 6- r , . • 1 , 60A4 0 ' . 0.-5'4 4/42 i - • i r•-•\ - 1/ 0' : • . 1 .i. ! • , • . -z_ 0./I • ?. . . _ . ._ ., S'A ..o!tft . .......„,1 \--1 0- 6s1 0,y, • Li° •. 1 ; • ' . • 1 . I . . • ; . ' . ', • i i , ' 1 • • " . i ! • '• : . . • i i IL6-0L,,t-IN , : ! , • I • . I . . (.2,000`1) 1 i , 1 , . I 1 1 , i : I i 0 • --- _______ . -- • i i i I I o -4-- i. , v... ,. .,,„pt.., .., ...4 a = :,4 ; •;1 ;;-1_ .-., 11 -.• "-• - / , .) , 1 -- i',01 /1-,-- ( '57: ) 4-411. Received: 5/ 11 2; MAY-01-2002 16:25 STRATFORD CONSTR RETIREMENT COMMUNITY (250) Senior Citizen Multi-Family Residential) t Space Occupied vs: DWELLING UNITS Peak Parkin p On a: SUNRAY PARKING GENERATION RATES Average Number of Range of S anderd Number of Dwellingage Units Average Rates Deviation Studies r Rate .OD Wry CAUTION—USE CAREFULLY-SMALL SAMPLE SIZE. NO PLOT OR EQUATION AVAILABLE--INSUFFICIENT DATA* 1 • li a CRQF Parking Ganararion.August 199711n&tltuts al Transaorlatlon Engineers 39 { TOTAL P.O? alibi{ 7 Total Parking Requirement Summary Maximum Normal Conditions parking spaces 54 Maximum Special Event parking spaces 25 Factor of safety (10%) 8 Total parking spaces required 87 NrfCROF INFO Page 2 &Chi 614 (a0 Chateau at Valley Center Parking Requirements Ratio Refer to Number of Spaces per Type Note: Units Unit Subtotal Dementia 1 15 0.3 5 Assisted Living 1 164 0.8 131 Employees 2 18 0.9 16 Loading Space 3 1 TOTAL 153 On-site Proposed 4 103 Off-Site-Joint Use Agreement 5 50 TOTAL 153 Notes: 1 Application provided information on two unit types. Source: ITE Parking Generation Manual 1987 2 Employees at Full Staff 3 Required per RMC4-4-080F.1 4 Surface and Underground: Underground reduced by maximum of three spaces due to inadequate aisle width.Total reduced to 100 5 ERC Mitigation Measure Item 11 !J CROF1LME £dWfr I( - a DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC P.O.Box 907 Woodinville,WA 98072 Phone: (206)488-2400 Fax: (206)488-1089 May 7,2002 (Correction to April 18, 2002 letter,Parks and Recreation portion only) \C City of Renton Hearing Examiner do Susan Fiala, Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 '`. L MED Re: Chateau at Valley Center,File No.LMTA 02-012,SH-A,ECF Appeal of Environmental Determination for: • Parks and Recreation—Parks Mitigation Fee Dear Ms Fiala: We discovered an error in the parks mitigation fee calculation methodology.Briefly, in the table under"2.0 Methodology for Alternative Parks Impact Fee Calculation","Value of parks/person"should be"Value of parks/unit". This correction trickles down through the calculation methodology and changes the economic figures,including the total impact fee. This replaces the Parks and Recreation—Parks Mitigation Fee portion of our April 18, 2002 letter of appeal. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Parks and Recreation—Parks Mitigation Fee Appeal: The following is in response to City of Renton Staff Report for Environmental Review Committee Meeting of April 9, 2002. In the referenced report,the Parks Mitigation Fee is $38,372.16 [(179 units— 15 dementia units)= 164 units x$354.51 (multi-family fee)x 66%]. While we agree that the proposed retirement community project should contribute to the community by paying a parks mitigation fee,the fee proposed in the ERC Staff Report is, we believe, excessive. In the Development Impact Mitigation Policy for Parks and Recreation, Introduction, it states"...mitigation will be in proportion to the need created by the new development"(emphasis mine). The Policy goes on to prescribe impact fee calculation methodology,and notes that multi-family dwelling units use an occupancy ratio of 1.7 persons per unit. Our concern,and the reason for our appeal,is that Resolution 3082, and supporting zoning codes and policies, make no provision for Specialized Senior Housing(or senior housing of any kind). No accommodation is made for a small but signficant segment of the City's population—senior xh;brl- In citizens with impaired physical and/or mental capabilities who are unable to care for themselves and who either choose to, or, of necessiV, must live in Specialized Senior Housing Communities. Further, the Ordinance fails to recognize the minimal use that this type senior is able to make of parkwelated recreation an4 consequently, the resultant relatively light impact that they have on the parks system. In the absence of an appropriate park fee schedule category for specialized senior housing, especially assisted living senior citizens(we are being specific here because there are probably other sub-categories of senior citizens that may have greater or lesser impacts on parks; depending primarily on their level of independence and mobility),we respectfully offer the accompanying study and alternative fee calculation methodology.Please see the attached. Conclusion: We respectfully request that you accept this appeal and,thereby, approve a total(corrected) Parks Mitigation Fee of$19,633.19. (CORRECTED) Methodology for an Alternative Parks Impact Fee In the absence of an appropriate park fee schedule category for light care/independent, assisted living and dementia senior citizens(we are being specific here because there are probably other sub-categories of senior citizens that may have greater or lesser impacts on parks; depending primarily on their level of independence and mobility), we respectfully offer the following alternative fee calculation methodology: LIGHT CARE/ ASSISTED INDEPENDENT LIVING DEMENTIA RESIDENTS RESIDENTS RESIDENTS TOTAL Value of $354.51 $354.51 $354.51 parks/unit Value of $208.54 $208.54 $208.54 Parks/person (using 1.7 multi- family persons/unit) Percentage active 75% 35% None compared to standard (note 1) (note 2) multi-family) Impact fee $156.41 $72.99 None assessment /person Average 1.12 1.06 N/A Number (note 3) (note 4) persons/unit Total impact $175.18 $77.37 N/A fee/unit Total units 179 179 179 Independent/assisted-to 40% 52% 8% total percentage Number of 71 93 15 Units Park&recreation $12,437.78 $7195.41 N/A $19,633.19 Impact fees Page 1 ' Note 1: Approximately 40% of the Chateau at Valley Center residents will be light care/independent. Although they are"independent", by definition,they also are elderly. We are assuming, conservatively,that light-care/independent persons are 75% active as park-users relative to standard multi-family users. Note 2: The balance of the Chateau at Valley Center residents, 60%, will require assistance. The entire facility will be licensed by the State Health Department specifically to provide assistance to residents. We feel that this substantial percentage of assisted-persons is significant, especially with regard to parks impact,because the majority of these residents are too infirm and/or too immobile to avail themselves of the City's parks. The few that are able to enjoy an outing will have to be shuttled to a park in our van and accompanied by an escort. As a practical matter,because of the emotional stress that such outings can have on these infirm residents, the typical assisted living resident will participate in—and will desire to participate in—very few of these occasions over the course of a year. We are assuming, conservatively,that assisted care persons are 35% active as park-users relative to standard multi-family users.We feel that a 35% activity level is more than fair for the calculation of the park impact fee for our assisted living elderly residents—especially considering that they, unfortunately, will have extremely limited ability to use and enjoy the parks. Note 3: Average number of(independent)persons per unit. Our Chateau family of companies own and operate four assisted living communities in The Greater Seattle Area which are similar to Chateau at Valley Center. They are: Chateau at Peters Creek, Chateau Marymoor, Chateau Pacific and newly opened Chateau at Bothell landing. These facilities are similar in independent/assisted population mix. Typically, they have 1.12 independent persons per unit. This number is similar for all our communities and is typical for the industry. Note 4: Average number of(assisted living)persons per unit. The same data referred to in Note 3 above indicates 1.06 assisted living persons per unit. With regard to the average number persons/unit, especially as applicable to Note 3 and Note 4 above, we are using the standard definition of Senior Occupancy: "Occupancy of specialized senior housing shall be limited to persons of sixty-two(62)years of age or over and their spouses and/or live-in caregivers". Page 2 Summary: Park and recreation impacts: Light Care/ Assisted Independent Living Dementia Total_ Number of housing units 71 93 15 179 Cost Per Unit $175.18 $77.37 N/A Park and Recreation Impact $12,437.78 $7,195.41 None $19,633.19 Total Parks Mitigation Fee using "Methodology for Alternative Park Impact Fee Calculation": $19,633.19 I . Page 3 `too S Y 3rd /e , vy,E- `1 Ere)s 5 Valley Medical Center Statement of Support for Chateau at Valley Center �1'%wnv aCe,.-Kuu Cax, • Valley Medical Center, in response to the community, has been working for the past 5 years on the development of an Assisted Living Facility adjacent to the hospital campus. • For the past 2years, ValleyMedical Center has been working with Davis Avenue Associates, who operate high quality, community-oriented assisted living facilities in the Puget Sound area. • The proposed development is for 179 units with parking for 103 vehicles on campus. It is our understanding that this far exceeds capacity for like facilities in the City of Renton, in addition to like facilities operated by Davis Avenue Associates. • Valley Medical Center is currently developing a facility master plan, and is unable at this time to commit to a 5-year unrestricted use and access to our parking lots adjacent to the property earmarked for development. Our commitment for access for special events held at the complex remains unchanged. M1 ROALM D Exbibi+ 9 DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC P.O. Box 907 Woodinville, WA 98072 Phone: (206) 488-2400 Fax: (206) 488-1089 May 7, 2002 � k R. F D L M E D City of Renton Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Chateau at Valley Center, File No. LUA-02-012, SH-A, ECF Appeal ERC Condition for Reserved Parking Requirement Dear Sir; The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated with Mitigation Measures on April 9, 2002. One condition of this determination is that 50 additional parking spaces (153 vs. 103) off-site are required, with a 5-year joint-use agreement with the Valley Medical Center (VMC) on their property across the street. This represents a 50% increase in the parking requirements for this project and the ERC did not provide the rational for how they arrived at 153 spaces being required. It was not until we received the Hearing Examiner Public Hearing Agenda and preliminary report on May 1, 2002, that we were provided with the first explanation of the ERC's rational for determining the 153 parking spaces required. We could not respond the ERC's rational in our Appeal, submitted April 29, 2002, since this information was not available to us when preparing the appeal. Accordingly, we are addressing this late coming information in this letter and our presentation at the hearing. The report accompanying the Agenda rightly points out that"assisted living facility is not a use specifically identified in section 4-4-080-F". The report goes on to indicate that"calculation of required parking spaces was determined by analyzing the parking requirements of residential uses in the code", referring specifically to RMC 4-4-080-F (multi-family dwelling units, other zones & motels) &the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual (High-Rise apartments & Retirement Community). We take this to mean that, since the RMC has no category for"Assisted Living", the ERC decided to use existing parking requirement car/unit ratios from uses in the RMC and then try somehow to extrapolate parking requirements for the Chateau at Valley Center project. • One obvious flaw in this approach is that the Citydid not consider the Land Uses in PP their own code which are most closely related to Assisted Living and these are "Convalescent, Nursing and Health Institutions" and "Multiple Dwelling for Low Income Elderly". (Note: A boarding Home license which is required for assisted living also Page 1 allows us to do "limited practice nursing" in these facilities—this use is a lot closer to the Convalescent and Nursing Use than it is to multifamily). On December 21, 2000 we held our first meeting with the City to discuss this project. Present at this meeting from the City were, Elizabeth Higgins, Corey Thomas and Jan Ilian. At that meeting we asked specifically about parking requirements and were informed that there was no code covering this use but that the practice in the City was to base the requirements on the Convalescent code. In fact they provided us with a copy of the Hearing Examiners report for a 128 unit project in the City of Renton named "The Lodge at Eagle Ridge Retirement Community" File No. LUA-097-060,SA. In that report, the staff had calculated the parking requirements based on the code for Convalescent facilities. The Hearing Examiner required some extra spaces based on three existing conditions (1) This project contained a number of duplex and multiplex units on the site as well as the main building (2) more than half of the project was proposed for seniors who still live independently (3) there was no opportunity for on street parking adjacent to the facility. None of these conditions exist at the proposed Chateau at Valley Center project. In fact there is an opportunity for safe on street parking for more than 50 vehicles adjacent to, or in dose proximity to the property. The City has established a precedent of calculating the parking for this type of facility based on the Convalescent code requirements. In fact in the Hearing Examiners findings, (paragraph 17) for the Lodge at Eagle Ridge Retirement community, the Hearing Examiner states the following "It would appear that while a portion of the site will be equivalent to a nursing home or convalescent center, it seems that more than half of the complex is for seniors who still live independently". The conclusion one would draw from this statement is that the Hearing Examiner considers the Assisted Living portion of the projectmore or less equivalent to Convalescent and Nursing uses as far as paring requirements'are concerned:" Completing the parking calculations based on the Convalescent code provisions, we would expect 179 X 1.15 = 206 people or beds. This would require 206/3 = 69 parking spaces plus 18/2 =.9 for staff for a total of 78 parking spaces.' Based on the Multiple Dwelling Low Income Elderly code the parking requirement would be 179/4 = 45 spaces. The parking code for these two uses, which are much more similar in use to Assisted Living than multifamily, indicate that between 45 and 69 spaces would be required. This is less than half the number the City is requiring based on the multifamily codes. These two uses should have been used as the basis of the City's calculations but they weren't. Further, the City offers no insight into how they arrived at the ratios used (0.30 for dementia, 0.80 for residential unit& 0.90 for employees) for calculating the parking spaces from the referenced ratios for other uses. In fact .9 spaces per employee conflicts with their own code for the Convalescent use which requires .5 spaces per employee. Assisted Living staff, on the average have less formal training and are hence lower paid than nursing home staff. They would be more likely to ride the bus than the nursing home employee. On the basis of the foregoing facts alone, the City's calculations are flawed and inappropriate. The City tried to support their calculations by quoting numbers from the ITE Parking Generation Manual.They cited"High-Rise apartment" (car/unit ratio - 0.88) and residential condos at 1.11 spaces per unit. This does not apply due to totally different use. ITE Land Use Code 252., Congregate Care is the closest ITE category to our Assisted Living. Unfortunately there are no ITE parking studies available for this Page 2 I ,, category, only trip generation studies. The City quoted some information from the ITE manual for Land Use category 250 Retirement Community (Senior Citizen Multifamily Residential). Attached are the relevant pages from the ITE manual. There are three main problems with this study. (1) This category includes senior citizen condominiums and apartments and the studies don't indicate how many of what types of facilities (apartments, condominiums, congregate care, assisted living) are included in each study. So we don't know what type of project they are studying. They could be all apartments and condominiums for all we know. (2) The study they referenced for Sunday (1.00) is of questionable reliability, at best, since the manual itself clearly emphasizes the caveat, "Caution — use carefully —small sample size" & "no plot or equation available - insufficient data". (3) The great disparity noted in the ITE studies between the Sunday rate and the rate for Saturday and weekdays was not confirmed in the study we completed nor have we experienced this at our buildings. True there are generally more visitors on a Sunday but this is largely offset by the fact there is much less staff on the weekend, particularly Sunday. During the week, in addition to the Line (hourly) staff, there are 8 or 9 supervisory staff. During the weekend, this 8 or 9 supervisory staff drops to 1 manager on duty. There is also no maintenance or housekeeping staff, which would reduce the staff by 2 or 3 more people. Since all the supervisory staff drive cars, this drops the amount of parking occupied by staff by 8 to 10 spaces on the weekend largely offsetting the additional visitor parking. The ITE Parking Generation Manual recommends that"more data is needed to provide more meaningful parking rates"for all categories. Further, the Sunday ratio (1.00) cited is inconsistent with the parking ratios for Saturdays (0.32) & Weekdays (0.27) taken from the same study, as well as, our experience in facilities we currently operate. The empirical analysis we included in our Appeal documents is a "real world", conservative method for determining "assisted living" parking requirements, which addresses the special needs of"assisted living"facilities and provides methodology to determine realistic parking requirements for this type of facility, since it based upon actual cars counted at similar existing facilities in the area. Our empirical analysis of seven (7) facilities in the area is appropriate and provides exactly what the ITE Parking Generation Manual recommends (additional empirical data pertinent to this type of facility). We submit that it is the definitive study upon which the parking requirements for this project should be based. The ERC parking requirements are not based on any valid analysis or data. They are guessing at the appropriate parking requirements and our study clearly proves that they are in error. Page 3 SUMMARY: Summary of the ERC's parking requirements: Parking for dementia units. 4.5 spaces Parking for residential units 132.0 spaces Parking for employees 16.2 spaces Total 153 spaces Ratio for 179 units 0.86 cars/unit Summary of parking requirements from Convalescent code : Parking based on number of beds 68.67 spaces Parking for employees 9.0 spaces Total 78 spaces Ratio for 179 units 0.44 cars/unit Summary of parking requirements from empirical analysis: Peak traffic number of cars parked on site 54 spaces Special Event added number of cars on site 25 spaces 10%factor of safety 8 spaces Total 87 spaces Ratio for 179 units 0.49 cars/unit Parking spaces on-site parking proposed: On-site parking spaces proposed 103 spaces Ratio for 179 units 0.58 cars/unit CONCLUSION: By our calculations it will take approximately .74 acres to provide the additional 50 parking spaces required by the ERC. Obviously this cannot be done on the site, as there would be no space left for the building. Acquiring extra land is economically unfeasible. Land in this CO zone in this location is very expensive and it takes at least 179 units to support the cost of the land and make the project economically viable. It makes no sense to build a 50 space parking lot that is going to sit unused. A parking lot of this size would have an impervious surface are of approximately 19,500 square feet. It would generate somewhere in the range of 430,000 gallons of storm water run off, in a typical year, which must be handled by all ready burdened down stream storm water facilities. In addition parking lots are notorious polluters of our streams and lakes. It is not in the interest of the interest of the citizens of Renton to have vacant parking lots sitting around. Much better use can be made of our scarce land resources. If the unreasonably high parking requirement of the ERC is up held it may force us to abandon the project. That would be a great disappointment and hardship for many seniors in the Renton area. The Valley Medical Center came to us and asked us to build an assisted living project on their campus. They did so in response to pressure from Seniors in their 13,000 member strong Golden Care Club who wanted this type of Page 4 housing close to the Hospital and related medical facilities. These people are eagerly awaiting this project and will be very upset if it is terminated. We have provided a valid and definitive study, which has determined the real and actual parking needs for this new facility. As indicate above, the proposed 103 on-site spaces for this facility exceeds the required 87 parking spaces determined by our study, by 16 spaces (i.e., 18% extra spaces). The ERC requirements are little more than guesses, which have been proven to be in error by our study. We respectfully request that this desirable and much needed project be approved with 103 on-site parking spaces, as submitted. Davis Avenue Associates, LLC James A. Godfrey Owner Cc: A. Bernard Conley (Davis Avenue Associates, LLC) Darrell Johnson (Davis Avenue Associates, LLC) Enclosure: Excerpts from the ITE Manual Page 5 - MAY-01-2002 16:24 STRATFORb CONSTR 14254881089 P.02/07 : • -,. - . . ' ''';':.-.:::::,..,-,..,'•..,, .::',.., :::.;.':',1''' .', -' • - • • • • ='-':'. ' . , , .. . . "..o.,•,:,-.;; .•J,'..1;,..,• --a,•,..:.. . ,1.o..,";•:• • . . • "" ' nti Editio..• n ,. : '. • '-'-%:.;i. „ . .......,. , . , - .. .:„. ••• v,i...sc .,, :,i...rpii:,,;!'...;,',--.. . .p.T1-,t-A...il,,,,ii,i7,,i,s.,.4.,..A.,4,, ,,.,..,!..., . .. : . . . . . . . • • . • .•• .. :• l ''''' . . ' •-.. . ...... , ... ... . . . . . , . • • .. . . ..„tzio. . . . -" • ....,. .. ,. .. , .. . . •:. •_ „.„ . . . . . . .. , • , • . . . ...,,, . ,,,,, •, ........ - :i,: -:„ • :, :T.:Jq:-.. . '. ng . . . , ....... ''...... . . . . , ..„ . . .. .. . , ,, . . ,,..,... •... ....,•1.. n.:::'7': ' •' :.'-';`'',1',:*:, . . .. ,., , . . . .,;,••?,;' . . .',•:', SH ';',,•• ''' .'•: '''''''.1)-':::.1; ';'... I • '•• • • . gio. .,..... ,. . . . • • . . . ,„ . . . • .... . . . . . :,.. 6,1iren . :. '''''.., ''.' , ' . ..: . .:1-•,. . ' 1 :- . .. ...„ . • ....., ,.."••. ,,,,,..,,..ki ,••.),„ ..:4•.,. „...... ._!•,-.37 '' ' .. , . • ..,„.i•-:-..-.: f-','f',.1`iir,:or, ',.:-.!-;•4'.,::.-, .,,,,,,.,. . ''.,•„...,... . . . .... .,.. , ,. • , '••••••.:''.:::"4.:...1...•:..!. : ....:'::',.7' •.:.'li•• , ,Itil-.c.•J...1'...':•.,-:.„1.:,; 1.:".'11•••• .. .-.':.•;,::";',',";.,'.,. ;1, 1...'.!...,::::',.:':.;%'• f.':11,.:;...:',', ••••,.':.:.• ., . i. ".._,-1 .1. . .... '-::•-•(;:r;;;.-,.. ,:•:- . . 1 . 1 innerannielir.:''':r .''. '-:•- •.:;,- • • •• . ' , . . , '..1:::'.- .:••.:11;i:;7., AWN" , ''" ''' - . .‘., !.•.'":-.r,;:g. . I;''.!,.1 ..-i:,,..,..:..,,Apr . , :•,.., ,...! , .., • . .., ..,. .. , . .. . .... . . . . . • ... : .. ••-• • , . . , . . . . .. .. .•:[,. ., I " - • , , ., ‘:-.,,,,;::,-.-.-', 2 ,' .: - . .. . . . , . .. . . .. . .• •• • ...... „ ..,. , • . I . . . . . . .. . • . . , . ., • --,...,. .• . . . . . . • , c,..,-..,,.. ! . .- ,.....,,,-,,, , ,;;, .. . . .... . .... ., ,:-......-:•,.,'•••i: -,-...,--,,,,,,,,,--,,.: r;•••,.; .. . . • . „ .... .., . •, . . .. . L. --,,•. c,,,••„: . --.,•,: •-,, ... . . ,. ,,..3•(•,,,-, , ... . • ,„ • , . .„ .. . ., • . . , . . . ... ...„ ... . . . ,. . , - • ,.. : -•••••,- -,,, •:.• ..-H••,-... f.:.-4,„!? ..,......., . NSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATIONINGINEERS . \ .. . . , . .. . '. , . . • • , • L, MAY-01-2002 16:24 STRATFORD CONSTR 14254881089 P.04/07 • LAND USE: 250 RETIREMENT COMMUNITY (Senior Citizen Multi-Family Residential) DESCRIPTION PARKING CHARACTERISTICS AND DATA LIMITATIONS Retirement communities,restricted to adults or senior citizens, contain residential units similar to apart- As expected, the parking rate for retirement com- ments or condominiums and are usually self-con- munities is lower than other multi-family residential tatnea villages. They may also contain special ser- faculties.The weekend rates are higher than week- vices Such as medical services,dining facilities,and day rates due to visitors. More data are needed to some limited supporting retail uses. provide more meaningful parking rates. Mt facilities surveyed were located in suburban Chi- , cago.The number of dwelling units ranged from 51 to 203. • • • • • • L Parking Generation.August lea?/Institute of Trensporlatlon Engineers 35 V`y j• MAY-01-2002 Vr 16 24 ~,0~STRATFORD CONSTR nemcn i no 14254881089 P.05/07 • RETIREMENT COMMUNITY (250) vi (Senior Citizen Multi-Family Residential) • Peak Parking Spaces Occupied vs: DWE1-L1NG UNITS On a: WEEKDAY if PARKING GENERATION RATES Average Range of Standard Number of Average Number of Rate Rates _ Deviation tidies Dwelling Units A 0.27 0.11-0A8 • 4 125 DATA PLOT AND EQUATION CAUTION—USE CAREFULLY—SMALL SAMPLE SIZE.' 90 >a CI 80-+ w F v -�70 Q w S0 - — fa U o.. 50- U , Z 40 tt a 30- a. 20- n o a 1Q— r I 1 0 070 90 110 7� 130 150 170 190 210 X = NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS U ACTUAL DATA POINTS FITTED CURVE Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(P) = 1.75(X) - 4.97 RZ - 0.945 n tittla of Transportation Engineers P9rklRg Generation,Auduet ieaTn s PQ 30 Received, 5/ 1/ 2; 3:58PM; 14254881089 => REGENCY RETIREMENT ; Ne MAY-01-2002 16:25 STRATFORD CONSTR 14254881089 P.06/07 RETIREMENT COMMUNITY (250) (Senior Citizen Multi-Family 11esidential) Peak Parking Spaces Occupied vs: DWELLIING UNITS On a: SATURDAY PARKING GENERATION RATES • w Number of e Average Flange of Standard Number of _�iveragpweein Units Rate Rates Deviation Studies' Dwelling CAUTION—USE CAREFULLY--SMALL SAMPLE SIZE. NO PLOT OR EQUATION AVAILABLE_INSUFFiciENr DATA* l ' I I «: Parking t3enerarlon,August 1QONlnrtltute of Th neponallon Enpineera S7 I -. MAY-01-2002 15:45 +4254535159 917/ P.06 R^ceived: 5/ 1/ 2; 3:58PM; STRATFORD CONSTR • • MAY-01-2002 16:25 NT COMMUNITY (250) RETIREMENT _F mil Residential) ` (Senior Citizen Mufti � Y Peak Parking Spaces Occupied vs: DWELLING UNITS On a: SUNDAY PARKING GENERATION RATES rStandard Number of I , . Average Number of Average Range of Deviation studies Dwelling Units 11 Rate Rates 1.00 CAUTION—USE CAREFULLY—SMALL S0►MPLE SIZE. NO PLOT OR EQUATION AVAILABLE--INSUFFICIENT DATA" I 1 I i I I I I I I Parking Dent Ulon.August 19$7ilnatltute of Transportation Engineers I 39 ' i TOTAL P.07 CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works MEMORANDUM DATE: October 7, 2002 TO: Environmental Review Committee FROM: Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, x7382 SUBJECT: Chateau at Valley Center, LUA 02-012, ECF, SA-H, AAD Request for Extension of Approval Time A request for reconsideration was submitted to the Hearing Examiner on June 12, 2002 for an extension of the Valid Approval Time for a period of five (5) years for the implementation of the Chateau at Valley Center Level 1 Site Plan application. Typically, Site Plan approvals are valid for a period of two years with the ability to request extensions to this time period. At the May 7, 2002 Hearing Examiner public hearing, the applicant, Davis Avenue Associates, stated the possibility of phasing the proposed project. The applicant indicated that project implementation would be better accomplished through the use of phased construction. Davis Avenue Associates currently indicate that this may involve construction of 135 units in Phase 1 and the remaining 44 units and underground parking, located in the northernmost wing, in Phase 2. Please refer to Attachment 1 which illustrates the phasing scenario for the structure and provides a narrative on the parking, landscaping and fire access. The applicant may decide to construct the entire structure at one time dependent on market conditions. However at this time, phasing of the project is deemed to be the most logical approach to constructing the facility. Due to the potential for project phasing, a request for a five (5) year valid approval period was brought to the Hearing Examiner for approval. On August 27, 2002, the Hearing Examiner responded by stating that the HEX office has no objection to providing a five (5) year time period as long as both the ERC and the Fire Department concur with the extension (refer to Attachment 2). The hearing examiner indicated such approval by these two agencies should be in the form of a written acknowledgement. Therefore, it is requested that the ERC affirm concurrence with the 5 year extension for the Site Plan by provision of your signatures. `��/�,��/-16 ,�`�� DA4E/'/ Gregg Zim e an, dmirfistrator ,� Departme o Pla ing/Building/Public Worlks( e lqo C'j 42/ /6 im S.epherd, Adm.nistrat_ �- DATE Comncunity Serv. es P- eeler, Fire ief DATE Renton Fire Department irtoo C- cc: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner 01 /9Q1 1/1 ' s f 1/ C U(Mf Cony % ibIN) - ei-}paE 1 Muci ptagr Au. d / I/ f ky lei(rni bty of uo l t3 ,r,g,tklL_vA(1 i idAY Ace.as t1N a LYG SAFI T4 /j �/� /� �/p oce 5 7o 6 • • J , / i • /:'r(/. - . % %— , A ,,, i 4 ., / , I s s r ///// , %I%' 14 / / .1�;: • Y �r /// `i, • ; --,�, ,(,,, ''' 7 /;>.S.,,t' / i 1.4 I. ti / y , � ;� 7,_.,- / ' \\ II\ 3 It / , 1 I J • t • n: 1 ://� �:\I 1 I `i • •• „,93,/ ,/ / .,.... ... • No\ '"4.-•' ';'--;)t.-- jr ,I ' 11 i ' • / �,,, St 1( ,riV U •'' / ' :R / I1. 7 i h r /" -,I \/ `/ 4� ,f' --' — -,<` 1•,. � ��� 7 /; 7. .,,, „ �/ - '1,•, I -, id '�,'/1 D rl • •`•/ / • ,U ,�• ,I-. )�,, :1\,..vr. -._ice- f / // , �•// i7''✓/. •,\ s �'` '`'/ rff III I ,-'I I' ' r 4' #41No. �-.k._'Aa yr ���, / ti /' �a �1�u j ! Ql hp// //�''� 3 i/ I4 ; •-_ . Lit .;\ - N 7�•Ar,rl,^_ \ / �:\N. ^i-'_', // ., ,I • f 1 1. `•''Kl /N 0° J . �, ,•�o ) (-..,_ - , S .I rr,, .�{.fi; r I .4 SgrC \tit rL I �,/ „_____I .D_j ..—.'._ r I: '1 Z rr I � �'.� I,/, , • ! ' \ I'. '4� � /'\�. ?�r-.far f.�� 1 _ !i .��1. i H: 1,,, /.., & .,,,' / ,,,,,. „ / -.? A H..' ... /I I./ F:46) FT.] i,l....-_. '1. Ifir511 , • • II ti��FI{ J I. �„ �.. `/ .- V, \-- ---116 - _ z C G pq ury p f to o1M1�, I 1 0,.� •. ip,-a :.,Iu- Z\'U_30,.. ___17.......,_ i J: ,° �"�+ti,` L.)• \\\ �/ — _.. __ — I ._ �,_ ,o-•mot 11 2I / r .5 ir yell�., ) / .. ��. N \... ...,.. .....11.) .....,...,,.....)pw....:...,.... •,...,..,..,....:,.1.,......i........::./1 ;1 .O.OZ 1'� "� .a l S45th':STREE ► ; \ �' \ „'=d--' ,:r— .tom. , ••,;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;,,,..,,,, 1nl`I I DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC P.O.Box 907 Woodinville,WA 98072 Phone: (206)488-2400,Ext. 228, Fax: (206)488-1089 October 4, 2002 Susan Fiala City of Renton 1011 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Chateau at Valley Center, File No. LUA-02-012, SH-A, ECF Subject: Clarification of Phase I On-site Parking, Landscaping & Fire Department Access. Susan: This letter is in response to the Environmental Review Committee's request for clarification of provisions for on-site parking, landscaping & Fire Department access to the buildings for Phase I, as opposed to a single-phased project. On-site Parking: Phase I of this project has a total of(78) on-site parking stalls (44-stalls in the northwest parking lot accessed from Davis Avenue South & 34-stalls in the southeast parking lot accessed from S. 45th Place). Phase I parking ratio is 0.58 Auto/Unit (78/135); the same as the single-phased project with 179 units (103/179). The joint- use parking agreement with Valley Medical Center is approved and is in effect whether the project is constructed in a single-phase or two (2) phases. Phase I has a total of(135) resident units (27 light care units, 93 assisted living units & 15 dementia units). Please note that, even though we have provided the same parking ratio in Phase I as the single-phased project, the parking demand for Phase I is actually less than for the single-phased project, since the (44) units deferred to Phase II are all light care units (higher parking demand). This results in Phase I having less need of parking stalls, since Phase I has a higher percentage of assisted living & dementia units (lower parking demand)than the single-phased project. Landscaping: Phase I Landscaping is the same as the single-phased project, except that the future Phase II building footprint will be planted with landscaping similar to the balance of the project. October 4, 2002 Page 1 I Y City of Renton Chateau at Valley Center Page 2 Fire Department Access: Phase I provides the same fire safety access (Fire Department) as for the single- phased project (i.e., access will be from the northwest & southeast parking areas) and the fire truck hammer-head turnaround in the southeast parking lot remains unchanged. We attach a site plan for Phase I for this facility showing the parking stall locations, landscaping & parking lots for Fire Department access to the buildings. We trust that this letter&attached plan satisfactorily addresses the Environment Review Committee's request for clarification for the elements in question for Phase I of this project. Please call me at (206) 931-2889, if you have any questions Davis Avenue Associates, LLC- 9 D ell Johnson Development Coordinator enc: Cc: A. Bernard Conley (Davis Avenue Associates, LLC) James Godfrey (Davis Avenue Associates, LLC) • Page 2 Y. .0 41`$^7 � CITY ( _ RENTON ••LL +'nHearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman 1 August 27, 2002 • Susan Fiala Senior Planner Development Services City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Chateau at Valley Center Request for Extension of Approval Time Dear Ms. Fiala: This office has reviewed the information regarding an extension of the time for implementing the Site Plan for the Chateau at Valley Center. It is not clear that this information was fully available to the various reviewing agencies when the project was reviewed. Therefore,this office has no objection to providing a five(5)year time period as long as both the ERC and the Fire Department believe that the phasing as proposed will provide for life safety and efficient circulation and development of the proposed complex. Such approval should be in the form of a written acknowledgement by those agencies of the phasing and approval of same. If this office can be of any further assistance,please feel free to write. Sincerely, ! c\...V-.0.1--,--• 0.-e--,_ . _ Fred J.Kaufman . Hearing Examiner OEVELOPtviENr- CITY nr c�z-n i:�N vINGI FJK/kw cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer RECEIVED Larry Warren, City Attorney Development ServicesIELOPME�IT PLANNINGJennifer Henning, p CITY nr .•._,,,,-ni, Larry Rude,Fire Environmental Review Committee A1fl • RE 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6515 R E 1V T O 1V R. This paper contains50%recycledmaterial,30%postconsumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE �� AT'i-l. ,.-u\n P-T CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 19,2002 TO: Susan Fiala FROM: Gregg Zimmerman(7 SUBJECT: Chateau at Valley Center LUA 02-012,Request for Extension of Approval Time I do have one concern about this request that may be resolved with provision of additional information. As you know, a great deal of time was spent on this project assuring adequacy of parking facilities, and in procuring an off-site parking agreement with Valley Medical Center. This proposed phasing involves delay in construction of underground parking facilities; however, most of the living units (151 of 179)will be installed in Phase 1. This proposal once again calls into question the adequacy of parking for the Phase 1 portion of the project. If it can be demonstrated that an equal amount of parking will be available for the residents during Phase 1 as was earlier accepted for the project by ERC, I would be supportive of this extension request. I would appreciate provision of additional information relating to parking availability for the phase 1 portion of the project, specifically a comparison of on-site parking (per unit) that will be available to the 151 units in Phase 1 compared to the parking (per unit) that will be available to the 179 units upon completion of the entire project. Thanks. cc: [Click here and type name] Document2\cor /.., // .i , :// __. /1 rt*/-'\ v: / P. / - • • . I /.. ",/,.ft.,,i, / .i,_ .....- // .., .. . . 4,, .. 1- /// , , . , / / / ko .. //, ,,i, .. :„. ; 1'.1i ‘,.. 1-1 ' i•-• i C•4 .*/* 4„(/ •/ • ' • / •y / I /u 1 / jN / � VPL- 0 tA ,•..to• ki j ' 1-•\ -r— ILV\ -\1 i , 17.... .. , <.) I 1,1 .. r :'' — 1 r ,s,„,, , / // ' \ / ill' / i'J �,� / /i L . ,49/ / .. /� I /I NNAlp • . ..•/ / / / .t- i► IvAii/.. ii), , / /x- II 1 - ,,,N . l I PI li ,_. , , ,,,..,,, .4.0 7 . , , -..., ..,‘ , ., . . , ,, ,,,,, , \ ,,..,... ;_\ „ , ., .. 4 c 2/ / / , ... ,('. 0 • / : \sk / , , i /I • � ' � ' ' r * I • . . .. //) ,./. , • 411 [It3(; .,.., . /.''' 41 C?-44P I-----.i 1 Lii 1 / •• - '1‘4 0 * S\ ,</ , .. /..• c,c''\)/ <9 / Icrji .4 ,;1' .4§kk._ \ / ...**** / ,cce; '''',.../ -.---- - 40011111.___. ___ ::<, • 4's .., ... ' ./••,\ • ‘, •1 '))' 'i / . 'fr' 1 ''41/ r 7 , `/ •/ , , I 'r`. / t • - • c \ � !' \' / 'i• 7� ; ~ �fi�/ ' � . (' ,`/ /� / \ . ' / J /,' ' / a -1 I . - . 'n"'�.v3'"_` _Li __ . ., 4` `_ •• : — • III' •/ •� ,�/ �. /J l_ .r ;• I,, Ali . i I r I ;.'' ii, ia,_./ 'w1.. / -, ,r 1 -N / i // //' /. SI- , ..i. y .,, ,' 1 i . /'0 ‘IT:' i \--Z7,..,,zs/s<E•7::.:ii.,1,...,,..s--,s1:4-L--\--:/„ _____'.._______. 1: ....--0. • IY,i,/ / ,•1, /0 1rT ,� \ �l ii / X r-- l'.......edkaos ‘- "/N fik ‘ ' ..k. ' I . . .. ' I ''r• 7-1"1.i'- C:;'?---.' "‘-/ 16; 1 til.„ hp'1• , ,, A 3 / _ - — ems., 0, �`*411t., 3 \ ' *7 //' / ; u ' to v' U 7(...J y „„A. / . : (if q ,i I .! 7, ., . ....,,,;\,„,, , ., 4'4 °. -----\-'- " - .-':-'.:'-... 1 I 1 11* , . s* . \/' / / I • ' 1 4 r 1I - jc'-_ I gltA :' • kk,ig.; r j , nUul I . !P '! (. I rZa• / ii/ \• - it, •. ..,-N:--/ - • C„,____.--/:::::r/..,' , / 1'1 ip --' -''''''':-_-— '"'if/ du-60 ; t 4� Or -- — U`t Z ,. t I I I I /rr ��zU--��%/ `'q\ .�`` / f� I��n" (y_ii.1...../.... 'fa �' I. 1111= .'cn 1a,,r ���%� ,; ♦ o♦ ,� �d. Ll+\ (J17 o• �._... _. 111'IIrrIC)I , � � .� I; \ .. aye.. i, ��7 •, " r�' �7UVUIIJUI1 t - ♦2 > ' ` / LIB .7 // 1� �` LF ' w � / //`" - - a F-IY„X(YIL I ; li, I , t I 1 Hvivel ' ----.1 I I ''' 141� Q6�� d / R . Z�'Urr3�A lo- I .r 1I 0 1 \ 1 '\.a •� /•'I 1 I-- r/ ,. li.lt I is LI T I i t•t•i\ •, ` [off m. \/y/ _ ry I. / ' '`,t \ti''n e� • a 1, Yy , _ _ il_______5... , I\; • . -----..‹._:,,i,:(..g.ti if .......±..,.,.!„.. ..........w.7.777.....,,- (7---- - — f —74-4".:....... .•-•-:.... • ........ 11. C� •/ ,!i I I;�•-r rs I', v. ... 45th ,�.. ;...tis.t ..s. . ..•,,...•......,,.�,Ilj., ST1 TREE II \\ 4, .i�7 --«--ti•3 � .i,, " {`:,, .i ., ..rrrrrrrrrrrrsrr % t5 a. \ / � 5 t rJ.r rr•_�,L r :rr. rrr+r.r rr..r 11 rr • •t 1 t �_y� : • t�,.v�..-�:r rr.rrr#rrr{rrr�r rr 4 \ .q.r:rrr a `' rrr • •( 1 Z��Zia-t �S S . -L • _ r 5__ •r.,r. .i�..; r.............. ..r :� „ I I In- I r 1 r • rw: ��Y Q .� se ® ♦ I CITY OF RENTON CITY CLERK DIVISION MEMORANDUM DATE: July 31, 2002 TO: Susan Fiala, Senior Planner FROM: Rita Andrew, City Clerk's Office SUBJECT: Chateau at Valley Center—LUA-02-012 , Joint-Use Parking Agreement The attached original document has been fully executed and is being returned to you. Please transmit the original to the contractor and retain a copy for your file. An original document is also retained by the City Clerk. Thank you. Enclosures: (2) �y CITY OF RENTON JUL' 0 2 2002 i V RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 28, 2002 TO: Jesse Tanner, Mayor FROM: Gregg Zimmermri, dministrator, PBPW VIA: Neil Watts, Director, Development Services STAFF CONTACT: Susan Fiala, Senior Planner(X7382) SUBJECT: Chateau at Valley Center - LUA02-012, ECF, SA-H Joint Use Parking Agreement ISSUE: Execution of joint use parking agreement between three parties, City of Renton, Davis Avenue Associates, LLC (a.k.a. Chateau at Valley Center) and Valley Medical Center. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Mayor concur with the approval of the joint use parking agreement by affixing his signature on the agreement documents. Ii BACKGROUND: Chateau at Valley Center is a proposed 179 unit assisted living retirement facility. The site is located at the northeast corner of Davis Avenue South and SW 45th Place, approximately one block south of the Valley Medical Center and east of SR167. When the project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) concerns were raised about the amount of parking provided by the facility. The ERC required that an additional 50 parking spaces be provided through a parking agreement. The applicant appealed the mitigation measure to the Hearing Examiner whereupon the Hearing Examiner remanded the measure back to ERC. After extensive discussions and negotiation with the applicant, the terms of the joint use parking agreement were determined to meet the intent of the ERC mitigation measure. The City Attorney reviewed the joint use parking agreement and found it to be satisfactory as to legal form. Subsequently, the applicant provided the signatures of representatives from the Valley Medical Center and Davis Avenue Associates LLC (Chateau at Valley Center) and now request your signature. H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev&plan.ing\PROJECTS\02-012.fiala\ChateauMemotoMayor.doc . •_ . , , 1 • . . . . , . „ I' II . ! I 1, II ,./0J),odi t0-1 I CITY OF RENTON JUL 0 2 2002 Cm(CLERKS 8FFicE R Q141' 1 . i'‘Or- Q kik 1 I <'\ , • -1 III1 ......_-----' ------ • ' ,, . I . ! . I !, ., 1, Page 2 of 2 Chateau at Valley Center—Joint Use Parking Agreement The following are key points of the joint use parking agreement: 1. Agreement is between Valley Medical Center and Davis Avenue Associates (a.k.a. Chateau at Valley Center) and the City of Renton. 2. Use of up to 50 parking spaces in three specific areas within existing parking lots or structures on the Valley Medical Center Campus. 3. Agreement to last for a period of 5 years, with caveat that once facility has been in operation for one year or obtains 75% occupancy, the parking situation will be jointly reviewed by Davis Avenue Associates and the City of Renton to determine actual use and needs. 4. Based on the actual use and facility needs, the mitigation measure for 50 spaces may be modified or no longer be required. 5. Chateau at Valley Center would monitor on-site parking during heavy use. 6. May use: a) crossing guards if parking lots across street used; or b) valet parking; or c) shuttle buses to remote parking. CONCLUSION: Hence, the ERC mitigation measure for reserving an additional 50 parking spaces through a joint use parking agreement has been negotiated and meets the approval of Valley Medical Center and Davis Avenue Associates, LLC. The agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The final step is to obtain the City of Renton's concurrence with the joint use parking agreement by provision of the Mayor's signature on said document. Ili cc: Jennifer Henning H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev&plan.ing\PROJECTS\02-012.fiala\ChateauMemotoMayor.doc LUA-02-012 DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC P.O. Box 907 Woodinville, WA 98072 Phone: (206) 488-2400 Fax: (206) 488-1089 June 27, 2002 Public Hospital District 1 Valley Medical Center 400 South 43rd Street Renton, WA 98055 RE: Chateau at Valley Center City of Renton File No. LUA-02-012, SA-H, ECF Subject: Joint-Use Parking Agreement This document represents a Joint-Use Parking Agreement between Valley Medical Center and Davis Avenue Associates, LLC to allow use of fifty (50) parking spaces in the locations indicated below within the parking areas on the Valley Medical Center Campus for a period of five (5) years beginning at issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the facility to be known as Chateau at Valley Center, based upon the following stipulations: Chateau at Valley Center shall take responsibility for monitoring the number of automobiles parked in the facility's on-site parking lots during times of heavy use such as special events. The underground parking garage is for residents only. If the number of vacant non-resident parking spaces is five (5) spaces or less, the designated "manger-in-charge" of facility shall implement the "overflow parking plan", in which case any additional automobiles would be directed to overflow parking spaces designated by Valley Medical Center under the supervision of facility provided personnel, in accordance with this agreement. This supervised parking plan would be accomplished through use of crossing guards for"Area A", the preferred parking area, which is for (50) parking spaces located in a designated area within the parking lot across Davis Avenue South and west of the facility. If"Area A" is not available for overflow parking, the supervised parking plan would be accomplished through use of Valet parking attendants or shuttle buses to "Area B", which is for(50) parking spaces located in a designated area inside the parking garage located at the north end of the Valley Medical Center main parking lot (see attached locator map). Shuttle buses would pick up and drop off visitors in an area outside the parking garage designated for shuttle buses, with temporary signage to direct visitors. If neither"Area A" or"Area B" is available for overflow parking, this supervised parking plan would be accomplished through use of Valet parking attendants or shuttle buses to "Area C", which is for(50) parking spaces located in a designated area in the parking lot adjacent to the medical office buildings near the north end of the Valley Medical Center main parking lots (see attached locator map). Shuttle buses would pick up and drop off visitors in the designated parking area, with temporary signage to direct visitors. Page 1 June 18, 2002 Valley Medical Center Joint-Use Parking Agreement Page 2 If none of the "Areas" (A, B & C) are available, Valley Medical Center and Chateau at Valley Center management agree to promptly meet and agree upon an acceptable designated overflow parking area within the existing Valley Medical Center main parking lots to accommodate the (50)overflow parking spaces. The designated overflow parking "Area" (Area A, Area B, Area C, etc.)will be assigned in advance, in writing, by Valley Medical Center on a long-term basis and will remain in effect, until the parking agreement terminates or Valley Medical Center reassigns the designated overflow parking "Area", in writing. Temporary unavailability of the designated parking "Area" due to unanticipated circumstances, will result in temporary written reassignment of overflow parking to another designated "Area"for a specific period of time, after which the overflow parking "Area"will revert back to the previously assigned parking "Area" or Valley Medical Center elects to assign a different designated overflow parking "Area" by written notice. Once the facility has been in operation for a period of approximately one (1) year or obtains 75% occupancy level, whichever comes later, Davis Avenue Associates, LLC will contact the City of Renton, who has agreed to jointly review the existing parking situation to determine actual parking requirements for the facility. If the project is built in phases, the eventual total parking requirements will be calculated and projected from the actual experience with the first phase. At that time, Davis Avenue Associates and the City of Renton may mutually agree that the (103) on site parking spaces are sufficient to accommodate the facility parking requirements, in which case the "Environmental Review Committee Mitigation Measure"for(50) off site overflow parking spaces would be modified or no longer be required. In consideration for Valley Medical Center granting Davis Avenue Associates, LLC this joint use parking agreement, Davis Avenue Associates agrees to allow the members of Valley Medical Center's Golden Care Club the right and opportunity to join as members and participate in the "Health Club"facilities programs and organization, which will be developed and operated by Davis Avenue Associates LLC as a part of the Chateau at Valley Center Retirement Community. By affixing their signatures below, each party signifies their agreement with this agreement. P • c Ho- ital District 1 P . -y M_•ical Center Davis Avenue Associates, LLC 'aul Hayes, "N gate OgV /06.�+i... �.../, Date hief Operating Officer City. enton t i -; Attest: 8 ,AiL,o lutI . r 0,-. 7-S62 Bonnie I.Walton,aty Clerk J; fie Tanner Date Mayor Page 2 01 tJl ra� . :•'i`.:4 P �_ \J i v I: (.�r : • • I�T� 1 D r rr •! _r.6 h. 1 r c Pj J9 1 /9y 7 11D : �1jJ 5 I I - L .. `1 ` r•I • �= I In / N 1 •:- ,f \•� 4-1:�- 0 i 1 _:> 1//i'/ �''�•'•1: !ty r ! D� lr L.�.� 4 Itssr �, '(1) - -‘'l,'"410.- ''' ..s'I'''):%•N• ICA*Zia ill •11 _L�{4 tr d�p.7 7, �' . !fit ! I® f, ©. V , G' - -L_-1 1.1 `�' I i/ y{'id► a ~O f 4Qi IT1Ct r �`. ^` 7 �. •Ytti s J� s ,i ovi Oel (1 R1� II II D..J l_.E tea I 1 t O ``` '' L /! \`` �r• `'�'! .. !!/ 4 ,�7�r'ti� � `' l 1 �� --�r " C.J Q IV , 5 I l ^� '� A of 1 f ��. 1 for v t•'1 • I. f its • \�lrl _� �� ~1� ! --.i�! 1[ K I • tT :i: :�$_n'i....vJi I !r �/ 1 a. . ti OBI ts'u c+'ra r t l ;341E1 C...4C. y b1lN7�S 1r3y7N espy 07UN/1 a 01 -- 0 ID i •�� z .; punk -logy a N '° 1. [f / '� Pouf W Z i`-- •7ir _ _ >•` 1 r ' lac `�,? + m r ; /,�`�. %; 4.1 Q 1 '%a 111 ., _ • " 0 / J N r ~ ' r ` a ! �''- r V . .4 ! y V - -- -+ 1 Y J ^ e a -` - �•� _ In ::: r 1 4 f I i I c). ...., s �It t/s ` / ! '.ter_/ ! ! // / 1 `•; If) ,r--_.f.X3 I ,. a /1 c, _,• ti t.„ iii .." i ir • r Vic; LSS.I� (4s ��a1 _ —— mI' -!/W/7 El - ''• , "' • to ' S!/� _ •ft - A�C6 f Q w `�� �� 'IC il 0 .L/lH rTEF • ^ �' • RI Q 191- OC via 1 !_> m • �,s. iv/ °3 ti In ? 199-� a �� 30/y . i � J CITY F RENTON Office of the City Attorney Jesse Tanner,Mayor Lawrence J.Warren DEVELOPMENT FNRE PLAN \ING MEMORANDUM JUN272002 To: Susan Fiala, Senior Planner RECEIVED From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date: June 25, 2002 Subject: Chateau at Valley Center File No. LUA 02-012, ECF, SA-H Joint Use Parking Agreement • The agreement is approved as to legal form following the decision of the ERC. Since Renton is a signatory to this agreement, and following the policy set by ERC on this and the Roxy.parking decision, use of a covenant would be inappropriate: The letter agreement would seem to satisfy City needs. Lawrence J. Warren LJW:tmj cc: Jay Covington • • Post Office Box 626-Renton,Washington 98057-(425)255-8678/FAX(425)255-5474 RENTON allAHEAD OF THE CURVE This naner contains 50%recvcleri'national Rn/nnet mnei r*,er CITX JF RENTON ..LL r , Hearing Examiner „� Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman July 23, 2002 Darrell Johnson Davis Avenue Associates,LLC PO Box 907 Woodinville, WA 98072 Re: Chateau at Valley Center File No.: LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF Dear Applicant: The Examiner's Report and on the above referenced matter, which was issued on June 4, 2002, was not appealed within the 14-day period established by ordinance. Therefore,this matter is considered final by this office and the file on your application is being transmitted to the City Clerk as of this date. Please feel free to contact this office if further assistance or information is required. Sincerely, IN L t i Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner FJK/kw cc: Susan Fiala,Development Services Andree DeBauw, Development Services 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6515 E N T ® N This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE 1 CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works MEMORANDUM DATE: June 20, 2002 TO: Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Members FROM: Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, x7382 SUBJECT: Ch ateau_at Valley Center elgilelf UA. GPI ECF SA H Joint Use Parking Agreement Please find attached: the revised joint use parking agreement for the Chateau at Valley Center. The agreement language has been revised to reflect concerns about the timeframe for City review of the parking requirement situation. The language has been changed to identify a timeframe of one year of operation or when the facility obtains 75% occupancy for the onsite review of the parking situation to take place. This was discussed at the June 18th ERC meeting. Due to the Hearing Examiner remanding this mitigation measure back to the ERC for review and approval, your signature and concurrence is requested. Please sign and date the signature sheet as provided. II 6/z// oz Gregg Zi er ,A1dministFfi Ot r DATE Departm n of lanning/Building/Public Works '- r a Ji Shepherd, dmi rator DATE ` immunity Services tz/I !" Le eeler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department cc: Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC P.O. Box 907 Woodinville, WA 98072 Phone: (206) 488-2400 Fax: (206)488-1089 June 20, 2002 Public Hospital District 1 Valley Medical Center 400 South 43rd Street Renton, WA 98055 RE: Chateau at Valley Center City of Renton File No. LUA-02-012, SA-H, ECF Subject: Joint-Use Parking Agreement This document represents a Joint-Use Parking Agreement between Valley Medical Center and Davis Avenue Associates, LLC to allow use of fifty (50) parking spaces in the locations indicated below within the parking areas on the Valley Medical Center Campus for a period of five (5) years beginning at issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the facility to be known as Chateau at Valley Center, based upon the following stipulations: Chateau at Valley Center shall take responsibility for monitoring the number of automobiles parked in the facility's on-site parking lots during times of heavy use such as special events. The underground parking garage is for residents only. If the number of vacant non-resident parking spaces is five (5) spaces or less, the designated "manger-in-charge" of facility shall implement the "overflow parking plan", in which case any additional automobiles would be directed to overflow parking spaces designated by Valley Medical Center under the supervision of facility provided personnel, in accordance with this agreement. This supervised parking plan would be accomplished through use of crossing guards for"Area A", the preferred parking area, which is for(50) parking spaces located in a designated area within the parking lot across Davis Avenue South and west of the facility. If"Area A" is not available for overflow parking, the supervised parking plan would be accomplished through use of Valet parking attendants or shuttle buses to "Area B", which is for(50) parking spaces located in a designated area inside the parking garage located at the north end of the Valley Medical Center main parking lot (see attached locator map). Shuttle buses would pick up and drop off visitors in an area outside the parking garage designated for shuttle buses, with temporary signage to direct visitors. If neither"Area A" or"Area B" is available for overflow parking, this supervised parking plan would be accomplished through use of Valet parking attendants or shuttle buses to "Area C", which is for (50) parking spaces located in a designated area in the parking lot adjacent to the medical office buildings near the north end of the Valley Medical Center main parking lots (see attached locator map). Shuttle buses would pick up and drop off visitors in the designated parking area, with temporary signage to direct visitors. Page 1 !/ June 18, 2002 Valley Medical Center Joint-Use Parking Agreement Page 2 If none of the "Areas" (A, B & C) are available, Valley Medical Center and Chateau at Valley Center management agree to promptly meet and agree upon an acceptable designated overflow parking area within the existing Valley Medical Center main parking lots to accommodate the (50) overflow parking spaces. The designated overflow parking "Area" (Area A, Area B, Area C, etc.) will be assigned in advance, in writing, by Valley Medical Center on a long-term basis and will remain in effect, until the parking agreement terminates or Valley Medical Center reassigns the designated overflow parking "Area", in writing. Temporary unavailability of the designated parking "Area" due to unanticipated circumstances, will result in temporary written reassignment of overflow parking to another designated "Area"for a specific period of time, after which the overflow parking "Area" will revert back to the previously assigned parking "Area" or Valley Medical Center elects to assign a different designated overflow parking "Area" by written notice. Once the facility has been in operation for a period of approximately one (1) year or obtains 75% occupancy level, whichever comes later, Davis Avenue Associates, LLC will contact the City of Renton, who has agreed to jointly review the existing parking situation to determine actual parking requirements for the facility. If the project is built in phases, the eventual total parking requirements will be calculated and projected from the actual experience with the first phase. At that time, Davis Avenue Associates and the City of Renton may mutually agree that the (103) on site parking spaces are sufficient to accommodate the facility parking requirements, in which case the "Environmental Review Committee Mitigation Measure"for(50) off site overflow parking spaces would be modified or no longer be required. In consideration for Valley Medical Center granting Davis Avenue Associates, LLC this joint use parking agreement, Davis Avenue Associates agrees to allow the members of Valley Medical Center's Golden Care Club the right and opportunity to join as members and participate in the "Health Club"facilities programs and organization, which will be developed and operated by Davis Avenue Associates LLC as a part of the Chateau at Valley Center Retirement Community. By affixing their signatures below, each party signifies their agreement with this agreement. Public Hospital District 1 Valley Medical Center Davis Avenue Associates, LLC Paul Hayes, RN Chief Operating Officer City of Renton Jesse Tanner Mayor Page 2 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Barbara Alther, first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL The Environmental Review 600 S. Washington Avenue,Kent,Washington 98032 D o m m i h a s i s s u d a Determination of Non-Signifie cance- Mitigated for the following project a daily newspaper published seven (7)times a week. Said newspaper is a legal newspaper of under the authority of the Renton general publication and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of MunicipalCode. CHHATAT EAU AT VALLEY CENTER publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a daily LUA-02-012,ECF,SA-H newspaper in Kent, King County,Washington. The South County Journal has been approved as a Environmental review for an legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. assisted living retirement The notice in the exact form attached,was published in the South County Journal(and community. Location: Northeast not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers duringthe below Corneruthof Davis Avenue South & PP g y South 45th St. stated period. The annexed notice, a Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing Chateau at Valley Center on or before 5:00 PM April 29, 2002. Appeals must be filed in writing as published on: 4/15/02 together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$80.25, charged to Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 Acct. No. 8051067. South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are The cost above includes a$6.00 fee for the printing of the affidavits. governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the Legal Number 10238 i.d / appeal process may be obtained ? � 11. '`" _ from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. Legal Clerk, South County Journal A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on /" Mayn 7, 2002 at 9:00 AM to consider Subscribed and sworn before me on this d X ay of ft , 2002 the proposed site plan. If the Environmental Determination is ```lo 1ilrtr�oo,, 1\ _ appealed, the appeal will be heard • ft,� . Fy 1/1 /f� as part of this public hearing. .„,\.•1.�� SlON E,i%;;.e,�i,, Notary Public of the State of Washington Interested parties are invited to ; . v, '9;. residing in Renton attend the public hearing. 4,r •:01'.'Y : N= King County, Washington Published in the South County Journal April 15.2002. 10238 i4 <- , ,4a 'i� AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss. County of King ) Kelly Williams being first duly sworn,upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 4th day of June, 2002 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: ed2f2dIJ S SUBSCRIBED,OHM,a ORN to before me this (O day of , 2002. o° P fi V 1`6 o f•�, . ;; Nota Public in and for the State of Washington, �� t•i:k91 Residing at S -e, ,therein. Application, Petition, or Case No.: Chateau at Valley Center LUA-02-0 12,SA-H,ECF,AAD The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. / - 1 HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT s June 4,2002 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: Darrell Johnson Davis Avenue Associates,LLC PO Box 907 Woodinville,WA 98072 Appeal of ERC's determination re Chateau at Valley Center File No.: LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF,AAD LOCATION: The project is located at the northeast corner of Davis Avenue South and South 45th Place SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site Plan approval for the construction of a 179 unit, four-story assisted living retirement facility. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on April 30,2002. 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 May 7,2002 appeal hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The appeal hearing opened on Tuesday,May 7, 2002, at 9:05 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal,the Exhibit No.2: Yellow Land Use File,LUA-02- Examiner's letter setting the hearing date and other 012,SA-H,ECF documentation pertinent to the appeal. Exhibit No.3: Aerial Photo Exhibit No. 4: Regression Analysis on Parking Data Exhibit No. 5: Special Event Parking Summary Exhibit No. 6: Parking Requirement Summary Exhibit No.7: Retirement Community—Parking Exhibit No.8: Godfrey Letter with Attachments Spaces Occupied vs. Dwelling Units Chateau at Valley Center - File No.LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF June 4,2002 Page 2 Exhibit No.9: Statement of Support from the Exhibit No. 10: Letter: Corrected Parks Mitigation Hospital Administration and Commissioners Fee Calculations,Davis Avenue Associates Exhibit No. 11: City Parking Calculations Parties present: Appellant: Darrell Johnson Davis Avenue Associates 15201 Woodinville-Redmond Road Woodinville,WA 98072 James Godfrey CEO, Chateau Retirement Communities 17720 Marine Drive Stanwood,WA 98292 A.Bernard Conley Davis Avenue Associates 15201 Woodinville-Redmond Road Woodinville, WA 98072 Representing City of Renton: Russell Wilson,Assistant City Attorney Susan Fiala,Development Services 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Mr.Johnson stated that he would be making the presentation on the parking appeal for the applicant. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC)has issued a Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated(DNS- M). One of the conditions placed on the project was the requirement of 50 additional parking spaces with a joint use contract for a five-year period with the lot across the street from the project site. He has experience in this area with the other facilities he owns and operates. The applicant feels that the 103 parking spaces proposed for the project is a comfortable margin. As he understands it the City used criteria from other uses, specifically multi-family use to determine the required number of parking spaces since there is no accommodation for this type of use in the Renton Municipal Code. The main flaw in this is that multi-family has a specific characteristic. Senior housing is unique and has its own profile. The average age of facility residents is 80 and the majority do not own or operate vehicles. These seniors are unable to care for themselves and either enters the facility by choice or necessity. The facility is essentially self-contained and an individual could almost live in the facility without ever leaving for anything other then a doctor appointment. The Chateau provides transportation to appointments. The applicant conducted an independent empirical analysis of the parking at facilities in the area similar to the project. They collected data from seven similar facilities in the Renton,Kent and the South Seattle area. Each time they visited a site they collected data on the number of parking spaces,number of units in the facility, and the break down of dementia,assisted and light care units. None of the facilities observed contained dementia units. In addition,they calculated the number of autos per unit on each visit. From the three visits they used the highest ratio and called that a normal condition or when the most cars could be expected on site. The ratio to number of ail Chateau at Valley Center File No.LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF June 4,2002 Page 3 units for all seven sites averaged out to be .33. What they can determine from the data is that there is an inverse relationship between the number of assisted units and the facility and the ratios of cars per unit. Mr. Johnson went over a chart he prepared to summarize their findings. The chart depicts the number of units and breaks down the percentage of assisted living,number of autos counted and autos per unit ratio. They also calculated the number of autos if the facility is 50 to 70 percent assisted living and what would be the anticipated number of autos per unit that could be expected. In the proposed facility the number of assisted living units is about 60 percent. With this number of assisted living units they calculate 54 spaces to be used by residents of the facility. He then displayed photos that indicate that the parking lots at the facilities used in the study are not full;there are many unoccupied spaces. They used the data gathered at the other facilities to determine the number of parking spaces needed and determined the number of spaces that may be needed for special events. He then displayed a chart,which breaks down the parking stalls needed by residents, staff, and visitors. The decision to go with 103 parking spaces was not based on 87 parking spaces, it was a decision that the owners made to add value to the project and to insure that there was sufficient parking. It was a surprise to them when they were told that 103 was not enough and they would need to add 50 percent more parking spaces. They feel strongly that by requiring the additional parking it is an unwarranted penalty to the facility. Mr. Johnson requested that the number of parking stalls for this facility be approved at 103 as submitted by the applicant. In response to questioning from Mr. Wilson,Mr.Johnson replied that they conducted the parking analysis after they received the ERC determination. The ERC did not have the information from the study when they made their determination. He does not recall any city planner suggesting they conduct the analysis before the project went to the ERC. The planner did recommend that they generate their own data and the course of action they took was to observe other facilities similar to the proposed project. In a meeting with staff,the planner indicated that it is basically up to the applicant to come up with some numbers for parking. To his knowledge they were never asked to go out and do a parking study for the project. In response to questioning from the Examiner,Ms.Fiala reported that the additional parking would be located on the west side of Davis Avenue South directly across from the project site. Mr. Wilson asked Elizabeth Higgins the former planner on this project,to testify as to what she told the applicant. Elizabeth Higgins, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 stated that she attended a pre-application meeting regarding the project where the parking issue was discussed. The applicant had quite a few conflicts in their submittal for the pre-application conference between the conceptual plan and the narrative. They had a site plan but it was difficult to determine if they had adequate parking because it was unclear how big the facility was going to be. In addition,they could not say if the people who would be living at the facility would be incapacitated or would have their own cars. An additional factor was that the City's parking regulations did not specifically address this type of use. In this type of situation staff always recommends that a parking study be conducted. In response to questioning from Mr.Wilson,Mr.Johnson confirmed that with all of their calculations they came up with 87 total parking stalls for the project. Parking stalls for staff has been factored into this number. He added that when you conduct a study such as this you do not count staff. The number of staff can vary and on the weekend there is often fewer staff working. Staff also frequently uses public transportation or car pools. In regard to parking for a special event,the number they are presenting has the staff parking built into it. They feel Chateau at Valley Center File No.LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF June 4,2002 Page 4 that they are being conservative on the number of parking stalls. The way that he grouped the facilities he looked at in his study was by percentage of assisted living. The higher the percentage of assisted living the fewer number of cars. The number of cars is based on the size of the facility. They are not anticipating that the number of assisted living units at the proposed facility will change but they cannot guarantee that it will never change. Mr. Godfrey stated that the final number of 87 parking stalls includes staff and residents, guests and an eight parking space safety factor. They operate similiar facilities and are familiar with what their parking needs are for the proposed facility. In the staff report discussed by Ms.Higgins it makes no mention of conducting any type of study. There was some discussion and their understanding was that they would take their existing buildings and take the data from them, conduct an analysis and then submit that analysis to the City. That is what they did in the first instance. This same building design has been built in the City of Lynnwood,which is in Snohomish County, and they based the design off of ordinances in that county. When they got the response from the ERC is when they determined that maybe they needed to do more so they conducted the study. He addressed the method the City used to determine the amount of parking required for the project. They did not have a clue as to how the City went about calculating the number of parking stalls. When they submitted their appeal they were unsure as to how to approach it due to the uncertainty of how the City calculated the number of required parking stalls. The additional 50 parking spaces represents a 50 percent increase over what they have proposed. They believe that the City has based these calculations on generalized assumptions and understandably the lack a specific knowledge of this type of housing. First of all,the methodology they used should have been based on convalescent nursing and home health institutions;this is the most closely related use. There is also a multiple dwelling low-income elderly in the Code that could have been used. They used multi-family dwellings,which they feel is quite different. The typical assisted living residence has residents that are on average 80 years old, single,no family living with them,they usually have some impairments or limitations,most do not drive their own cars, and the facility provides transportation for them so they do not need a car. Some bring cars with them and after a month or two they get rid of the vehicles. If they have a car,they only have one. They are not allowed to have more then one. In December of 2000 they had a preliminary meeting with City staff and one of his first questions to staff was in regard to parking. Their notes from that meeting indicate that they were told to base their parking calculations on the convalescent nursing home requirements. They were given a copy of a Hearing Examiners Report on the Lodge at Eagle Ridge. In that report, staff had calculated the parking requirements and had based it on the convalescent nursing home. In addition,for some reason the City has used a rate of.9 parking spaces per employee in their calculations. The convalescent code uses .5 spaces per employee. The other calculations used by the City were .8 per unit and .3 for each dementia unit. It is not clear where these numbers came from. They believe the parking study they submitted is the only valid and verifiable data for assisted living. It proves that the City's ERC requirement is excessive and in error. There will be a maximum of 18 employees on site at any given time. Strictly following the convalescent code this project would require 78 spaces. Their contention is that this is where the City should have started with their analysis. The idea of having 50 additional spaces off-site may sound good but the site belongs to the Valley Medical Center as part of their campus and as he understands they have other plans for that site other then parking lots. They have not stepped forward and indicated a willingness to participate in this with the five- year deal that staff is proposing. The 50 parking spaces will take about.75 acres of land when considering Chateau at Valley Center - File No.LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF June 4,2002 Page 5 paved surfaces and landscaping. There is no room for the additional parking on-site. Five or 10 spaces they could probably accommodated on-site but not 50. A 50-space parking lot would generate over 400,000 gallons of storm water runoff in a year. Introducing that into what is already a pretty burdened system and in addition parking lots are notorious for polluting streams and lakes. So it is interesting that the ERC is promoting a parking lot that will probably sit vacant. They were approached by Valley Medical Center to build this facility. There was much pressure from the community to build this type of facility on the hospital's campus. They feel that they do not need the additional parking and feel that what has been proposed is adequate. In response to questioning from Mr. Wilson,Mr. Godfrey replied that the overflow parking lot is already in place but they do not have permission to use it. As he understands it they do have plans to convert that parking lot into medical facilities or storage of some type. He added that there is an area in front of and south of the proposed project along Davis Avenue and along SW 45th where there is a lot of legal, safe on street parking that could be utilized. Mr. Godfrey reiterated that although residents may have roommates they only allow one vehicle per unit. If the ratio of light care to assisted living shifted it would not make much of difference in the number of vehicles in the parking lot and it would not be cost effective to convert the building into a multi-family apartment building. Don Jacobson, Commissioner,Valley Medical Center, 3741 Park Avenue North,Renton,WA 98056 stated that he has five years in the program. He has toured many facilities. He then referred to examples of retirement living in the City of Renton and the number of parking stalls at the location versus the number of units. He has made several trips in the past month to these locations and has never found less then 20 vacant parking stalls. He feels that the community needs the project. There are many individuals that have expressed a desire to live closer to the medical services they are accustomed to. They do not want to leave the community in order to enter an assisted living facility. Terry Pile,Valley Medical Center,400 South 43`d,Renton,WA 98055 read a statement of support for the proposed project from the hospitals administration and commissioners. A.Bernard Conley stated that the City staff report for the ERC meeting calculated that the Parks Mitigation Fee should be$38,372 based on 179 unit minus a reduction of 15 units that were considered dementia in their application resulting in 164 units. This number of units was multiplied by the standard multi-family fee for Parks Mitigation it was then discounted by 34 percent to arrive at the final figure. The applicant wants to and should contribute to the community by paying the Parks Mitigation Fee;however, the fee in the ERC staff report is excessive. The reason for their appeal is that the City P PP Resolution 3082 and supporting zoning codes and policies make no provision for specialized senior housing. No accommodation is made for a small but significant segment of the City's population; senior citizens with impaired physical and/or mental capabilities that are unable to care for themselves. The ordinance fails to recognize the minimal use that this type of senior is able to make of the parks related recreation system. The applicant believes that the ERC report errs in calculating the Parks Mitigation Fee. He then went through several points to reinforce their belief that an error was made. First in using the full standard multi-family Parks Mitigation Fee. Second, applying a II Chateau at Valley Center - File No.LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF June 4,2002 Page 6 factor of 66 percent to the 164 non-dementia units and thereby not recognizing their occupancy breakdown of approximately 40 percent light care and 60 percent assisted living/dementia units. The average age of residents of the facility is 80 years old. Many do not own or drive vehicles and are dependent on the facility for transportation and would not be driving themselves to City parks. He then asked to submit an amended letter of correction to their original appeal on the parks and recreation alternative calculation. He then went through the amended numbers and explained how their calculations vary from the ERC's report. They are taking the position that the light care independent residents are 75 percent as active in their park use as are the 1.7 multi-family people per unit standard. They feel that this is a fairly conservative number and in reality the facility residents are not going to be nearly that active. The same logic is used for the assisted living residents. He also noted that the average light care unit has less then the 1.7 people per unit the multi-family unit has. In conclusion,they believe that the Parks Mitigation Fee proposed in the ERC staff report is excessive. The Development Impact Mitigation Policy for Parks and Recreation introduction states, "mitigation will be in proportion to the need created by the new development." The City's zoning codes and policies make no provisions for specialized senior housing and consequently the City has no appropriate fee calculation methodology for specialized senior housing. Accordingly,they respectfully request that the alternate fee calculation be accepted and approved. In response to questioning from Mr. Wilson,Mr.Conley replied that fewer of their people occupy a unit compared to the multi-family standard. He agreed with Mr. Wilson that activities for seniors may be more expensive then activities for other groups. He believes that his impact study takes this into account because their residents have graduated past the point of where they can really use the parks. In response to questioning from Mr. Wilson,Ms.Fiala gave an overview on how staff calculated the number of parking stalls needed for this project. Staff looked at number of units and types of units,number of staff, and the required loading and unloading stall. Staff analyzed City Code and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Parking Generation Manual. When staff looked at the City Code they looked at multi-family dwelling units and a range of parking for different zones. Since there are no assisted living standards in the Code, staff felt they should analyze several different uses to determine the amount of parking needed for the proposed project. Staff determined that the facility would need 153 parking spaces. Of the 153, 103 spaces would be located on-site. The remaining 50 spaces would be located off-site and in order to accommodate this staff has recommended an off-site joint use agreement. Joint use parking requires that parking be located within 750 feet of the facility. In response to the Examiner's questioning on the five year off-site parking agreement,Ms.Fiala replied that the five years would be enough time to conduct an empirical study to determine if the parking is really applicable to the project. Kayren Kittrick,Development Services, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 stated that her expertise tends toward the ITE Traffic Generation Manual more then the parking. She hasnoted that there is a general trend in the ITE Manuals for the numbers to be lower. Mr. Godfrey stated that he just reviewed the City of Renton Code and there is a category for elderly/low income and the parking required for this category is one stall for every four units. Chateau at Valley Center - File No.LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF June 4,2002 Page 7 Ms. Fiala replied that this figure was not used because the units are designated for low-income residents. The other uses looked at were the convalescent,nursing and health institutions,which included parking for employees and one parking stall for every three beds as well as multi-family units in various zones. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the criterion is different for nursing homes then it is for assisted living. The calculation for employees seems to be based on nursing homes rather then assisted living. Mr. Godfrey inquired as to why the number used to calculate employee parking spaces was the number used. Mr. Wilson pointed out that staff has used number of units rather then number of beds to determine the number of parking stalls required. Using the number of beds would change numbers significantly. Mr. Wilson stated that he had nothing further to add and as far as the Parks Mitigation Fee he feels that the City has made their case. After a break for the lunch hour,Mr. Wilson announced that the City and the applicant has reached a tentative agreement in regard to parking requirements although it required a modification to the ERC's requirements. The additional parking may need to be outside of the 750-foot zone; however, in order to accommodate for this there will be transportation provided to shuttle individuals back and forth to their vehicles. The Examiner announced that the record would be left open for the submission of the parking agreement. In closing,Mr. Wilson stated that in regard to the Parks Mitigation Fees,the City has already reduced the amount of the fee and feel that this reduction takes into account the testimony given by the applicant as far as park usage by the individuals. He does not feel that the applicant has taken into account the quality of services that need to be provided for the seniors,which is more expensive. Mr. Conley, in closing, stated that he believes that have included the quality of service in their analysis but he believes that the individuals to be housed at this facility have graduated past being able to use the park system. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The appeal hearing closed at 1:42 p.m. APPEAL FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS&DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The City issued a Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated(DNS-M)for a Site Plan for a 179 unit assisted living retirement facility. The applicant for the underlying project,Darrell Johnson,filed an appeal of two conditions imposed on their project by the Environmental Review Committee(ERC). 2. A separate but concurrent hearing occurred on the Site Plan proposed by the applicant-appellant. 3. The City, in the course of,and as a result of its SEPA review, issued a Declaration or Determination of Non-Significance for the project. The Declaration of Non-Significance(DNS)was conditioned by the City in what is known as a mitigation process, and became a DNS-M,the "M" alerting readers to the fact that mitigating measures were attached to the project. Chateau at Valley Center • - File No.LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF June 4,2002 Page 8 4. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. 5. The appellant raised two issues: a. The requirement that the applicant provide fifty(50)additional off-site parkingspaces bringing the p g g required parking to 153 spaces. b. The requirement that the applicant pay a parks mitigation fee of$354.51 for each non-dementia unit or$58,139.64 for 164 units. 6. The ERC's two contested conditions are: a. Condition 10.The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on a rate of$354.51 per new unit,with credits for developer provided on-site recreation facilities and dementia units,prior to the issuance of building permits. b. Condition 11.The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department and the City Attorney that they have negotiated a joint use parking facility that reserves 50 parking spaces for a minimum of five years duration. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the approval of the Building Department and by the City Attorney. 7. The appellant's main argument regarding the parking condition is that the City has no parking standards for "assisted living retirement facilities" and that the City appears to have used multiple family housing for the basis of its decision. (The staff report prepared after the appeal was filed presented the City's methodology - see below). 8. The appellant's analysis states that the average age of residents of these types of facilities are 80 years of age and that most resident do not own cars. They state that the facility is "virtually self-contained" meaning presumably that residents have no need for individual vehicles. 9. In their analysis,the appellants divide the residents into three categories. There are those who need "light care" -those who require little assistance with daily living, "assisted living" -those who have mobility limitations and need significant assistance;and finally those who suffer dementia and who live in a secured environment and need special care. The study noted those in the latter two groups do not venture beyond the facility in most cases and would not need private vehicles. This group is to comprise approximately 60 percent of residents. They estimate that of the remaining 40 percent of the residents most average about 80 years of age and will not be driving much, if at all. 10. The appellant notes that of this latter group,the light care group,most live alone and that an analogy to multiple family housing where approximately 1.7 persons are found per unit would be wrong. In this age group or population,most are without spouses or children living with them,the unit count is approximately 1.05 to 1.15 persons per unit. 11. The appellant conducted a survey of facilities it believed matched the one proposed. They used for the survey both facilities they operate as well as those operated by others. Chateau at Valley Center it File No.LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF June 4,2002 Page 9 Summary of Results of Empirical Field Data Total Assisted Actual Auto/ Facility: Units Living % Autos Unit Renton Villa(Renton) 80 100 14 0.18 Stafford Suites(Kent) 63 100+/- 18 0.29 Arbor Village(Kent) 89 66.3 27 0.030 The Lodge at Eagle Ridge 99 53.5 36 0.36 (Renton) Farrington Court(Kent) 120 30 52 0.043 The Lakeshore(Renton) 158 26.6 67 0.042 El Dorado West(South Seattle) 70 24.3 22 0.031 Average(Auto/Unit) 0.33 12. Using figures from similar facilities including those in Kent,Renton,and South Seattle,the appellant estimated the number of vehicles for it's mix of light,assisted and dementia residents at.33 vehicles per unit or 54 vehicles. 13. The appellant determined that most parking demand would occur during special events such as Mothers Day or Christmas-type holidays when additional family members would attend in their own vehicles. They estimated the facility's capacity to seat or entertain such family members was quite limited and that even then only approximately 10 percent to 15 percent of residents would have guests on those occasions. Using a series of additional estimates,the appellant calculated its seating capacity at approximately 229,reduced that by residents attending(199), estimated the number of visitors per car(2.5)and calculated approximately 25 additional parking stalls would be required. 14. The appellant then factored in what they call a"safety factor" of an additional 10 percent and arrived at a total number of spaces as 87 stalls. They have proposed 103,which goes beyond their safety factor. 15. At the hearing,the City introduced its staff report on the Site Plan. That report has information on how the City calculated the number of stalls needed for the project. Those calculations are shown here: a. Parking-Parking regulations require a specific number of spaces based on use. The proposed project, an assisted living facility, is not a use specifically identified in section 4-4-080F. The proposed facility has three components: dementia units,residential units and employees. The calculation of required parking was determined by analyzing the parking requirements of residential uses in the Code(RMC 4-4-080-F)and the parking standards of the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Parking Generation manual. The land uses comparable for each facility component of the proposal were reviewed.Residential uses reviewed in the Code included: multi-family dwelling units(includes guest)at 1.75 spaces per unit; a range of parking for certain zones(CD and RM-U)at 1.2, 1.6 and 1.8 spaces per 1,2 and 3 bedroom units; and motels at 1 space per guest room. The ITE manual land uses reviewed included: high-rise apartments at.88 spaces per unit;retirement community at 1.00 space per unit; and residential condos at 1.11 spaces per unit,which are parking generation rates at peak usage. b. The Environmental Review Committee recommended a total of 153 parking spaces be provided. This Chateau at Valley Center File No.LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF June 4,2002 Page 10 equates to the following parking ratios for the three components: 0.30 spaces per dementia unit(15 units x 0.30=4.5 spaces), 0.80 spaces per residential unit(165 x 0.80= 132 spaces), and 0.90 spaces per employee(18 fully staffed x 0.90= 16.2)which totals 153 parking spaces. The on-site parking proposed totaled 103 spaces.In order to mitigate potential off-site parking impacts the Environmental Review Committee required the applicant to reserve 50 additional off-site spaces through a joint use parking agreement such that a total of 153 parking spaces would be provided for the project. The applicant has filed an appeal of this requirement. 16. The appellant argued and presented testimony that the standard park fee should not apply to a special use such as the retirement facility proposed. They noted that many of the potential residents would not use standard city parks or recreational facilities. They explained that their intended population is elderly and that population relies on the internal facilities for the most part of activities and recreation. 17. Again,the appellant noted that the average age of its population is approximately 80 years of age. That, they argue,means the residents would not use many park facilities and since they don't drive would be further hampered in getting to such facilities. 18. As the appellant noted in their parking arguments,their population falls into three groups and two of those would be unlikely to use the parks. These groups are provided entertainment or recreation by in-house programs. This leaves approximately 40 percent who might use the parks. The appellant believes even these people would use the parks only occasionally. 19. The appellant provides a chart for what they believe would be a fair method of calculating park fees. They've divided the population into three groups. Both the appellant and the City reduced the fee by excluding dementia residents. The appellant believes that their "light care"residents would use approximately 50 percent of the services($177.26)and that each unit would house approximately 1.12 persons providing a per unit fee of$198.53. They then calculated that only 40 percent of the units would house such residents for a fee of$14,096. 20. Providing a similar calculation for the "assisted living"residents,the applicant believed they would use 22 percent for a per person fee of$77.99, found that 1.06 persons would share units for a fee of$82.67 per unit and a total for this group of$7,688. 21. The City defended its decision by arguing that those elderly who do uses parks or other recreational facilities require some additional services. The City also noted that the population mix could change increasing the impact on the parks. There is also the potential tie of residents to the community and their need or desire to visit friends at the senior center or parks. The City adopted a methodology,which factored the use of the parks over a variety of residential settings. 22. As noted,the City did provide an outright offset for the dementia patients. The condition also allows, "credits for developer provided on-site recreational facilities." 23. Code provides the following provisions regarding parking: Joint Use Parking Facilities: a. Encouraged: The joint use of parking facilities should generally be encouraged within the City of Renton. b. When Applicable: The joint use of parking facilities may be authorized only for those uses which have dissimilar peak-hour demands during the nonpeak hours of the lesser. (Ord.4517, 5-8-1995) c. Maximum Distance of Parking from Use: To qualify as a joint-use parking facility,the facility must Chateau at Valley Center File No.LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF June 4,2002 Page 11 be located within a radius of seven hundred fifty feet(750')from the buildings or use areas it is intended to serve. d. Contract Required: A joint-use contract, covering a minimum of five(5)years, shall be approved by the Building Department and by the City Attorney for such a parking arrangement to be allowed. (Ord. 3988, 4-28-1986) Multiple dwelling for low-income elderly: a. 1 for each 4 dwelling units. Convalescent,nursing and health institutions: a. One parking space for each two employees plus one for each three beds.A minimum of 10 parking spaces shall be required. Hospitals: a. One for each three beds plus one for each staff doctor,plus one for each three employees. Other uses not specifically identified in this section: a. Planning/Building/Public Works Department staff shall determine which of the above uses is most similar based upon staff experience with various uses and information provided by the applicant. The amount of required parking for uses not listed above shall be the same as for the most similar use listed above. (Ord. 3988,4281986) 24. The parties attempted to reach a settlement on the parking condition and apparently did not reach a final, acceptable settlement. Therefore,this office will issue a decision on both the parking condition and the parks fee condition. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore,the determination of the Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. 2. In this case the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance including the conditions imposed by the ERC is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v.Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v.King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267,274; 1976, stated: "A finding is'clearly erroneous'when although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore,the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below,the decision of the ERC is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. 3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have,therefore,made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test,the "arbitrary and capricious"test is generally applied when a determination of significance (DS)is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement. Chateau at Valley Center File No.LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF June 4,2002 Page 12 4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway,WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted; it defines "significant" as follows: Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. (2) Significance involves context and intensity...Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact.... The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. 5. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable." Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring,but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782). 6. The appellant has demonstrated that the ERC decision should be overturned on the issue of parking and remanded to the ERC for further consideration and affirmed on the parks mitigation fee. 7. There are a number of reasons to reverse and remand the parking condition to the ERC. The primary one is that the ERC did not have the benefit of the appellant's analysis when it made its determination. Additionally,while the appellant speculated as to the ERC's methodology,the appellant also lacked the basis for the ERC decision until late in the process and just prior to the public hearing on the appeal and underlying Site Plan. With both parties now privy to the others information and calculations each side may be able to understand the other's reasoning. 8. Another reason to remand is to allow the ERC to seriously consider whether the basis for their numbers seriously skew the impacts of parking demand for a facility such as the one proposed. Should the ERC have also considered the parking requirements for senior, low cost housing although the proposed facility seems far from low-cost? In addition,this office is left with the question of what would happen in five(5) years if the parking demand were greater than anticipated and the lease ended by its own terms. It would appear that it was intended to allow some form of review but nothing specifies that. Further,this office has to wonder if the provisions for"dissimilar peak-hour demands"required for joint use parking would work for the proposed use and the lessor,the Hospital? Finally,this office is not convinced that the appellant properly accounted for its staff and employee parking. 9. In sum,the parking conditions need further exploring and this office will not place itself,at this juncture, in making that analysis. 10. As the agency with primary jurisdiction,the ERC should be given an opportunity to review the information and incorporate some or all of it in their determination. They should also consider whether the condition is workable as proposed. 11. At the same time,the appellant has not shown that the ERC was either arbitrary or capricious or clearly erroneous in crafting its condition regarding the Parks Mitigation Fee. The condition is specifically open to allow an offset if the appellant provides on-site facilities that would reduce demand on the parks. The Parks Fee would apparently be one that was calculated using a number of factors including any kind of Chateau at Valley Center File No.LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF June 4,2002 Page 13 multiple family housing type or, at least,non-single family housing situation. 12. The City pointed out that providing services to seniors could well cost more than providing services to other populations. The City has a Senior Center and residents of this complex are free to use it either individually or on group trips. Similarly,they remain free to visit parks on sunny afternoons. Attempting to quantify such use would be hard. While the appellant has done such quantification,this office has to ask the source of their percentages? They provided no documentation but merely their own supposition about which groups of their residents would use and how much they think a person in each group would use parks, senior center or other facilities. 13. This office cannot find that the decision of the ERC to be clearly erroneous. It might be debatable but that is not justification to reverse the ERC. This office is not left with the necessary firm conviction and error occurred. 14. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter,unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. A firm conviction that a mistake was made is not the same as finding that a condition or conditions imposed by the City were possibly debatable. DECISION: The appeal is granted in part and denied in part. Condition Number 11 shall be remanded back to the ERC. MINUTES: SITE PLAN The following minutes are a summary of the May 7, 2002 site plan hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,May 7,2002 at 1:43 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Aerial Photo application,proof of posting,proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Site Plan Exhibit No.4: Basement Floor Plan Exhibit No. 5: First Floor Plan Exhibit No.6: Elevation-North&West Exhibit No. 7: Resident Contract Exhibit No. 8: Revised Parking Garage Plan Susan Fiala, Senior Planner,Development Services, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 presented the staff report. The project is located in the southwest portion of the City and is 2.77 acres in size. To the west of the site is the City of Kent and to the northeast of the site is King County. The owner of the property is Public Hospital District No. 1 of King County,which is Valley Medical Center. The applicant, Davis Avenue Associates,LLC,is requesting Hearing Examiner site plan review approval for the Chateau at Valley Center File No.LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF June 4,2002 Page 14 construction of a 179 unit, four story assisted living retirement facility. The subject property is located in the Commercial Office Public Use(CO-P)zoning designation. • The applicant has proposed 103 parking spaces. The facility will be licensed by the State of Washington as a boarding home under the regulations contained in the Washington Administrative Code. The facility will have an estimated 18 employees. She went over what the facility would offer and provide its residents. Most of the Environmental Review was covered in the preceding appeal. In regard to site plan criteria staff looked at compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The site is located in the Center Institution(CI)designation. The site is zoned CO-P. The CO-P zone was established to provide areas appropriate for professional,administrative and business offices and related uses. As a secondary use,medical institutions, convalescent centers,nursing homes and retirement residences are allowed. Staff feels that the proposed facility is a hybrid of the allowed uses and fits the zoning. In the CI designation of the Comprehensive Plan the project must give consideration to community need. The P-suffix of the CO basically states that additional notification requirements are necessary. A public informational meeting was held and a summary of that meeting is contained in the official land use file. The CO zone allows a maximum of 65 percent lot coverage;the proposed project covers approximately 34.3 percent of the property and is in compliance with lot coverage requirements. A reduction from a 20-foot to an 18-foot front yard setback has been requested for the project to accommodate balconies. There are no minimum side or rear yard setback requirements as the surrounding properties are all commercially zoned and the proposed site is not adjacent to any residential zones. In regard to landscaping of the site, 34 percent of the site will be dedicated to landscaping of trees, shrubs and lawn. The landscaping basically surrounds the entire edge of the structure to provide a softening edge. Along the street frontage(Davis Avenue South)there are a significant amount of trees. A couple of the trees will have to be removed to accommodate driveways; however,the applicant proposes to fill in any gaps with additional street trees to increase the streetscape. The CO zone requires a pedestrian connection from a public entrance to the street. Sidewalks are provided on the site. The sidewalks go from some of the main entries of the structure out to Davis Avenue as well as the southeast corner of the lot near the rear parking lot. The sidewalk that is located at the southeast does lead to a public sidewalk; however,there is no designation from the main entrance of the structure to the sidewalk located on Davis Avenue South so staff recommends that either striping of a connection from the main entry to the street or a paved sidewalk be provided in the area. In regard to the underground parking area,there is one driveway entering the underground parking area. For head in parking, Code requires a 24-foot aisle space; however,where the parking angles the aisle width decreases to at least seventeen feet,which does not allow for the appropriate maneuvering and backing space. Staff recommends that the parking be reconfigured somehow to allow for adequate maneuvering ability. This could mean the elimination of one or two spaces depending on where the support columns are located. There are 73 parking spaces located on the surface parking lots. The two parking areas have a combination of standard and compact parking spaces as well as some handicap/ADA stalls. The rear parking lot,which is accessed off of South 45th Place is also the location to access the garbage and dumpster area and any type of turnaround space in this area is critical. Staff recommends a reconfiguration of the back up/maneuvering space be required to comply with emergency turnaround requirements. In regard to driveway width for the garage, it measures from nine to 12 feet and the requirement is 24 feet for Chateau at Valley Center File No.LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF June 4,2002 Page 15 two-way circulation and 18 feet for one-way circulation. There would have to be enough area provided for queuing and staff recommends that the reconfiguration of the garage be revised to provide one or two-way circulation with appropriate queuing and stacking space. In regard to mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties,to the west there are vacant parking lots,to the south are two vacant parcels and directly south of the vacant parcels is a multi-family development. To the east of the site there are medical offices that front Talbot Road South and to the north is the Valley Medical Center. The proposed facility would be compatible to a medical facility and other office related type uses in the area. Staff feels that there would be very minimal impact to current uses in the surrounding area. Staff also believes that the proposed project will enhance property values in the vicinity of the site. It is anticipated that any noise,odor or potentially harmful impacts would occur during the construction phase of the project. The applicant has submitted a construction mitigation plan that provides measures to reduce construction impacts. The Fire Department,Police Staff and Public Works Department have indicated that resources exist to service the site. The Fire Department has indicated that the emergency vehicle turnaround located at the southeast corner of the building needs to be revised to meet Fire Department requirements and staff recommends the site plan be revised to provide an appropriate turn around. Staff recommends approval of the Chateau at Valley Center subject to conditions. Mr. Godfrey,representing the applicant, stated that on the east side of the property there are a couple of places where there is a five-foot setback from the property line but generally from the property line to the building there is a 10 foot setback. The building will be fully sprinklered. Mr. Godfrey went through the services and facilities provided to its residents. Mr. Godfrey stated that they have plans devised to reconfigure the underground parking to meet the City's requirements. They also have a revised plan for the driveway accessing the underground parking area that includes a one-way access with a queuing area. If this does not work they can make some modifications to that end of the building to provide two-way access if necessary. They have no problem adding a striped pedestrian corridor out to Davis Avenue. In regard to the emergency access turnaround,the applicant's architect is working to revise the plan to meet the City's requirements. Ms. Kittrick stated that driveways must be a minimum of 24 feet and they can be wider but not narrower. The garage driveway will have to meet building code,which will depend on the ramp size and sight distance. In conclusion,Mr. Godfrey stated that they believe Chateau at Valley Center will be great addition to the Valley Campus. There is much interest in this project from the Valley Medical Golden Care Club. It is a desirable and much needed addition to the City of Renton. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 2:38 p.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS&DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: Chateau at Valley Center File No.LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF June 4,2002 Page 16 FINDINGS: 1. The applicant,Darrell Johnson for Davis Avenue Associates,LLC,filed a request for approval of a Site Plan for an assisted living retirement facility. 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. The applicant filed an appeal of two conditions imposed by the ERC. The ERC decision was reversed in part and affirmed in part. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located on the northeast corner of Davis Avenue South and South 45t1'Place. The subject site is located south of Valley Medical Center and west of Talbot Road South. 6. The subject site is owned by Public Hospital District No. 1 of King County,which is Valley Medical Center. 7. The subject site is zoned CO-P(Commercial Office;P suffix designating public ownership). 8. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of Center Institutional use,but does not mandate such development without consideration of their policies of the Plan. 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 4404 enacted in June 1993. 10. The subject site is approximately 120,827 square feet or 2.77 acres. The site is irregularly shaped but is roughly triangular. It is narrow at its north end and widens to the south. 11. The applicant proposes constructing a 179 unit,four-story assisted living retirement facility. The facility would house a mixed elderly population including those who need assistance with daily living tasks including food,cleaning and laundry service as well as those with dementia. 12. The building will be one long,although articulated structure with wings angling to the north and southwest. It is designed to wrap around a central courtyard and fountain feature. The building will be oriented to face Davis Avenue. 13. In addition to the major building wings,the building will have articulations along its front and rear facades. The building will have a combination of peaked and gable roof features at various points where the building has been articulated. 14. The building will be of wood frame design. It will be approximately 50 feet tall. The structure will be approximately 179,241 square feet over the four stories. The zone permits buildings 250 feet tall. 15. The facility will feature dining rooms,commercial kitchens, lounges, indoor pool,administrative offices, activity rooms as well as the 179 residential units. Of the 179 units, 15 units would be secured to house dementia patients. Chateau at Valley Center File No.LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF June 4,2002 Page 17 16. The applicant proposed that the facility would contain 103 onsite parking stalls including 30 spaces in an underground garage and 73 stalls in surface parking in front of the building along Davis Avenue and to the rear or south of the building along South 45th Place. 17. Staff determined that City parking standards did not address this type of use. They required 4.5 spaces for the dementia units, 132 spaces for the remaining units and 16.2 spaces for employee parking. That totals 153 spaces. The ERC required 50 stalls to be developed under a joint use agreement. The applicant appealed that decision. The reserve parking requirement was remanded back to the ERC for further deliberation. 18. The basement parking garage's 90 degree parking does not meet the width requirement to allow back up area next to the basement door,according to staff analysis. The aisle width is required to be 24 feet whereas 17 feet is provided(RMC4-4-080.F.9.b). Staff recommended that the parking be reconfigured or two stalls be eliminated. The surface parking appears to meet code. 19. There would be two driveways along Davis Avenue and one along South 45th Place. The proposed northern driveway that would provide access to the underground garage is nine to 12 feet and would have to be 24 feet wide for two-way circulation. Staff recommended that it be widened or that stacking or queuing space be provided. 20. The footprint of the building will be approximately 41,462 square feet or 34.3 percent of the site area whereas 65 percent lot coverage is permitted. The 47 foot tall structure requires a setback of 20 feet but permits that setback to be reduced if the site plan shows special design features. The applicant has a small area near the north of the structure where the setback would be 18 feet. Staff noted the varied articulations of the facade,the canopy and roof variation in support of the small setback reduction proposed. 21. Approximately 41,030 feet of the site would be landscaped. The landscaping would be a mix of lawn, shrubs, ornamental trees and groundcover. The majority of the building perimeter is landscaped and there is landscaping around the parking areas. Two existing street trees would have to be removed to provide driveway space. New street trees would be provided. Existing vegetation on site would be removed to allow development of the site. This removal would also include approximately 14 larger trees. 22. Commercial,medically allied office space is located east of the subject site. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; c. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. Chateau at Valley Center File No.LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF June 4,2002 Page 18 2. Normally, if a matter is remanded back to the ERC a final decision would have to be delayed until the ERC completed its review. Since the parties appeared willing to negotiate a settlement of the parking issue,this office will issue a decision on the Site Plan anticipating that the parties will resolve the appeal issue. If they do not settle the joint parking issue,the building would have to be reduced in scale. The number of units would have to be reduced to bring the facility into compliance with the amount of parking that is available per the ERC'S determination. The applicant would be free to reduce the overall length of the building or reduce its height or a combination of reductions. 3. The proposed retirement facility is compatible with the Center Institution designation found in the Comprehensive Plan. It is a large complex that will be housed on property owned by Valley Medical Center, a public hospital. It is part of the growing campus or institutions clustered around the Talbot Road and South 43rd intersection. 4. The building complies with all aspects of the Zoning Code except for a slight intrusion into what should be a 20-foot setback near Davis Avenue near the north end of the proposed building. A small terrace area would reduce that setback to 18 feet. As staff noted,the Code allows flexibility when it appears that the overall design characteristics of a proposed use overcome any negative impacts from such small intrusions. In this case,the proposed facility does have good design detail from its articulated, faceted facade to its peaked roof system. Therefore,the intrusion is not unwarranted. Compliance with Building and Fire Code provisions will be reviewed when actual building permit applications are submitted. 5. The nature of the Zoning coupled with the commercial nature of surrounding uses means the proposal will not have a profound affect on neighboring properties. The most impact would occur during the development of the subject site when construction noise and dust and traffic will create the most impacts. The four-story building might create additional shading impacts but the approximately 50-foot tall building is not unusually large and the zone would actually permit 250-foot tall buildings. 6. The site is well landscaped. There will be perimeter landscaping around the site and hugging the building. The structure itself provides an interesting looking building with a lot of detail to break up its apparent bulk. 7. The development should not have a negative impact on property values. 8. As noted,the four-story building might create shading on properties to its east but that would have been anticipated. The layout of the building should provide ample light and air for the complex itself. 9. There are urban services that will support the proposed use. 10. In conclusion,the proposed use and its site plan appear reasonable. Even a somewhat smaller version would be reasonable if parking cannot be accommodated in a joint use arrangement as required by the ERC. DECISION: The Site Plan is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the ERC conditions,particularly the Joint Parking Condition as it is reissued,modified or amended. Chateau at Valley Center File No.LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF June 4,2002 Page 19 2. If the applicant cannot meet the ERC's parking conditions,the building may be modified by reducing its length,height or both in order to comply with the parking ratios required by the ERC. 3. The applicant shall revise the site plan to either reconfigure the underground parking layout to provide the required parking aisle widths or eliminate parking spaces to allow for code required backup area subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Project Manager prior to issuance of building permits. 4. The applicant shall redesign the vehicle drive accessing the underground parking area to provide for either two-way circulation or one-way circulation and vehicular stacking space/queuing located on the property that meets code requirements. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Project Manager prior to issuance of building permits. 5. The applicant shall either provide a striped pedestrian connection from the main entry to Davis Avenue South or provide a paved sidewalk from the main entry to Davis Avenue South subject to the approval of the Development Services Project Manager prior to issuance of building permits. 6. The applicant shall provide a crosswalk with striping and signage for pedestrian access across Davis Avenue South to the joint use parking lot. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Project Manager and Transportation Operations prior to issuance of building permits. 7. The applicant shall revise the site plan to provide a fire emergency access turnaround,which meets fire department requirements. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to approval of both the Fire Marshall and the Development Services Project Manager prior to issuance of building permits. ORDERED THIS 4th day of June,2002. ((b' FRED J.KAUF N HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 4th day of June,2002 to the parties of record: Susan Fiala Darrell Johnson James Godfrey 1055 S Grady Way Davis Avenue Associates,LLC CEO, Chateau Retirement Communities Renton,WA 98055 15201 Woodinville-Redmond Rd. 17720 Marine Drive Woodinville, WA 98072 Stanwood, WA 98292 Kayren Kittrick A.Bernard Conley 1055 S Grady Way Davis Avenue Associates,LLC Renton,WA 98055 15201 Woodinville-Redmond Rd. Woodinville,WA 98072 Chateau at Valley Center - File No.LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF June 4,2002 Page 20 Russell Wilson Don Jacobson Terry Pile 1055 South Grady Way Valley Medical Center Valley Medical Center Renton,WA 98055 3741 Park Avenue North 400 South 43"1 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98055 Elizabeth Higgins 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 4"'day of June,2002 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Neil Watts,Development Services Director Larry Rude,Fire Marshal Alex Pietsch,Econ.Dev. Administrator Lawrence J. Warren,City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler South County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,June 18,2002. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department,first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. 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. • , • • • -`17zek,------1-__/ r. 7. - ..-;"*. . -• i f A sta:arnmmiXE:". ----""`"-'7:P:k 'IQ ..-.4.--,. ---- . -------,,, -""---'''''''',. , . -ir 91; 4,i;_: •••••.-%, ."-••••,..„. ---,.,..1 .• '',,,. OrIllid ..:. 1,,,- " It ,,,,,,,,,.!,,,,,,!•ur "lr'''. i . . 0 . • ......,-''.',......„ i . • • • \\\,, oi -...........„„-- .., , DAVIS k '' • '...-- -------- . .---•' - " 77---`--- . , 4 . - . /..,_$1,. CA'Rk .. Iii r..................z:3 . r • 0 -4 i _ cil . . 4mtnal(.4 -: ' , _ 4,4 •e -I rn - % c o ni.unhm.7. _ Apr • Fund . OCII Z CZZ, ', Ip 0 a 3 • 0..n. ....U ,. . rt.,s . :- 93 sn 1 t..- • i c, co- . 0 • 0 r ,, -.I • ___,......._ . ir• i. tt ..1 1 ,r, - - •• -,.-- i.:.,,,,,,4 ga,.. ....., ..., 1=13 7 • ' kn. . .,,...,,;,,,, •?7..,'''rJ. 4. . ... •• 'CI va ° Ci '• V1' ,-46.5t4":""....;,• 4nr..4'..1* r; • A.rni r I\P‘ ill — ' ' . is '-"Q"4.114/4111 • ';' ,1',.• ,. 1 a.4 I -..7 I 7 ;\\, i a , \ . '•1-'.• kg!1411 et li5':' . N 112 . , -4N.I.,—,_,_„-,....4 \ 2 ,,--, 101'.-. ..,,,,4.41! .• • rc±:3,11 ari. . 61 z ,,i., 2 it el • ..: it*. ly.,.1.0.•if; , : 4 1 • .. Atilytp-41114.11t.t • . -4e",,,i A r 33 •1 . -- ..... .. V0'0'4,•• --. -. ,,, • . ; .. 11. . I . • , •1 lir i I il EgjP ,..,\r, , ....,. JI I a,•- .--sZ -,' • - !. . • Og " .., ,.... • . . . • • . . . . tE PLANT SCHEDULE . • .... 11 PIZ �e�dld�nxa e1II6121L� w""`.KM,/ .r LeRLINAUD4/ OW nee • oKUL wuwnv+ . ,.oav, mew NE*MGM - �Yb Cr 1 =.••io A i ® FPCM,0.vlolf r ...... .w 31 o ,... WAN.MOM. MIa WED Su YM.G ] �r .TM..lofbY 1 O !M IN K/af nt .uL�L.1Nn® § AS Oeloole0 Id N SHRUB PLANTING KY, ♦."`Y..A.a. iu.'. " n.l. w. " 'c" ra04 ewe m^w"., �r B• „r-..xorre wae amoe.rw .CALM*` a •-C 1 j� � .� _ Af4lA IOW nm% ]r4KM 17 _, -�r v. os�eur -Wrwe.mm� „=.o Tao pods..a Ar.we Me,.b www®.r. ® .rtul®.Ar•ISA I 2 l -r3 Z Y:.,,. \ u•TN..em.nm PM nests arx.ao1.•a wwrem.•.a.o us. P.M AL.v.relf •w.uax ISO • e9T *``` MN NI re TREE PLANTING DETAIL O 1 0 P TAt n (AY , ; wus.lur 40 Le.Le 101•• .uw::1. :::r c t� ,'d 0I( ZoT er,i \, 0 �nr eueew, ..ua Y,I.' ; 'a?`` ", \tyc '::.4% ' _ 00 Meow!•u wv •..ua �^L� I .e5:.; > .,:. :.e \'- a �r. Meow NeY4 s:'Y:..'::`'> .,'�,'''':^,..`.: •- ',•�O* I e'. ; ♦ SITE AREA ANALY61b, ® \';f5. FD� :�.�,�;_� N•n TOTAL WS AREA, IZOD21 Sr s,4i f�"-/ •` >:,,;�,: `. AFXING-B L -:-'` t �f_ N rwvm v�ucu.AR AueAM esoss� O o. eaMCAT.0 ws''""r. i.•.°�n"... :I Y,.•.•t ` •-� �.- .f` (\. N 9RLbIMB AREA. {IA.]•P ® • .0,4, ..,14 v lb-21.Ile P♦ II i 'r+ q Z �y ♦ Jf \ •a rwnLNms Areo AMis, ilk Sir I. • , r F1 I -' • .� PCOZ1.41 T-le C c�.•� 4 `4JJ/ rbRearr or/ silt omwAM)re �� © MT,. M u-a.r `. p 1 A 1 " I .7....:w 1',c!'Aki \ '°'� N 08 ® ....z't:• =.., .-- ^0' !unQ. 11 11� I PATIO -.••: 'r;.y \\ -♦_ / ROMA Krr.wwtl 3MY.. V ..q tn El :, . ! 1n• 1 ® �-s' \ _ I C c p�;"4\I • ® wm,.w• w.: ' W -a I�,� ::�:;a q.'' - • `� _ '_ - . ` c •'1a, T,t;`yc\ roa M'cra'�.",o.�""c„''' .,en S �� .� a- i �i ..,i, / c 0,,„„...... „._ - \ „ •AACTODTA.10`..W Wz N z F mow. .,....' r •I, �• +.�. PACT�' e�c i:.' 1, 7^' \ r.on.w] '•'..ee ... A. 1• Y. a�° L c.- • p1. ME ouZ�unxs IILLJJ to 1' .!. 1tl iJ41 •7 A 14 L. I / .:;�T i,`' :T.,•' s©^nab i+ ••�: � \ ©Ell wa..son . eh1 I' l ©y� I P \ o monnaorao um • .-1 j• *0 • _ h \`' •F ti• \ GENERAL NOTES, Z (•tip fI • FIRST FL�I.EV.IH' "�e .� '- 1 \ __ a t . C): a•\ Qr� A� C): +p\ I o \ C11 �r.�wn.rr..r•.awe ev A ! r!r 1s `'may' 4��tt �I -s � s%..;A• J o N.:1 I - I'j(Na-3+ Ir• 1 •..•'oe © ` , -. :.. n c ♦4q1: k ..e:� . :.reaI^o:<"^..,.� ^`:rn" '-1 Rr 1_111 1- _ - ,Oa•_ _ l C•"-� wA...�me.wun.,..n.w.w....r..r.wa E .. Yi • 121 '� �t w -�ii1•-.... 3� \� I TRFFTo�E. ' ireWs.: =ng• t�r•r os r � ;::'. t3erlovED tYP1 t• _ :,�.;I�C�J=p! •Q_lar==Wit''�E- �' `� I ,zs,tiFr ----': ,�;vo.._.._.. ,..- a ..a.��..r.r... QW ov ---_-`����.. _$ •.a 15704E5', 2474.4 ALE 7 �-",' .,••• ....�-rwr-e..r-.....r...-.nrr " Q 4 .{c •.. _ \N. _ .MAPLE••�� l�s% \ err .�....w.....,oe.E..... • fi. �. .. `. trc \• �Ci ` 1 t-_T.!T _ t �,� oi.-4.rL DlAl3�-... ,•m.,..1....r.•.00r...we..a...®.c...r...or,.... 0 =' •pp •••` 1�1 1T� 11 C • _ I T'4 7.1 7 .' `Wi . ww�n r�.rtb.mmun.4 me L._ �, "T ------' — ._. /5 ' , ,1•ArAPttt • El - ® .AIG Iw..a .......,..�....-tea... •...�,..m� t' ... �r..-_........ -- "FIR #d _ —� ..... •ao�rob �IS • - T. ..�,y. �r.nrrroiurw•us PAM M1M4 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN N r.r.•..e A. ..e....rrr •_ I . G y a1 ITiI Z , • I (I '1 III I : Ifs' • a�vi � z�4 7;.'...e.....:3 Z:.A ..a �/ +:c...:�•.7T;. f»�i.•:.: 7..Z.T: P. 'w.ZT,7 —':77'.: { _gyp:-...J.::.i" J I w 17 1,n,. % IIYY R ' 1 Z� SS 7 ~ : '--- --- { �— - �� . — r$ , -- i r '•re 3 3 ? ate w- • ..1/0 I li 1 . •1v ••'Y' _,. •JO•JVZ 1 •r• A :,... U i Y 2 „:„..,.. . .A J '1 1 •1 1IiiY N .i+ ,,.. 111 111' I al i1 mrj, -rH. /..,q,;. ,...._...............d...•,../...i,.,(47/04,%4iO4.,41*t0.#.4, 4'„t,t 1fh.Ti‘4,,f,!„4'''i'''I't e.)O\.r.l..40,.:,1. . L'l--a,1,0:a,,.;bl •! II F u°fix 1 •f,. • Ot •> fe,-Ri , ®1 m ozAl% g h t; i. _ .!..: fr 41 ow Ago § i ,i;1 • �� �/ ��r ��i`-: �: t, 'E►' , !:1 O Its F — u. _D �' "t :�l,I� ,1►,;�`; Ll I �' I O.me o T a 8;ege.°� III �b �... _J 1 q�y•:�'•'� .p ' I I 1•I1 e1e c e=7pgn 171 .....�-._A.. ; - ,I __ �►/� �, A �•,a£Tvs . 4 IIIYYY4 .. r •�•' / _ V 1 Id' e n i / 1 I i%�I,4 A#,7 n s t a— _ Fl III eJ 1, // 444.,` . '.�,'�? .4', .4 �O :'� ' / "g-A R § a,n4 a >4 ti • i € u mka� 1IT x 4/,' I * : rzi.vo*: w.c.,... gi --, 1 ,ir,' ......-4 .. ')...:;)c, if' . , I a rs--;• „Ativ;r7...wd .. 7� ✓;+`moo\ I,�•- J , i,/ /yea /� �• 794 ti 17 lig))' .�p::;r' arm !J Z4 .� \ ^'' r,,;• /` / Ad(i f.14„, ...,/ir .�0c,' ' ,-. . g . yy r)4: /' • / 89kp i 8flfl 9 VP @Y0 i 511 A JI . I II i f 11 /4-4 /d_( n 0-, :.'' // 6 as 1 I 1 i 0I M ki l '' 'If.' .y '"• -''b. o )40 s!.••',' , ; /�" p5 1 y a .'' /i \ I I I I � tE. iF `e 7 7 :: • / i / i o ,,S I RIX=•F � `''' z // > y 4 Lit- `'#' /a'V I •L •J: 7• F~•" )✓ ••/ '�• t5 5•-. .3g �4 : ...........,....‹,7/ '1. ligrilii,-1' • "13 ,ig. 1 ..,_:. .vP / / w irpigio ...... ..„, ,,.n i.,11, !-.-,...mm 0. 1 s. i , ,�� i r �'. ;%`,,,,.�///.... •.• ...• -.. • rif 1 tll IS 1 di Itk / ski i aae n 5 P log; 0 i 61 1" r • Biwa f • : rn �� t7 ;�. /_ / /,'. // '� ' o� og�✓` sue= 101 � s a§ $$€ m N. • �n-osirwl./ i w z 10 • .5� .5 g 0. gg t66 € • Ipfi k -1 "Al . pp ti ' ! �1 g aaaaa - ' Ci / ■'� l� N. ter. : -i; go• Z • ti 1 I II I Ii .: K INN F� _ 2 4b§ P of - m II i I -•i. aaa3a a wa o � 1 pq • • • • iii SITE•PLIN • I TAYLOR•OREOORY r R I ■ �� ARCHITECTS o I CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER • Vim/ b - - - RENTON,WASHINGTON �• Ai H3 • 30 T23N R5E E 1/ i _ �� /, ct R-8 F CA L fis.„. : ' II `— 177th Ave. SE . -C1 EI-/) --.-- • , S 179th St • ` 1 I ' -------J • • • -C D 0 G� \RM—i R-8 • S 4r °:,...cY St. .• • g _... — �ajj C-b — ; • 1> o<P) ; R . ,45 P1. • ,�, a o(P) co<P) co C O(P) I; N • a Hm 11 i 7— RMI— _— • w I z rA R 114 [t..) :.:... . , 1 __i ,..:,,, • , .___ , •:,:!. .. , . ; , ,.:5...., , :„.,: . C.,Dr. .., _ . _. u) ,,,, , . --- R- ..,,„; ,-,14_ -_.._.._--. . -_- 6 ::,,•,„„ R-1.4 ..__�� __ ,..:,,,,, ,_L_, R-1 ...,,,,v d: ..,. • R-1 - - , - -oo , 1 \ ._ . _____.__..___ _______ SE 190th • j S 55th St. I ?-------N-N ....: '!::;: 1 ;:-....i, , 1. s!';:.•::; • J3 • 6T22NR5EE1/2 � u _ ¢®o �Y I3 :::: . ,. ° ZONING 1s+800 1 + P/B/PW TECHNICAL SERVICES - i•,s �As „co mnsioi 31 T23N R5E E 1/2 -' V"YJ..41 RI?' I t% • . , . . , i ., , , . 1 . eNN. ,, i , , , . 0._ ,,,, 1 , °vs .. 1 , fro* , ; 4,„,„,41*,..4.4.,--.4tsi,.. , , ,.....,,, .w , •,. _ 4 4,..0 1 1 0, * -„,i, , ..„,,,,, 1 ,00,4411,..rt''' ;'..i. •,,,:14:lt .;01,,,e14/40/4 4P '' , 4 _,- ,,,f. ..00.44.‘4.. , , ° 41.,,r<1,41,401ti.-%:•wtit,,,,."'sti`frl_rs ° , ito:"4.4:74 - ‘00 --..-E / ; . Ail r'fr i&I* q J.isill;c3 , _444 0 "7:1.Z,v,.,.47'•1'4 111 ' ,,•>':' . • Lti� ,,,.E le I • �' �NV • � ' I 4, ill ;'..'' AM '4i;.,%',ki El ° .. k 1 ' relirt # 4.4,,,, , • 4:1 '4' ltri. ' ',4,4 p #„ . , ,,, %II L1/49* . NW 11V414 ! *ICC ,ilial . , ,,, L-11. 0 '_ . E I 1 I ' Q H I I Pi 1� SECOND MOOR PLAN I �TAYLOR•OREGORY I ■ L= ARCHITECTS I." CHATEAUMVALLEY CENTER �'V I N RENTON,WASHINGTON . . i . . . 0 Q II., • Q T O T . U 0 _I W F i l! 6 • L/ ... vm I AI — .j ^ b ¢ • o 1 f =11-- = 11 S IIII III 11111 I IIII -�=11 -=i1-= 111111 IIII I 1 1 I_ 1_ 1 _ ®t B 1_iii I n 1,11. I _ ::=a= _- Irl. _kill _ = IVII iiiliiiiii iiiiai ■_ ==_= iiiliiiiii _ iiiliiiiii _ „_ ' - -- =11=- -- 11 1}1a I�+ it 11'll� I IIII ■=11==11_= 11 IIII / =11= 11' i nul . III I =11==11==- M i - ill•_ _ Iftr. _ �: I.Ikilll iiiiiiii ER _ r--=-- iliiiiiiii. _ nu _ — �R. �__ ' =�:iIr4Inu r�I nu IIln LLLJi �I- Emu u uu' III11 ii ll�=l��\\\\\\\_:.-- II b I IIIIu� 11 Pil I uu un I _.I - iiiiiliii Iliiiiiiii -_>oM _ ...! nl�. Iijj;rI � ,1 r■ ��i ��■Ea ■■ =OU IIII ■�IIIIII� 1111��I! II ■■ 11s.....!•." IIII 111111 , IIII rlw. 11 ■r �IIINIIitill�l�fl„ �fl1111 IIII rr ww WEST ELEVATION - $ A war,w• A.f , i _ 0 • ,,_ 9 • . , •o, 1 T T . ,c)• ....„...." kiiiiiph„,,...._ .4,. . _.,07 .0 . _ lak _,. . eNr---- ........ 1 • 17, Dr NI ••77�• M„_— _ T T 1fg ~IIII T -11 .IIII ` L' - - IIII 1✓� } -1- 2 11 1• + II I +® W anwn 111I.1111 _r,-. 'IIIIIiIIII:r ' ""'c ........ ...ill J., ..SELL 11.. 1 11 1 i I 1I1 - Z _ urn uiilimol liiliiil'I � _ 'EH _ z IIII -11 IIIIk kill 2T'' — MI T+ IIII �� 'y1' Z7 1 11= 72' Ili I I+• 1 V Z i IIII 11 ........ .......... i vow.. iijii Inlww • •lul =11 = _ — _ 1 -�M- — iiuLl. • ® �11 lz7 C rrwn al �Illllllllii IIIIIIIII — _ - 1 _ _- t=1 — ill _ III 1 1 • w0. _ n WEST ELEVATION L� nan SCAM w•ri 1 • • o — a •K. ) \\ i _ - —.— ' H- _ =■1ME E 'llllll' i 'llllll' ��111111' Mr 3in __ . 7iTi�� I I�- 11■■11 =■1 mn� 11 11 11 II II ;11 11_ - awn =n Ilniuu. iiilliii mmoiiii oiliii — .nlwn —1-I Y i U ■ g1 ■!'iJ •■ •■ ■ •■ ____� `"""`'_' J= a : 11■■ 11 _;;1�� n 11 �� 11 :b'I 11 11 '—'� 11 11:�11 E I uun uuu .1 min uun i 11■■ 11 =■I II 11 Ill 1a1, 11 11 11 11=11=== 6 sown ■ ■ ----�f Illillllllll ■ ■ illlllllllll ��.. ■IIIIIIIIIIIII ■ ■ IIIIIIIIIIII ■ ■ —. ara wn r I 1 _� 1 = ■■n- -;i1-1 II II 1-1 n ■1l n ■ 1-1■ JF =n_..IIII ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ..IIII11■■ 11 ■St1S1 11 1111 11 nII-===■I ........ IIII1.■■ =■Iliiiiiiiiiiiil IiiiiililI �Ilnnutiiihl I'_'hll■I n li_ -_ ao wn I —IJ IIIIIIII =.,�111111� 1-4 H-{ �IIIIII� I■ = IIIIII� �IIIIII'= •■■ ■■E=11-_=' I . ��Jrrrrl� �"� nwn Iiiiiiiii,l Iliilliiiiiii1l Iiiililiiiiil 1Iiiiiiiiiiiill IIIIIIIIIIII In mat _ li�tr�lr • H III 1I-t :idl 1E11 _ - 1�1IWI ■ I� ■ k ..solow _ ��.•i.�._.il�■ mi�i-1�1■_�_I■1�air _ •-- •. 5 NORTW ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION • �•00 awM w•ro ruM w•ro Q1i51f-e3 :I,L1J:.,iLLI•L,,.W..II l EEL n,' III I - g i t 1$ 1 1 1 1 1 !I I I I I . Ill} v R iiii i■■ g®1® m I$ i I C. 1. 1' 4 . .... .iiIi I ;iLL1'lit I • I 111 Ril'I ICI flal y',inl.I;ll!,I ii _ '4 1 12 ---0) =lige in i ® . _ _ • , ; i ., .__E., ; 3 ic c ......1, 1, fir- j '!,i 11 _~ 111'-°_III-:=III===111= 1' i i --_l I - . iI I I �. 1s I '1s I` l 111 'InIIIII 1 , I1 i , I III �-I T11RR 1�-if 2 _®...® .® .® 1 -g ,.III •i III 1 HA_ -1 H-1 1 H-1 I 0 I ) III I II III i 'a, 4` ■■ _® TB. �;ER II1 ,I liil __ _ i—�_ice=--I -- t_..) illiEEE. ti l 1 `' I Q Ill II MI I'H EH I I I I 1 1 i."--iI 1 x! 1 i r. Ig ill $ IIipt-_ 1 E .,. ..,, ,..,a\ •--Q T ,.s f �. 111 II EH; 1--Hi I qm 1 l• - i H 1 ---- 1II1 iiihlii?Iliir / 1!� i 1.m I EMI MI Ma ' �- 1 '• ---, -- -- --gIII ® r==lr=_I) 0 Irj-i4— 14 II 1 • I I-H H-I FF-I ti iiii F•f=�11-IEEEIII=:== I'-= ' ■ i • . - . mmI11 1111IIlulluuullmumumum'I P1�� ill Imo- III::III I:: I -==.-- —) ... II 1 1 1 1 `1 IIi C II .=:_1; I , kiE PEE IIIII,1= —III==1 - I=== . —._ I I • I I I IIIII I ! 1111 1 I 2 _= 1= - 1=- , - 11--;I Il-- 1 --I I-- III I I IIIII ✓ I oI - ,..„, - 1 I --� 1111111-==III--=1'-°-I'-- P ! ....................:.-..-,_:,.,...._........._iil ... ..... . . .. .. ... �1�IIII IIIII ,III Ilfi I1 I I II- _ 11-== 11-: ii► I ■ ■■■TM II IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ■ -- -- 1 I EI I-RI EH .1 11=ZIIII-- III--IIIIII::I I -- ! I 0 l!ill 11111 1 111 1 V IIIII I --III--I 1 • .-■.-■.- r� ■�IIIIIOIIIIII1111 1 - IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II 111111111111 ' I 1 1 �I_.o.1_I_I_�. ■iffEl li -I- - �° I 10 ql �-- ry --1 I I IIFIII! V1 111 1111IIIIIII ICI 1111 III !I �__0 1111M1111 111 1 11.01111 d- 1;I ' , ,. tL' tmi_H\r,i •:: _=l_ _i GG �' Inlm-mnnul�n�l ia�; l ll. IIII- •IIIII III lulu IA III Fl.. ..i.. iri U - ' 1 0 n ._ ...I .....= =I-= 1, .IIII-- --�. -•I $ Hi , g i1i IIIi'IIIIi'I11I .4" if ' I • A. g 8 3 $ LE . I 1[ I ELEVATIONS I ...TAYLOR•OREOORY ■ ■� ARCHITECTS b CHATEAUXALLEY CENTER �'i/ _ _ RENTON,WASHINGTON ' ,• . , '1 • _ D,e.„.Y...am.wl..Dea.'awe. RENTO..' -=:i31-23-5 •6O? E ® N;a ;_ [,,.� i ® wan , a ...us.n li 1 .. Mk -93 L ,0,/ Ili + 'J 5......ZL-�...- .. .�.t0 ji• ti�ail �l •ai 177iN'ST.• .. . .i1V;4A;f (� , 7A 1L,; iii:♦A 'r:�,.. ,' l�Vii,j,� =1f £ `' 10, •%t r • •,, : # MP-..mama a II_ 1 W ii i �tr-• - f O 11.el� S i', ;.11411.� 'k" �1 1t 1 O� c I F� •� yl `eQ. " �TS{18M 9 r A 11.5•Ic iff�� ;� i-����.,.,`/// QC E N' E ya�`, �a,; , +sI lit, �1 fit^i++-� � � • ' / t 7 ggh 5 �'-llEfltN um . .iYD1Y�JJ�_,J, ti ,,,'. f a 1 11 • u t II V--°aDi(4,-sc.-7 1/ lot ,,.-�d r iill. '.h Vnl.l:stryIEW • ��_ =. 1'3` t..�� F dull III 4V '•',� r7 7 In 1;li fi W e sOn D/Washington \ - pAlltit, S 1 6 �.5. _JLI_. 1 �QJ1 �p�pP ©_ S®��/�% imp-es�lq t �- uwx r uI -`1 Ittl.:.13 xm,I,. I O •>� O �S 45 H PL ,_ ,�Y%um , State./Washington •• {{j •`O D Yi .=IIIJ O..' ap;T:i wok. III EIL SIM Ran• .. , , . , Ke -.cOND--- s • lk iK� v' . ` t 1 L�°� - \ / ni ' aum . s SAM Q B CI) .0\Yl_!. II 1.69Ae. Dr 45:1_-. �llJll L7 �. V11Y. ® C INI w� + , ® ® - Iwq.6ie�c y INA L6/w�JK 4V.c 41 — ia_�`� � a® - 1. 463k. Wk. 3 Y1A6 _ .. p. 9 ® .'� tlYOOY•r I a �`�'- E.Siti !. 0I MM I T PARK ex n.ars al SIa7 (IN?. .__ .. I. �. v wf° VIA._� 1 •�•—•�._YIN�._.�.—rrw_leK-.—._ W J1 4®q 111 to Al . 8 ® SR Onl-a) as 011l Ina u�wa' t . • ®f 471k. as I ROW I Ir t IIl-__ --,ThJ.�� lA talk 13) tsQ ® ® C yak Y+ MI. ums ' .0 ' a1 ® ® D1 { tu ° E s• II alzi.n: • \� 1 —_ _Ig �SL—• c : a • UYILF LEGEND ATLAS OF SEATTLE O r,s+.11w .- �"'::-..='Ir KNOLL MAP O PANNY.INC....SEATila R T ,, G ...Pal AAA..SAM. aw.<.. .�... . r xPIInO7l.mIC.. ET('V I • 9 . • s _o DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC P.O. Box 907 Woodinville, WA 98072 Phone: (206) 488-2400 Fax: (206) 488-1089 May 15, 2002 MAY 2002 City Renton G ll of ' Hearing Examiner do Susan Fiala CITY OF RENTON Senior Planner HEARING EXAMINER 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Chateau at Valley Center, File No. LUA-02-012, SH-A, ECF Response to ERC memo regarding Joint-Use Parking Agreement This letter provides Davis Avenue Associates LLC's input to the Hearing Examiner on the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) recommendations to the Hearing Examiner regarding the executed Joint-Use Parking Agreement, dated May 13, 2002. At our request, we received a copy of the ERC memorandum this morning, after the memorandum and Joint-Use Parking Agreement was submitted to the Hearing Examiner on May 14. During the Hearing Examiner public meeting, dated May 7, Davis Avenue Associates and the City agreed to "negotiate" the Agreement, however, on Friday May 10, we were told to submit the Agreement to the City for review by the ERC prior to submission to the Hearing Examiner. The ERC memorandum expressed the following questions they indicated were not addressed by the Agreement: ERC Question A: What are the locations for specific parking lots/spaces for use once the facility is in operation? Answer: The entire Valley Medical Center (VMC) campus is available to Chateau at Valley Center (CVC)for joint-use parking of up to 50 spaces, including the parking areas across Davis Avenue South. Due to its location and current availability, the primary parking area to be used would be in the parking lot located across Davis Avenue South from our project. However, if that lot is not available, VMC will permit joint-use parking elsewhere on the VMC campus. ERC Question B: Who, on staff would be the designated "monitor" or would all staff be capable of the task? Answer: The Executive Director(General Manager) of Chateau at Valley Center or the Manager-on-Duty, on weekends, will be responsible for"monitoring" the parking Page 1 - conditions on an ongoing basis for the facility, and implementing the joint-use parking g 9 agreement with VMC when the conditions, as specified in the agreement, warrant it. ERC Question C: The shuttle system is not clearly defined. How long does someone wait to be picked up at or dropped off at a remote parking area? How many shuttles would be available? Answer: The normal wait would be expected to be about 5 minutes with a maximum wait of 15 minutes. We will provide an adequate number of shuttles so the wait will not exceed 15 minutes. Please keep in mind that, first and foremost, we are a service industry and these are our customers, their relatives and friends and if they have to wait in the parking lot more than 15 minutes for a shuttle to arrive we will hear about it. This industry has become very competitive. We would be foolish to anger our own customers, as they would just move to another facility. We respectfully request that this Joint-Use Parking Agreement be approved, as submitted. Davis Avenue Associates, LLC D,- .• nson I- elopment Coordinator Cc: A. Bernard Conley (Davis Avenue Associates, LLC) James Godfrey (Davis Avenue Associates, LLC) Page 2 CRFI�, _ , frgil" .2062 . li'' ' , , OF: �; Ficc 'z City of Renton - o : City Hall;-=.7th-,Floor ' - e , " : , : ,:,.: - :: ' ,,' :. ,-. 1,055 South Grady Way: .,. :,..,,,,,,,,:-.,, ., :,,, ,..,:, Renton; WA',98055 -, - _ o r . Attn::Hearing.Examiner : : ,: , : . :,,,,,,- 1 - -" CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION • AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the day of , 2002, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope c ntaini g Limy vus oi.rn(v.er �arfi d.��e i Sip r�l documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Representing /60 PL.( I aedhl oYrd I`/ .df kqz:0 wo.e_ v s;` iLftJ MMUHEFF (Signature of Sender �� � NOTARY PUBLIC • STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COMMISSION EXPIRES SS JUNE 29, 2003 COUNTY OF KING ) ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that s yee 1��.�(J &L 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: ('1 m. � I c I o �f/Yl rid X/a�r� U Notary Pub• in and for the State of ashington Notary(Print) MARILYN KAMCHEFF My appointment expettiPPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 Project 42cr< (}a/le C Vi7 Project Number. /.- . NOTARY.DOC L • NOT10E ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER PROJECT HUNGER: LUA024112,ECP,SAG TN.pp4me b'sweats,EANrmnaNl(SEPA)RnMgr and Haulm Ea+,Mr See Pim apprised he • an warted ERR memnwu mmmrdyto be named the Cheyau et Valley Collar?The staled.Ear b 277 eves in sire and b reldh'ey Rol ran no Iowan swathe or WSW weaw The perfect would centred 179 robe,OA.d,dneant..Wow,ER Gang maw.a commsnid Mohan,bulges, terresta and other necessary MT!end , common 0,wN.I•ifely Raw an indoor pool,•bandy,maw.Won amwtW EiAmq re170•k Pass b+lmng woad et.heWe of m feet.Ern Wished Gob end grated LW de.partial becnag Wel Approximately who 193 the ,5 p080 .of surface and garage spews,woad S.provided.The pmd la Pea.trelinww,.Moor recreation w wed es m alm newy ally end.tnet Lnp,aa.na da Prawn onsb.va,I o10ipmd tob September 2002 Soothed` . conviction S Mabee et 2003.loose=Northeast Corner of Davie Avenue South a • Ra THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE(ERC)HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appalls of the nrb.mnentel dslm0Lutlm roost be 1Gd in writing on or before 1200 PU Apel 29,2002.Appalls moat he filed In wrelsg together Wien the required 17500.ppeaedn fee Wad Rewire Examiner.Coy of Reston, 1035 South Grady Wry,Renton,WA 00055 Appalls to be Camino,en governed by Coy of Renton Yuntdpd Code Salton 481100.Additional Information cowman tip epp..l prom.day bo obtained ban the Renton CRy dad.Office,(425)4306510. A Ruben Hering RID be hold by the Reston Waing Examiner at Ws muter mMmg in to Caned Clamber.an tie7th flan of Coy N.7,I001 South Oredy Way,Renton,W.Mmgton,onF(py7.200T at 000 Atd to 000.ldatie proposed Site Man.flaw EnvironmentDeterminationmentalDeterminationle eppeolaq the appeal WI be howl.pert of W.publm "-17.-fit,77-4.ii•.— . .: 7,42:4:t„.44 .1 i 1,. w e, ,� 3t �r'^ g _.. r,„,,,i..,,..1..,,..,i... . II J' i ...� V . O FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425)430.7382. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION 1 ' 'Plendolochale,thosrojeejNUMBER When calling,for proper(IIgldon'Gootlon. I • • • • • CERTIFICATION I, et Lai. Ock_ ,1 I, hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in, conspicuous places on or nearby , the described property on Afr I I Z Zii Signed:` )G�k ,1�? � � ATTEST:Subscribed .. worn beforeti me,a Notary Public,in and for e tate of W ashi .t•n esidi . i t � i Qr ,on the G`-/ day of CL jc.. .Q &OO�r. .4 MARILYN KAMCHEFF ; MARILYN KAMCHEFF NOTARY PUBLIC . MYAPPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 i STATE OF WASHINGTON • 7 COMMISSION EXPIRES , JUNE 29, 2003 y : 140-ni- ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-02-012,ECF,SA-H The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Hearing Examiner Site Plan approval for an assisted living retirement community to be named the"Chateau at Valley Center." The subject site is 2.77 acres in size and is relatively flat with no known sensitive or critical areas. The project would construct 179 units, plus administrative offices, two dining rooms, a commercial kitchen, lounges, . recreational and activity areas,an indoor pool,a laundry,service areas, and other necessary rooms and common areas-all within a four-story,wood frame building of 179,241 gross square feet. The building would arrive at a height of 50 feet above finished grade and would Include a partial basement level. Approximately 103 parking stalls, including surface and garage spaces,would be provided. The project also includes the installation of landscaping, paths, walkways, outdoor recreation areas, as well as all necessary utility and street improvements. Project construction is anticipated to begin in September of 2002 with estimated completion in October of 2003. Location:Northeast Comer of Davis Avenue South& South 45th Place. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be flied in writing on or before 5:00 PM April 29,2002. Appeals must be flied in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner,City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the 7th floor of City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,Washington,on May 7.2002 at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed Site Plan. If the Environmental Determination is appealed,the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. `, .. ' ,,, 7/ ' iii , . , ,MillSilir / )1 )11 1 i , ` �r{ 1 OC E N Y j���r:�}, };�„ y`l�11 / ..4;I 4 a- is rrr . •y\4: . it I \ ';-, ' -4-_,..,./.47z*,40::-. it 1, ,\ , ___ ,i,„;.,111;-4 --'. '' .. si53 0 ' i 1 \ &a, • wirlio. -sr . I/ I 01. . gil fill ilia • .i, , . • .. .TM IL 1 .,r-,L1. wwwwy� !i A1� p• C7S .0 t �F'..rrp ` ®r PO . 1 ,�r TALB Ih 9w t r - "0 - 1 1611 alt.la FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425)430-7382. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Plea§e h6lude;thV'projeaNUMBER'Whei ctilling fbr:*Ode file,id"entification: • NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON,WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER LUA-02-012,ECF,SA-H Environmental review for an assisted living retirement community. Location: Northeast Corner of Davis Avenue South &South 45th St. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM April 29, 2002. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on Mayn 7, 2002 at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed site plan. If the Environmental Determination is appealed,the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Publication Date: April 15,2002 Account No. 51067 dnsmpub.dot 4$` CITY RENTON. f. .•. Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator • April 11,2002 Mr. Darrell Johnson Davis Avenue Associates, LLC P.O. Box 907 Woodinville,WA 98072 SUBJECT: Chateau at Valley Center File No. LUA-02-012; SA-H, ECF Dear Mr.Johnson: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject,projectr:,TThe ERC issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation��`Measures: Pleasalefer to the enclosed Mitigation Measures document. ` Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed'in,writit4on or before 5:00 PM April 29, 2002. Appeals must be filed in;°writing together with the required°$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way,,,Renton, WA 98055 Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal"Code Section':°4-8�110.B.': Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton:City',Clerk's:Office, (425)4:30-6510. A Public Hearing will be held`by the Renton HearingExaminer in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South".Grady Way;;'. Renton, Washington, ,on May 7, 2002, 2002 at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed Site Plan. The applicant'-or representatives) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. 'A copy,of, the staff report will"be mailed to you one week before the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. The preceding information will assist yoir in.plarining,for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise.your appeal rights more fully, if yo1i choose;•to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at(425) 430-7382. For the Environmental Review Committee, • Susan Fiala Senior Planner cc: Public Hospital District No. 1 of King County/Owner Enclosure • dnsmletter R E N T O N 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 �. AHEAD OF THE CURVE :, This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE • (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-02-012, ECF, SA-H • . APPLICANT: Davis Avenue Associates, LLC . PROJECT NAME: Chateau at Valley Center DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Hearing Examiner Site Plan approval for an assisted living retirement community to be named the "Chateau at Valley Center." The subject site is 2.77 acres in size and is relatively flat with no known sensitive or critical areas. The project would construct 179 units, plus administrative offices, two dining rooms, a commercial kitchen, lounges, recreational and activity areas, an indoor pool, a laundry, service areas, and other necessary rooms and common areas - all within a four-story, wood frame building of 179,241 gross square feet. The building would arrive at a height of 50 feet above finished'grade and would include a partial basement level. Approximately 103 parking stalls,,including surface and garage spaces, would be provided. The project also includes the installation of landscaping,`paths,yrwalkways, outdoor recreation areas, as well as all necessary utility and street improvements:, Project construction is anticipated to begin in September of LYE, 2002 with estimated completion in October:of-2003. "y4a LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: ir ,., Northeast Corner of`Davis,,Avenue South &South 45th Place MITIGATION MEASURES: v ? .�"%` %' ..x' :is ; � 1. ' The applicant shall comply with the;recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Report prepared by Earth Consultants,Inc ;dated J�anuary16,52002 w witithyrega'd to site preparation, general earthwork, foundation support, fetaininqswalk site drainage, and excavation shoring. The satisfaction of these requirements shall be subject to the review andapproval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance:-of Building'Pe;rmits for'.the project. 2. Temporary Erosion.ControlS:shall be.installed and maintained•to�the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration..-of,the,project. 3. The applicant shall install a°`silt,fence along the dow Tn slope'perimeter of the area that is to be disturbed. The silt fence shallF be{in place;before clearing=and grading is .initiated, and shall be constructed in conformance with the€:specifications,,presented in of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. This will be required during''`the construction of both off-site and .oh-site improvements as well as building.construction. 4. Shallow drainage swales shall be constructed to intercept surface water flow and route the flow away from the construction area to a stabilized discharge point. Vegetation growth shall be established in the ditch by seeding or placing sod. Depending on site'grades, it may be necessary to line the ditch with rock to protect the ditch from erosion and to reduce flow rates. The design and construction of drainage swales shall conform to the specifications presented in KCSWDM. Temporary pipe systems can also be used to convey storm water across the site. This will be required during the construction of both off-site and on-site improvements as well as building construction. 5. The project contractor shall perform daily review and maintenance of all erosion and sedimentation control measures at the site during the construction of both off-site and on-site improvements as well as building construction. • 6. Weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the project Engineer of record to the public works inspector. Certification of the installation, maintenance and proper removal of the erosion control facilities shall be required prior to final inspection approval. 7. The applicant shall appropriately design the surface water detention system to provide detention for the 100-year storm event with a 30% safety factor. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of Construction Permits for the project. • Chateau at Valley Center LUA-02-012,ECF,SA-H Mitigation Measures (continued) Page2of2 8. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $0.52 per gross square foot of new building area prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $75.00 per net new average trip generated by the project prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $354.51 per new unit, with credits for developer provided on-site recreation facilities and dementia units, prior to the issuance of building permits. 11; ' The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department and the City Attorney that they have negotiated a joint use parking facility that reserves 50 parking spaces for a minimum of five years duration. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the approval of the Building Department and by the City Attorney. • '' Ywa' • ':cat '>,�:y2'',"'. ^� �" ,.,¢ay°� �✓ s?, e.. 'x <w 5... I f3,E�rh µaa srj,.- MITMEASURES CITY OF RENTON • DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-02-012, ECF, SA-H . • APPLICANT: Davis Avenue Associates, LLC • • . PROJECT NAME: • Chateau at Valley Center . DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review 'and Hearing Examiner Site Plan approval for an assisted living retirement community to be named the "Chateau at Valley'Center." • The subject site is 2.77 acres.in size and is relatively flat with no known sensitive or critical areas. The project would . construct 179 units, plus administrative offices, two•dining.rooms, a commercial kitchen, lounges, recreational•and • activity areas, an indoor pool, a laundry, service.areas, and other necessary rooms and common.areas all within a • four-story, wood frame building of 179,241 gross square feet. The building would arrive at a height of 50 feet above finished grade and would include a'partial basement level. Approximately 103 parking stalls, including surface. and . garage spaces, would be provided. The project also includes the installation of landscaping, paths, walkways, outdoor •recreation areas, as well as all necessary utility and street improvements. Project construction is anticipated to begin in September of 2002 with estimated completion in October of,2003 ,•-0.. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: • {sN}r o'rthe'st':Corner;of Davis Avenue*South &South 45. Place Advisory Notes to Applicant: ,P& • { • .The following notes are supplements information .provided 4in ,con,junction with the environmental . determination. Because these notes are:proviJded$as4,jnformationf;only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Ln t` IAA ,,c;,`` `:,::::' :F y,X Planning• z:: ••.�,,P , i.,� .r Y ,:; ,,f�^ - t • 1. The subject site is located within the Commercial-,Office(CO),zoning with a Public Use (P-suffix) designation and • Center Institution (CI)Comprehensive lan'LandlUse Map designation'-., . 2. When located within P-suffix esignat`ion,;``a;,proposal is subject�to,�,additional •notification requirements when • • proposing a change of use forthek:property.: ;•Pursuantto RCM\sec'on 4-3-080, the applicant has provided . notification p for and has held a ublib.,reepting to;discuss the, roposa1. A summary of the meeting, which was held on March 1,2002, is contained withi'the official{land`use file. 3. The proposed assisted living facility is considered-°a'irriary permitted use'within the CO zone, provided the • project is located within the CI Comprehensive Plan designation and is demonstrated to serve a community . need. . • 4. The development project is classified as a commercial use. Therefore, Impact Mitigation Fees, as well as Utility. System Development Charges,will be based on the applicable commercial rates. In addition,the proposal is not subject to density requirements or residential standards. . _ 5. If phasing is intended for the.development of the facility,the applicant is required to provide additional information • • indicating the portions of the site intended for separate phases, as well as the projected construction periods for each'phase. If necessary,this information should be provided prior to the public hearing for the project. • 6. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits 'haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. - Property Services 1. The legal description for the property included in the application materials references the incorrect quarter section. The correct quarter section is NE, not SW. An amended legal description will be required prior to the public hearing for the project. • • • Chateau at Valley Center 1 LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF i Advisory Notes (continued) Page2of3 . 2. The legal description is technically flawed, as currently noted in the attachment to the Land Use Permit Master Application and on the ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY document. The legal description includes a non- tangent curve with no basis of bearing noted for said curve. The recording number of a lot line adjustment (LLA- 023-9), noted in said legal, is incorrect. It would be best to simplify and correct the legal description as follows: Lots 10 and 11, One Valley Place, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Volume 125 of Plats, Pages 40 and 41, records of King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH Lot 2 of City.of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-023-91, as recorded under King County Recording No. 9108069008, King County, Washington. All situate in the NE quarter of Section 31, Township 23 North, Range 5 East,W.M., in the City of Renton, King County,Washington. Fire Prevention 1. The preliminary fire flow is 5,000.gpm. One fire hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and four additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 3. Fire Department access.roadways are requiredltoz bes:wlth fn 150 feet of all portions of the building's exterior. Roadways must be a minimum of 20 feet,itiywidth;with a turning.radius of 45 feet on the outside and 25 feet on the inside. " 0( ` s'tV •'ek`. ,- -¢3:J,w43:4.. }� ''•A 4. Fire Department dead-end access roadways,over 1"50,4eet inR=length are required to have an approved turnaround. The turnaround at sitehe''southeast corner of the does tot meet current code. requirements and •must be enlarged to meet Firepepartment•requirements. -.F _ 011Z5. A list of flammable, combustible liquids and ,ariyazardous=.chemicals to be used or stored on site must be provided. <_. Plan Review—Water ;. � 1: The site is outside the Aquifer Protection,Area. 2. There is a 12-inch water main inas Da js Me South and a 12,inch-wa er ma h in South 45th Place. The derated fire flow available is 5,000 gpm. Statid Pressure is.1 g3•psi.'aPressure Zone;is 350. 3. Water System Development Charges (SDC) are$0 i54 per square-foot of property. This fee must be paid prior to issuance of the construction permit. 4. Additional hydrants will be required. Existing hydrants must be retrofitted with Storz"quick disconnect"fittings. 5. Separate utility permits and plans will be required for the installation of the double detector check valve assembly (DDCVA)for fire sprinkler systems. If backflow device is to be installed inside the building, applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing location and installation of the device as part of the utility plan submittal. 6. • For buildings exceeding 30 feet-in height, a backflow device is required to be installed on the domestic water meter. Plan Review—Sanitary Sewer . 1. There is an 8-inch sewer main in Davis Ave South. 2. Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges will apply and are$0.106 per square-foot of the property. 3. Valley Medical Center South Talbot Special Assessment District fees apply. Fees have been determined to be $5,799.70. 0 advisorynotes • Chateau at Valley Center • LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF • Advisory Notes (continued) • • Page3of3 • • '4. Swimming pool facilities must drain to sanitary sewer. .The City will need additional information on discharge means and flow rate. The City may require a downstream analysis for sewer capacity. • 5. If commercial food preparation facilities are proposed, then a grease trap will be required. • • 6. All parking garages shall require floor drains and shall be connected to the sanitary sewer. Flows shall be directed through floor drains that are installed in accordance with the UPC•to an exterior oil/water separator. The • separator shall be sized to meet a.minimum 15 minute retention time for peak flows anticipated in the garage • area, but in no case will be less than 200 gallons of storage.capacity. The type of interceptor shall be as manufactured by Pipe Inc., Utility Vault Inc., or approved.equal. Plan Review—Surface Water • • 1. There are storm water facilities in South 45th Place and the North portion of Davis Ave South. • • • 2. The Surface Water System Development Charges of$0.183 per square-foot of new impervious area of property applies to the proposed project. • • • 3. A drainage report per the 1990 KCSWDM . a been subrfritted. Due to downstream flooding and erosion problems,this project will be required top ovdo detention for the t00;year storm event with a 30%safety factor. 4. The applicant will be required tofsubmitsepaate°structural-:plans fob'review and approval under a building permit for proposed detention and water'quali y vaultt. Special inspection from th'e building department is required.. '. \ ,A, r. . , x Plan Review—Transportation R h ,,. ; fP ;:, .x r 3 • • • 1. There is curb fronting the property;in Davis;Ave-South'and in.South 45-~Place 2. Sidewalk,curb and gutter,storm and street.lgtitingtwilllbeMrequired it not already in place. • 44 3. No parking signs on sectionsof D.avis'Ave South will be required.°` A; • ' • 4. Local Improvements District fees(LTD#329)wili.apply. -• Plan Review—General • b r ski , r . N" n 1. All plans shall conform•to the Renton Drafting�S andards w` "''' • • 2. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals-prepared according to ' City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. . • 3. Separate permits for side sewers, water meters and backflow device are 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 at the sixth floor counter. A fee worksheet is attached for your use, but prior to preparing.a check it . is recommended to call 425-430-7266 for a fee estimate as generated by the permit system. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for securing all necessary easements for utilities and/or street improvements. • Building . 1. A building permit is required for any retaining wall of 4 feet or greater in height. 2. The project is required to comply with the 1997 Uniform.Building Code. . • 3. A preliminary code meeting with the Building Section is recommended. • 4. Monitoring by a Geotechnical Engineer will be required for foundations,shoring,etc. • advisorynotes • .; 40 ' - > CITY -A-1RENTON.Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator April 11,2002 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 for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee(ERC): DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER LUA-02-012,ECF,SA-H The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA,),Review and Hearing Examiner Site Plan approval for an k 1.�t4. S F-sr,. assisted living retirement community to.be`nanmed.the"Chateau at Valley Center." The subject site is 2.77 acres in size and is relatively flat withTno known''sensitive or critical areas. The project would construct 179 units, plus administrative offices,two dining rooms; a commercial�kitchen, lounges, recreational and activity areas, an indoor pool, a laundry, service areas; other,necessary rooms and common areas-all within a four-story,wood frame building of 178241*gross square feet.. The,building would arrive at a height of 50 feet above finished grade and would include a partial basement'level._=Approximately 103 parking stalls, including surface and garage spaces,would bkprOVidethiThe project also includes the installation of landscaping, paths, walkways, outdoor recreation areas, as:well as all necessary utility and street improvements. Project construction is anticipated,to:begin in September',of 2002 with estimated completion in October of 2003. Location: Northeast CorneroftDavis Avenue.South&>South 45th Place. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed inwriting on,or before 5:00 PM April 29,2002. Appeals must be filed in writing together WO tferequired$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055, Appeals to•the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information:,regarding the:appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6516'- If you have questions, please call me at(425)430-7382' For the Environmental Review Committee, Susan Fiala Senior Planner cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources . ' WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe(Ordinance) US Army Corp. of Engineers Enclosure 1055 South Grad Way-Renton,Washington 98055 IV E N T O N agencyletten AHEAD OF THE CURVE This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer i 1 CITY OF RENTON • . DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) . . MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-02-012, ECF, SA-H • APPLICANT: Davis Avenue Associates, LLC PROJECT NAME: Chateau at Valley Center • • DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Hearing.Examiner Site Plan approval for an assisted living retirement community to be named the "Chateau at Valley Center." The subject site is 2.77 acres in size and is relatively flat with no known sensitive or critical • areas. The project would.construct.179 units; plus administrative offices, two dining rooms,•a commercial . kitchen, lounges, recreational and activity areas, an indoor pool, a laundry, service areas, and other . necessary rooms and common areas - all within a four-story, wood frame building of 179,241 gross square feet. The building would arrive at a height of 50 feet above finished grade and would include a partial .basement level. Approximately 103 parking stalls,vincluding surface and garage spaces, would be provided. The project also includes the installation of landscapi g,pathst walkways, outdoor recreation areas, as well as all necessary utility and street improvements:, Project construction.is anticipated to begin in September.of ' •2002 with estimated completion in October of'2003. ° :>'.w,, Y LOCATION OF PROPOSAL T{ Northeast Corner of'Davis Avenue South &South 45th Place • MITIGATION MEASURES: , z =f } ` 1. - The applicant shall comply with the;recomriiendations contained v=ithin the Geotechnical Report • prepared by Earth Consultan�.tse Inca dated Ja uaty o10002 with.egaad to site preparation, general . earthwork, foundation support, retaq ng:walls,,site drainage and excavation shoring. The satisfaction of these requirements shaltl e.subjectrto the review andfapproval of the Development. • . Services.Division prior to the issuance of Building permits fr the pro�ect. • 2. Temporary Erosion Con • tfols all`be�installed and maintains it6 thessatisfaction of the.representative • .of the Development Services Division for the duration.of;the,projec • '.`,°„ :... �F�yx�'\� .:k,w�,.`<.xc:'nr..:•.a`' Y' A Azl ,pr 3. The applicant shall install ak silt fence along;the=down,sldpejperimeter of the area that is to be disturbed. The silt fence shall .be'in place:ybetore clearing and grading is .initiated, and shall be • constructed in conformance with the`speciifications�presented in of the King County Surface Water . Design Manual. This will be required `during'`the construction of both off-site and on-site improvements as well as building construction. • 4. Shallow drainage swales shall be constructed to intercept surface water flow and route the flow away • from the construction area to a stabilized discharge point. Vegetation growth shall be established in•. the ditch by seeding or placing sod. Depending on site grades, it may be necessary to line the ditch • with rock to protect the ditch from erosion and to reduce flow rates. The design and construction of i drainage swales shall conform to the specifications presented in KCSWDM. Temporary pipe systems can also be used to convey storm water across the site. This will be required during the ' construction of both off-site and on-site improvements as well as building.construction. . 5. The project contractor shall perform daily review and maintenance of all erosion and sedimentation control measures at the site during the construction of both off-site and on-site improvements as well as building construction. • 6. Weekly reports.on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the project Engineer of record to the public works inspector. Certification of the installation, maintenance and proper removal of the erosion control facilities shall be required prior to final inspection approval. • ' 7. The applicant shall appropriately design the surface water detention system to provide detention for the 100-year storm event with a 30% safety factor. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be • subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of. Construction Permits for the project. . Chateau at Valley Center LUA-02-012,ECF,SA-H Mitigation Measures(continued) • Page2of2 8. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $0.52 per gross square foot of new building area prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on a rate of$75.00 per net new average trip generated by the project prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $354.51 per new unit, with credits for developer provided on-site recreation facilities and dementia units, prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department and the City Attorney that they have negotiated a joint use parking facility that reserves 50 parking spaces for a minimum of five years duration. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the approval of the Building Department and by the City Attorney. FF • •Y "i. �;. ` _ s • • • MITMEASURES CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-02-012, ECF, SA-H APPLICANT: Davis Avenue Associates, LLC PROJECT NAME: Chateau at Valley Center DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Hearing Examiner Site Plan approval for an assisted living retirement community to be named the "Chateau at Valley Center." The subject site is 2.77 acres in size and is relatively flat with no known sensitive or critical areas. The project would construct 179 units, plus administrative offices, two dining rooms, a commercial kitchen, lounges, recreational and activity areas, an indoor pool, a laundry, service areas, and other necessary rooms and common areas - all within a four-story, wood frame building of 179,241 gross square feet. The building would arrive at a height of 50 feet above finished grade and would include a partial basement level. Approximately 103 parking stalls, including surface and garage spaces, would be provided. The project also includes the installation of landscaping, paths,walkways, outdoor recreation areas, as well as all necessary utility and street.il;nprovements. Project construction is anticipated to begin in September of 2002 with estimated completion in October of 2003 :4 r LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Northeast,Corner yof Davis Avenge:South &South 45th Place ¢�r• a ',x Sri Advisory Notes to Applicant {` 4. is ` rh r The following notes are supplemental ;information provided ,n conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes area provided`as:information,only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. a`" rt .1`t::Jy. Y ` " i,..j,.��`.,y.yk:K�S,`.x+,• � .,f"y..,�y : Planning • z>. 1: The subject site is located within the Commercial Office'(CO),zoning with a Public Use (P-suffix) designation and Center Institution (CI) Compreh1ensive Plan Land Use Map designation.., �3r 2. When located. within P-suffix designation, ;a,;proposal is subject,to additional notification requirements when proposing a change of use for the:property;, Pursuant-to;'RCM 9sectjon 4-3-080, the applicant has provided notification for and has held a public_.meeting to'2discuse'',the-proposal: A summary of the meeting, which was held on March 1, 2002, is contained Within'the official'land use file - i 3. The proposed assisted living facility is considerea'a prirnary permitted use within the. CO zone, provided the project is located within the CI Comprehensive Plan designation and is demonstrated to serve a community need. 4. The development project is classified as a commercial use. Therefore, Impact Mitigation Fees, as well as Utility System Development Charges,will be based on the applicable commercial rates. In addition,the proposal is not subject to density requirements or residential standards. 5. If phasing is intended for the development of the facility,the applicant is required to provide additional information indicating the portions of the site intended for separate phases, as well as the projected construction periods for each phase. If necessary,this information should be provided prior to the public hearing for the project. 6. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. Property Services 1. The legal description for the property included in the application materials references the incorrect quarter section. The correct quarter section is NE, not SW. An amended legal description will be required prior to the public hearing for the project. Chateau at Valley Center . LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF . Advisory Notes (continued) • 1Page 2 of 3 . 2. .The legal description is technically flawed, as currently noted in the attachment.to the Land Use Permit Master Application and on the ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY document. The legal description includes a non- tangent curve with no basis of bearing noted for said curve. The recording number of a lot line adjustment(LLA- 023-9), noted in said legal, is incorrect. It would be best to simplify and correct the legal description as follows: • Lots 10 and 11,•One Valley Place, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Volume 125 of Plats, Pages 40 and 41, records of King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH Lot 2 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-023-91, as recorded under King County Recording No. • • 9108069008, King County, Washington. All situate in the NE quarter of Section 31, Township 23 . North, Range 5 East,W.M., in the City of Renton, King County,Washington, Fire Prevention 1. The preliminary fire flow is 5,000•gpm. One fire hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and four . additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. • 2. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 3. Fire Department access roadways are requjredatb`hbe within 150 feet of all portions of the building's exterior. ' . Roadways must be a minimum of 20 feet In,widthawith a turning radius of 45 feet on.the outside and 25 feet on the inside. Y f Via. • 4. Fire Department dead-end access roadwaysPl over 150"feet ins length are required to have an approved turnaround. The turnaround att;`thd souti ea"st corner of the sits does potmeet current code requirements and must be enlarged to meet Fire Department requirements. `, ,, "'^. , , 5. A list of flammable, combustible liquids and;ariy hazardousW chemicals to.be used or stored on site must be . provided. ...,, ..m.y;',; ; 4. a1 E4, br, s :,,,Tj.,;�r z ;4,A,. r ',_ fit a gr F�4,j Y %. Plan Review—Water w ::`3 f • '`' as s x ;;^. 1. The site is outside the Aquifer=Protecti�n Area. ""' 'A 2. There is a 12-inch water main in'•Davis Ave,South and a 12-inch•water¢main in South 45th Place. The derated fire flow available is 5,000 gpm. Static Pres<sure;is.•1;03°psi ;.Pressure Zone is 350. 0 3. Water System Development Charges (SDt ) are$0 54 per square-foot of property.. This fee must be paid prior to issuance of the construction permit. _ )wm,:: :`: a` `'' 4. Additional hydrants will be required. Existing hydrants must be retrofitted with Storz"quick disconnect"fittings. • 5. Separate utility permits and plans will be required for the installation of the double detector check valve assembly (DDCVA) for fire sprinkler systems. If backflow device is to be installed inside the building, applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing location and installation.of the device as part of the utility plan submittal. • 6. For buildings exceeding 30 feet in height, a backflow device is required to be installed on the domestic water meter. . Plan Review—Sanitary Sewer • 1. There is an 8-inch sewer main in Davis Ave South. • 2. Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges will apply and are$0.106 per square-foot of the property. 3. Valley Medical Center South Talbot Special Assessment District fees apply. Fees have been determined to.be . $5,799.70. , • advisorynotes . Chateau at Valley Center . LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF Advisory Notes(continued) Page3of3 • -'4. Swimming pool facilities must drain to sanitary sewer. The City will need additional information.on discharge means and flow rate. The City may require a downstream analysis for sewer capacity. '5. If commercial food preparation facilities are proposed,then a grease trap will be required. 16. All parking garages shall require floor drains and shall be connected to the sanitary sewer. .Flows shall be • directed through floor drains that are installed in accordance with the UPC to an exterior oiVwater separator. The separator shall be sized to meet a minimum 15 minute retention time for peak flows anticipated in the garage • 1 area,,but in no case will be less than 200 gallons of storage capacity. The type of interceptor shall be as manufactured by Pipe Inc., Utility Vault Inc.,or approved equal. Plan Review-Surface Water • 1. - There are storm water facilities in South 45th Place and the North portion.of Davis Ave South. 2. The Surface Water System Development Charges of$0.183 per square-foot of new impervious area of property applies to the proposed project. • 3. A drainage report per the 1990 KCSWDMrhas€been submitted. Due to downstream flooding and erosion problems,this project will be required to°provide detention for the 10U-year storm event with a 30%safety factor. 4. The applicant will be required to sibmit:separate"structurfalaplans folr review and approval under a building permit . for proposed detention and water qualiyy vault. Special inspection"from ttikbuilding department is required. .. N�.k V Plan Review-Transportation ry'" i C `°s�f w°= sI,N,. _`; • • ' 3" 3 `,;?- „,,,',A.'- 1;'�. '' e-'-, , :ss 1.. There is curb fronting the property t Davis£Ave°Sth and i����South 45- lace 2. Sidewalk,curb and gutter,storm and street3lighti�g will,be required if not already in place. 3. No• parkingsins on sections of Davi0Ve South will be re uired.� :_ • . 9 , .d, . , q <P r . •. 4. Local Improvements District fees'(LID#329).awill apply. `''` •4•..c" ,9 Plan Review-General . ''`tA,..N t e: V i s.' ''' 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards "','' 2. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. . 3. Separate permits for side sewers, water meters and backflow device are 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 at the sixth floor counter. A fee worksheet is attached for your use, but prior to preparing a check it is recommended to call 425-430-7266 for a fee estimate as generated by the'permit system. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for securing all necessary easements for utilities and/or street improvements. • Building • 1. A building permit is required for any retaining wall of 4 feet or greater in height. • 2. The project is required to comply with the 1997 Uniform Building Code. 3. A preliminary code meeting with the Building Section is recommended. 4. Monitoring by a Geotechnical Engineer will be required for foundations,shoring, etc. advisorynotes CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-02-012, ECF, SA-H' APPLICANT: Davis Avenue Associates, LLC PROJECT NAME: Chateau at Valley Center DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Hearing Examiner Site Plan approval for an assisted living retirement community to be named the "Chateau at Valley Center." The subject site is 2.77 acres in size and is relatively flat with no known sensitive or critical areas. The project would construct 179 units, plus administrative offices, two dining rooms, a commercial kitchen, lounges, recreational and activity areas, an indoor pool, a laundry, service areas, and other necessary rooms and common areas - all within a four-story, wood frame building of 179,241 gross square feet. The building would arrive at a height of 50 feet above finished grade and would include a partial basement level. Approximately 103 parking stalls, including surface and garage spaces, would be provided. The project also includes the installation of landscaping, paths, walkways, outdoor recreation areas, as well as all necessary utility and street improvements. Project construction is anticipated to begin in September of 2002 with estimated completion in October of 2003. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Northeast Corner of Davis Avenue South &South 45th 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. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM April 29,2002. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: April 15,2002 DATE OF DECISION: April 09, 2002 SIGNATURES: Preg �0g Zi y ;-rm ' • inistr�tor DATE / 1/ Department .f PI nning/Building/Public Works 1 , L.;___e_0( /1 (6:------ im Shepherd, Ad ~inistr or DATE ommunity Services -V- 9- QT000,..__ Lee heeler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department dnsmsignature CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-02-012, ECF, SA-H APPLICANT: Davis Avenue Associates, LLC PROJECT NAME: Chateau at Valley Center. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Hearing Examiner Site Plan approval for an assisted living retirement community to be named the "Chateau at Valley Center." The subject site is 2.77 acres in size and is relatively flat with no known sensitive or critical areas. The project would construct 179 units, plus administrative offices, two dining rooms, a commercial kitchen, lounges, recreational and activity areas, an indoor pool, a commercial laundry, service areas, and other necessary rooms and common areas - all within a four-story, wood frame building of 179,241 gross square feet. The building would arrive at a height of 50 feet above finished grade and would include a partial basement level. Approximately 100 parking stalls, including surface and garage spaces, would be provided. The project also includes the installation of landscaping, paths, walkways, outdoor recreation areas, as well as all necessary utility and street improvements. Project construction is anticipated to begin in September of 2002 with estimated completion in October of 2003. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Northeast Corner of Davis Avenue South &South 45th Street MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Report prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated January 16, 2002 with regard to site preparation, general earthwork, foundation support, retaining walls, site drainage, and excavation shoring. The satisfaction of these requirements shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the project. 2. 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. 3. The applicant shall install a silt fence along the down slope perimeter of the area that is to be disturbed. The silt fence shall be in place before clearing and grading is initiated, and shall be constructed in conformance with the specifications presented in of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. This will be required during the construction of both off-site and on-site improvements as well as building construction. 4. Shallow drainage swales shall be constructed to intercept surface water flow and route the flow away from the construction area to a stabilized discharge point. Vegetation growth shall be established in the ditch by seeding or placing sod. Depending on site grades, it may be necessary to line the ditch with rock to protect the ditch from erosion and to reduce flow rates. The design and construction of drainage swales shall conform to the specifications presented in KCSWDM. Temporary pipe systems can also be used to convey storm water across the site. This will be required during the construction of both off-site and on-site improvements as well as building construction. 5. The project contractor shall perform daily review and maintenance of all erosion and sedimentation control measures at the site during the construction of both off-site and on-site improvements as well as building construction. 6. Weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the project Engineer of record to the public works inspector. Certification of the installation, maintenance and proper removal of the erosion control facilities shall be required prior to final inspection approval. 7. The applicant shall appropriately design the surface water detention system to provide detention for the 100-year storm event with a 30% safety factor. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of Construction Permits for the project. Chateau at Valley Center LUA-02-012,ECF,SA-H Mitigation Measures (continued) Page 2 of 2 8. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $0.52 per gross square foot of new building area prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on a rate of$75.00 per net new average trip generated by the project prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $354.51 per new unit, with credits for developer provided on-site recreation facilities and dementia units, prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department and the City Attorney that they have negotiated a joint use parking facility that reserves 50 parking spaces for a minimum of five years duration. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the approval of the Building Department and by the City Attorney. MITMEASURES CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES !APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-02-012, ECF, SA-H APPLICANT: Davis Avenue Associates, LLC I PROJECT NAME: Chateau at Valley Center DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Hearing Examiner Site Plan approval for an assisted living retirement community to be named the "Chateau at Valley Center." The subject site is 2.77 acres in size and is relatively flat with no known sensitive or critical areas. The project would construct 179 units, plus administrative offices, two dining rooms, a commercial kitchen, lounges, recreational and activity areas, an indoor pool, a commercial laundry, service areas, and other necessary rooms and common areas - all within a four-story, wood frame building of 179,241 gross square feet. The building would arrive at a height of 50 feet above finished grade and would include a partial basement level. Approximately 100 parking stalls, including surface and garage spaces, would be provided. The project also includes the installation of landscaping, paths, walkways, outdoor recreation areas, as well as all necessary utility and street improvements. Project construction is anticipated to begin in September of 2002 with estimated completion in October of 2003. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Northeast Corner of Davis Avenue South &South 45th 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. Planning 1. The subject site is located within the Commercial Office (CO) zoning with a Public Use (P-suffix) designation and Center Institution (CI) Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation. 2. When located within P-suffix designation, a proposal is subject to additional notification requirements when proposing a change of use for the property. Pursuant to RCM section 4-3-080, the applicant has provided notification for and has held a public meeting to discuss the proposal. A summary of the meeting, which was held on March 1,2002, is contained within the official land use file. 3. The proposed assisted living facility is considered a primary permitted use within the CO zone, provided the project is located within the CI Comprehensive Plan designation and is demonstrated to serve a community need. 4. The development project is classified as a commercial use. Therefore, Impact Mitigation Fees, as well as Utility System Development Charges, will be based on the applicable commercial rates. In addition, the proposal is not subject to density requirements or residential standards. 5. If phasing is intended for the development of the facility,the applicant is required to provide additional information indicating the portions of the site intended for separate phases, as well as the projected construction periods for each phase. If necessary,this information should be provided prior to the public hearing for the project. 6. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. Property Services 1. The legal description for the property included in the application materials references the incorrect quarter section. The correct quarter section is NE, not SW. An amended legal description will be required prior to the public hearing for the project. Chateau at Valley Center LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF Advisory Notes (continued) Page 2 of 3 2. The legal description is technically flawed, as currently noted in the attachment to the Land Use Permit Master Application and on the ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY document. The legal description includes a non- tangent curve with no basis of bearing noted for said curve. The recording number of a lot line adjustment (LLA- 023-9), noted in said legal, is incorrect. It would be best to simplify and correct the legal description as follows: Lots 10 and 11, One Valley Place, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Volume 125 of Plats, Pages 40 and 41, records of King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH Lot 2 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-023-91, as recorded under King County Recording No. 9108069008, King County, Washington. All situate in the NE quarter of Section 31, Township 23 North, Range 5 East,W.M., in the City of Renton, King County,Washington. Fire Prevention 1. The preliminary fire flow is 5,000 gpm. One fire hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and four additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 3. Fire Department access roadways are required to be within 150 feet of all portions of the building's exterior. Roadways must be a minimum of 20 feet in width with a turning radius of 45 feet on the outside and 25 feet on the inside. 4. Fire Department dead-end access roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. The turnaround at the southeast corner of the site does not meet current code requirements and must be enlarged to meet Fire Department requirements. 5. A list of flammable, combustible liquids and any hazardous chemicals to be used or stored on site must be provided. Plan Review—Water 1. The site is outside the Aquifer Protection Area. 2. There is a 12-inch water main in Davis Ave South and a 12-inch water main in South 45th Place. The derated fire flow available is 5,000 gpm. Static Pressure is 103 psi. Pressure Zone is 350. 3. Water System Development Charges (SDC) are$0.154 per square-foot of property. This fee must be paid prior to issuance of the construction permit. 4. Additional hydrants will be required. Existing hydrants must be retrofitted with Storz"quick disconnect"fittings. 5. Separate utility permits and plans will be required for the installation of the double detector check valve assembly (DDCVA) for fire sprinkler systems. If backflow device is to be installed inside the building, applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing location and installation of the device as part of the utility plan submittal. 6. For buildings exceeding 30 feet in height, a backflow device is required to be installed on the domestic water meter. Plan Review—Sanitary Sewer 1. There is an 8-inch sewer main in Davis Ave South. 2. Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges will apply and are$0.106 per square-foot of the property. 3. Valley Medical Center South Talbot Special Assessment District fees apply. Fees have been determined to be $5,799.70. advisory notes Chateau at Valley Center LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF Advisory Notes (continued) Page 3 of 3 4. Swimming pool facilities must drain to sanitary sewer. The City will need additional information on discharge means and flow rate. The City may require a downstream analysis for sewer capacity. 5. If commercial food preparation facilities are proposed,then a grease trap will be required. 6. All parking garages shall require floor drains and shall be connected to the sanitary sewer. Flows shall be directed through floor drains that are installed in accordance with the UPC to an exterior oil/water separator. The separator shall be sized to meet a minimum 15 minute retention time for peak flows anticipated in the garage area, but in no case will be less than 200 gallons of storage capacity. The type of interceptor shall be as manufactured by Pipe Inc., Utility Vault Inc., or approved equal. Plan Review—Surface Water 1. There are storm water facilities in South 45th Place and the North portion of Davis Ave South. 2. The Surface Water System Development Charges of$0.183 per square-foot of new impervious area of property applies to the proposed project. 3. A drainage report per the 1990 KCSWDM has been submitted. Due to downstream flooding and erosion problems,this project will be required to provide detention for the 100-year storm event with a 30%safety factor. 4. The applicant will be required to submit separate structural plans for review and approval under a building permit for proposed detention and water quality vault. Special inspection from the building department is required. Plan Review—Transportation 1. There is curb fronting the property in Davis Ave South and in South 45th Place. 2. Sidewalk, curb and gutter, storm and street lighting will be required if not already in place. 3. No parking signs on sections of Davis Ave South will be required. 4. Local Improvements District fees (LID#329) will apply. Plan Review—General 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards 2.- All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 3. Separate permits for side sewers, water meters and backflow device are 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 at the sixth floor counter. A fee worksheet is attached for your use, but prior to preparing a check it is recommended to call 425-430-7266 for a fee estimate as generated by the permit system. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for securing all necessary easements for utilities and/or street improvements. Building 1. A building permit is required for any retaining wall of 4 feet or greater in height. 2. The project is required to comply with the 1997 Uniform Building Code. 3. A preliminary code meeting with the Building Section is recommended. 4. Monitoring by a Geotechnical Engineer will be required for foundations, shoring, etc. advisorynotes STAFF City of Renton REPORT Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE April 9, 2002 Project Name: Chateau at Valley Center Applicant: Davis Avenue Associates, LLC File Number: LUA-02-012, ECF, SA-H Project Manager: Susan Fiala Project Description: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Hearing Examiner Site Plan approval for an assisted living retirement community to be named the "Chateau at Valley Center." The subject site is 2.77 acres in size and is relatively flat with no known sensitive or critical areas. The project would construct 179 units, plus administrative offices, two dining rooms, a commercial kitchen, lounges, recreational and activity areas, an indoor pool, a laundry, service areas, and other necessary rooms and common areas - all within a four-story, wood frame building of 179,241 gross square feet. The building would arrive at a height of 50 feet above finished grade and would include a partial basement level. Approximately 103 parking stalls, including surface and garage spaces, would be provided. The project also includes the installation of landscaping, paths, walkways, outdoor recreation areas, as well as 1 all necessary utility and street improvements. Project construction is anticipated to begin in September of 2002 with estimated completion in October of 2003. Project Location: Northeast Corner of Davis Avenue South &South 45th Place Exist. Bldg. Area gsf: N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area: 179,241 sf Site Area: 2.77 acres Total Building Area gsf: 179,241 sf RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated(DNS-M). ' I';A ti i, a :', d 111 / / 7./Y'. � " . / h C • O , � 1, a ! , f ) -fi b► ' . ,=2.0 • yy Q film pC E N E ) g P : 1w i ai rr ,".2 i, a" %``yea=,m' • ., ` ._p l-ent �a 1- " t pt-er VIEW _ : =;j c _ 1, jai® p, glo()r9 i ,`,,~, - `___ 6 ti' tttA a ; 1, SW 43RD °4 1 • . 3601'1 63 III : s V'. 4, . !I .., N i O m o li w e sr.ro of w.Inugwn ` / �0•/1 C: 4 '. I� ®Lea Ac ��/ � M Ti3 wei. v` n`T.''_ M Alln flii O '' ' ® I / MI W wm� '3 � �'F S. 45TH PLm eMfe of Muhhgron, s 1 Project Location Map ! a +� ? s' City of Renton P/B/PW Department Envii ental Review Committee Staff Report CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER LUA-02-012,ECF, SA-H REPORT OF APRIL 9, 2002 Page 2 of 7 B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE XX NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. XX Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Earth Impacts: The subject site is relatively flat with a gradual slope downwards to the north and west. Maximum slopes of 5%exist on-site. The property is not designated on the City's Critical Areas Maps and does not appear to contain any sensitive areas. The property is currently undeveloped and is heavily vegetated with deciduous trees and ground cover. Earthwork activities for site preparation and construction are estimated at minimal quantities. The majority of the project site would be cleared of vegetation for project construction, including the removal of approximately 11 maple trees ranging in size from 12-inches to 24-inches in caliper. The proposal does include the creation of approximately 41,030 square feet, or 34% of the site, of combined new landscape areas involving trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. With the land use application, the applicant submitted a Geotechnical Report prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated January 16, 2002. Field explorations indicate loose to medium dense silty sand and sandy silt soils underlie the site. Groundwater seepage was observed at several test pit locations at depths of approximately 2 to 7 feet. The report concludes that the construction of the project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Due to the variability in soil conditions and soil density observed on the site, the report concludes that the building should be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on competent native soils or structural fill. In addition,the construction of a retaining wall to replace the existing block wall located along the southeast corner of the site would be necessary. In addition, the report includes recommendations with regard to site preparation, general earthwork, foundation support, retaining walls, site drainage, and excavation shoring — all of which staff recommends the applicant be required to comply with in order to mitigate potential earth impacts. Potential erosion impacts that could occur during project construction would be mitigated by City Code requirements for approval of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) pursuant to the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of Construction Permits. However, in order to ensure potential impacts are adequately addressed, staff recommends the applicant be required to comply with temporary erosion control measures as specified below for the duration of project construction. Mitigation Measures: a. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Report prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated January 16, 2002 with regard to site preparation, general earthwork, foundation support, retaining walls, site drainage, and excavation shoring. The satisfaction of these requirements shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the project. b. 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. c. The applicant shall install a silt fence along the down slope perimeter of the area that is to be disturbed. The silt fence shall be in place before clearing and grading is initiated, and shall be constructed in conformance ercrptApril9th.doc Cityof Renton P/B/PW Department Envir �ntal Review Committee Staff Report P CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER LUA-02-012,ECF, SA-H REPORT OF APRIL 9,2002 Page 3 of 7 with the specifications presented in of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. This will be required during the construction of both off-site and on-site improvements as well as building construction. d. Shallow drainage swales shall be constructed to intercept surface water flow and route the flow away from the construction area to a stabilized discharge point. Vegetation growth shall be established in the ditch by seeding or placing sod. Depending on site grades, it may be necessary to line the ditch with rock to protect the ditch from erosion and to reduce flow rates. The design and construction of drainage swales shall conform to the specifications presented in KCSWDM. Temporary pipe systems can also be used to convey storm water across the site. This will be required during the construction of both off-site and on-site improvements as well as building construction. e. The project contractor shall perform daily review and maintenance of all erosion and sedimentation control measures at the site during the construction of both off-site and on-site improvements as well as building construction. f. Weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the project Engineer of record to the public works inspector. Certification of the installation, maintenance and proper removal of the erosion control facilities shall be required prior to final inspection approval. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 2. Water Impacts: The applicant has submitted a Drainage Report prepared by Site Development Services dated January 7, 2002 with the land use application. According to the report, surface water presently drains to the north side of the property where it is collected in a 12-inch storm system located in Davis Avenue South. This system drains into an 18-inch concrete pipe that extends north within South 43rd Street and eventually discharges to a channel along the east side of State Route 167. The proposed development intends to direct on-site runoff to a wet vault to be located in the north end of the site (beneath the proposed parking area). The vault is designed to accommodate storm water detention and treatment pursuant to the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). However, due to downstream flooding and erosion problems, staff recommends that the applicant be required to provide detention for the 100-year storm event with a 30% safety factor. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall appropriately design the surface water detention system to provide detention for the 100-year storm event with a 30% safety factor. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of Construction Permits for the project. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 3. Fire Prevention Impacts: Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development project provided the applicant completes required improvements and makes payment of necessary fees. The proposal would include the construction of new building area that would potentially impact the City's Fire Department. Therefore, a Fire Mitigation Fee estimated at $93,205.32 (179,241 square feet x $0.52 = $93,205.32) is required for the proposal. The payment of the fee is required prior to the issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $0.52 per gross square foot of new building area prior to the issuance of building permits. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 2913, Ordinance 4527. 4. Transportation Impacts: The site is triangular in shape and abuts Davis Avenue South on the northwest and South 45th Place on the south. Three access points are proposed with the development, including two (2) on the site's Davis Avenue frontage and one (1) on the South 45th Place frontage. Specifically, the southern most driveway on Davis Avenue South would provide access to the facility's main courtyard entrance which is designed as a circular drop-off/pick-up area, as well as to the parking area located at the front of the building. The northern driveway access on Davis Avenue would enter the facility's parking garage. The access point on the south side of the site off of South 45th Place would provide access to the surface parking area at the rear of the building. ercrptApril9th.doc City of Renton P/8/PW Department Envir .ntal Review Committee Staff Report CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER LUA-02-012,ECF, SA-H REPORT OF APRIL 9, 2002 Page 4 of 7 Public transit is available approximately 1,000 feet north of the site at the intersection of Talbot Avenue South and SW 43rd Street. The project would also include 30 parking stalls within the basement level of the building, 39 stalls in the parking area on the front side of the facility, and 34 stalls at the rear of the building —for a total of 103 on-site parking stalls for the facility. Garage parking would be assigned to residents. Surface lot parking would not be assigned to staff, visitors or residents. In addition to on-site parking, there are other proposed parking and transportation options available for staff, visitors and residents. • To the west of the site, there are two large surface parking lots under the ownership of Valley Medical Center. These lots would be available for use through an agreement with Valley Medical Center. The size of these existing lots may provide over 100 additional spaces. The draft agreement/letter to Davis Avenue Associates LLC from Valley Medical Center would only grant Davis Avenue Associates (Chateau at Valley Center) access to its offsite parking at One Valley Place for"overflow parking for events".This access may be revoked,with notice, at any time by Valley Medical Center. • The Chateau at Valley Center proposes to purchase and operate a shuttle coach (or coaches)to provide transportation for residents. This transportation alternative would be to drive residents to shopping, entertainment, medical and other venues as needed. • Bus passes for employees may also be provided due to the close proximity to the transit system being located approximately three blocks away. • On-street parking is available on the west side of Davis Avenue South. The applicant has provided an off-street parking analysis which has been attached. The analysis provided an ' explanation of the facility's services and the function of parking. The following outlines several similar Chateau communities located in the metropolitan area with their available parking. Existing Communities Location Units Parking Spaces Ratio Chateau at Peters Creek Redmond, WA 63 units 22 spaces .35 spaces per unit Chateau Marymoor Redmond, WA 59 units 23 spaces .39 spaces per unit Chateau Pacific Lynnwood, WA 212 units 95 spaces .45 spaces per unit Chateau at Bothell Landing Bothell, WA 88 units 50 spaces .57 spaces per unit Proposed Community Chateau at Valley Center Renton, WA 179 units 103 spaces .58 spaces per unit Of the 179 units proposed, approximately 15 will be dementia care. The applicant indicates that these individuals would not have automobiles. Staffing will take place 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Once the facility is full, it is estimated that there would be a total of 18 employees. These employees would be encouraged to use public transit or carpool. Visitors vary by day and time of week, but tend to visit primarily during evenings and on weekends. To mitigate the potential impact of insufficient parking, an agreement (joint-use contract) for joint use parking as outlined in RMC 4-14-4:E.1 between Davis Avenue Associates and Valley Medical Center is recommended. The code states that joint use parking may be authorized for those uses which have dissimilar peak-hour demands during the non-peak hours of the lessor. In addition, the joint-use parking must be provided within 750 feet from the buildings or use areas it is intended to serve. A joint-use contract, covering a minimum of five years shall be approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department and by the City Attorney for such a parking arrangement to be allowed. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to provide 50 reserved parking spaces in a parking lot located across Davis Avenue South at One Valley Place to provide for those occasions when on-site parking is fully occupied. The proposal would result in an increase in traffic trips to the City's street system; therefore, staff recommends a Traffic Mitigation Fee be imposed on the project. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is based on a rate of $75.00 per new average daily trip generated by the project. For the proposal, the fee is estimated at $28,875.00 ($75.00 x 385 new trips = $28,875.00). The fee is payable prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. Mitigation Measures: a. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on a rate of$75.00 per net new average trip generated by the project prior to the issuance of building permits. b. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department and the City Attorney that they have negotiated a joint use parking facility that reserves 50 parking spaces for a minimum of ercrptApril9th.doc 1 City of Renton P/B/PW Department Envir )ntal Review Committee Staff Report CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER LUA-02-012,ECF, SA-H REPORT OF APRIL 9,2002 Page 5 of 7 five years duration. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the approval of the Building Department and by the City Attorney. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Transportation Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 3100, Ordinance 4527. 5. Parks and Recreation Impacts: The proposal includes 179 residential units. It has been determined that an impact to existing City park and recreational facilities (e.g. Renton Senior Center) and programs would be created by utilization of these facilities and programs by the new residents of the facility. Therefore, a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $354.51 per each new unit will be required. The Chateau at Valley Center will provide on-site recreation facilities and thus the developer is allowed up to a 33% credit of their share of the park impact fee value. A second credit will be allowed for the dementia units. A total of approximately 15 dementia units are proposed at this time. Changes to the total number and type of units will affect the final parks mitigation fee. The fee would be calculated as follows: [(179 units minus the number of dementia units) x $354.51 = 100% fee] then take the (100% fee x 66% = Total Fee). The fee is estimated at $38,372.16 [((179 units— 15 dementia units) x $354.51) x 66% = $38,372.16] and is payable prior to the issuance of building permits Mitigation Measures:. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $354.51 per new unit, with credits for developer provided on-site recreation facilities and dementia units, prior to the issuance of building permits. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Parks Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 3082, Ordinance 4527. D. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Report prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated January 16, 2002 with regard to site preparation, general earthwork, foundation support, retaining walls, site drainage, and excavation shoring. The satisfaction of these requirements shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the project. 2. 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. 3. The applicant shall install a silt fence along the down slope perimeter of the area that is to be disturbed. The silt fence shall be in place before clearing and grading is initiated, and shall be constructed in conformance with the specifications presented in of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. This will be required during the construction of both off-site and on-site improvements as well as building construction. 4. Shallow drainage swales shall be constructed to intercept surface water flow and route the flow away from the construction area to a stabilized discharge point. Vegetation growth shall be established in the ditch by seeding or placing sod. Depending on site grades, it may be necessary to line the ditch with rock to, protect the ditch from erosion and to reduce flow rates. The design and construction of drainage swales shall conform to the specifications presented in KCSWDM. Temporary pipe systems can also be used to convey storm water across the site. This will be required during the construction of both off-site and on-site improvements as well as building construction. 5. The project contractor shall perform daily review and maintenance of all erosion and sedimentation control measures at the site during the construction of both off-site and on-site improvements as well as building construction. 6. Weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the project Engineer of record to the public works inspector. Certification of the installation, maintenance and proper removal of the erosion control facilities shall be required prior to final inspection approval. 7. The applicant shall appropriately design the surface water detention system to provide detention for the 100- 1 year storm event with a 30% safety factor. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of Construction Permits for the project. ercrptApril9th.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Envir antal Review Committee Staff Report ' CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER LUA-02-012,ECF, SA-H REPORT OF APRIL 9, 2002 Page 6 of 7 8. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of$0.52 per gross square foot of new building area prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on a rate of$75.00 per net new average trip generated by the project prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $354.51 per new unit, with credits for developer provided on-site recreation facilities and dementia units, prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department and the City Attorney that they have negotiated a joint use parking facility that reserves 50 parking spaces for a minimum of five years duration. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the approval of the Building Department and by the City Attorney. 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. 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. Planning 1. The subject site is located within the Commercial Office (CO) zoning with a Public Use (P-suffix) designation and Center Institution (CI) Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation. 2. When located within P-suffix designation, a proposal is subject to additional notification requirements when proposing a change of use for the property. Pursuant to RCM section 4-3-080, the applicant has provided notification for and has held a public meeting to discuss the proposal. A summary of the meeting, which was held on March 1, 2002, is contained within the official land use file. 3. The proposed assisted living facility is considered a primary permitted use within the CO zone, provided the project is located within the CI Comprehensive Plan designation and is demonstrated to serve a community need. 4. The development project is classified as a commercial use. Therefore, Impact Mitigation Fees, as well as Utility System Development Charges, will be based on the applicable commercial rates. In addition, the proposal is not subject to density requirements or residential standards. 5. If phasing is intended for the development of the facility, the applicant is required to provide additional information indicating the portions of the site intended for separate phases, as well as the projected construction periods for each phase. If necessary, this information should be provided prior to the public hearing for the project. 6. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. Property Services 1. The legal description for the property included in the application materials references the incorrect quarter section. The correct quarter section is NE, not SW. An amended legal description will be required prior to the public hearing for the project. 2. The legal description is technically flawed, as currently noted in the attachment to the Land Use Permit Master Application and on the ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY document. The legal description includes a non- tangent curve with no basis of bearing noted for said curve. The recording number of a lot line adjustment (LLA- 023-9), noted in said legal, is incorrect. It would be best to simplify and correct the legal description as follows: Lots 10 and 11, One Valley Place, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Volume 125 of Plats, Pages 40 and 41, records of King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH Lot 2 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-023-91, as recorded under King County Recording No. 9108069008, King County, Washington. All situate in the NE quarter of ercrptApril9th.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Envir .ntal Review Committee Staff Report CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER LUA-02-012,ECF, SA-H REPORT OF APRIL 9, 2002 Page 7 of 7 Section 31, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. Fire Prevention 1. The preliminary fire flow is 5,000 gpm. One fire hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and four additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 3. Fire Department access roadways are required to be within 150 feet of all portions of the building's exterior. Roadways must be a minimum of 20 feet in width with a turning radius of 45 feet on the outside and 25 feet on the inside. 4. Fire Department dead-end access roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. The turnaround at the southeast corner of the site does not meet current code requirements and must be enlarged to meet Fire Department requirements. 5. A list of flammable, combustible liquids and any hazardous chemicals to be used or stored on site must be provided. Plan Review—Water 1. The site is outside the Aquifer Protection Area. 2. There is a 12-inch water main in Davis Ave South and a 12-inch water main in South 45th Place. The derated fire flow available is 5,000 gpm. Static Pressure is 103 psi. Pressure Zone is 350. 3. Water System Development Charges (SDC) are $0.154 per square-foot of property. This fee must be paid prior to issuance of the construction permit. 4. Additional hydrants will be required. Existing hydrants must be retrofitted with Storz"quick disconnect"fittings. 5. Separate utility permits and plans will be required for the installation of the double detector check valve assembly (DDCVA)for fire sprinkler systems. If backflow device is to be installed inside the building, applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing location and installation of the device as part of the utility plan submittal. 6. For buildings exceeding 30 feet in height, a backflow device is required to be installed on the domestic water meter. Plan Review—Sanitary Sewer 1. There is an 8-inch sewer main in Davis Ave South. 2. Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges will apply and are $0.106 per square-foot of the property. 3. Valley Medical Center South Talbot Special Assessment District fees apply. Fees have been determined to be $5,799.70. 4. Swimming pool facilities must drain to sanitary sewer. The City will need additional information on discharge means and flow rate. The City may require a downstream analysis for sewer capacity. 5. If commercial food preparation facilities are proposed, then a grease trap will be required. 6. All parking garages shall require floor drains and shall be connected to the sanitary sewer. Flows shall be directed through floor drains that are installed in accordance with the UPC to an exterior oil/water separator. The separator shall be sized to meet a minimum 15 minute retention time for peak flows anticipated in the garage area, but in no case will be less than 200 gallons of storage capacity. The type of interceptor shall be as manufactured by Pipe Inc., Utility Vault Inc., or approved equal. Plan Review—Surface Water 1. There are storm water facilities in South 45th Place and the North portion of Davis Ave South. 2. The Surface Water System Development Charges of$0.183 per square-foot of new impervious area of property applies to the proposed project. 3. A drainage report per the 1990 KCSWDM has been submitted. Due to downstream flooding and erosion problems,this project will be required to provide detention for the 100-year storm event with a 30%safety factor. 4. The applicant will be required to submit separate structural plans for review and approval under a building permit for proposed detention and water quality vault. Special inspection from the building department is required. Plan Review—Transportation 1. There is curb fronting the property in Davis Ave South and in South 45th Place. 2. Sidewalk, curb and gutter, storm and street lighting will be required if not already in place. 3. No parking signs on sections of Davis Ave South will be required. 4. Local Improvements District fees (LID#329)will apply. Plan Review—General 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards 2. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 3. Separate permits for side sewers,water meters and backflow device are 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 at the sixth floor counter. A fee worksheet is attached for your use, but prior to preparing a check it is ercrptApril9th.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Envir ntal Review Committee Staff Report CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER LUA-02-012, ECF, SA-H REPORT OF APRIL 9,2002 Page 8 of 7 recommended to call 425-430-7266 for a fee estimate as generated by the permit system. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for securing all necessary easements for utilities and/or street improvements. Building 1. A building permit is required for any retaining wall of 4 feet or greater in height. 2. The project is required to comply with the 1997 Uniform Building Code. 3. A preliminary code meeting with the Building Section is recommended. 4. Monitoring by a Geotechnical Engineer will be required for foundations, shoring, etc. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM April 29, 2002. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. ercrptApril9th.doc M l Off-Street Parking Analysis/Study Chateau at Valley Center Assisted Living Retirement Community File No. LUA-02-012-ECF-SA-H March 25, 2002 General: Chateau at Valley Center is to be a Retirement Community offering 179 units of Assisted Living, including approximately 15 units of Dementia Care. The facility will be located at the northeast corner of S. 45th Place and Davis Avenue S. in Renton, WA. 98055 and is situated one block south of Valley Medical Center. Residents: Most of the residents are over seventy years old, with many in their • eighties or nineties. By nature, these senior citizen residents are relatively immobile and their infirmities preclude them from owning or driving a car. Licensing: The entire facility will be licensed by the State of Washington as a boarding home under their regulations contained in chapter 246-316 of the Washington Administrative Code for assisted living residence. As such, the facility will be largely self-contained and will provide all basic and special services to residents. The self-contained aspect of the facility greatly reduces the need for the residents to own and operate their own personal vehicles and, correspondingly, reduces the need for on-site parking. Services: Seniors come to our assisted living communities because either they or their spouse needs assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) known as assisted living services, or they anticipate that they will need these services very shortly and want to be in a community where they are sure they can get these services as soon as they need them (the ability to age in place). Assistance with activities of daily living include such things as medication monitoring and administration; bathing, dressing and grooming assistance; cueing, reminders and escorts; transfer assistance; personal laundry service; incontinence management; catheter and ostomy care. These services are provided to seniors on an as needed basis. Basic Services, provided to all residents include regular meals, weekly housekeeping, laundering of sheets and towels 24-hour staffing, emergency communication system, recreational and social programs, scheduled transportation on community owned coaches, laundry facilities, cable TV and all utilities except for telephone. Dementia Care provides additional supervision and care. The resident is confined to a separate, secured Dementia Section of the facility, which will have two staff members assigned per shift during the day and one at night. Off-Street Parking Analysis/Study Chateau at Valley Center File No. LUA-02-012-ECF-SA-H Page 2 Of the proposed 179 units, approximately 15 will be dementia care with no automobiles. Based on our experience at our other, similar retirement communities, approximately 20 to 30% of remaining 164 units if all are occupied (normally in a stabilized building only about 95% of the units are occupied at a given time), would have a car. This means that approximately 33 to 50 residents cars would be parked on the site. This is consistent with the vehicle trip generation calculated by the traffic study submitted which used average trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Sixth Edition. These rates are much lower than for similar sized apartment and condominium communities reflecting the fact that there are significantly fewer cars per unit. Recreation and Activities: Numerous on-site activities and conveniences will be provided, including: swimming/exercise pool, exercise equipment, organized activities and entertainment, beauty shop, therapy and massage, complimentary resident laundry facilities (in addition to an in-house commercial laundry), full kitchen and dining facilities. The facility will be situated in an extended neighborhood that enjoys existing, fully developed street frontage improvements, roadways, curbs, sidewalks, street trees and streetlights. Staff: Chateau at Valley Center will staffed 24-hrs, seven days a week. Staff consists of managers, receptionist, caregivers, maintenance and cooks/servers/dishwashers. We estimate that, once the facility is full, there will be approximately 18 staff during the 9:00 AM to 5:00PM period and then reduce considerably to 8 to 10 for a few hours before and after this period and 2 to 3 during the balance of the night. Staff and residents have easy access to public transportation at the corner of S. 43`d Street &Talbot Road S. Staff will be encouraged to use public transportation or car pool. From studies we have done at other communities we find that 10% -20% of the employees use public transportation almost exclusively. Another 20% use it part of the time so there is a relatively high use of public transportation among employees as well as residents. Visitors: The number of people visiting residents or staff varies by day of week as well as time of day. Typically, relatives and friends visit residents throughout the week, but tend to visit primarily during evenings after work and weekends. Off-Street Parking Analysis/Study Chateau at Valley Center File No. LUA-02-012-ECF-SA-H Page 3 Parking and Transportation: Chateau at Valley Center Level I Site Review documents currently show approx. 100 parking spaces; 73 exterior parking spaces and 27 interior parking spaces in the garage. The 27 interior spaces would be assigned to residents. There are no plans to assign exterior parking spaces to resident, staff or visitors. In addition to on site parking, additional parking is available in the Valley Medical Center parking lot located across the. street from the building main entry on Davis Avenue S under an agreement with Valley Medical Center. Chateau at Valley Center will purchase and operate a shuttle coach, or coaches, to provide transportation for residents to shopping, entertainment, doctor's appointments, scenic drives and longer trips. In addition, the Valley Medical Center shuttle bus will convey residents of the facility to Valley Medical Center medical facilities as well as other locations on the Valley Medical Center campus and medical offices and clinics in the vicinity. Discussion: We visited a retirement community located in Renton named The Lodge at Eagle Ridge. They reported that of their 100 units, approximately 90 are rented. And, although, The Lodge at Eagle Ridge contains a large percentage of independent residents, the staff indicated that only 5 residents owned a car. There were a large number of empty parking spaces on the facility, and of the 20 or so cars in the parking lot, most were staff and visitors. The staff indicated that the number of cars in the lot during the visit was typical for that facility. Since assisted living facilities are a relatively recent concept, many local municipal codes do not have established guideline for parking on these facilities. However, because Snohomish County's code "Retirement Housing" SSC 18.45.055(2) specifically addresses off-street parking for retirement housing, the Architect for Chateau at Valley Center elected to follow Snohomish County's code in determining the required number of parking spaces for the proposed Chateau at Valley Center facility. He indicated that he has followed the Snohomish County code on other similar projects, with good results. This code calls for a ratio of one parking space for every three dwelling units (a ratio of 0.33:1). The number of parking spaces determined by this formula provides • Off-Street Parking Analysis/Study Chateau at Valley Center File No. LUA-02-012-ECF-SA-H Page 4 parking spaces for residents, staff and visitors. Using this formula, Chateau at Valley Center requires (179 units/3) 60 parking spaces. We have elected to provide approx. 100 parking spaces for this facility, which is 40 spaces more than required. A copy of the applicable parts of the Snohomish County Code Retirement Housing SSC 18.45.055(2) is enclosed for your reference. Information provided by the city in their pre-application meeting memorandum dated December 21, 2000 indicates that the city parking code for low income elderly multiple dwellings is one parking space per 4 units. Although our project is not a low income project the age and infirmities or the residents have a similar effect on their ownership of automobiles At our other assisted living communities we have the following parking space ratios and they have proven over the years to be adequate. Shown are the total numbers of parking spaces available for residents, staff and visitors and there are no offsite parking agreements with adjacent properties. Chateau at Peters Creek, Redmond, WA 63 units -22 parking—ratio 1:2.9 Chateau Marymoor, Redmond WA 59 units -23 parking- ratio 1:2.5 Chateau Pacific, Lynnwood WA 212 units-95 parking — ratio 1:2.3 Chateau at Bothell Landing, Bothell WA 88 units—50 parking —ratio 1:1.8 Proposed Chateau at Valley Center 179 units— 100 parking —ratio 1:1.8 Conclusion: We believe the submitted Level I Site Review documents include adequate off- street parking. In fact, the proposed parking provides a comfortable number of extra parking spaces over and above the minimum number of spaces required. Accordingly, we request that the off-street parking at the proposed Chateau at Valley Center Assisted Living Retirement Community be approved as submitted. Respectfully submitted • CURVE TABLE LINE TABLE y to N'NI CURVE Cl RADIUS 4 .00'I LENGTH 4209'I DELTA 0105'20- LINE LLT N>I 50055�J4'WI DISTANCE CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER W ,�/! C! 220.00' 82 Jr 1176"OB" L] NBBVI'11'W 5J6' W F- C4 I15.DO' 6R lJ' ll'JO'04" LI S 1609'04"E 5I.18' ¢ _ a ns.Do' 19.J9' 0159$J" [5 s oD55'J."W B4.J5' CONSULTANTS GENERAL PROJECT INFO 00 , ^ LEGEND a MONITORING C/EGt01066 PEDESTRIAN PUSH BU rOss POLE,' URLITY POLE Fi'n 5'SIDEWALK D� AVE.AND SYJTH ST • 0 < • 1S EY SSW. El TELEPHONE CABNATE 9. (— GUY POLE f, 9 ;Antra ASSOCIATES. ((xp)4e6-x.LOO gla oKking SEMMES yl_ppeT RENTON.WA 98055 J 0 Er CATCH BARN TYPE 1 CAB[E TV CABNATE av SIGN a MAIL BOX P.0.e0X If ppNtlp.�]�S4 4)�6- ®CA CA ICN BASIN TIRE 2 m GAS VALVE TWO POST SGN CCCT)ROCKERY /IO�NYNL WA p6Ola CO T(4i13)46e-LOIN 0eN4 WA peM1 i 4x6 Tpp. PROJECT I ARwTELTORN. DARRELLAL 40M301 Dow DvVN NLW CODNST�RUC CF{SIOR/W0O0 TRINE SIaUD1UaE < ® ?RAMC AINCROx BDY 00 SURFACEMON IN CASE RUNRUS DE AA��PPp� BlS�Q�Lig FOR Uf1pUi11EA555�yµ�OmPLµLL�KIL0p1O i f:.:.'ER L'ALVf ®GA5 METER a BRASS MONUMENT TARLOI/020011T ApCI1Rt�NA PIIp110 f1131 Yle-I SIO iAO119 O(9Oi CROUP ,NgO'n(�x3)111-531] TypE y{N�ULLpN WRM MFA SEpFRAil01L YjAILS,FIFE NLOFANI lD TELEPHONE MANHOLE4y{STREET LIGHT 651 O1INN ALE-SUR ETDD fA%(( )T T0O1 x3O YNN ST. FAY f xE)]7f-5xn ANO SPaW ®WATER NfTEP P0/EP VAULT (Et OECIOIOUS TREE It PK NAIL TDIIONDS 6 exx0 50I 5/R E 0//5/ WA•e0A CONTLDD �Et FWND REBATE&CAP ROO OROCItY OIT OP FIVr" 5+rRFIGATI(W vaCYE P LIGHT ROLE �.,J I O OF IRON PIPE 61RUCNML Oi MN 6RMM.M=a„ • 0bR01 RUM BAR CO ZONE Y ttiATCR BLOW OFF I¢ YARD IICHT .4:T CONIFER TREE - EX WATER LINE plp(I(xpp)xp5-(e1= EaN CmuYLmb PNq(I 4x6)M}]700 ASSESSOR HAP NO• L /` r— SEX SANITARY SEWER LINE I��IU 51-9]R]01 iAf4 AIRxOe)Spb-OOte 3roe.03 8/N vL Ne,9w xDl LJO>DDI LOTS 10,11: `61918O-0010 /1 HMV N —EX STORY LINE YATII[WA pe1W Wad T=�M we.WA 95503 cmRAO}IFoo LOT 12 /e39160-0125 4✓ \, IRpJ FENCE RYX iNN5PDI1TAlXM D.9m LOT ANBL' ••"• y�e2 FT. 325' 174.13' r•-........., Lao F. LEGAL DESCRIPIIOIt _LZ':5-�,W_ - N 0055 J4"E • -•••.•„^. \ / Tu ..4t "LT SEE SURVEY INHRENMEN _h14&'— — —�o — --8254. -_` ff `i MU Mt,. WO)uo-.6ep 9 �ly-,(l,_ `Roy :, ; Mt To..N SLp sL 1�`N'ATER I'- (`1:..`T`.l ----__ ---tpoo IOR EA= (�e15,-OOn'•� w.sa. roar Er ___- < O.MTACC Rnt WA pma a aCV 1¢�R K`-•-••'�y Ilis - '\ ' W%IMOY ALLAWABIE I6O•-0' ACTUAL LOT AREA: 120,527.SF \•L.t TI4 I I i 44*•2 AEG® =•�?+.> ' `\/, \''IA ''•:\ BII6DI ROTE 41.462.SF _ i►\ __ (�L• \ ry P5.XR WAKE A E ODxOYERA6E: NJx f, • / SCE IAN. NO MIN. ACTUAL te-0* REV!4O4 NO MIN. ACTUAL 5'-0' ^ : �pq ^ ` PARKIN(CALCULATIONS: f::�^• • kil :( r, I /r. \ ^({ • c •vim,, ` • ;\ I10 wLasE 1 tell • . �/ ♦� �,•i I G •C PARKING:I STALL PER 3 BEDS+1 STALL PER 1 61PLOYS •� 232 BEDS..75 STALLS I' 10 I a�•r / \.. I �� \„�\\\. \ 10 EMPLOYEES.TO STALLS STALLS r 3.`i� ., i NC SP/LESTIL PCA630 STALLS{. ( _ I Q'/ iiNi fit, ,4e��w\ca,• .... T . Paovlom-10.S STALLS �J• \'• .PACT RONDmRC SPACES m10 STALLS rl I 1 :A 511e.. An. k," rAl,, nFxKDt3-�w'� C�•, '''� hv j srANDNID PROVIOm n STALLS fri !! �� iy"iP r ` sf\`4) ', C •'f•'•\\\• \ BIABASEMENT DRO GLCUUipN4 1ST FLOOR 1o.oe1 Si . �: `, , t• `, %. 1ND FLOOR 4400,10.3 Si ab• 3R0 FLOOR 39.751 Si \ 4, �'6?': 2• 41H BOOR 35.662 Si P 09 TDTN.BUILDING AREA 171041 SF z r1I1,1:6' 4 ago ^ Ale. � � • p 9f. •'.\u•'.�.S \ ., w.f..D�� AREA/LANDSCAPE AREA CALCULATIONS: Ei F...i ,,.1. r<"•, A` 4Py �S•C /,'•••.;, ` `- (PLIA i1R5T fL00R ARFiY)(eex Di TOTAL LOT) . 1 ,.4�'vvi- a - ��o�J• "� . �., TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA (xx) 41.Dw SF 1- V✓' , Y?.. PAVED VEMGVIAR NiFA 3D 015 SF IL II i rw Q� �F �_, �I•o'; \ 1•••';•, ©••' .706 5RER/REOUWm M WREA (RHOS(-1PC µEA ...,.. v. ,i v, I 'ajn �,,`(�'✓ _ ,'�� 'Lc�, ':,,` 6rtmaa LANDSCAPE AREA (3Tx) 11,856 SF .1 . q 611 I 1 --.''. '\X 4,4".. .1001..* .__;••,:, .,,,., ,...• ,s, • .,.,, :, 11-F„'Na. t lte)IT4: 40,42An . '11,,,W,x. 'AS -k. 1 ' I r •0) `, \ • �` /�r� h A'-0 .- ���/ ;° -s., ,\ �...\ VICINITY MAP ...„-... :‘,71), .4 441;:-- -,-ziong— • :4010 / , / .. .„6..;,,, .N N%c•,,N • L - ',' -‘,,N48. • . ',,, 0. ,,..,0,11K \ w ..w:1,.,., Iff:7,71, .....7*,:..sl, `,› .s . . ,,, — -4....p.-.' a+ —, 1:t! 'A-•:.:. skss, ---, ' \Li: --:kV•,.-411,./...;,„ ,44.,•, *'N „AILTZIP411.. 1.1111Z 4: r, ..,.. -...„.... ---.,,, Alh,,,,_ , ,,,, _.1 , 1;iiik - - N.. ,A.:,,N < .,,,, „.41s. W4p*A.k...Vlii;', .m... ...1MEE.. :AL. .:.*Or.;. .1 _ ' --.....„.....s., N...„ . '_ - ^ti it. �. "`_- rLore. ;4.............� 40 � 4� �f � �� N�iiPX • 1� di111��N(� �I� 'X�i 1 �, ` SOO�-���_'S Li Ihi '' •�: firNFB , �i � �+, � .. _� drl T•. _ \ 4p0 :i TOE u � — — —. --— — ... L, I • r _.---• _- -F)R a.. —� �L7�"rL'sErz� — _ - _ ._.. - 3_ ...._ I _ ��n.4 .oe ii " "T �.VS d': bb. I ■. l •o " x ice, �.-AR 2 r�- 06 ma i ( iLr, SITE PLAN 7e — --- ` a..�.4 9 1r �. 9 I I ' WALE.I'.l0'-0• - ?B - - - • I ---------- '' A0.00 :,1 • ,Y,o I N ......:-...s. --- '1- \ I I FA I: : A I 1 11 1 . . • • ': ..,•• • . . AIIN TO FOE 1N1 Erin . /r 411•N ND& 1 IZ+// SPRINKLO1 SYSTO.1 ii 1 4k>1. i a, 0 111 SD 20 DOC,/AWE 7•7 t,":„.,;:'•;:.Z - ,,,i 1 ,' lei..,Al, L.V FeY'Nf..Pt U..'h iM IN .•• • , 1 m m I= im • r-7/N7• I ..1,....,...,-II ‘ • , ,r•A..•,,A..2., REIM #4. \ :11 ' VALLE& (yr• A .A.. • °WASS IIETER-....„,... ,. 61,.. \ 1'1 • All G "'GI NTY , .__Ir _ ,....., ,__. 174.1.E_L. _...L__ FREY \441 ' SW •0 11 .. _. __A 1.0085.53!'i— i .. 1 ' T..',TR?;---'•••:':-'-'"-11•11`9 1:4*-.. --••••7..••••••••••..,,.,.;‘, '••., ›........, POUND PC UON , —---,,._ E..-J-•.--. 5°00. N " 1 ' - ---"-----P-A-i10:=3D"-•gitt------7 ----- .----.,?.' c—rts..5.°1;`,/7,r'y . FROM *. ' r .•:,. ... • .. ... ____ ,........ ........... whz, ‘..,,, . I CO TOE 1 :•;4'7.• L.2", ---:--.1-;:-..---, ••,:.-., -: -• ... , Z.I. G__ C...3- • -•:,,.'•-'-k".." ''. KENT ' ER.19 ALL=ARAMS SNAU.MEET OTY OF RENTON STANDARDS, SIZE OF SYS1E11 PARK ! . : . • ..... Gi', ,......,- ,.. ,,,.r,, , SUM BE DETERIONED 13Y SPRINKLER DESOCR. A _ 1 I.. ,`,4 : 11111r,.._ - 10, --- 0: • I .s..• RIDE sn-E "DOUBLE CHECK VALVE ASSEMBLY 1 . . . ,\a .10,....5.5,.. .. lio, •,.,,,,......\... 1 ,,.„........_...,,,,N. LIMIT— .•. . ,.•r ' / N1S •••1; I N * . I 41Ir 4, •.‘• .• ,%0 . VICINITY MAP I• I , . n ) 4. '›N .‘ ,4:,- 7:<4.=7 , 1; i 4 114 4 ' • .. leDtN. / / * a' i I' ill I'‘\\ •.' ' 1). j!. • rj I . , \ e n,••-• .- .. ... ••\,--...„...,....„. • EX...,,Ii. .N.,.\\r....,-..-.4,8 LW a .oel.., • :fr— ' .'.€1* ;I 0 ' LOT 1 7,',' ;,T5:71'8.- .A .s :''..:, , N'.• '', A I • ••• , :• ! , •• ,,,,,,,‘,7A,„. /0 ,r's -N\ ;.:0414YE,N X. , ,. '), • ..1 I „'..A)i•`, „.;-;:-_, , 'N\ •.-'N •s:, • , • . . , . 7 74114; .,\‘ i ..fs, „I? . •. • -.A\ ), ,,n: lifiblitoll -i '',::-.,'''' '''',N.:‘,.N. • -• 4.Qii-•-:.-.7,-- 0, ••• • - i (,...-ri4. lx Ass), . \ -• • AIIN .`1 Ve*-011P.00,11 111.4\1 ROOF ifr..., ,.... ...irt •L,. •,.., RR_AD,I, 7,-.... .54,• ..., . •,..t...1 .......4fp t, ,. . 4.101,41.z rn., , , ,5r- ___,:.:„.is , , . , .... ................... \ FtAit 1 1\ , ‘vila----- '''' \,. - ' - .. .,..>•keD—,4' .\x-,.,..‘N.... (i) i'l., ...i ..,N k ,,,,,,,,,I 7,,,,_,, , • _,,, ,. _ --., ,,• , . ,.„. , DST, ....1 I f,!1•) )1\ I .--, '?.1 4 Ai- a '' 1;',...' . ; ,,,..',E*.s. '''‘ ,.„.•* ':*., s.., 12.CI° I I . 1 ,• (f) IrS0.•afts; . 1 'A 1,,a Fri ! .4. . •.• P) % n ' . k, , L,,,,,-..\\, , . „,,, _ ,,,, ,.• , . ., ... N .... . . -, - ,,, s„ - .__ 17..T.,,,„„4/s,, ' 1-1-1. ,-- 4, , / ,,, , • , ; -,• '-, air- .,\ .,• \ . . • ,. .1. , FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW , v'"•4 W .. n A 41,. •., , / N. -%\ ' i 1 , Ikv .... •/, iv ..‘,* N 1 'i. • • ONLY. NOT FOR .‘. '. :• 1 • ,,,,1 ''' '•lepss i . ,...)....•- , i. R 1‘1-.._ ER •' s-,113111111,K 'lb "N , .,...i..ON.i . CONSTRUCTION. ti ' ', Izo-i'F'vl-p. ..--,.;.... 44...illalik‘ & , . 1 '',',.,.pr• „ , , " • • •<% , ef..: N •--...,.. -, ` —i" P.,`--41• ''.:- \- .. ....-----_ ,g no‘..,. >.„.,.. ,,....,„ 1 b.—. • •. — Lor, TERI* t.1./LR: \ \SV1alk.`,.../O.: .-.r •••••••.„N. .,,•.1 . ,.••.,- :1.:' /. i • t ••\ . NiFiAat 4,.... .f. / „„,,,.. .1?!..10.,.,,reF,-,-;..,-‘,-_-,L.az t.;;;.;;.:;...it A.. ; 4,74' s'''', ‘•,'", -, DUAL\ ,*E.:''\- ,K-,,,,,,.. 12 ORME swia.acoqxo 7- l'Ili ...--I ...• s• ' ,,a1--.3.-A-t..... . 1:147.41."' • / . .d.: .. a w, 1 s '•. '‘NN,Af.:`, . l'i.A; -'- - ,, o 0 W , /:Mi. 1 i......, ..?''•••,..,:•:, '414' 4 .-------- -‘..',14w.oc, ,., ) oc__ .....2.1-,_-_Lz_•_—_,p . .--'-•:•7-f--:7,'".,7—. I 1 ..1! : ".4 . A .: . : .•f4,,, no. '"TEST • ' '‘'/IR.ilikik:s'‘'111\ A -.M.-4. AIMILEA. •- —-'-' R, ,a I-11 1 '''''---`..:.7,4,---.---_,,:,„.,„,.. .. _ , —0,.., -/;t1,11. , . . ;,,;..,i:::ac:...--v.,.\" .,...... .,...:.,0„....,..„,:.,,„„.„.. ;7... 1 alma 5/I4,16-1 * .. • .. TO EKST STUN ,,,,,,,., ,.,..,. • -.g;114MZI* - :.,,,,,,,......„...„_,.... ,....___ ft -M wmAgra_nitistimistr-4,/•• •, : • Iv -). I: ‘• \ ‘,i ' ' . SD—T . ETIZE4vetommegmrtas •,. 310 NON.S6 rsorto ___ . . • I \„, WOO- --___ ---___.:::-....;__.•;•• ,•,‘\ -..s OFSITE,FLVISI , . , . 0011121.L.WA 96012 , • -.I 1 * ..:-•• 1 : 1-n'' - •••"- I :':.•;P::'fl..n.', _.., - n I 1 ,.. \ MS)221.9621 (412)42.5.7192(MO J \ .1....i,Ii - ii , , i. . -•• CITY OF RENTON DEPARBENT Cr PSEUD%MKS * I 1 I ,, CHATEAU.VALLEY ASSISTED UVING 4 : I ‘, CIVIL PLAN . PLACE ', mom,CEO NAM 1/23/02 ..22, r,.A I r,b;,, DRAWN; .11( cHED,E0,pc, SCALE: 1,30• roan ecae 1120N NO. RENSION BY APPA PAM ,PFRWED' I C.C1011 MM..WM. . . • •. . • . • •. • • • • - • • • • . sE PLANT SCHEDULE „e�.e.vaS.nw MI 4 SAVA OMAR. a+ T Pre. POT.Rene oeoaa/ IA.MLA. ....T.n.n A Temur/ ®M �.e �� .r��� �� O APP. AA.APA� Nee.. ,,,,,,..,-,„wc.w 1:f=1'11. `�' .��:'-�-'1 wea.Mo smix ,,�I; li ® ATAMSPP PT TT r ADAMS =.iTeit-n'[- a III I I lt=�a1_�1=._ rvae. 3 O .aTartan,ane - - — — �— — — — aw�. .�me #.eo.:PUKr °� i ma, we.w..e .��. SHRUB PLANYINO ' °�.."' a=ti=c J if"1!—n We „ ...ems, a n »..e", BGA.E.NOl id 9ewL! ,...�a ..'�=:•11r'.V1111=--- : . ,X. . pito OAK - 41 \ ?1ltl fl�!11=11';=. 6 e ...ow.1.1...01,reTwwrw•i AT;ewx 1 . \ } ./�.\ �Xa°m�..wx� ® :m1 MIN.. sa..ox u sC •!= c'1 oas+.Hdd art-Wrwee.mf ® ceer'iwwrf0"eiw f aawex ��cr�? --2_cAs901.........m.T w.:ennw.IN RP.. -,G + i'x N n ram. eemde T.AMT.. .PALL 'u.• JJa �V '�?--Y�= - SK`'.E Z • we.»a.00 nm nam.•.fue.a......,..f.ae AA. ® POST e.w.e...T..• .eua. 5' . � : o e/ ;'. _?I,. .-,- ya TREE PLANTING DETAIL {p .::- ..��y�:..:• w .� t.- 1MAgi e.R6T TCd.TURF, O ta!•Kiw'/ ibXM g C . I`4 ,yam A'L.. .•0 u+G :r,:..-.;,:.t To• c11,1k� ► % 9cuG ner re WALE e i S&P, 7 '-. 4... k:.• �o" •'::Z':'.:J:`. Q \/ 0 T.�ar m.w Prow .a�woi . ^ „:..•:' �Vl `CG�'at,,�v 1� 7_� . MwMae•K.cMw.mtN ae uw e : „�.,�•`,I.,,-i::.;.:,...a✓'sr.,:•; •, ,:•i� \�%C C: f�`- `I\i' \ 110 © xmweaA Souox �✓♦ r 917E AREA ANALYSIS: m �EOimnoeineoeA v I. - . L"4 '�,�.� < AFLCMG-b C `i . N TM&are AREA. 120E71 6P �run.s VA.y.aui I C-^f I1 A!Gr ` V 1. 1�` \._ PAVED VEIUGAAV AR2A9. 95049 M A.Mb 3,'MKK • � !I... `�V 1•• _,r `• .•.1 ♦;-y Y,��• \. \ BUILDING AREA, 91A.a 9P MWiINo.iKiw•r I>arS /-1.1 .I I { A •i Z'. •, ,�a�♦ erase io ea PATW APtlA9i 9E905. ® cOnKlienw.T a..IeaD /- !� 1 � � / t �1• PARKING-10 .. � 1 �.. f '�_ \ "'f / reReEr On sr.BoIeAT[e m .Iojo 9P O ...A 1 �/e G I -C , . \ LM99CAPB� 91A r.mrraw d m.l wlP v �' . - Ir 4I ♦ l,. t5 G e` ® w.m"imwm amw ua•.. o.1i �� ,;d te r• � "�1 r@ = � o" 2MISLtDi MM J .w. n . • - �, c�e ` 0N meu comma. m �' / I O I /M•:l � " maws.,Pose .ewr.efcr/ aa++ol PATIO ': t �l I 'jv'' p\\\.;: F�- / N .eva.nwrr aea,a.NAM PM 0 1 Z -R so.cc I � i ?':,7.W:3± •,'y'; I n,: , �c ,_'3?' ss^ I (' f r I .•. PAGt G •°T i � w wow, w«a CZ a I �� ���� _ _ `,�,. I �„e �emr- : , ,• 3 C\ N I...XI roams. n I. p o.uaowwN:aa / VIO 7 {J 4 •}IF e1.1 , ``2- +;• �✓ I „Cl P :14 ''• .�4. f e\ N ���� .1.111.T.menmoa mmm� o j i�� �\ I \ `'.,.... . . . \ GENERAL NOTES. ,�, I•:11 �,7I �� ? FIRST FL!LEY.114' • I' ti•. �j,.�• h..••;: \ �70q �„ m. .;.wm. .,...e.�.... Q '� \ ___ y s!ff I• -; �`_�• _ " 4�' r..... .sm.en.e So< e.•e. J o 0-- ••• ra JO © , C 4 ueew..aa iu' >.I - s. A J rf / �!H<�l• .m•a r' w.rnmrnm.eaiw.°.f".'u'n..r`.°`m"a Y U1 ..n,. Sri'•-------- a; Joa... -.s.� \ r..ew.....r........mem.. �•'°ek". .." " d w j ' _-I-..• elm.. .e_�y.� :..�, Wdta •;.... Sw..m..Sw , Q... _ 4 , ("'" 122 fsr �® I TFEE ro�E.aEnovEb JtrPl �.).. ,� =",,,"�..°....: m Q U1 0 0 Yr / • • lfl .-__ 6<,nFLF • a,s �aTVF s �........�....._.. • .110 _ ....um..uu....s. M r A1 , ` � 1G ' y .. ` L �� : � .v. . ...>.e.x...m...u..m .� ..wr.na • • g. m e . T14 �� 0%��� fi i �� 4R• ' YgQ See -` . -.- • RR oDT'J4r-f- r7_.65' I 3 lAPL- 1- CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANM ~ m� .GLC.1•.ao._o. N m r.. =�M• d..A M;.�....m .M. a .— : .....,..°-7..w L — I I • 0 r PP,• I I2 P Pry I I P q 2 -i gg a Fe - P3 P vI - P § D �'i �I m.wn,- N ����rR �:eti__n to — . �' NN ^l :.I 1 11'k !."PPE y1n 2m2 rri • m i I L I v 11 am ogm$ea '1 I I� gNVt7ilrr. N� ��d��� r Yi.':.}.:�i,:t;�'c_:.w .�.�U:.l''a.c.a:a�n:` rot \f.V:. • �'D II I inn_ Pfn'>3'P��^ ^ .$ LHaeLLS EPS-1z •S w vase �� ; _ ......L/ 7 1-pi A . ` ` 4' ... ._..\ ;.F�CI!LS;.?!'.. •^S*-Y. I I= L v R 4 V In�f O a 14 4 a'lu R 90'96Z vM „L L,LO 694 IV- - '.t I g o I e�;U` m w Y; '.� `1 I _ UI _.elh' e '� �' P 3 P Na: `l'IA . slh__ y.� PP® II `$ eNo",�' �l� •� "� r 4 I P� J/�•� 1'�'_•.._.. 11 c� 11 �' ° �ggt-s. i+PPP I S^ J/ -fu =r', VI li S� ___rir, ,p£ : '`. s"`" PR® III 1 Z 1 k' • • �L GIs =�' 4!J' gcC sg _a .' r i- - L__s•crsx •,'� • f /- 1 l asY Ei >/ag§i PqIM M.%1,10.68 N \ / Y:/ �/A f- �$ h Pte r Cl i', PP8 ( � �I J/i ��'�'$ 'j g5 4A$4NRo cU 3 ') 1' I (11., J,/ I/ °III RNAa,,',I _ :%/ i� / 7� 1 �•�ry p�z • IPI is 1/� �' / /�y'`•\ Iv� a� j p R -/ j e N it'r Et f, 1 ,``\, / /` /...,R. / .4,4t,:'',.� / ♦y/ :i I Il il+g=�a4 iv i i:/ ..4--t, _ t_ !___•,__2;tc, t _ _24 .„„,;,,,,,a. / :if iii I i I"' /1 (^ 8' i oe' /o Zr` ';iI::i"'1•' /: \ t ✓/7 //J 44 i t aiiN 4c ; j,�'I I I 1 i l'II rR '\1�0� ' ;' / .Y • � S1� a � �I 7001. /Q ` Pam' \ 9,. Ji 7� Y In Na!Iei <! '� i i 1' 4 C,�` _.1/ //.1-;``i,•Jf,///1. g, N as •�gP P v n T321 `IPA ' n tmgg4kAl -$0 su /I( rP i , / �J�� / 'Sw§Nm cA69h _ 1 On '-ill.g I r !' f\/,vó4'// N • ' P \I pr8 .1� Si, �t� 4 �a 14.,5. . 4a ./1 , <p 0 •.1ti •� -- F.IY\; ,, / /' , 4 1/ IR 1 _ iM it p P i ? x Ig o /• 1,'N 61.(— ,,I3.7a-. i.itt. N ate` 8 yy,,1 1 /' / JY /64/' JE yZ aLLz44 1pp o /, V /( ♦ 2 I4 11 2 y � J� O zip$ al s1 /./: V47 I: Ill s � 4 ®�p®❑'O®e ®B®B7�'D4®o® a � � I 2ZS ^ �� Ry $s I/s`Q V yy/ �q $� A-4 x 1R x^�2 g E __ I' I Zr��l �gao I'P II _ • R P„� � I�A$m4A2 @I z 1 b`" . R7 IJ l ti S; <SI Mmj Q �' � _y 'i I '!!! Ii . % !,sz I C4 I I ! JFJ !J R go g �� wp . 1?.trithrl I,1a _,wi T U = 8 $ab� �u'm�o" �' ��I• a4 K "RRRR4 I' V {2�5 A pLs_v= Q isoN�$o3�k � -. ozz'ap� 13. �� (sran,lc g /J laLe s e<p h M A z z '°gI; I'Q° m (;,O{ ,6SYL6 M,If,I5LB5 FOrm t th•' °'4 ! ^1 . • • ---- .L a isP-z£�S- -------- R 'R 5 I a i a AL TA/ACSM LAND TITLE SUR l.EY - �TOUMA ENGINEERS $ i • DA Ul (ENUE SOUTH SITE ' de L iURVEYORS t 0632 CITY OF REN70N WASHINGTON • .. O > � 1111 Q _ . -- Q o o o W ;i39 m .- t a • El .1 .L �L• 1. - i� col ; IIII IIIII =�I__111 _ i_ rT�� -- - I TV _ __ { 111 Illiiiiill IIII➢IIII, _�� f_ � " _ 7 c _ 13 ® -- - ' 111 1 In + " I nu u1u II—=11 _ I111 I �i I111 11 In ■1P I II='II== �PmM • all L I�I_ _ Mini iiiili!R _wm-.�-z )1TI I i llS `7.4A I .. 1 III n1 - I! ntl um _II--11= nu MI_ il.F.1 \\\\\\\\\\\\I IY .n I �u II 'iI° - DPP' ®- ;IIII IIII Aliiiit NUR - .. iliillllll IIIIIIIIII ___ - - �- - -,, y-- --- - , 1�-,,,•,�, - .� Doti. i- - INGlilgi ___ _ t 1 ■ttltttttttt�M■ ! u■ Ittt��a 11-11� Ittttt�• - -� W e .., I 11111� IIIII 11�■�11111� Iltl ����-- _i----� I- - 1 1��IIt. - Ifl 11!ii....- - 11111 I�� ILIA - IIII �_ _- - = _ 1 I 11= -1 'c a IIIIIIIIII _ °f^^ WEST ELEVATION . i OGLE Va.•P-m' 1., 0 13 0 II 1 1 _� Pam ` �'' F I1 11_ 111111N '11 ='11111 _ 11- Imm It in= L - ®° III .ul III-- E- 4..u. MI -=IIIIIIIIII: = 'iiiiiINI Iillllllillii !IIIIIIIIII �ililllllb II _ 1Inn_ ' a M 11_ 11111E �11 1 -�Itlll HMI ---W III '11= ! In IIII III w uu II= JJ1....... III =n_ 11 mi In U FIIII1� ===lilili111111IR Iiliilniiii: =�if111iillil' illiiliiili, �illilllilll. j[ _Q� __ _ __ IIIII_ Pn ,, DI _ =lulu uum I , 11 1 D „ I El lil o WIIduuI! rtIr 11 wIII ��1\\\�\\\\\\\\\ b II .0 I". mM _rllll� .�_ -I1Iiilliliili Dili, Iniliiiiiii: IIIII_ -I'_ 0.1111.1. IIII _ •• Q • �IIII =11- IIIII - 11111. EEE. IIIII „on_11.Inm...., I : MIMI = 1IIM EMMIA ..E IIIII W0 nm 71� - - •��� ....... III - I - 1 c e _ IL ..w. MI ==:= IIIIIIIIII - 'whim - 111111111111 Ildlllllll, 11111111111, 1 I '•• -�- ....��{{ #_ WEST ELEVATION W eA]aT .,--1 WALE.NY•P-0• • ' I U .\K. ' )------° IWO '''''A A ,----'k,----,, '-'" illoNsc .—.-..— T -1}� 1� $ $ 1�111-== I l _- - .L Hu I --'n u 1 1 I i1IE-II- . ` 'I I ,T11.,.� "" liiiiiiii HA �MIPLR iiiilii"' 7 �' inj ���_ .1114 RR 1 ne .eo.•-.= T 1 �= -�1 - c - '-_'f .IIIII• -F 111 1- _ t1�=-11-== n _ E jI - A r'}'��1(� In ......LLCM owMI 1• J.• !',illlllh �� _ �.u. b P.m RR rt IIl� C CI S 11- - II_II_=_ �� I MILK � I�tI� J'W nR_ 'Iliiil illiillill - — ma. _ _ _ I' FE! _ IiE==n=== -I �� -- —'- Mil 11 11 II E- �__ x _ 11-11 _ �� -� ) u II 11-� - pi u - 'I .... Milli, -`Injitt Nib .,. -!Iiiiil IIIliiliil = __ ...,. 1■ rm. — = I I L I H 1 al I---I I ...,. 15 NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION eoolr• A2.00 WALE.b••P.O. !WE w••P.O. • 1 . . 113 •.30 T23N R5E E 1/2 _ _ . - •.:. I qth!_ - el . '. 1 i fl------ .1 R-8// / I. • • • I : -,.i i - 1177th Ave. SE r•ta C.AV&;7) • • : ,.., 1 __ • • • /.,_, • 'T S 179th St. ...q. . . /..., i . . . 1 . . „ / • 1 . -c-0 firp -,....._____.,._ , c7RM-i R-8 , . , s 41:01 st. .: , 1 • coa,) • c--..-.7--i- ; . _ _. i I - • , .. ii • c.. i Av , f. __ __, . . , • , -e.- CO(P) _ • 1 1 . PC m -- .. -4 • i 7 i co(p) I co CO(P) ' 1 ; IL 1 • , ,L1g .. : 1 ; . - - -LE_M_7-I--;.------ i 1 Z • 1 , 01Z 1 g • CZ • . - C . , al r . • R414 i.a) • .1____ . . : . ,.. ...._ •- . 11 1 . , . i •. . . .. ..___.... — ........ . .. I __ ... .. .1.--:-.-- . R-1 ..' R-1.4 . . ..c. ,,,,. ivp :.Lillil 74 . _. _ if- • ,,' __ I ) : / . . • I • • —.-. — ----_ . • \ ——-1-:--- 1 SE 190th — . . . ,_._., -- i— • — —.7— CO" • R-1 I, - • i. .___. • ..,.. . , S 55th St. L_ _. I R-1 11- — T6----"Wirci:17( J3 • 6 T22N R5E E V2 1 fti 'I"' 13 . 0 ZONING 1s4800 . • 4 GO. P/B/PW TECHNICAL SERVICES 31 T23N R5E E 1/2 , et •-f 01/1S/01 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: March 6, 2002 TO: Leslie Nishihira FROM: on Erickson SUBJECT: Chateau at Valley Center,LUA-020012, SA-H,ECF(639180- 0010) Background: The subject 2.77 acre site is located on Valley Medical Center's southern campus at the corner of Davis Avenue South and South 45`h Street. The site is designated Center Institution on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and is zoned Commercial Office(CO) with a P-suffix. Retirement residences are allowed in the CO zone when located within the Center Institution designation. The use is not subject to normal dwelling unit per acre density requirements when it meets the definition of"retirement residence". The applicants are proposing to develop a four-story assisted living residential project with 179 units and 179,241 square feet. The definition of retirement residences precludes "individualized cooking facilities" in each unit and requires residents to be 62 years in age or older. Common kitchen and dining facilities are required. Laundries, commercial kitchen, and two dining rooms are included in the project proposal, however nothing in the application addresses the age requirement of the residents or the extent of cooking facilities in the units. The proposed Title IV amendments to this definition would change the requirement from no "individualized cooking facilities"to no"full kitchen". It is not clear how this proposal meets these requirements from the submissions. The units appear to range from 590 - 1097 square feet and include studio, one bedroom and two bedroom configurations. Kitchens are shown on the drawings, but there is no listing of equipment or facilities that aid in the determination or whether these units meet the definition. The current definition of "retirement residence" speaks of congregate dining facilities without "individualized cooking facilities". The January 22, 1997 Interpretation/Policy Decision allows apurtenant kitchens. Our recommendation is that this application conform to that determination as determined by the Development Services Division. Projects meeting the definition of "retirement residences" are also restricted to residents "sixty- two or more years in age, except for spouses for who there is no minimum age requirement." The project also includes meeting rooms, indoor and outdoor recreation. Based upon the information provided it is not clear this project meets the definition for "retirement residence" as set forth in the January 22, 1997 clarification of the definition in Section 4-11-180. Multi-family uses are not allowed in this zone(CO)or under this Comprehensive Plan designation (CI). Some of the more relevant Comprehensive Plan policies include: H:\EDNSP\Interdepartmental\Development Review\Green File\Comments\Chateau Valley Center.doc\d Policy LU- 141. Medical and/or educational institutions within the designated Center boundary area should be master planned to be consistent with local and regional comprehensive plans. Objective H-H: Increase the supply of Special Needs Housing. Policy H-64. Consider how a proposed site for special needs housing meets the needs of prospective residents, promotes diversity in neighborhoods and integrates assisted housing within the community. The following goals are desired: 1. Offers a high level of access to shopping, services, and other facilities need by the residents. 2. Provide service by public transportation or the development provides another means to meet the transportation needs of residents. 3. Provide an opportunity to diversity a neighborhood economically, ethnically/racially, or with persons with disabilities. 4. Helps to preserve low-income and special needs housing opportunities in a neighborhood where those opportunities are being lost. Policy H-65. Prospective assisted housing sponsors are encouraged to undertake activities to establish and maintain positive relationships with neighbors of assisted housing. Analysis: Valley Medical Center prepared a master plan for their north and south campuses in November 1991. Valley Medical Center envisioned future residential care facilities on their South Campus as part of this master plan (see page G-2, attached). This use was anticipated to help support ancillary services such as emergency care, radiology, laboratories, surgical units, pharmacies, and therapy facilities. The current use does not appear to meet either the definition for "retirement residence" or the January 1997 "Clarification of Definition of Retirement Residence". Conclusion: Whereas "retirement residence" conforms both to the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this area and relevant policies relating to "special needs housing", this project, as currently proposed, appears to be a multi-family project with significant amenities. Attachments cc: Rebecca Lind H:\EDNSP\Interdepartmental\Development Review\Green File\Comments\Chateau Valley Center.doc\d VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MASTER PLAN MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Proposed Uses On Campus The intention of the Master Plan is that the use of the site will remain essentially consis- tent with those permitted and conditional uses identified in the current zoning. There are some key areas where changes are proposed to provide a more realistic long-term view of campus use. The uses listed below have been considered appropriate for the campus and incorporated into the long-term planning concepts for the campus. These uses are not currently considered permitted uses under the current zoning code. These functions are common within the context of a medical campus and are also in keeping with the land use in the surrounding area. Proposed Uses There is a potential for nursing home, convalescent home, residential treatment facilities—only on portion of site adjacent to residential zone as designated in Master Plan (multi-family development standards shall apply to the portion of the site so used). The southern portion of the site is an appropriate location for a nursing home, convalees- c.en home, or residential ` ' is a acen o a m development as well as close to medical services. Such uses corn ine some of tfie characteristics o a residential use with some of the characteristics of a medical use. Therefore, this is proposed although current zoning prohibits general residential uses. Building Guidelines The Medical Center campus shall be considered a single site for the purpose of comput- ing setbacks, heights, and other requirements of this section. Building Setbacks Setbacks are defined as the required distance between every structure and the property lines of the site on which the structure is located. There shall be no specific zoning setback requirements between individual structures within the site to permit facilities and open spaces to be grouped most effectively. Parking areas and access roads (as well as retaining walls), plazas, pedestrian bridges, signs, benches, and similar site elements may be located within required setbacks. Setbacks should be consistent on both sections of the campus. Consideration should be given to a reduced setback adjacent to Major Arterials. Should a Residential Care Facility be developed on the campus, a reduced setback should be allowed between adjacent residential development. (Existing zoning regulations contain a complex array of setback requirements, which differ for the P-1 and O-P zones. See the Appendix for existing zoning information.) Mahlum & Nordfors Architects • Page G-2 • November, 1991 ,Il- l 1 _ 1 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER MASTER PLAN PROPOSED MASTER PLAN I Hospital Campus Relationship Diagram The diagram below represents the key relationships at Valley Medical Center. This diagram is meant to provide a generalized overview of linkages within the campus. Clearly, there are numerous interdependencies within each component indicated. How departments interact within the facility has been referenced in the Statement of Need section of this document. (-----*%, Residential Care P Parking I I r ///- 4Ik Parking Ancillary Inpatient • Emer en • Metrurg beds • • Radiology Ambulatory • ICU • Labur • Pediatric . Caro • Obstetric • •Ph�rma • Medical offices • Psychiatry • Thera cY • Outpatient clinic PY 1 Support 1 • Administration Parking • Engineering �. • Housekeeping - • Materials Management ,# Support ITAL j HOSP • Maintenance 1 • Storage • Service '• I 1II!i 7 ill Mahlum & Nordfors Architects • Page F-6 • - November, 1991 r. a a c 2 Ro L � r M 0 El . RESIDENTIAL INPATIENT AMBULATORY SUPPORT PARKING/ > CARE CARE TRAFFIC r' rri n a •< 11 o I j, V Sep lJadth"A = .` :`vw. roar;..•.• r U • No/ l. \\\\ .0.. . 1 •• 7�. °. way,. '?i•:•° °°O.�°:; .f /a '• 0 51,1>>�5(/P +•• .Qom•.—••) ,•T. ram'�. nllti»)�����d/ r T .s., ry • _ ) 0 FULL CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER ' Cr' CIFPRENTO NTS E RVI .ES:.D IVl MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION: 4-31-2: Definitions REFERENCE: NA SUBJECT: Clarification of Definition of Retirement Residence BACKGROUND: Retirement residences are defined as "A facility or group of buildings which provide residential facilities, including a common kitchen and dining , room without individualized cooking facilities, for more than four residents 'I sixty-two (62) or more years in age, except spouses for whom there is no minimum age requirement. Retirement residences include federally assisted senior housing facilities." Proposals for individual living units in retirement residences have included appurtenant kitchen facilities such as a microwave, a 1/2 to 3/4 refrigerator, sink, and toaster oven. These appliances are intended to be used only in the preparation of snacks, coffee/tea, etc. They would not be used for meal preparation as a central dining facility prepares and serves 3 meals a day. The proposals have raised the issue of whether appurtenant kitchen facilities are considered individualized cooking facilities, precluding the proposals from qualifying as retirement residences. . JUSTIFICATION: To qualify as a retirement residence, the facility must include a central, common kitchen and dining area which prepares and serves the primary 3 ;1 meals per day. Appurtenant kitchen facilities in the individual units are intended only personal convenience and do not constitute individualized cooking facilities. DECISION: Individual living units of Retirement Residences may include appurtenant , kitchen facilities limited to a microwav , a 1/2 to 3/4 refrigerator, sink, and toaster oven. This shall apply onlytthe retirement residence. includes a central, common kitchen and dining facility which is providing primary meal preparation and service for 3 meals per day. DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: . DATE: 1 77. f q � 1 Existing Definitions RETIREMENT RESIDENCE: A facility or group of buildings which provide residential facilities, including a common kitchen and dining room without individualized cooking facilities, for more than four(4)residents sixty-two (62) or more years in age, except for spouses for who there is no minimum age requirement. Retirement residences include federally assisted senior housing facilities. CONVALESCENT CENTERS/NURSING HOMES: Residential facilities for patients who are recovering health and strength after illness, or receiving long-term care for chronic conditions, disabilities (mental or physical) or terminal illness where care includes on-going medical or psychiatric treatment, including hospices, extended care facilities, detoxification facilities, and sanitariums. Possible New Definitions RETIREMENT RESIDENCE: A facility or group of buildings which provide residential facilities, including a common kitchen and dining room with or without individualized cooking facilities, for more than four(4)residents sixty-two(62) or more years in age, except for spouses for who there is no minimum age requirement. Residents' rent and/or ownership, in the case of condominiums, typically includes the major meal of the day which is prepared in a common kitchen on site. A number of residents still drive for doing errands, shopping, and attending medical or dental appointments. Retirement residences may provide some assisted living services to residents. Retirement residences include federally assisted senior housing facilities. Density should not exceed that of the underlying zone, however, in those zones where density is not specified, such as the CO Zone,density shall not exceed 60 dwelling units per net acre. ASSISTED LIVING RESIDENCE: A facility or group of buildings which provide assisted residential living for more than four (4) residents sixty-two (62) or more years in age, except for spouses for who there is not minimum age requirement. Care involves assisting residents with the activities of daily life such as dressing, bathing, and medication reminders. Typically three meals are provided daily, including special dietary requirements. These are prepared in a common kitchen and served in a common dining room or the resident's unit. Units typically do not have full kitchens. Due to age or frailty of residents, activities are usually provided on site. Because most assisted living residents no longer drive, van service is usually provided to meet the resident's needs for off-site activities such as medical and dental appointments, and shopping. Often these facilities provide specialized medical services such as Alzheimer's care and are licensed by the State of Washington. Such facilities are considered to be residential uses. Density should not exceed that of the underlying zone. CONVALESCENT CENTERS/NURSING HOMES: Residential facilities for patients who are recovering health and strength after illness, or receiving long-term care for chronic conditions, disabilities (mental or physical) or terminal illness where care includes on-going medical or psychiatric treatment, including hospices, extended care facilities, detoxification facilities, and sanitariums. Care involves assisting residents with the activities of daily life such as dressing, bathing, and medication reminders. Typically three meals are provided daily, including special dietary requirements. These are prepared in a common kitchen and served in the resident's unit. Medically certified staff are usually available on the premises 24-hours a day and such facilities are licensed by the State of Washington. Such facilities are considered to be commercial uses rather than residential uses and are permitted in specified commercial zones. Documentl\ CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: March 6, 2002 — TO: Lesley Nishihira FROM: Juliana Sitthidet SUBJECT: CHATEAU VALLEY CENTER - LUA 02 — 012 - REVISED NE Corner of Davis Ave S & S. 45th Street I have reviewed the application for Assisted Living Retirement Community— Chateau Valley Center at the NE Corner of Davis Ave S. & S. 45t Street, and have the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER The site is outside the Aquifer Protection Area. There is a 12-inch water main in Davis Ave S. and a 12-inch water main in S. 45th Place. Fire flow available (derated) is 5,000 gpm. Static Pressure is 103 psi. Pressure Zone is 350. SEWER There is an 8-inch sewer main in Davis Ave S. STORM There are stormwater facilities in S. 45th Place and the North portion of Davis Ave S. STREETS There is curb fronting the property in Davis Ave S and in S. 45th Place. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER 1. Water System Development Charges (SDC) are $0.154 per square-foot of property. This fee must be paid prior to issuance of the construction permit. 2. Preliminary fire flow is 5,000 gpm. One fire hydrant is required to be within 150 feet and four to be within 300 feet of the building. Additional hydrants will be required. Existing hydrants are required to be retrofitted with Storz"quick disconnect" fitting. 3. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of the double detector check valve assembly (DDCVA) for fire sprinkler systems. If backflow device is to be installed inside the building, applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing location and installation of the device as part of the utility plan submittal 4. For buildings exceeding 30 feet in height, a backflow device is required to be installed on the domestic water meter. SANITARY SEWER 1. Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges will apply and are $0.106 per square-foot of the property. 2. Valley Medical Center South Talbot Special Assessment District fees apply. Fees has been determined to be $5,799.70. 3. Swimming pool facilities must drain to sanitary sewer. City will need information on discharge means and flow rate. The City may require a downstream analysis for sewer capacity. 4. If commercial food preparation facilities are proposed, then a grease trap will be required. 5. All parking garages shall require floor drains and shall be connected to the sanitary sewer. Flows shall be directed through floor drains that are installed in accordance with the UPC to an exterior oil/water separator. The separator shall be sized to meet a minimum 15 minute retention time for peak flows anticipated in the garage area, but in no case will be less than 200 gallons of storage capacity. The type of interceptor shall be as manufactured by Pipe Inc., Utility Vault Inc., or approved equal. SURFACE WATER 1. The Surface Water System Development Charges of $0.183 per square-foot of new impervious area of property applies to the proposed project. 2. A drainage report per the 1990 KCSWDM has been submitted. Due to downstream flooding and erosion problems, staff recommends a SEPA condition this project to provide detention for the 100-year storm event with a 30% safety factor. 3. Applicant will be required to submit separate structural plans for review and approval under a building permit for proposed detention and water quality vault. Special inspection from the building department is required. TRANSPORTATION 1. Traffic mitigation fees are required for this expansion. Fees are $28,875.00. Fee schedule is attached. 2. Sidewalk, curb and gutter, storm and street lighting will be required if not already in place. 3. No parking signs on sections of Davis Ave S will be required. 4. Local Improvements District fees (LID #329) apply. PLAN REVIEW - GENERAL 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards 2. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 3. Separate permits for side sewers, water meters and backflow device are 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 at the sixth floor counter. A fee worksheet is attached for your use, but prior to preparing a check it is recommended to call 425-430-7266 for a fee estimate as generated by the permit system. 4. Applicant shall be responsible for securing all necessary easements for utilities and/or street improvements. RECOMMENDED 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. 2. The applicant shall install a silt fence along the down slope perimeter of the area that is to be disturbed. The silt fence shall be in place before clearing and grading is initiated, and shall be constructed in conformance with the specifications presented in of the King County-Surface Water Design Manual. This will be required during the construction of both off-site and on-site improvements as well as building construction. 3. Shallow drainage swales shall be constructed to intercept surface water flow and route the flow away from the construction.area to a stabilized discharge point. Vegetation growth shall be established in the ditch by seeding or placing sod. Depending on site grades, it may be necessary to line the ditch with rock to protect the ditch from erosion and to reduce flow rates. The design and construction of drainage swales shall conform to the specifications presented in KCSWDM. Temporary pipe systems can also be used to convey storm water across the site. This will be required during the construction of both off-site and on-site improvements as well as building construction. 4. The project contractor shall perform daily review and maintenance of all erosion and sedimentation control measures at the site during the construction of both off-site and on-site improvements as well as building construction. 5. Weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the project Engineer of record to the public works inspector. Certification of the installation, maintenance and proper removal of the erosion control facilities shall be required prior to final inspection approval. cc: Kayren Kittrick V (j 0� + - ;' il'• �r _ tf -19 .........x..::_>..-•-.-:::::-::::�:....•::....- .:.::sy ..'..:-....._•r-:.::. . ..-:.r:-......:.s.}.;,.,......v-,...r:...:.-...:::::w:::t=-`-::: .... >.:...:.:.:..::--::.:-:::: ......x;.:,.....:.:........h•......,......-.....:.....-.:.....:c....titr ...-. . ,.:.. .t.::....x•:-+:.::v is".c.-�<:t.:a_-?:21._. :k:ikii: :• 1 Project Name ( -Via k MT v f w1 G 01Z Project Address 6.` S ' - t5 0,; Contact Person -D1 )t 1 &X . NSSOGi111 t'L? Address "e0, f796 90 7 LOcoNn;u�u Phone Number Permit Number L.vat ' O Project Description 11 oaf, 1dmk ASS \1E 'ON ► r0,e\>ci\t..„ `i\c-k rlLS . Land Use Type: Method of Calculation: � �,i�ctl Q' Residential G ITE Trip Generation Manual ❑ Retail ['Traffic Study --pE TE-I ta,t -.I 1- ' Q' Non-retail 0 Other (Z52) •cooc‘ ais Coop FAitutt`1 Calculation: _ 'Z,is \ QY O JcT r 7 5 6 2.B, `)15 = Transportation Mitigation Fee: 2,g)615 Calculated by: `- . Date: 31 J 1 , X.I)T Account Number: Date of Payment City of,,.—ton Department of Planning/Building/Pub.- ..orks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 1, 2002 APPLICATION NO: LUA-02-012, SA-H, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 15, 2002 Gu , ,6NTON APPLICANT: DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC PROJECT MANAGER: LESLEY NISHIHIRIN E C E I V E D PROJECT TITLE: CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER WORK ORDER NO: 78944 FEB l LOCATION: NE CORNER OF DAVIS AV S&S.45T"ST. ZOO2 SITE AREA: 2.77 ACRES BUILDING AREA(gross): 179,241 SF BUILDING DIVISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Hearing Examiner Site Plan approval for an assisted living retirement community. The subject site is 2.77 acres in size and is relatively flat with no known sensitive or critical areas. The project would construct 179 units, plus administrative offices,two dining rooms,a commercial kitchen, lounges, recreational and activity areas, an indoor pool,a commercial laundry, service areas, and other necessary rooms and common areas -all within a four-story,wood frame building of 179,241 gross square feet. Approximately 100 parking stalls, including surface and garage spaces,would be provided. The project also includes the installation of landscaping, paths,walkways,outdoor recreation areas, as well as all necessary utility and street improvements. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS & C49-174"-7-14"e?1"49 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 additional informativ is needed to properly assess this proposal. (04 3 -I -©z Sig re of Director or •g orized Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 • City of.._..ton Department of Planning/Building/Pubi._ ..orks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: SURFACE WASTEWATER COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 1, 2002 APPLICATION NO: LUA-02-012,SA-H, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 15,2002 APPLICANT: DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC PROJECT MANAGER: LESLEY NISHIHIRft c PROJECT TITLE: CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER WORK ORDER NO: 78944 �r1C`� O .gFN,. ' LOCATION: NE CORNER OF DAVIS AV S&S.45TH ST. FF� ,8 vF� SITE AREA: 2.77 ACRES BUILDING AREA(gross): 179,24 ( , ?iD0? SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Hearing Examiner ,]an approval for n se an assisted living retirement community. The subject site is 2.77 acres in size and is relatively flat with no know or critical areas. The project would construct 179 units, plus administrative offices,two dining rooms, a commercial kitchen, loung s, recreational and activity areas, an indoor pool,a commercial laundry, service areas, and other necessary rooms and common areas -all within a four-story,wood frame building of 179,241 gross square feet. Approximately 100 parking stalls, including surface and garage spaces,would be provided. The project also includes the installation of landscaping, paths,walkways, outdoor recreation areas, as well as all necessary utility and street improvements. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS C01-7.4.,-rvVet-4-4 We have reviewed this application th particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas wh addi'oval informatio needed to properly assess this proposal. Signs of Director or Aut ized Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 City of.--on Department of Planning/Building/Publi ..irks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 1, 2002 APPLICATION NO: LUA-02-012, SA-H, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 15, 2002 APPLICANT: DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC PROJECT MANAGER: LESLEY NISHIHIR" Q!.oN PROJECT TITLE: CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER WORK ORDER NO: 78944 ••Err FrE8 � � LOCATION: NE CORNER OF DAVIS AV S&S.45TH ST. fln SITE AREA: 2.77 ACRES BUILDING AREA(gross): 179,241 164ild.ilAq ' A, SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA)Review and Hearing Examiner Site Plan . mai for an assisted living retirement community. The subject site is 2.77 acres in size and is relatively flat with no known sensitive or critical areas. The project would construct 179 units, plus administrative offices,two dining rooms,a commercial kitchen, lounges, recreational and activity areas, an indoor pool, a commercial laundry, service areas, and other necessary rooms and common areas -all within a four-story,wood frame building of 179,241 gross square feet. Approximately 100 parking stalls, including surface and garage spaces,would be provided. The project also includes the installation of landscaping, paths,walkways, outdoor recreation areas,as well as all necessary utility and street improvements. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities _ Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 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 wher dditional information is eded to properly assess this proposal. Signatur Director or Author' d Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 Washington State Northwest Region Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North Douglas B. MacDonald P.O.Box 330310 Secretary of Transportation Seattle,WA 98133-9710 206-440-4000 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 March 4,2002 www,wsdot.wa.gov DEVELOPMENT PLANMNL. CITY OF riENTON Leslie Nishihira,Senior Planner City of Renton,Development Services Division MAR 0 6JOZ 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 RE: SR 167 MP 24.41 RECEIVED Chateau at Valley Center File No.LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated Dear Ms.Nishihira, Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the proposed Chateau at Valley Center development. We apologize for the delay in getting our comments to you by the due date of 3/1/02 and we hope that our comments will be reviewed and noted. The 2.77 acre site is located at the NE corner of Davis Avenue South and South 45th Street in Renton. It is our understanding that the applicant is proposing to construct 179 units,plus administrative offices,and various common areas associated with a retirement community— all within a four-story building of 179,241 square feet. Based on our review of the above noted documents,we would like to provide you with the following comment: 1. The proposed project will generate approximately 61 PM Peak Hour trips according to the Trip Generation Manual 6111 Edition, Volume 2, Institute of Transportation Engineers. The calculations were based on Retirement Community. Because of these fmdings we require a Traffic Impact Study with emphasis on the SR 167 SW 43rd St. interchange. Attached you'll find a Traffic Impact Study checklist for the proponent's use, 2. SR 167,between mileposts 24.30 and 24.53 northbound mainline and between mileposts 24.15 and 24.46 northbound off-ramp to S 180/SW 43rd are High Accident Locations (HAL)therefore the traffic study may need to discuss possible mitigating impacts by constructing roadway improvements. An Environmental Checklist was provided with the PDNS-M which stated a traffic report was submitted with the application. We did not receive this with the package. If this information discusses the information we requested,a copy of the Traffic Report forwarded to us will be sufficient. If you have any further questions,please contact Phil Segami at 206-440-4326 [segamip@wsdot.wa.gov] or Vicki Wegner at 206-440-4323 [wegnev@wsdot.wa.gov] of my King County Area Developer Services team. Sinc rely, ( — , Ramin Pazooki King Area Planning Manager RP:vw Attachment I \ CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 28, 2002 TO: Lesley Nishihira FROM: Sonja J. Fesser )$ SUBJECT: Chateau at Valley Center,LUA-02-012, SA Format and Legal Description Review Bob Mac Onie and I have reviewed the above referenced site approval submittal and have the following comments: Comments for the Applicant: The legal description is technically flawed, as currently noted in the attachment to the Land Use Permit Master Application and on the ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY document. The legal description includes a non-tangent curve with no basis of bearing noted for said curve. The recording number of a lot line adjustment(LLA-023-9),noted in said legal, is incorrect. It would be best to simplify and correct the legal description as follows: Lots 10 and 11, One Valley Place, according to the plat thereof,recorded in Volume 125 of Plats,Pages 40 and 41,records of King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH Lot 2 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No.LLA-023-91, as recorded under King County Recording No. 9108069008,King County, Washington. All situate in the NE quarter of Section 31,Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton,King County, Washington. Comments for the Project Manager: Note: The applicant noted the incorrect quarter section in the"LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY" section of the Land Use Permit Master Application form. The correct quarter section is NE, not SW. Also note the legal description above,which is correct and should be used by the applicant. \H:\FILE.SYS\LND\20\CHATEAU.doc City of......ton Department of Planning/Building/Publ Drks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: CONSTRUCTION SERVICES COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 1, 2002 APPLICATION NO: LUA-02-012, SA-H, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 15,2002 APPLICANT: DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC PROJECT MANAGER: LESLEY NISF411,4.o�9 PROJECT TITLE: CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER WORK ORDER NO: 78944 / L rk OCATION: NE CORNER OF DAVIS AV S&S.45TH ST. 4 8i�8 �Q SITE AREA: 2.77 ACRES BUILDING AREA(gross): 179,241 4 ( SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA)Review and Hearing Examin a Plan approval for an assisted living retirement community. The subject site is 2.77 acres in size and is relatively flat with no know nsitive or critical areas. The project would construct 179 units, plus administrative offices,two dining rooms,a commercial kitchen, ounges, recreational and activity areas,an indoor pool,a commercial laundry, service areas,and other necessary rooms and common areas -all within a four-story,wood frame building of 179,241 gross square feet. Approximately 100 parking stalls, including surface and garage spaces,would be provided. The project also includes the installation of landscaping, paths,walkways,outdoor recreation areas, as well as all necessary utility and street improvements. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTSGcilAREIL7r- rip - 14 R I c'E i- w�a6ES 7- p/f =1.--I,riN4lr.y pE -1 ritiG fmc iTo/4 /, 85- 4Eo7-ecHNIcitc_ QL>iZlr,o fi:764(/0-f r76iciS , S i- ' f.J 6 L c We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probably impact or areas where additional information is eded to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorize epresentative Date Routing Rev.10/93 • i. « City of.......on Department of Planning/Building/Publi rks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: PARKS COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 1, 2002 n O 70 APPLICATION NO: LUA-02-012, SA-H, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 15,2002 3 � .I APPLICANT: DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC PROJECT MANAGER: LESLEY NISHIHIRA c2. m ) PROJECT TITLE: CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER WORK ORDER NO: 78944 cr co LOCATION: NE CORNER OF DAVIS AV S&S.45TH ST. m o SITE AREA: 2.77 ACRES BUILDING AREA(gross): 179,241 SF n z r 0 m SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA)Review and Hearing Examiner SiteWlan approval for an assisted living retirement community. The subject site is 2.77 acres in size and is relatively flat with no known sensitive or critical areas. The project would construct 179 units, plus administrative offices,two dining rooms, a commercial kitchen, lounges, recreational and activity areas, an indoor pool, a commercial laundry, service areas, and other necessary rooms and common areas -all within a four-story,wood frame building of 179,241 gross square feet. Approximately 100 parking stalls, including surface and garage spaces,would be provided. The project also includes the installation of landscaping, paths,walkways,outdoor recreation areas, as well as all necessary utility and street improvements. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet Q. ?a ' ? / dyk) $35-1, o�---7/1a147-- ------ -rr p �,I I� cM s�-7-Th L its et- vmrn'C �+�r�l x f . Te fz- ii PA -s B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS M I rla f77rY1 f-C-C IS ( E- ' " 14 e Ai AI •J//v/be ay. /Lb. 7)/Yuica-alz A "i2e- & C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS , /6 44/0 '% /71M,e, aye ` We have reviewed this application wi articular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas whe additional infor ion i ed to roperly asses this proposal. 7 Dat2 Sign ure of irec or or Aut riz d Representativ ll. Routing Rev.10/93 s ~ y A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS "It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate future residents that would utilize existing City park and recreation facilities and programs. The City has adopted a Parks Mitigation Fee of$354.51 per each new multi family unit to address these potential impacts." City of......:on Department of Planning/Building/Pubh_ ._Jrks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: FIRE PREVENTION COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 1, 2002 APPLICATION NO: LUA-02-012, SA-H, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 15,2002 APPLICANT: DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC PROJECT MANAGER: LESLEY NISHIHIRA 1 PROJECT TITLE: CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER WORK ORDER NO: 78944 FEB 1 8 2002 LOCATION: NE CORNER OF DAVIS AV S&S.45TH ST. SITE AREA: 2.77 ACRES BUILDING AREA(gross): 179,241 SF SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL:The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Hearing Examiner Site Plan approval for an assisted living retirement community. The subject site is 2.77 acres in size and is relatively flat with no known sensitive or critical areas. The project would construct 179 units, plus administrative offices,two dining rooms,a commercial kitchen, lounges, recreational and activity areas,an indoor pool, a commercial laundry, service areas,and other necessary rooms and common areas -all within a four-story,wood frame building of 179,241 gross square feet. Approximately 100 parking stalls, including surface and garage spaces,would be provided. The project also includes the installation of landscaping, paths,walkways,outdoor recreation areas,as well as all necessary utility and street improvements. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet ��fl 14,000 Feet / r/ 4 Ma ro Y' K Ae 5 iVc I cl� J B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS iJ� C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS- See a c,Xe Cu►.-z �0u144 ex/ We have reviewed this application ith particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where addi onal informatio needed to properly assess this proposal. IA alb / U� Signature of D ector or Authorized R resentative Date Routing Rev.10/93 Y O' O� CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: February 18, 2002 TO: Lesley Nishihira, Planner FROM: Jim Gray' Assistant Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Chateau At Valley Center, Davis Av. S 85 S 45th St. MITIGATION ITEMS; 1. A fire mitigation fee of$93,205.32 is required based on $.52 per square foot of the building square footage. FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The preliminary fire flow is 5000 GPM, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and four additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Separate plans and permit are required for the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 3. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways are a minimum 20 in width with a turning radius of 45 foot outside and 25 foot inside. 4. Fire department dead-end access roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. The turnaround at the Southeast corner shall be enlarged to meet fire department requirements. See attached diagram. 5. Provide a list of the flammable, combustible liquids and any hazardous chemical to be used or stored on site. • Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. FIRE - —)PARATUS ACCESS F —BADS RENTON PLRE PREVENTION BUREAU -a- - 4,0tr-y 50- lovo Ls 1.11 • t ; r:::ii::>:}:i n::::•:}:i:+s:J+i:`::v?:0:?::::::�::%::::¢i:;:;:;:i;:::::?::fv: :?i�:i;:::?•ii:;::;:tii:;: : ' ';?? : j' :, :2•::t:L•:t-:Lx:•:::::..::.v:Yvtii>�>i::}:j:isisii:'ri}ii:i::{}i{`?:::{ %:,:wt�ivv:::::::.vvvvv.-.y.} ,:.:} .~$.. {,{`y:::<}: x}r. .. t ,,:.:y.rt}:::::::::ry:y:::::.v::.vv::::::nx•.}•::n}:: ry' •?}: .::§: : . 90 FEE T•A::: }vx.;...,.v x:4:5::::w::v5?:?}:?.;:x.,.8? 5::.}:• ? ass<s` V TURNING :...> ... RADIUS .„::: 25-FEET INSIDE `'`..:.E""v.e..z k:K• 45—FEET OUTSIDE "< k <` K N 20-FEET K • • • 55—FEET } :.: :.ry:::>}:':.v.:+n.:.:..,xr:.:•..:::.::•.,.•.t•:::$,:.::::::..v:. t:•.:?}.Y?: y.}:.}}.vt:}:.}}•ryv.}:.::.t;:.}t:}:.:.555Y:•}:. pc ?iny;.{ n.y.,{nt rv;{.yxrny�.? 4 }�v� y� tf?{vi.:::+f.:i::vn.v.nv;C•}}:ii }}�'�" :::ii: :ii :}:i.'ii::i:n+ xb.rin{•nt.:.v.. ,:.:{•rivi{i:K?{?x• ./.{•in::�:v?+{.}'.i?•:{-i it`+':�'?':ti>.::i. vn}i}}:• {^^Yi:S'?'3'O}'+{:^}i';v:^:•Y%?ry}}•n} i LI •: :...v:•.vw:n•: vn,fi:xif :?'-5}}:iry:•5:.v} w}`\i',:Yy:x-r.}1..:...rh4'^ii>..+, i4::}•.w:n ..,M..i.v.:ti<::io;:?::%`iii•.i{:{:{.: }+iAt n}I M1• .,:.:Y n ......vxh\?:L{xe:it.:{t{K:.v::if.:'?{i?v'iif:i. }}:-::4:4: •• l�:�-L:ti? .•$.wn �nv ,vt•'.'::v:{\y;>;tn?L A v.:{•4�8•. .x:,v.W tx:.{::• •rry}:};•.:.};, ,}•ry:;{?nv}v v:yr:.v,.yyn}:x}vy}•.vw.v}i}:: sf,a:}Y�•:'"n:'.••:4ry;+•; r,fs}n:Y} }....,.,t., .nb:Frrn. r •: n:.:•,•::.:•.t„r.:.n:,•r.,::•n•:.::•::::.,•::.ttryx: ;}}:} �/ :::s:,:xn:�:,ct,,, t:::::;�;} „:rs:�.,•{<:;..:;'tc?:}',^,>.:::v;k2::'t:%'t::'•:::;... �t, v ,�.. ..t:.,,:.t„ •.:,).v LL- t,:,t.}`.x {.,{•:::•}::.t•.{;•:i{ii;r.;{ryi::.'•:::::::::,i::::::>::%:::}};.: :•%•}':•: :Lv �'a%,;::::•`.}5w::::•:.,x• .:'+.�'.'•v.•s:.•}...v :n\... e;, tvfv.,::::•:::A;:::K:n•:••v. x.:xv }•• •:rfv;{:;rri'iQ%4}}::?{•}}.`,„„,}:44::i v}xvnvvvv.v.:xw::.v:nvv,::::n,v.,::v::nv`'`" v?:?vvv:•::vv•.v v•• n x• v.+... fv'+•} 0:::<::::n::: i::::::%:::::nv.:ti4ti:ti::::::::::::::J%:::::: ntnvx rywi v+ :.}}:%kiv::ti::• }}r:$::::: > t xt:vx,vv }:p<itS':::s:v;:$..;<:y�r^;ry:•:;: i:;%r:`•:iir?;:. :.;:t;%::;"�:'K tryr^?,:.as` .}... Yor:+•.;v: : v:,.::%-:v:n:•.,•r::A::::{:.,..m.::::::: :v:t •.:,::. :v..,w:ry};vn..,. •.x•n: . ::} .„..„.::..„.„.?::., :::t,.}:} 5a�'/n� -nvvf,r{4+`.�Lv'�,`v::::i:::•i::i:::::i%::n,vv::.v:r:+::::::::.vnvtv.Sxx: v xv"{S.v.:,x .•l::>i::::i"xw•n::L:��S:v :::v::f.{$::�'vxr¢;{:.Yv:n}x vv}}vx:}.}: .i:: xv,.t{,,:S::m'�:}M1'•{�:r%t'iii:•:+'?'::$i::;:;::::j'::i}ti:}}}:;: t v••.�.+4,:}y..: ry:f• ?vkr::>::(w•:�'::%:::::`:•%:Yi n':L..,:.:...:.:.... ...k.n. v,.x., y:M1.t... vv: xxx• .m.....W.i......... b:•:' :{vx. f�tv�+f.•}.9r:r{.v. rYinL%::•:::nW f; }: ..�.Yv,Yv{.....................^?Y?, ..............................:.:.. r....... ::.,,-n?.ry:,�..,.. .......... . FEET ' • :ti .`:t�i.•:nryk:`vn?%::::v`;: }tip: V TURNING y:„.:.;•::::t:MK{;�;: • RADIUS :5 f5:}�::: :�.:: 03 ii : v� C 25—FEET INSIDE ' � v 45—FEET OUTSIDE :}M?:?}ryM}tK.: .t:• ......................... K >I 20—FEET =:,:v' CURB nyr::-Ag: ::Ki:;.,} .h>:«::> ?` ::::• ::;y}:}::;?:;.5}Y }:xvv'i}•`.:::^Sr`:t:YL`.Yr " ti`•: i •.;Y':•`.;'`t:�+.,+;r:,, n�k•.t;:`,�,`:�::!.:::y:yy::?;:::^•'.Y$;:;i:^:k.'•i>.::rx:•r: :;+:r. n}yv ^ ..:5•.x•:nv ::?•ii:nt.vi `.::0§:;:^�K: r:{:::;titi;:ri i?::Y :n`kuj ?%9i: {'r'i.::::v?:;-:.}.::v;ivi+::}?::i%v::v::}::{{:}•::::ice ry:::}i•. ::::Yn.:xJ:.vvw.vw:: ; f. :Fi»<i:i?yii iy:;{;i;::i;i�;ii;??::::i::::::::i:iii:}:?{. .•:: ;:. ,...:... ,•n.t..:n,...:i::: ::*?:.................,.. �x•..Ki::.t•}}:.:K.IK:x.:. :v,•.:...,..,...::. :..: it .:..:.t}: � x -:..,•.gin:::•::•.,•n•.t•: n•+ ...........:.... W .n•:...x y:;vs:?:•}:.::{::?}::.}:•}:�:.;-y.}}y;;;:}:}?::::{:i.:t•};;.:�:;ss ::::: }::•.'• +,•:.,...,.+..,.....,::: :tt-:n•.,•;,?..:.y.K:::,.y}::::..:;,•... :::n•::. ,,..,::.,t•:n•::r}::::}}}:-}:::•:::?•:;;•;•:f--.:+??::}s...::.:...s..:::•:.ry•:•::.,;:<YS;:�::.?:;:}•::t•Y•ry::ry•.}},:.}:;•:.;»-:.;: r :::::v i:i::;:.:::::: •.,•:n•,. . ...........r:, .};;. ,??:•s: :•v..•.......:..;,;;.;{.::r... ,,..:....,,.... x.:.:•::••nx•,::.:.;.%::;{^,};;.,ry.M1....:::; M1•.4i: rr^^ titi::n': :.}iry �J •:nv: (� :i U �/A U S. ...ti.' APR-04-2002 16:58 STRATFORD CUNSTR 14J4CCfl10t17 r.rJl�er� DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC 15201 Woodinville-Redmond Road P.O.Box 907 Woodinville,WA 98072-0907 (425)488-2400, Ext. 228, Fax(425)488-1089 FAX TRANSMISSION-COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL TO: Susan Fiala COMPANY: City of Renton DATE:4/4/02 TIME: RECEIVING FAX NO. (425)430-7300 _ RE: CHATEAU at VALLEY CENTER NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: _3_ If you have any questions,print is not clear or pages missing, please call us at the number above. COMMENTS Attached Valley Medical Center letter dated January 31,2002 is for your information regarding the Chateau at Valley Center Off Street Parking Analysis/Study dated March 25,2002. This letter grants Davis Avenue Associates,LLC access to its offsite parking lot at One Valley Place(across the street on Davis Avenue S. from this projcct site),for overflow parking for events sponsored by the Assisted Living Center(this project) operated by Davis Avenue Associates,LLC. Please call me if there is anything else I can do to assist you in this regard. DEVELOPMENT CCR\RCE . CITY OF RENTON APR 0 5 2002 RECEIVED cc: A.Bernard Conley(Davis Avenue Associates) James Godfrey(Davis Avenue Associates) Donald Jacobson SValley General Hospital) SINCERELY, ell Johnson—Ext 228 evelopment Coordinator NOTE: The information contained in this facsimile document is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,you arc hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original document to us at the above address via U.S.Mail,postage due. Thank you. APR-04-2002 16:58 STRATFORD CONSTR 14254E81088 F'.U270,5 • Frorn:VMC ADMINISTRATION 425 656 4202 04/03/2002 14 #l09 P.002/003 • January 31, 2001 Mr. James Godfrey Davis Avenue Associates, 1.LC 17720 Marine Drive Stanwood, WA 98292 Re: Overflow Parking—Assisted Living Project Dear Jim: In support of the proposed project by Davis Avenue Associates, LLC ("Davis") for the development of an assisted living complex at One Valley Place, Valley Medical Center("VMC") gents, subject to the terms and conditions (collectively, the "terms") set forth below, access to and use of its offsite lot at One Valley Place (the "OlTsite Lot") for • overflow parking for events sponsored by the assisted living center operated by Davis. If Davis takes advantage of the rights granted under this letter agreement, Davis acknowledges that it will be bound by the terms and further understands that VMC may, in its discretion, change or modify such terms in the future. VMC has no continuing obligation to grant Davis access to and the right to use the Offsite Lot, and may revoke such rights in the future by giving notice to Davis. VMC i9 the sole owner of the Offsite Lot, and Davis does not acquire tide to, and any property interest in, the Offsite Lot by virtue of this letter. VMC may utilize the Offsite Lot for any purpose, regardless of whether such use interferes with or prevents Davis' use of the Offsite Lot for overflow parking purposes, and may also sell the Offsite Lot free of any rights in this letter. Davis will provide VMC with reasonable advance written notice of Davis' desire to use the Offsite Lot for special events. Davis will not utilize the Offsite Lot until it has received oral or written consent from VMC. Davis will indemnify, protect, defend and save VMC harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, damages, costs, charges, liabilities and reasonable I • APR-03-2002 17:41 20684221092 95% P.02 APR-04-2002 16:59 STRRI FURL) LUNS I R 14D4tiC1YJa7 r.n.3rn..) • Frorn:UMC ADMINISTRATION 425 656 4202 04/03/2002 - 14 #109 P.D03/003 Mr. James Godfrey January 31, 2001 Page 2 attorneys' fees arising from damage or injury, actual or claimed, of whatever kind or character, to persons or property occurring in or about the Offsite Lot as a result of Davis' access to, use of, or permitting third-party access to and use of the Offsite Lot. The failure of VMC at any time to enforce the terms and condilions staled herein shall in no manner effect VMC's right at a later time to enforce the same unless the same is waived in writing. No waiver by VMC of any term or condition shall be effective unless in writing, and no waiver of any one or more instances shall be deemed to be a further or continuing waiver of any such term or condition in other instances or a waiver of any other term or condition contained herein. Please do not hesitate to contact me at(425)656-4081 with any concerns. rely, • Paul S. Hayes, N • Chief Operatin Officer • PR/cm cc: Rich Roodman • • (A%'vllow pa1tuiG,DOC) I/i 1/01 • • • TOTAL P.03 DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC 15201 Woodinville-Redmond Road P.O.Box 907,Woodinville,WA 98072-0907 (425)488-2400,Ext.228, Fax(425)488-1089 March 25, 2002 Lesley Nishihira Development Services Division Development Planning City of Renton Renton City Hall, 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Chateau at Valley Center Parking Analysis/Study requested in City of Renton March 18, 2002 Letter File No. LUA-02-012, ECF, SA-H Dear Lesley: Attached Parking Analysis/Study is provided in response to the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) request in their March 12, 2002 meeting. Please notify us right away, if additional written or verbal input or clarifications are required to supplement the Parking Analysis/Study or if our attendance is requested at the ERC or Hearing Examiner meetings. You assistance in including this Off-Site Parking Analysis/Study in next Tuesday's meeting agenda will be greatly appreciated. We are eager to resolve this issue as soon as possible so that the public hearing date for this project can be re-scheduled. Call (425)488-2400, ext. 228 or (206) 931-2889 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Davis Avenue Associates, L.L.C. CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED MAR 2 5 2002 arr ohnson BUILDING DIVISION Development Coordinator Cc: A. Bernard Conley (Davis Avenue Associates, LLC) James Godfrey (Davis Avenue Associates, LLC) Donald Jacobson (Valley General Medical Center) Off-Street Parking Analysis/Study Chateau at Valley Center Assisted Living Retirement Community File No. LUA-02-012-ECF-SA-H March 25, 2002 General: Chateau at Valley Center is to be a Retirement Community offering 179 units of Assisted Living, including approximately 15 units of Dementia Care. The facility will be located at the northeast corner of S. 45th Place and Davis Avenue S. in Renton, WA. 98055 and is situated one block south of Valley Medical Center. Residents: Most of the residents are over seventy years old, with many in their eighties or nineties. By nature, these senior citizen residents are relatively immobile and their infirmities preclude them from owning or driving a car. Licensing: The entire facility will be licensed by the State of Washington as a boarding home under their regulations contained in chapter 246-316 of the Washington Administrative Code for assisted living residence. As such, the facility will be largely self-contained and will provide all basic and special services to residents. The self-contained aspect of the facility greatly reduces the need for the residents to own and operate their own personal vehicles and, correspondingly, reduces the need for on-site parking. Services: Seniors come to our assisted living communities because either they or their spouse needs assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) known as assisted living services, or they anticipate that they will need these services very shortly and want to be in a community where they are sure they can get these services as soon as they need them (the ability to age in place). Assistance with activities of daily living include such things as medication monitoring and administration; bathing, dressing and grooming assistance; cueing, reminders and escorts; transfer assistance; personal laundry service; incontinence management; catheter and ostomy care. These services are provided to seniors on an as needed basis. Basic Services, provided to all residents include regular meals, weekly housekeeping, laundering of sheets and towels 24-hour staffing, emergency communication system, recreational and social programs, scheduled transportation on community owned coaches, laundry facilities, cable TV and all utilities except for telephone. Dementia Care provides additional supervision and care. The resident is confined to a separate, secured Dementia Section of the facility, which will have two staff members assigned per shift during the day and one at night. 4 Off-Street Parking Analysis/Study Chateau at Valley Center File No. LUA-02-012-ECF-SA-H Page 2 Of the proposed 179 units, approximately 15 will be dementia care with no automobiles. Based on our experience at our other, similar retirement communities, approximately 20 to 30% of remaining 164 units if all are occupied (normally in a stabilized building only about 95% of the units are occupied at a given time), would have a car. This means that approximately 33 to 50 residents cars would be parked on the site. This is consistent with the vehicle trip generation calculated by the traffic study submitted which used average trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Sixth Edition. These rates are much lower than for similar sized apartment and condominium communities reflecting the fact that there are significantly fewer cars per unit. Recreation and Activities: Numerous on-site activities and conveniences will be provided, including: swimming/ exercise pool, exercise equipment, organized activities and entertainment, beauty shop, therapy and massage, complimentary resident laundry facilities (in addition to an in-house commercial laundry), full kitchen and dining facilities. The facility will be situated in an extended neighborhood that enjoys existing, fully developed street frontage improvements, roadways, curbs, sidewalks, street trees and streetlights. Staff: Chateau at Valley Center will staffed 24-hrs, seven days a week. Staff consists of managers, receptionist, caregivers, maintenance and cooks/servers/dishwashers. We estimate that, once the facility is full, there will be approximately 18 staff during the 9:00 AM to 5:00PM period and then reduce considerably to 8 to 10 for a few hours before and after this period and 2 to 3 during the balance of the night. Staff and residents have easy access to public transportation at the corner of S. 43rd Street & Talbot Road S. Staff will be encouraged to use public transportation or car pool. From studies we have done at other communities we find that 10% - 20% of the employees use public transportation almost exclusively. Another 20% use it part of the time so there is a relatively high use of public transportation among employees as well as residents. Visitors: The number of people visiting residents or staff varies by day of week as well as time of day. Typically, relatives and friends visit residents throughout the week, but tend to visit primarily during evenings after work and weekends. Off-Street Parking Analysis/Study Chateau at Valley Center File No. LUA-02-012-ECF-SA-H Page 3 Parking and Transportation: Chateau at Valley Center Level I Site Review documents currently show approx. 100 parking spaces; 73 exterior parking spaces and 27 interior parking spaces in the garage. The 27 interior spaces would be assigned to residents. There are no plans to assign exterior parking spaces to resident, staff or visitors. In addition to on site parking, additional parking is available in the Valley Medical Center parking lot located across the street from the building main entry on Davis Avenue S under an agreement with Valley Medical Center. Chateau at Valley Center will purchase and operate a shuttle coach, or coaches, to provide transportation for residents to shopping, entertainment, doctor's appointments, scenic drives and longer trips. In addition, the Valley Medical Center shuttle bus will convey residents of the facility to Valley Medical Center medical facilities as well as other locations on the Valley Medical Center campus and medical offices and clinics in the vicinity. Discussion: We visited a retirement community located in Renton named The Lodge at Eagle Ridge. They reported that of their 100 units, approximately 90 are rented. And, although, The Lodge at Eagle Ridge contains a large percentage of independent residents, the staff indicated that only 5 residents owned a car. There were a large number of empty parking spaces on the facility, and of the 20 or so cars in the parking lot, most were staff and visitors. The staff indicated that the number of cars in the lot during the visit was typical for that facility. Since assisted living facilities are a relatively recent concept, many local municipal codes do not have established guideline for parking on these facilities. However, because Snohomish County's code "Retirement Housing" SSC 18.45.055(2) specifically addresses off-street parking for retirement housing, the Architect for Chateau at Valley Center elected to follow Snohomish County's code in determining the required number of parking spaces for the proposed Chateau at Valley Center facility. He indicated that he has followed the Snohomish County code on other similar projects, with good results. This code calls for a ratio of one parking space for every three dwelling units (a ratio of 0.33:1). The number of parking spaces determined by this formula provides Off-Street Parking Analysis/Study Chateau at Valley Center File No. LUA-02-012-ECF-SA-H Page 4 parking spaces for residents, staff and visitors. Using this formula, Chateau at Valley Center requires (179 units/3) 60 parking spaces. We have elected to provide approx. 100 parking spaces for this facility, which is 40 spaces more than required. A copy of the applicable parts of the Snohomish County Code Retirement Housing SSC 18.45.055(2) is enclosed for your reference. Information provided by the city in their pre-application meeting memorandum dated December 21, 2000 indicates that the city parking code for low income elderly multiple dwellings is one parking space per 4 units. Although our project is not a low income project the age and infirmities or the residents have a similar effect on their ownership of automobiles At our other assisted living communities we have the following parking space ratios and they have proven over the years to be adequate. Shown are the total numbers of parking spaces available for residents, staff and visitors and there are no offsite parking agreements with adjacent properties. Chateau at Peters Creek, Redmond, WA 63 units -22 parking — ratio 1:2.9 Chateau Marymoor, Redmond WA 59 units -23 parking- ratio 1:2.5 Chateau Pacific, Lynnwood WA 212 units- 95 parking — ratio 1:2.3 Chateau at Bothell Landing, Bothell WA 88 units — 50 parking —ratio 1:1.8 Proposed Chateau at Valley Center 179 units — 100 parking — ratio 1:1.8 Conclusion: We believe the submitted Level I Site Review documents include adequate off- street parking. In fact, the proposed parking provides a comfortable number of extra parking spaces over and above the minimum number of spaces required. Accordingly, we request that the off-street parking at the proposed Chateau at Valley Center Assisted Living Retirement Community be approved as submitted. Respectfully submitted Enc: Snohomish County Code excerpt Page 1 of 1: Chapter 18.45 OFF-STREET PARKING • 18.45.010 Applicability. (1) Every new use and every building erected, moved,reconstructed, expanded, or structurally altered shall provide parking areas as provided in this chapter. (2) Parking areas shall be permanent and shall be permanently maintained for parking purposes. (3) This chapter applies to any lot or parcel of land used as a public or private parking area and having a capacity of three or more vehicles,including any vehicle sales area. This chapter shall not apply to permit applications for individual single family or duplex residences. (Added Ord. 86-037, § 2,May 7, 1986; Amended Ord. 01-063, Sept. 5, 2001,Eff date Sept. 16, 2001). 18.45.020 ingress and egress provisions. (1) The director of public works, in conjunction with the fire marshal, shall have authority to fix the location, width and manner of approach of vehicular ingress or egress from a building or parking area to a public street and to alter existing ingress and egress as may be required to control traffic in the interest of public safety and general welfare (2) The director of planning and development services shall have authority to require sufficient queuing,backing, - turning and maneuvering space within a parking area to meet the requirements of this chapter and to ensure that pedestrian routes are not blocked by maneuvering or queuing vehicles (Added Ord. 86-037, § 2,May 7, 1986; Amended Ord. 01-063, Sept. 5, 2001, Eff date Sept. 16, 2001). 18.45.030 Location of parking spaces. Off-street parking spaces shall be located as specified in this section. Where a distance is specified,the distance shall - be the walking distance measured from the nearest point of the parking facilities to the nearest point of the building which it serves. (1) Parking for single and multiple family dwellings shall be within 300 feet of and on the same lot or building site with the building it serves; (2) Parking for uses not specified above shall not be over 300 feet from the building it serves. Parking spaces for uses on land subject to a binding site plan with record of survey (BSP) shall be located on land within the BSP area per recorded covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CCRs) or declaration; (3) All off-street parking spaces shall be located on land zoned in a manner which would allow the particular use the parking will serve; and (4) Parking shall be setback from lakes, streams, wetlands, and other bodies of water as required by the shoreline management code and/or critical areas regulations. See Title 21 and chapter 32.10 SCC. http://198.238.192.104/nxt/gateway.dll/S CCode/code%20title00000/title00342/chapter00352.htm?f=templat{... 3/19/0: Page 2of 1: (Added Ord. 86-037, § 2,May 7, 1986; Amended Ord. 95-063, § 10,August 9, 1995,Eff date Sept. 29, 1995; Amended Ord 01-063, Sept. 5, 2001, Eff date Sept. 16, 2001). 18.45.035 Tandem parking. Tandem or stacked parking spaces may be allowed for residential and commercial uses as follows: (1) Each tandem space shall be at least 8.5 feet wide and twice the depth required for a standard space. ' (2) A maximum of 30% of the required parking may be provided through tandem spaces. (3) For residential uses, tandem parking may only be used when it can be documented that parking spaces will be assigned to specific units and tandem spaces will not be shared between units. (4) Commercial uses with no retail or customer service components may use tandem parking only when it can be documented that the proposed parking will be managed to accommodate employee access to vehicles and vehicle ingress and egress at all times. (Added Ord. 01-063, Sept. 5, 2001, Eff date Sept_ 16,2001). - 18.45.040 Number of spaces required (1) The required number of off-street parking spaces shall be as set forth in Table 18.45.040(1), subject to provisions, where applicable, regarding: (a) effective alternatives to automobile access (SCC 18.45.055); (b) joint uses (SCC 18.45.070 and 18.45.080); and (c) accessible routes of travel (SCC 18.45.100(5)). (2) The abbreviations in the table have the following meanings: (a) "gfa means gross floor area; (b) "GLA means gross leasable area; and (c) "sf means square feet. Table 18.45.040 Number of Spaces Required USE, NO. OF SPACES NOTES REQUIRED Dwellings Single family,duplex,mobile 2 per dwelling; see note Driveways at least 19' long home,multifamily,townhouse between garage doors and roads,private roads, or http://198.23 8.192.104/nxt/gateway.dll/S CCode/code%20tit1e00000/title00342/chapter00352.htm?f=template... 3/19/0: ',- ' Page 3 of 11 designated fire lanes or access aisles may be counted as one parking space Mobile home parks 2 per dwelling plus guest See chapter 18.55 SCC parking •. Retirement apartments 2 per dwelling See SCC 18.45.055(1) Retirement housing 1 per dwelling or 1/3 per See SCC 18.45.055(2) dwelling Lodging Bed and breakfast guesthouses and 2 plus 1 per guest room inns Motels and hotels 1 per unit or room; see note Additional parking required in accordance with this schedule for restaurants, conference or convention facilities and other businesses, facilities or uses associated with the motel or hotel Rooming and boarding 1 per sleeping room - houses,including fraternities and sororities II Hospitals and live-in or day care facilities or institutions Correctional institutions Determined by the See SCC 18.45.050 department on a case by case basis Day care centers 1 per employee plus An off street load and unload load/unload space; see note area equivalent to one space for each 10 children is also required Hospitals • Determined by the See SCC 18.45.050 department on a case by case basis • Nuising homes, institutions Determined by the See SCC 18.45.050 forithe aged or children department on a case by case basis Office and service uses Auto repair,machinery repair http://198.238.192.104/nxt/gateway.dll/S CCode/code'o20title00000/title00342/chapter00352.htm?f=template... 3/19i 0" Page6of1: Wholesale,manufacturing, warehousing and utility uses Wholesale distribution facilities 1 : 1000 sf gfa Manufacturing uses 3 : 1000 sf gfa May also be determined.by the department on a case by case basis per SCC 18.45.050 when the employee to sf gfa ratio for the proposed use is less than 3 : 1000 Industrial uses except 1 : 1000 sf gfa warehousing and storage Warehouse and storage .5 : 1000 sf gfa except mini-self-storage Mini-self-storage 2 : 50 storage units; see note Half the spaces to be distributed equally around the site, half to be located at the project office Utility and communication 1 space uses without regular employment d - _ Auto wrecking yards 15 spaces for yard less than 10 acres in size; 25 spaces for yards 10 acres or larger (Added Ord. 86-037, § 2, May 7, 1986; Amended Ord. 87-026, § 2,April 29, 1987; Ord. 95-079, § 4, Oct. 11, 1995, Eff date Oct. 26, 1995; Amended Ord. 96-036, § 4,June 12, 1996,Eff date July 31, 1996; Amended Ord. 97-072, § 1, Sept. 24, 1997,Eff date Oct. 8, 1997; Amended Ord. 98-101, § 1, Oct. 14, 1998, Eff date Oct.25, 1998; Amended Ord. 01-063, Sept. 5, 2001,Eff date Sept. 16, 2001). • 18.45.050 Parking for specified and unlisted uses. Where the parking requirements for a use are not specifically defined, the parking requirements for the use shall be determined by the department. The determination shall be based upon parking requirements for comparable uses and comparative data as may be available to staff. The department may require the applicant to submit or fund a parking study prepared by an independent consultant with expertise in parking demand analysis. Such studies may be required to review or provide estimates of peak parking hours,parking space demand, parking space turnover, and to relate or distinguish the proposed use from the uses selected as comparable in the parking analysis. (Added Ord. 86-037, § 2,May 7, 1986; Amended Ord. 87-026, § 4, April 29, 1987; Amended Ord. 01-063, Sept_ 5, 2001, Eff date Sept. 16, 2001). 18.45.055 Reduction of required spaces. The department may reduce the parking requirements otherwise prescribed for any use or combination of uses as set forth below. http://198.238.192.104/nxt/gateway_d11/S CCode/code%20tit1e00000/title00342/chapter00352.htm?f=template... 3/19/0: � t Page7of1: _ (1) Retirement Apartments. Approved building plans shall show two parking spaces per dwelling unit. Installatior of up to 50 percent of the required spaces may be deferred by the department, and held in reserve as landscaped area. Installation of the deferred parking space and any required parking lot landscaping will be required at such time the building is no longer used as a retirement apartment. A performance bond or alternate surety may be required in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of the deferred improvements to assure installation at a future date. (2) Retirement Housing. The requirement of one space per dwelling unit may be reduced to no less than one space; for every three dwelling units as determined by the department. The determination shall be based on the following: (a) Demonstrated availability of private, convenient, regular transportation services to meet the needs of the retirement apartment occupant; (b) Accessibility to and frequency of public transportation; or (c) Direct pedestrian access to health, medical and shopping facilities. (3) All other uses. The department may reduce, by not more than 40%, the number of required parking spaces when an applicant demonstrates that effective alternatives to automobile use, including but not limited to van pooling, ride matching for carpools, and provision of subscription bus service will be implemented and will provide an effective and permanent reduction in parking demand (Added Ord. 86-037, § 2, May 7, 1986; Amended Ord. 87-026, § 4, April 29, 1987; Amended Ord. 01-063, Sept. 5, 2001,Eff date Sept. 16, 2001). 18.45.060 Mixed occupancies. In the case of mixed occupancies in a building or on a lot,the total requirements for off-street parking shall be the sum of the requirements for the various uses computed separately. Off-street parking facilities of a particular use shall not be considered as providing required parking facilities for any other use except as specified for joint use. (Added Ord. 86-037, § 2,May 7, 1986; Amended Ord. 01-063, Sept. 5, 2001, Eff date Sept. 16,2001). 18.45.070 Joint uses. The department may, upon application by the owner or lessee of any property, authorize the joint use of parking facilities by the following uses or activities under the conditions specified below: (1) Up to 50 percent of the parking facilities required by this chapter for a use considered to be primarily a daytime use may be provided by the parking facilities of a use considered to be primarily a nighttime use or vice versa, PROVIDED That the reciprocal parking area shall be subject to the conditions set forth in SCC 18.45.080; (2) Up to 100 percent of the Sunday and/or nighttime parking facilities required for a church or auditorium incidental to a public or private school may be supplied by parking facilities required for the school use, PROVIDED the reciprocal parking area shall be subject to the conditions set forth in SCC 18.45.080: and (3) For purposes of this section, the following uses typically are daytime uses: business offices, barber and beauty shops,manufacturing or wholesale buildings, park and pool or park and ride lots. The following typically are nighttime and/or Sunday uses: auditoriums incidental to a public or private school, churches, dance halls, theaters and taverns. http://198.238.192.104/nxt/gateway.dll/S CCode/code%20title00000/title00342/chapter00352.htm?f=template... 3/19/0: •• CITY L F RENTON v .t,41i, .LL ' Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator March 18, 2002 Darrell Johnson Davis Avenue Associates, LLC P.O. Box 907 Woodinville, WA 98072 Subject: Chateau at Valley Center File No. LUA-02-012, ECF, SA-H Dear Mr. Johnson: Last Tuesday, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) convened to discuss the above referenced project. Due to concerns regarding potential parking impacts from the proposed use, the ERC has tabled their issuance of a Threshold Determination pending the receipt of additional information needed to complete their evaluation of the project. Specifically, the ERC has requested a parking analysis/study be conducted for the proposal in order to address the amount of parking spaces necessary for the project. The analysis should describe in detail the range of services to be provided to residents of the facility (i.e., full-time care, part-time assistance, etc.), as well as provide the number of patients/residents estimated to require the specified levels of care. The analysis should also address the number of employees estimated on a shift by shift basis, peak visiting hours (times and numbers), and whether or not spaces will be reserved for employees, residents, and/or visitors. If necessary, the study may include comparisons with other existing facilities provided parking and resident services are described in detail. At this time your project has been placed "on hold" and will remain so until the requested information has been received. Once the parking study has been submitted, staff will review the information and re-schedule the item on the ERC and Hearing Examiner's agendas. Please note the public hearing for the project will be re-scheduled once this SEPA is resolved. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me at (425) 430-7270. Sincerely, Lesley Nishihira Project Manager cc: Public Hospital District No. 1 of King County, Owner Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner Land Use File 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 RENTON 0AHEAD OF THE CURVE This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer -- - — 2. The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on a rate of$75.00 per net• Oti,VY \ average tlaily trip generated by the project. v\ 3• The applicant will be required to comply with the recommendations contained with- the Geotechnicai gapon^ow 1 • c� � submitted with the land use application. r�N`t�S Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Lesley Nlshihira,Senior Planner,Development Services Div'ispion,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on March 1,2002.If you have questions NOTICE O F APPLICATION about9this proposal,or wish to be made a art of record and receive additional notification by mail,contact the Project Mena ogees,. this one who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record end will be notified o any AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- decision on pre;eDt. SIGNIFICANCE—MITIGATED(DNS-M) CONTACT PERSON: LESLEYNISHIHIRA(425)430-7270 I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUM DATE: February 15,2002 BER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-02.012,SA-H,ECF / /) A'_x1irEfl� APPLICATION NAME: CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER , ,/AI%• F;r. n �I !hi y f CC:> . PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant Is requesting Environmental(SEPA)Review and Hearing y i /',L :` 9�rrJ/+M'"�,,,r -, Examiner Site Plan approval for an assisted living retirement community.The subject site Is 2.77 acres in size p ,e Q. 1 -..'1J/ 1T Z'•T"; E and Is relatively flat with no known sensitive or critical areas. The project would construct 179 units,plus I u '4i �� ��' � 'c ' b and e flat two dining rooms,a commercial kitchen,lounges,recreational would and activity areas,an !,, �, r.or.. ' lr1- .r`S ' Indoor pool,a commercial laundry,service areas,and other necessary rooms and common areas-all within a a Id- _, —(,7 r if_' F��-, four-story,wood frame building of 179,241 gross square feet. Approximately 100 perking stalls,Including p. t iU`, Cz 'd 1= s.4'��..', surface and garage spaces,would bo provided.The project also Includes the Installation of landscaping,paths, ('- gg �•:• 'rr,,y walkways,outdoor recreation areas,as well as all necessary utility end street Improvements. x / - �Cr7 y�!�` 1Y-��{�I' PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Davis Avenue South&South 45"Street 7 i i j)I VW OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MRIGATED(DNS-M):As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental Impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project.Therefore, N r � � 2.as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a i , pt. ONS-M is likely to be Issued.Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are Integrated into a single 'b 11411:21111111.11M VON comment period.There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- f Significance Mitigated(DNS-M).A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. � 4i PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: January 25,2002 I/ Cr tr�.�y_��E r. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: February 15,2002 I �%i ,...i...„ a„o.+'�ii� �, „tyrtim Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Hearing Examiner She Plan Review a e _ Other Permits which may be required: Building Permits,Construction Permits i Requested Studies: Geelechnical Report,Drainage Report,Tragic Study IIIIIIrlirj pi Location where application may [i N.:1- be reviewed: 1055 South Grady Way,Works Division,Development Services Department, .. re 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 ® ' PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing scheduled for April 9,2002 before the Renton Hearing Examiner SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE in Renton Council Chambers.Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 7th floor of the Renton Coy Hall located a11055 Grady Way South. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: A PUBLIC MEETING HOSTED BY THE PROJECT Land Use: The subject she is located within the Center institution(CI)Comprehensive Plan APPLICANT WILL Land Use Maph and Convenience Office(CO-P)Zoning Map designations.The ANT BE HELD TO DIS proposed assisted living retirement development project appears to be consistent CUSS THE with these designations.In addition,the suffix designation for the CO zone PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PRO requires additional public notification,as well JECT. -080 F l as a public meeting,for the PURSUANT TO RMC SECTION 4-3 proposed change of use for the presently vacant property. OR PROPERTIES DESIGNATED WITH THE PUBLIC USFJ"P•'SUFFIX Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: N/A DATE: FRIDAY,MARCH 1 sT . Development Regulations TIME: 3:30 Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the Citys SEPA Ordinance,Zoning Code,Airport Pm Regulations,Public Works Standards,Uniform Building Code,Uniform Fire Code LOCATION and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. .' VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER"BOARD ROOM" Proposed Mitigation Measures: CONTACT: DARRELL JOHNSON/(425)488-2400 x228 1. The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of$0.52 per square loot of of new building area. .. - .--, --— �cument6 Deeum(n le - • CERTIFICATION I, EU7)249-4ct 04-vvc , hereby certify that copies of the above document were posted by me.in1 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on � 17� • ..„ Signed. nn ,, hCl°xyra Alp . ATTEST:Subscribed .•: .worn before me,a Notary Public, in and for the f • Was �_ 0,y-L : ,= ! ,on the ] t4 day of 'Y L - ��s. O -- • NOTARYiv, v PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON ' MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES ; MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 JUNE 29, 2003 • • :>::<:>:::: :::::::::::::«>;>:::»::<<::::::: :>::>::>::>::>::;::>::.:>:::>:::::::::>::>:<:::<:<::::;::>::;::::>;::>::;:;:»:: EVELOPMENT SERVIC . .. .V .............. ><::::::::<:::«:>:::<:>:<:>::::>::::::>::::;:::<:::>:«::::<:>::�:: »>:.:.::::.:::...:........ ... . ...... ES.E�11/.ICI.�.N.........:....:..:�:::::.:.:...::......................:...:::::.:. • SURROUNDI GROPER `Y OWNERS....... PROJECT NAME: CHATEAU @ VALLEY CENTER APPLICATION NO: Z-444 Q 2 "017 )SA- H Et1' 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 PUBLIC HOSPITAL DIST 1 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER 312305-9078-09 400 SOUTH 43RD ST RENTON WA 98055 RHR COMPANY 102 CASCADE KEY 312305-9044-00 BELLEVUE WA 98006 PUBLIC HOSPITAL DIST NO 1 400 SOUTH 43RD ST 312305-9126-01 RENTON WA 98055 UNITED WAY GOOD NEIGHBOR ATT: COOK D—UNITED WAY KC 312305-9102-09 . 107 CHERRY ST SEATTLE WA 98104 PUBLIC HOSPITAL DIST 1 400 S 43RD ST 639180-0125-07 RENTON WA 98055 PUBLIC HOSPITAL DIST 1 400 S 43RD ST 639180-0010-05 RENTON WA 98055 DEAK ANDREW&MARGARET 4509 TALBOT RD 312305-9061-08 RENTON WA 98055 KAI CITY OF RENTON • • • (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) • (Continued) NAME • ADDRESS • ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER • • • Applicant Certification I, P4y G . s4>f3 , hereby certify that the above list(s).of adjacent property (Print Name) owners and their addresses were obtained from: /:�-�� E. o��t ❑ Title Company Records S ❑ King County Assessors Records • Signed Date l�.CltiV-- i .4Vat I (Applicant) Ii "F •25- NOTARY '''1 wAsN�� ATTESTED: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Not Notry Public, in and for the State of Washing on, residing at. RPcS,rrvo . ln)I>r on the day of Zanua , 20 U2� Signed (Notary Public) .......................................................................................... :'e•ton-�lse . •..:.�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. ......................::��:::Y::::::v:::::::•:::.�:•::::•:.�::::v:::w:.iiiiiiiiii:ti•Y:•:}ii:^i}:•Y .t...........f:i^'n. ;:::::::::::::::::::::.�:.�::: • • `Ny. :v'::i?i}iiii:":}-i'i•i}iiiii:!:>:}isi:>iisi::::i::iij$isY:i}iii`;isy<N-i}iii:<•i::�}}Y•i}i}?is4:}:^i:!iiii:��i'.ii?}:i}:..i}i?iii:Li::i::::::i::i:::<:::is?:n�::::.::�::.�::::::: !i}'r::i4}Ti}iii}}:^i}::::.i}':{.}}};;y}iiii}:-ii:^}ii:•i::�:{.iiiii:0i::::::ii:i:.iii}iiii:•:i. '>' ••: .} '. ..: ':: .>;:.;:i.:.;}:.};:-;;:.}:;::.Y:.}Y:.::}:.::::.::;.:.;:•.:;.>::.::.;;:{.:{.;::.;:.:.;:.;;:.}:.::.:::::..:�::::::.C�RT1�1GATCO.N.::O.F.:MA........................................f..........:.s::::::...:. ............................... ...................................... v::::::•;}:::::::::•::::::::::::::::::v:±<;::::::::•::•:::v:::::::::::::::::::::n�:::::::::::::v::::•::::::::::::.::::::::i:�i:vvi::4'v:ii:i::•v::::::::::::.�:::w::n;y: ...... ................................v.:::::::�::::::::::w::::::::::::::.::.:'.::::::::.::::vi::n�::.:iY>Y:Q:oy,:v::::•.;v••::.:�v:-r:'u ...........Y. .................... ...................Y.....................::::•...:.................................. ......:::w;...•:v::;:......... .. ............ :;I%'::S;:F:�i:::J•::YYYY'-;:4::i?:C:�: :... .........:.::..2•Yi: .::.:YY:.:::•:::•.i:::::::v:.....•:.:..::::•.:.....+•?'.:..w::v:v::-;.:....:::•.......:,:....::•...,,; S.•:.t .....:v::i�:{bii};}::[v::v:::: }:}::.: : . : ..::::.:.. . ..: . :. .:.:.:fier..eb..:..ce>'tif....;;that.:rye.tires.:ef..:.C�;:::.:P:::::p�::.::�:�:.:.:P�:..::::.;;: :.: •.:{:;}.:::...::::::. .::..:_::::::::::::.:.:.;".;:.;:;:;: ......... ...................... .......� .........................................::•::•::::v::::::::.�::::::v:::::v:::::.:�:::v ....1...............................{......n..a:^};{••Y�:..'ts'I•:{4i}iii;?{.;•Yi:::iiiii:i4}::�:::;:}i ................:.Ct ::gym la ss...............:.::.:::::::..:.:::.. ......... .............::::::::. ..........................i......::::::k..:.......:....... :;::;;:d : %:::i':>: :>:i;:2:is�i:.:;:}:.:;.;>:{•:.>;»:.::":•'L•:'%:>:.:i:::i::':'}S:•: :>::.;'::'..:':::::2:::;:::::�:i::i:::::i:•}::::<.::.>:.»:a;:.%,i:::::::}•: >:.:::{;.>::::.:::::::.�:::cc::.eactt;lss#ed:.rct :ert:: • •:::>:>'; , .:i::ate:: ` W sh . anres r >:me.«;:a:Nota> iito.ho:gin:and:for:.:.: ..:..t..:....:a>..::.:..:::::.:::.g:::::::: .:.�.::::ogi::::>::. :.::>_::::Subscrtbed:::and:::sw.o.rn>:befa:Q.:.:.....Y.................rY.......::..:.:::..........................::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::.....:........ ....... :.:::::: ::::. listprop.doc REV 03/00 2 • DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC 15201 Woodinville-Redmond Road P.O.Box 907,Woodinville,WA 98072-0907 (425)488-2400,Ext.228, Fax(425)488-1089 Letter of Transmittal Date:March 4,2002 Lesley Nishihira Senior Planner Development Services Division—Development Planning City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Re: Chateau at Valley Center Enclosed you will find: ✓ COPIES DESCRIPTION 1 Ea. Public Meeting Summary of March 1,2002 meeting at Valley Medical Center,Board Room,related to CO(p)Renton Municipal Code requirement. 1 Ea. March 1,2002 Signup Sheet. FOR APPROVAL FOR YOUR FILES CORRECTED&RESUBMITTED FOR YOUR INFORMATION MAKE CORRECTIONS NOTED FOR YOUR FURTHER ACTION AMEND&RESUBMIT X PER YOUR REQUEST The attached March 1,2002 Meeting Summary&Signup sheet is per Renton Municipal Code 4-3-080(C). Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, a • enue Associates LLC Darrell Johnson Development Coordinator LANN oEvE OP psi RENION 1NG DEVELOPMENT PLANNit,4_. • wkR a 2002 CITY OF RENTON ,V�® MAR 0 8 ' c RECE s i 1 MEETING SUMMARY Date: March 4, 2002 To: Lesley Nishihira, Senior Planner City of Renton Development Services Division—Development Planning Renton City Hall—6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Re: Chateau at Valley Center Project Address: Corner S.45th Place& Davis Avenue S. Meeting Date: Friday, March 1, 2002 Meeting Time: 3:30 pm Location: Valley Medical Center, Board Room Presenters: Bernie Conley(Chateau Retirement Communities LLC) Darrell Johnson (Davis Avenue Associates LLC) Subject: Public Meeting Required by the Renton Municipal Code for Commercial Office CO(p) Zoning. The meeting was convened at 3:30 pm Friday, March 1, 2002. No one attended this meeting. Planned Agenda: 1. Introduction of presenters and explanation of the purpose of this meeting. 2. Project overview, including the type of facility to be constructed, a general description of the building, landscaping and amenities. 3. Visual displays mounted on the wall: a. Building elevations with colors to highlight building features. b. Kroll vicinity map with property outlined with bold black line. c. Landscaping drawing with landscaping colored in green to differentiate soft-scape areas. d. Architectural site plan showing details, such as building orientation, sidewalks, parking lots, parking spaces and the like. e. Civil site plan showing elevations, underground utilities, including water, sewer, storm drains and retention system. At 3:52 pm, due to lack of interest, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Davis Avenue Associates LLC Darr ohnson Pr 'ect Development Coordinator r. PUBLIC MEETING REGARDING: Chateau at Valley Center SENIOR ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY N.E. Corner S. 43rd Place & Davis Avenue S. Renton, Washington DATE: March 1, 2002 TIME: 3:00 pm MEETING LOCATION: VALLEY GENERAL HOSPITAL - BOARD ROOM ALL ATTENDEES OF THIS MEETING PLEASE SIGN IN BELOW: NAME ADDRESS PHONE NO. COMMENTS //) e - dr- 3 t/,)z— PAGE 1 i WiaWashington State Northwest Region Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North Douglas B. MacDonald P.O.,Box 330310. Secretary of Transportation Seattle,WA 98133-9710 206-440-4000 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 March 4,2002 www.wsdot.wa.gov DEVELOPMENT PLANNINC. CITY OF sENTON Leslie Nishihira, Senior Planner City of Renton,Development Services Division MAR 6 �1�� 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 RE: SR 167 MP 24.41 RECEIVED Chateau at Valley Center File No.LUA-02-012, SA-H,ECF Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated Dear Ms.Nishihira, Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the proposed Chateau at Valley Center development. We apologize for the delay in getting our comments to you by the due date of 3/1/02 and we hope that our comments will be reviewed and noted. The 2.77 acre site is located at the NE corner of Davis Avenue South and South 45th Street in Renton. It is our understanding that the applicant is proposing to construct 179 units,plus administrative offices,and various common areas associated with a retirement community— all within a four-story building of 179,241 square feet. Based on our review of the above noted documents,we would like to provide you with the following comment: 1. The proposed project will generate approximately 61 PM Peak Hour trips according to the Trip Generation Manual 6th Edition, Volume 2,Institute of Transportation Engineers. The calculations were based on Retirement Community. Because of these fmdings we require a Traffic Impact Study with emphasis on the SR 167 SW 43rd St.interchange. Attached you'll fmd a Traffic Impact Study checklist for the proponent's use. 2. SR 167,between mileposts 24.30 and 24.53 northbound mainline and between mileposts 24.15 and 24.46 northbound off-ramp to S 180th/SW 43rd are High Accident Locations (HAL)therefore the traffic study may need to discuss possible mitigating impacts by constructing roadway improvements. An Environmental Checklist was provided with the PDNS-M which stated a traffic report was submitted with the application. We did not receive this with the package. If this information discusses the information we requested,a copy of the Traffic Report forwarded to us will be sufficient. If you have any further questions,please contact Phil Segami at 206-440-4326 [segamip@wsdot.wa.gov] or Vicki Wegner at 206-440-4323 [wegnev@wsdot.wa.gov] of my King County Area Developer Services team. Sinc rely, v A,• t% Ramin Pazooki. King Area Planning Manager RP:vw Attachment • TRAFri%IMPACT ANALYSIS CHECKLIS'i WSDOT NORTHWET REGION 432-C r Contact: Developer Services (206) 440-*4- • 110TETQ:DESION.ER:?;1Lt°ELEIVIEN. .SSHOWNINTHLS:..i.GRLTS'I?MJSIBEINC xFDEPR QGR!CH NEITZATIQN€€ PIAK:::IFiANY ELEMENrsIS M]SSING THE P:I AN WI NOT BE1 EV.IEWED AND'WKLBEiRETURNED WITHOUTAN:Y AG'I10N • • I. Project Description: U Location(vicinity map and site plan). • ❑ Horizon Year(year of completion&full occupancy). • U Type, Size, and Location(include highway and milepost) of Development . ❑ Type of Access (Direct, Right-in/Right-out Only, etc.). • • II. Trip Generation: (ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition) • ❑ AWDT, AM, PM Peak Hour Trips (include Noon Peak Hour Trips if appropriate). . III. Trip Distribution: • • U Show distribution percentages on vicinity map or diagram. Show lefts, rights and throughs. IV.Traffic Volumes: • U Existing AM and PM peak hour counts, must be less than two years old (show date). U Future AWDT, AM, PM peak hour trips, (include Noon PeakHour Trips if appropriate), with and without project. ❑ The annual growth rate factor(%) and its source. ❑ Include the trips from all pipeline developments (of the same or earlier horizon year.) V. Level of Service (LOS) Calculations: . ❑ At all State highway intersections (US) impacted by 10 or more Peak Hour trips generated by the development. ❑ Signalized US (Based on the overall I/S LOS). ❑ Unsignalized PS (Based on VS LOS). • U. LOS calculation sheets must be included. U ALL assumptions should be noted for volume reductions, saturation flow rates, splits, etc. and their basis. VI. Accident Analysis: . • ❑ At all proposea'direct access points to State Highway. ❑ At all US's where developer mitigation is proposed. ❑ At High Accident Locations (HAL). An accident analysis shall consist of: • ❑ a listing of the US's 3-year accident history. ❑ a collision diagram illustrating the above. ❑ a discussion of both of the above, including the predominant accident types and their locations, ❑ any accident patterns, an assessment of the development's traffic safety impact, and ❑ mitigation for its safety impact. • Accident information can be obtained by writing to: Washington State De partment artment of Transportation Attn: Pat Foley 15700 Dayton Avenue North PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 . i VII. Road Approach Reviews/Access Permits: • 7 ❑ Include Investigation of All Possible Alternative Accesses Other than WSDOT Highways. ❑ Sight Distance(measurement per AASHTO, with photos of access point). 1 ❑ Accident analysis per section VI above, 1/10 mi. on either side of proposed access point. VIII. Mitigation Recommendations Necessary to Help Relieve Impacts: ❑ To satisfyagency local guidelines/Interlocal guidelines. ❑ To correct any LOS deficiencies as per Interlocal'guidelines. 1 ❑ Pro rats share contribution to all State projects receiving 10 or more deve°opment generated peak hour trips. ❑ Donation of ROW/frontage improvements. . ❑ Installation of a signal (Warrant analysis per MUTCD must be included.) ❑ Current/future State projects (Sunshine Report). ❑ Assessment of clear zone if widening State highway. ❑ Possible mitigation with others, if available. • IX.Miscellaneous: ❑ Two copies of Traffic Impact Analysis . ❑ Traffic Impact Analysis must be signed & stamped by a Professional Engineer. Prepared by: Date: �I fl • MAR-05-02 TUE 06:56 AM FAX NO, P, 02 ASK � Washington State Northwest Region �// Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North • Douglas B. MacDonald P.O,Box 330310 Socretary of Transportation Snaffle,WA 95133-9710 20G-440-4000 TTY: 1.800.833-6368 March 4,2002 www.wsdot.wa.gov Leslie Nishihira, Senior Planner City of Renton,Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 RE: SR 167 MP 24.41 Chateau at Valley Center File No.LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated Dear Ms.Nishihira, Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the proposed Chateau at Valley Center development. We apologize for the delay in getting our comments to you by the due date of 3/1/02 and we hope that our comments will be reviewed and noted. The 2.77 acre site is located at the NE corner of Davis Avenue South and South 45`h Street in Renton. It is our understanding that the applicant is proposing to construct 179 units,plus administrative offices,and various common areas associated with a retirement community— all within a four-story building of 179,241 square feet. Based on our review of the above noted documents,we would like to provide you with the following comment: 1. The proposed project wi)l generate approximately 61 PM Peak Hour trips according to the Trip Generation Manual 61 f Edition, Volume 2, Institute of Transportation Engineers. The calculations were based on Retirement Community. Because of these findings we require a Traffic Impact Study with emphasis on the SR 167 SW 43"f St.interchange. Attached you'll find a Traffic Impact Study checklist for the proponent's use. 2. SR 167,between mileposts 24.30 and 24.53 northbound mainline and between mileposts 24.15 and 24.46 northbound off-ramp to S 180`h/SW 43rd are High Accident Locations (HAL)therefore the traffic study may need to ditiouss possible mitigating impacts by constructing roadway improvements. An Environmental Checklist was provided with the PDNS-M which stated a traffic report was submitted with the application. We did not receive this with the package. If this information discusses the information we requested,a copy of the Traffic Report forwarded to us will be sufficient. If you have any further questions,please contact Phil Segami at 206-440-4326 isegamip@wsdot.wa.gov] or Vicki Wegner at 206-440-4323 [wegnevQa wsdot.wa.gov] of my King County Area Developer Services team. Sine rely, Ramin Pazooki King Area Planning Manager RP:vw Attachment �Y � O‘e + 01 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: February 15,2002 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-02-012,SA-H,ECF APPLICATION NAME: CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER • PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Hearing Examiner Site Plan approval for an assisted living retirement community. The subject site is 2.77 acres in size and is relatively flat with no known sensitive or critical areas. The project would construct 179 units, plus administrative offices, two dining rooms, a commercial kitchen, lounges, recreational and activity areas, an indoor pool, a commercial laundry, service areas, and other necessary rooms and common areas- all within a four-story, wood frame building of 179,241 gross square feet. Approximately 100 parking stalls, including surface and garage spaces,would be provided. The project also includes the installation of landscaping, paths, walkways,outdoor recreation areas,as well as all necessary utility and street improvements. PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Davis Avenue South&South 45th Street OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED(DNS-M): As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: January 25,2002 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: February 15,2002 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review Other Permits which may be required: Building Permits,Construction Permits Requested Studies: Geotechnical Report,Drainage Report,Traffic Study Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing scheduled for April 9,2002 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 7th floor of the Renton City Hall located at 1055 Grady Way South. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: The subject site is located within the Center Institution(CI)Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Convenience Office(CO-P)Zoning Map designations. The proposed assisted living retirement development project appears to be consistent with these designations. In addition,the"P"suffix designation for the CO zone requires additional public notification,as well as a public meeting,for the proposed change of use for the presently vacant property. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: N/A Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance,Zoning Code,Airport Regulations,Public Works Standards,Uniform Building Code,Uniform Fire Code and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of$0.52 per square foot of new building area. Document6 2. The applicant will be required to pay the alp,;,-_.,''late Traffic Mitigation Fee based on a rate of$75.06,• ; et new average daily trip generated by the project. 3. I The applicant will be required to comply with the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Report submitted with the land use application. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Lesley Nishihira,Senior Planner,Development Services Division,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on March 1,2002. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail,contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: LESLEY NISHIHIRA (425)430-7270 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION P Ill •v*r -M /.7('4j A.z:14;jilt/mac, a Q 1�j Oirl`; OC E 4 E a 1'//Arai N^P V..IS, •' II' • ]J(t ' II ,r14t''•:f y.S,,.O Vi a . e 'wugr!: ! r ;,`�:: ! 4;41� D°.tire N gi „,„ .1...4—... ---——_,,.; —,.. i,o,,,, .. , ' '.._Td.r:,--L. ' 71 d 7 o 0 �^ O 8 / .6• Gaa:-•0 a >6'm .si o43 ! I'I C,_--..� Ie.:g Etaliill : g.; i[yiraF-1:1:1:7.. W. _o 5- t- 137 V' T 4 4-1 kii. ' SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE 1 ' A PUBLIC MEETING HOSTED BY THE PROJECT I APPLICANT WILL BE HELD TO DISCUSS THE i PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. PURSUANT TO RMC SECTION 4-3-080 FOR PROPERTIES DESIGNATED WITH THE PUBLIC USE/"P"SUFFIX I 'DATE: FRIDAY, MARCH 1ST TIME: 3:30 pm LOCATION: VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER "BOARD ROOM" CONTACT: DARRELL JOHNSON / (425) 488-2400 x228 Document6 440 - ' CITY 9F NTON .� , Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator Jesse Tanner,Mayor February 15, 2002 Darrell Johnson Davis Avenue Associates, LLC P.O. Box 907 Woodinville,WA 98072 SUBJECT: Chateau at Valley Center File No. LUA-02-012, SA-H, ECF Dear Mr.Johnson: • The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and,therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on March 12, 2002. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. It is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner at 9:00 am, April 9, 2002, in the Council Chambers. Please contact me, at(425) 430-7270, if you have any questions. Sincerely, 4 s'7 Lesley Nishihir Senior Planner • cc: Public Hospital District No. 1 of King County/Owner acceptance letter RENT ® N 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 AHEAD OF THE CURVE i This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer pOz_c CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) I PROJECT INFORMATION Public Hospital District NAME: P PROJECTOR DEVELOPMENT NAME: No. 1 ' of King County Chateau .at Valley Center ADDRESS: 400 S. 4 3 rd Street PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 1 Davis Ave . S & S. 45th St. CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98055 (NE Corner) TELEPHONE NUMBER: 4 2 5-6 5 6-4 0 81 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): Lois- 10-11 #639180 - 0010 APPLICANT (if other than owner) • Lots 12 #639180 - 0125 EXISTING LAND USE(S): NAME: Darrell Johnson Lots Vacant PROPOSED LAND USE(S): • 1COMPANY(if applicable): Assisted Living/Retirement Community Davis Avenue Associates , LLC EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ADDRESS: • < CI (Center Institution) �, C �v^ i P.O. Box 907 �„ °IDAOPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION !CITY: Woodinville , WA ZIP: 98072 144/ oa (if'applicable): N/A �a w_ • TELEPHONE NUMBER L J9 `'EXISTING ZONING: p � s1. C pj 425-488-2400 Ext. 228 �� •PROPOSED ZONING(if applicable): N/A CONTACT PERSON SITE AREA (in square feet): 2 . 77 120 , 827 7 acres sq. ft. NAME: SQUARE.FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED Darrell Johnson FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE(if applicable): COMPANY(if applicable): Davis Avenue Associates , LLC N/A I PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ADDRS ACRE if applicable): .. .„ '-� ,Box 907 ( PP ) N/A • o� t }boy o f NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS(if applicable): N/A ICfl BIWgc nville , WA ZIP: 98072 / NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS(if applicable):• j.TELEPHONE NA NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: / -425=4,88=;24:O0 Ext. 228 • -..,,;,dartell@c ateaullc.com - masterap.doc Revised January 2002 'I Pk_ , JECT INFORMATION (conti,____ed) ' ' ' i NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS(if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: $12 Million • None SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF BUILDINGS(if applicable): N/A ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE(if applicable): i SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN(if applicable): N/A ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE I SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO I' BUILDINGS(if applicable): N/A ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq.ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq.ft. 1 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq.ft. BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A ❑• SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq.ft. NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS(if ❑ WETLANDS sq.ft. applicable): N/A II NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE I' NEW PROJECT(if applicable): Approximately 20 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) 1 SITUATE IN THE sw QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP23N , RANGE 5E , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES Check all application types that apply-- City staff will determine fees. 1 _ANNEXATION(A) $ SHORELINE REVIEWS _COMP PLAN AMENDMENT(CPA) $ _CONDITIONAL USE(SM-C) $ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(CU-A,CU-H) $ _EXEMPTION(SME) $ NO CHARGE , xxENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW(ECF) $ 500 . 00 _SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT(SM) $ GRADE&FILL PERMIT(GF) $ VARIANCE(SM-V) $ (No.Cu.Yds: ) $ _REZONE(R) $ SUBDIVISION _ROUTINE VEGETATION $ _BINDING SITE PLAN(BSP) $ ' MANAGEMENT PERMIT(RVMP) _FINAL PLAT(FP) $ ,xSITE PLAN APPROVAL(SA-A,SA-H) $ 2 . 000 . 00 _LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT(LLA) $ —SPECIAL PERMIT(SP) $ PRELIMINARY PLAT(PP) $ _TEMPORARY PERMIT(TP) $ _SHORT PLAT(SHPL-A,SHPL-H) $ _VARIANCE(V-A,V-H,V-B) $ (from Section: ) $ Postage: $ _WAIVER(W) $ TOTAL FEE $ 2 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 OTHER: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I il I, (Print Name) pilri l declare that I am (please check one) the current owner of the property involved in this application or the authonzed represen tive to act fora corporation(please attach proof of authorization)and that the foregoing l atateme is and answer erei • and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge ar.043siiefeeepre,, ,N$v�l,,yo.,, 1 I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that �;�`'�� ••••••• r-1 D E-.. S►wi-�, signed this instrument and ack,LN1dg2a ••, it fo b:1 ' er/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposesm 1,a~��N `ri 2 -„.' r ' mentioned in the instrument. 7.►l Bna,_:,a,: 1., (Signature of Owner/Repres 've) _ ;UJ a 4.'�` CO ; Notary Public in and for the State of Washington p1. , �, (Signature of Owner/Representative) Notary(Print) C NE :&' -S o Pi '''',;„' O rli 3 k, i' My appointment expires: 0�- 2-1--0 1. -- ���"'""" j', masterap.doc Revised January 2002 1 • LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 10,11 and 12, one valley place, according to the plat thereof, recorded in volume 125 of plats, pages 40 and 41, in King County, Washington; Except that portion of Lot 12, described as follows: Beginning at the most Northerly corner of said Lot 12; Thence South 00'55'36" West along the East line of said Lot 12, A distance of 171.15 feet; thence North 76'09'04" West a distance of 52.28 feet to the Easterly Margin of Davis Avenue South; thence Northeasterly along the Easterly Margin of Davis Avenue South on a curve to the left with a radius of 275 feet, and Arc length of 170.10 feet to the point of beginning; (A portion of said premises is also known as Lot 2, City of Renton Lot line adjustment LLA-023-91, recorded under recording number 9708069008, in King County, Washington) i . , .. • I — "- .i 3 . `.30 T23N RSEE; _Y/ ;'.moo_.. --. ; .. ` . / / C / . R-9 •• • F -I.. . ,- ,---• -- .- = :`CUk Rom) � !177th1•�Ave: 'SE. - •1, �;� - 17�t CJ '':. cj•Tr1 ------ �. • • • . -‘, .., ..\,y,L.'. _c_i:r . 1.. q ,,•r_ . .. tea, _.,CI fP). _ :: : 5 ::45: h:- A1 N nCP7 • t' ... i i (c.CO<P5.1` CD ::. 1 . i w RM� =I------ :43. !•. M - I • • cry . . . . .. • R ... , 14 r --.._._—. .J.__ • F: • • i'' - ,..,„.„! / . r----'-. - -•,-1 . I .. 1 SE 190th `._: R—1 ' _ _00_' �- • NN� 1 • S 55th St. • j. �._ R=1 ! 11 • i li I� J3 . 6 T22N R5E E 1/2 �z 0 200• 40D I V .:::•.": • vn�Y�°. ZONING ® i ��='��$ TECHNICAL SERVICES 31T23NR5EE1/2 ``'`` Project Narrative: Chateau Valley Center Assisted Living Retirement Community Project The proposed Assisted Living Retirement Community project would be developed on the approximately 2.77 acre site, one block south of the Valley Medical Center at the north east corner of Davis Ave. South and South 45th Place. The four-story wood frame building would be Type V, 1 HR rated construction with fire sprinklers and area separation walls. It would be built over a partial basement and garage. It would contain approximately 179 unit plus administration offices,two dining rooms, a commercial kitchen, lounges, recreational and activity areas, an indoor pool, a commercial laundry, service areas, other necessary rooms and common areas. There would be approximately 100 parking stalls of surface and garage parking.The grounds would include landscaped: patios, paths and walkways and developed outdoor recreation areas. JAN 252002 �__ tu Project Narrative: Chateau Valley Center Assisted Living Retirement Community Project The proposed Assisted Living Retirement Community project would be developed on the approximately 2.77 acre site, one block south of the Valley Medical Center at the north east corner of Davis Ave. South and South 45th Place. The four-story wood frame building would be Type V, 1 HR rated construction with fire sprinklers and area separation walls. It would be built over a partial basement and garage. It would contain approximately 179 unit plus administration offices,two dining rooms, a commercial kitchen, lounges, recreational and activity areas, an indoor pool, a commercial laundry,service areas, other necessary rooms and common areas. There would be approximately 100 parking stalls of surface and garage parking.The grounds would include landscaped: patios, paths and walkways and developed outdoor recreation areas. C p) An ,tea ; ".•-av��.;;6-S (p) S t cc t'Lei 4- P<c,0.,,t7- C—`r �I t_r_A. d STt C term is, v,�w,. o i!► P Dl Es �eS r b c izo f SPt- A I .I►-r,�� LG'' -t tilt c� lZ-gt'P. � +t7�t— �s�cw�»-r-�p Cac�S7WYGdIv � S•r �� 1 S `' 47019p_tc r V I Z. oef� t, p b G� 'u` i/2,- W40 /J d r 6 pa s-s. 3 Vey�G a Pet-,e:P te-4 P2e J �4_ AI"!•cak l `f t/ ' -.I i 2" o L.Ay—c E-o— J / ( A-71. Tv &v ge-14.6 V Z) ,J S r-c-tor.A.>VD L GP6 op & c,y-bq 714.4.0 -s-a` DEVELOPMENT PLA ,si;.„�; CITY OF REN s Off JAN 2 5 ('P-9 ze•d 1d101 Chateau at Valley Center Construction Mitigation Description: o The construction of this project is expected to be September 2002 to October 2003. o The hours of operation, including work on weekends, will to be in compliance with City of Renton requirements. o The haul routes for this project will probably be: Outbound: South 45th Place to Talbot Road to South 43rd Street to State Route 167; and Inbound: State Route 167 to South 43rd Street to Davis Avenue South. o Dust will be controlled by spraying periodically with water truck. o Availability of construction parking on adjacent parking lots will minimize construction traffic and transportation impacts. o A temporary erosion control and sedimentation control plan will be submitted as part of the Building Permit application. o A rock run-off pad will be installed to prevent mud debris tracking onto streets. o Construction noise will be minor and will comply with City of Renton requirements. o Since the project is situated on secondary streets, there will be minimal impact to traffic, however, traffic caution signage or flaggers will be employed on an as needed basis for special traffic control requirements. Oil Y OP FIEN 7;:3 JAN 2 t3 290 Z2/Z2'd ERGiTRRbc?bT (i>4 l-1 I HN I A AC!GT n1G17-A'-HH f DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LW 15201 Woodinvillc-Redmond Road P.O.Box 907 Woodinville,WA 98072-0907 (425)488-2400,Ext.228, Fax(425)488-1089 FAX TRANSMISSION-COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL TO: Laureen Nicolay COMPANY:City of Renton DATE: 1/28/02 TIME: RECEIVING FAX NO.(425)430-7300 - RE: CHATEAU at VALLEY CENTER NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: _2_ If you have any questions,print is not clear or pages missing, please call us at the number above. COMMENTS Thank you for your assistance in our Level 1 —Site Plan Submittal last Friday. After I left,I realized that Ashley had indicated that I needed to complete the Construction Mitigation Description in the Site Plan approval list. Please add attached Construction Mitigation Description to our submittal. Sorry for the inconvenience. Call me if you have any questions. Thanks again. JAN2 e SINCERELY, D Johnson—Ext 228 evelopmcnt Coordinator NOTE: The information contained in this facsimile document is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,you arc hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. if you have received this conununication in error,please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original document to us at the above address via U.S.Mail,postage due. Thank you. FR/tG1'A R1=1171TRRbS?17T N I RNf17 aN1-1.I I H?I I c Rq:GlT 7l 1G17—RP—NH f JAN-29-2002 10:02 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER 425 656 4291 P.01 41U bOLLTil•rusu Pu01:11. , Renton,WA 96066 • 425.229+3460 �i � FAX: 42$•666•4202 ' .. Valley Medical Center . FACSIMILE COVER SIIEET CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. DATE: p c9- 0 _I a-ad TO: 4-#1,c 4)5,kilik 0 - COMPANY: 9 C �'u" DEPT: 0,'�Z�„ FROM: i • },Q,t 5�.�.C'v `*' 'P".`> DEPT: a.�..g'vr,"k r s7A-4 PHONE #: yo. .S- - 6 C6, , '.(0 I Number of Pages (including this cover sheet): __ —_. MESSAGE: . a...,(-,,-2.4"--.- , z-;16-7--g--)'-6- - , ,....._igz,,,c, 1)4.2-1 e...(1,10.eis _a_$N3r), c-;\:; s_a_46 , ,_ _„ If you did not receive all pages of this transmission, or if you have problems or questions, please call the sender at the telephone number listed above. JAN-28-2002 10:02 VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER 425 556 4291 400 South 43rd Street P.O.Box 50010 Renton,WA 980585010 425.228.3450 Valley FAX 425.6556.4202 Medical Center January 28, 2002 City of Renton Building Department 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Mr. David Smith, General Counsel for Valley Medical Center, is hereby authorized to execute for and in behalf of Valley Medical Center, aka PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO, 1 of Ding county established under the laws of the State of Washington. Since ichar , Roo m • TOTAL P.02 DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC 15201 Woodinville-Redmond Road P.O.Box 907,Woodinville,WA 98072-0907 (425)488-2400,Ext.228, Fax(425)488-1089 Letter of Transmittal Date: January 25,2002 Lesley Nishihira Senior Planner Development Services Division—Development Planning City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Hand Carried January 25,2002 Re: Chateau at Valley Center Site Plan Review—Level 1 Submittal Enclosed you will find: COPIES DESCRIPTION 12 Sets Land Use Permit Master Application,Legal Description&Zoning Map. 12 Sets Environmental Checklist,dated January 2002. 5 Ea. Title Report(easements are indicated on submittal drawings). 2 Sets Mailing Labels of Property Owner within 300 feet of project. 2 Sets List of Surrounding Property Owners within 300 feet of project. 5 Sets Pre-Application Meeting Summary&Waiver of Submittal Requirements for Land Use Applications. 12 Ea. Project Narrative. 12 Ea. Neighborhood Detail Map(Kroll Map Company). e . 12 Ea. Touma Engineers&Land Surveying ALTA/ACSM site survey(existing conditions& c'C„ contours),dated December 2000. C 12 Sets Taylor—Gregory Architects preliminary architectural drawing(site plan,elevations,floor r.. . plans&Refuse/Recycling screening details)sheets A0.00,A1.00,AI.01,A1.02,A1.03, ��p, 'a A1.04,A2.00&A2.01,dated January 17,2002. ®�� 12 Seat Site Development Services preliminary civil drawing(grading plan/grading elevations, .? generalized utilities plan&drainage control plan)sheet 1 of 1,dated January 23,2002. 4 Sets Site Development Services Drainage Control Report(Preliminary Technical Information Report,dated January 7,2002). 5 Sets Earth Consultants,Inc.Geotechnical Report,dated January 16,2002. 5 Sets Burrus Design Group preliminary architectural landscape drawing(conceptual landscape plan&tree cutting/land clearing plan)sheet L-1,dated November 28,2001. 5 Sets Transportation Planning&Engineering,Inc.Traffic Study(Traffic Impact Analysis,dated December 12,2002). 1 Set PMT Reductions&Xerox copies(8-1/2x11)of all full sized drawing sheets. X FOR APPROVAL FOR YOUR FILES CORRECTED&RESUBMITTED FOR YOUR INFORMATION MAKE CORRECTIONS NOTED FOR YOUR FURTHER ACTION AMEND&RESUBMIT PER YOUR REQUEST A check for the application fee accompanies this submittal.Please call me if you have any questions. Sincer ly, he S tford Constructors Da ell Johnson Development Coordinator Proiect Narrative: Chateau Valley Center Assisted Living Retirement Community Project The proposed Assisted Living Retirement Community project would be developed on the approximately 2.77 acre site, one block south of the Valley Medical Center at the north east corner of Davis Ave. South and South 45th Place. The four-story wood frame building would be Type V, 1 HR rated construction with fire sprinklers and area separation walls. It would be built over a partial basement and garage. It would contain approximately 179 unit plus administration offices,two dining rooms, a commercial kitchen, lounges, recreational and activity areas, an indoor pool, a commercial laundry, service areas, other necessary rooms and common areas. There would be approximately 100 parking stalls of surface and garage parking.The grounds would include landscaped: patios, paths and walkways and developed outdoor recreation areas. p) A D 'rr& ,42:)a-x e r- �p Co op Co Cp, '"'t 'tom 5 l cc �4* �� 4- v 4i-cL-t'7--- C.`7— : l t a3! /-Prb Crd.s G /M 1®.w-c.v S—evi-c-nrrff S d ; Tv v .1- c.JA.z.6 c_,,, E g sc h -,rc xi( tit, l2-31-Pa sea-Li—mt. S-, fseac:.o .o0o ZIT A-1!'91`w Sc c ws�z-�-� I Y 2-4 d et- Lac /ham.-� -rp 8 F-a S (�1i-+`�c�a n� L4 i " >" f�vC�i opi& c 3 i�Ls-.ate 48 r, 092 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS • - • - REQLflREMENTS BY BY .?.',:muNtyrx)se:::::pERmirsuatifirrAtuoig moDiFiEw, Calculations,Survey.' Drainage Control Plan 2 ' • • Elevations.Architectural 3 AND 4 Elevations.Grading 2 Existing„Covenants (Recorded.Copy):4: . Flood Plain Map, if applicable 4 , Floor Plans 3AN04 Geotech n idatkePort 2 AND 3 , .•• , drading'Plan,,Detailed • , " • . - King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site 4 _isanciSceping.Plan;Conceptual 4; • • • List of Surrounding.Property Owners 4 mailingitabes:foe Property Owners 4 Map of Existing Site Conditions 4 .. ........... Master Application Form 4 Monument.Cards.(one per monument)1 • ..... ...... Plan Reductions (PMTs)4 • • Postage 4 Preapplication Meeting Summary 4 s"•*•:•:; • . Public Work Approval:(Lp#.pr.2 . ....... .. .. .. ........ ........... ............ ........ . . . ... . . ............. .. ............................. ........... :::.... Rehabilitation Plan 4 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section DEVLilopi-v.,,,-f4 P. ROJEC T NAME: G PA T Q r-4- 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section DATE: I /2-I / 4. Development Planning Section 1 / ciTy oF JAN 2 " t "T • • • hAdivislon.s1develop.ser1dev.planing\waiver.xls • REVISED 5/17/00 • TM /' DEVELOPMENT SERVICES'DIVISION • WAIVER O•F 'SUBMITTAL 'REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND 'USE APPLICATIONS. M:...p11e..:::::::.�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. . ...:......... Screening Detail a : • TitlerReport or,Plat,Certificate a • Traffic Study 2 Orb-an•Center'Design Overlay'District Report a ><, �f1es::Plah<`G:eirt�ralr�e- .................................................. ...................................:..:.:::...:..::::.::..:..... ...................::.::..::::.....:.:.::::...::�::::::...............:........................ Wetlands Delineation Map 4 _ - _ _: - .. . .- . f N►L�SS, ►�I TL;A rJ O S . .....::. .::::::.::...... Wetlands Study 4: 11. re .:::..::......:.:: .:.;::::::: ... ..an A�re. . .. nfSta.er.`neh.. ............:.. .:........ .... ............ >::::.::::<:>: .ventQ:. :<af:::Extstlrt .Sl.es:. :::::::...:...::....:.::.:.... .......:.... . ...... .................... ............. ...:......:...... ..... .......................:................ :.:..:.:...........::. . 1, . .: :: - :::.. :..,..:•....:.;.;::;:.;.;:.;:::.:;:;.:;:.;:.;:.;:.;:::::;:,;::.:;.; :.:;>:;.:;•::::;•.;•:'::::::::;:;.>:.:::.;:i.;::::;;:;.::.:::::.::.:::::.;.;:.;>;::.;:.;;::.;:.;:.;:.;::.;::.::.:.;;;;:;;:.;;:;::;:::;•: ;::.;;:;:;;.:;.>;.:;.;:;::;>;:;:.y�,ondlfmon ...:�::::lS�ta .:Of,.�X15t1E1 :+��... ... ......:::::::::::..::2AND.3:.:.::::::::::::::.::.:.�:::.:.:..::::.::-.:.:.:. ..:..:..:.:.::....:.:.-.:...::..::...::....:::............................-..........................::.:.::...::.::....:...::. . `: < Kila of V►e.:.::Ar.. ..2AND.3 :..........:......... . • . .....................................:.. .......... . This requirementrmay'be waived by: 1: Property Services Section- - ., ' . PROJECT NAME: CA 2.-Public Works-Plan Review Section . _ ,> J . . 3: Building Section DATE: ��-� ! i � . ' 4. Development-Pla,nning Section • • • • • • • • h:ldivision.sldevelop.ser\dev.plan.inglwaiver.xls • REVISED 5/17/00 NTON NOV 217240® MEMORANDUM /ON DATE: I VD1/00 TO: Construction Services, Fire Prevention, Plan-Review, Project Planner FROM: Neil Watts, Development Services Division Director SUBJECT: New Preliminary Application: CI\(N*dt..UilJ9 C LOCATION: J uis nkie S . c4 ?R S' PREAPP NO. ( D � J �a kmeetin with the applicant has been scheduled. for /);O O A,M , , Thursday, 1�J P � .c '- , in one of the 6 floor conference.rooms (new City Hall). If this. meeting is scheduled at 10:00 AM, the MEETING MUST BE CONCLUDED PRIOR TO 11:00 AM to allow time to prepare for the 11:00 AM meeting. Please review the attached project plans prior to the scheduled meeting with the applicant. You will not need to do a thorough "permit level" review at this time. Note only major issues that must be resolved prior to formal land use and/or building permit application submittal. Please submit your written comments to I-`Z/Lk) at least two (2) days before the meeting. Thank you. SG.)/ EPotf?,i u ci 1-r 5( Y-i C H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev&Plan.ing\Template\Preapp2 Revised 9/00 • C�`�Y 0•es' ® CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU -NTO • MEMORANDUM DATE: December 8, 2000 TO: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner FROM: Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Chateau Valley Center, Davis Av. 85 S 45th St. Fire Department Comments: 1. The preliminary fire flow is 4500 GPM, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and four additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. A fire mitigation fee of$57,980.00 is required based on $.52 per square foot of building square footage. t ;r.c ..fie. 1' k .2 3. Separate plans and permit are required for the installation of fire alarm and sprinkler systems. 4. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 159 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways are a minimum 20 in width with_a turning radius of 45 foot outside and 25 foot inside. 5. Fire department dead-end access roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. CITY OF RENTON MEMO UTILITY PLAN REVIEW TO: Elizabeth Higgins FROM: Jan Illian • DATE: December 15, 2000 li SUBJECT: PREAPPLICATON REVIEW COMMENTS PREAPP NO. 00-130 Chateau Valley Center Davis Ave & S. 45th Street NOTE ON PRELIMINARY REVIEW COMMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT: The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre- application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision makers (e.g. Hearing Examiner, Boards of Adjustment, Board of Public Works and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by the City or made by the applicant. WATER 1. There is an existing 12-inch water main in Davis Ave South and in South 45th Place. 2. All new commercial construction shall have one fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 gpm and must be located within 150feet of the structure. Ac itional hydrants shall be Tocated within 300 feet,of the structure. There are fire hydrants in the vicinity that may be edunfed'towards the fire protection of this project, but are subject to verification in meeting these requirements. 0 Depending on actual fire flow requirements, additional hydrants and/or a loop system may be required. Derated fire flow in the vicinity is 5000 gpm. 4. Existing hydrants will be required to be retrofitted with a quick disconnect Stortz fitting. 5. The proposed project is located in the 350-water pressure zone and is outside an Aquifer Protection Zone. Static pressure in the area is 103 psi. A pressure-reducing valve may be required. 6. A Water System D velopmept Charge (SDC) of $0.154 per square foot of gross site area will apply. ��`�+ e (4- �e,- - • SANITARY SEWER 1. There is an existing 8-inch sewer main in Davis Ave South 2. A Sewer System Development Charge (SDC) of $0.106 per square foot of gross site area will be apply. Chateau Valley Center page 2 3. If commercial food preparation facilities are proposed, then a grease trap will be required. 4. A sewer main extension will not be required. SURFACE WATER • 1. There is existing storm drainage facilities in Davis Ave S and South 45th Street 2. A storm drainage plan and drainage report is required. The drainage and report shall include provision for detention and water quality treatment sized for the new impervious surface subject to vehicular access. The report shall meet all requirements as outlined: in the King County Surface Water Design Manual (1990 edition) - . gib . 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 by$0.183. TRANSPORTATION/STREET 1. There is existing sidewalk, curb and gutter fronting the property along Davis Ave South and South 45th Street. 2. Installation of streetlights will be required. • 3. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Under Grounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. 4. The traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional generated daily trip shall be assessed as determined from the ITE trip generation manual. 1010A 5. A traffic study will be required for this project. The report shall be prepared by a state licensed engineer containing elements and information as identified in the City of Renton "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis of New Development". The traffic study shall include the intersections of SW 43`d and Talbot Rd South and Davis Ave South and SW 43rd. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. All construction utility permits for utilities; drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards, which are attached for reference. Plans shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. When the utility plans are complete, please submit three (3) copies of the drawings, two (2) copies of the drainage report, permit application and an itemized cost of construction estimate and application fee at the counter on the sixth floor. A fee worksheet is attached for your use, but prior to preparing a check, it is recommended to call 425-430- 7266 for a fee estimate as generated by the permit system 3. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but less then $200,000, and 3% of anything over$200,000. Half the fee must be paid upon application. CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works MEMORANDUM DATE: December 21, 2000 TO: Pre-Application File No. 00-130 FROM: Elizabeth Higgins, AICP, (425)430-7382 SUBJECT: Chateau Valley Center Preapplication Comments Applicant: Darrell Johnson, Davis Avenue Associates Project Name: Chateau Valley Center Project Address: Davis Avenue South & South 45th Street, Renton General: We have completed a preliminary review of the preapplication materials for the above-referenced,development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the preapplication submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and on the Codes in effect on the date of the review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision makers (Hearing Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Board of Adjustment, Board of Public Works, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code and the City of Renton Development Regulations. The Renton Municipal Code is available at the City Clerk's office on the seventh floor of City Hall, the Self-Help Center on the sixth floor of City Hall, and the Renton Public Library. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $55.00, plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of Renton City Hall. Project Proposal: The project proponent, Davis Avenue Associates, LLC, wishes to initiate a land use action to allow development of an approximately 120,827 sf (2.77 acre) parcel for use as an assisted care living facility. The proposed building would be developed in two phases. The narrative for the preapplication;reyiew and the conceptual site plan appear to have different numbers of units-proposed for each phase as follows: CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works MEMORANDUM December 21, 2000 Page 3 The purpose of the Site Plan Review is to ensure that the site plan of proposed uses is compatible with existing and potential uses and complies with plans, policies, and regulations of the City of Renton. The Site Plan Review criteria are: • Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, • Conformance with existing land use regulations, • Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses, • Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site, • Conservation of areawide property values, • Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation, • Provision of adequate light and air, • Mitigation of noise, odors, and other harmful or unhealthy conditions, • Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use, and • Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight. 'll The processing time for a Hearing Examiner Site Plan Approval is approximately . 8 to 10 weeks. Buildingand Construction Permits Required: A buildingpermit and Utility 9 utility construction permits would be required. At the applicant's option, these permits may be submitted simultaneously with the site plan application. The processing time for a new building permit is approximately 6 to 8 weeks. Timing for the construction permit is less. Lot Dimensions and Coverage: The proposed site is above the minimum lot size in the CO Zone of 25,000 sf. There is no minimum lot width or lot depth in the CO Zone. The maximum lot coverage fo_r buildings r�q#i1a�C ,?a.Zo�ei 6 � 'I< percent of the total. lotnarea,,or 75 percent if parking is within the building or thin a parking garage. These maximums app1`y unless there is an approved sire-plan.v Setbacks: The minimum front setbacks in the CO Zone are determined by building height (except with approved site plans) and are as follows: Buildings less than 25 ft in height 15 feet Buildings 25 to 80 ft in height 20 feet (may '15' be modified to no less than ) Buildings over 80 ft in height 30 feet (may be modifieditono`i'ess than 15') There is no minimum back.or side setbacks in the CO Zone. CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works MEMORANDUM December 21, 2000 Page 4 - _ Landscaping: A landscaped area a minimum of ten feet wide is required along the primary.street,_(Davis Avenue S). Landscaping will also be required in all ' areas not covered by pavement, buildings, storm systems, etc. All parking areas, including off-site areas, are subject to landscaping standards (RMC 4-4-070). Underground irrigation systems that provide full coverage to planted areas are required in all landscaped areas. Parking: All parking must be on site, no parking on public streets is permitted. Parking layout plans for all parking areas used to meet required parking must be submitted at the time of application. The amount of parking both required and provided must be shown on submitted plans. In order to Bete mine, the parking requirements, the applicant must provide the number ofred,. o unit' for each facilitype ("assisted living" and "independent living"),.the �/�A mounpoorj r,orr ,a tgj tovided, and the 1nJumber of sta :ti.4,q..nn.Ma.^T' MVIL.a..Yxeen:B'3+k �'�^" s .. al.!s..«.enr. anticipated. There is no specific requirement for"assisted living facilities," therefore the Planning/Building/Public works Department staff would determine the use that most closely matches the proposed use and apply that parking requirement. The parking requirements for attached dwellings in the CO Zone are 1.75 spaces for every dwelling unit: The parking requirement for multiple wellings, low income elderly.is 1 space for every 4 dwelling units. Delivery trucks must be accommodated on the property and not park on the ! public street and/or sidewalks for loading or unloading. Americans with Disabilities Act requirements for parking must be met. The ratio for ADA spaces to regular spaces is as follows: Total Parking Spaces ADA Parking Spaces 1to25 1 25 to 50 2 51to75 3 _ �`76 to 100 4 101 to 150 5 Building Height: The maximum building height in the CO Zone is 250 feet: Outdoor storage; garbage, refuse, or dumpsters; recycle areas: Screening by a fence, landscaping, or a combination thereof is required. i . • CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works MEMORANDUM December 21, 2000 Page 5 _ Sensitive Areas: The site is not indicated on the City's Sensitive Areas maps as being within critical areas. A geotechnicalxreport,,howevel- vill .besequired. Transportation: (t4 traffic study wil be required,, Environmental Mitigation Fees: Typical Environmental Mitigation measures include the required Fire Mitigation Fee of$0.52/square foot of building and Transportation Mitigation Fee of$75/new trip generated by project, based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th ed. cc: Darrell Johnson Jennifer Henning. 4-3-090B 4-3-060 (Reserved) C. MEETING SUMMARY: • A summary of the meeting shall be compiled and • circulated within seven (7)days of the meeting to 4-3-070 (Reserved) . all in attendance who request in writing to receive— the summary as well as parties that do not attend the meeting but request in writing to receive the 4-3-080 PUBLIC USE/"P" SUFFIX summary in response to the above-referenced no- NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES: tices. In addition,the Planning/Building/Public Works Department shall receive and keep the A. NOTICE REQUIRED: summary of the meeting in its files for future ref- The owner of any property designated with a "P" erence. • suffix shall be required to give written notice to the owners of all property within a three hundred foot D. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT (300') radius of the site involved, as well as all STANDARDS: residents and/or businesses within a three hun- Any use so designated with a"P"suffix shall be dred foot(300') radius of the site or facility, at allowed to develop pursuant to the special devel- least sixty(60) days in advance of any of the fol- opment standards for such uses contained RMC lowing: 4-2-110D, Condition 13, 4-2-110H, Condition 26, 4-2-120C, Condition 28, or 4-2-130B, Condition 1 1. A proposed change of use of the pre- 14, as well as under the master site plan regula- mises; tions. (Ord:4523, 6-5-1995) 2. A proposed change of the major tenant and/or tenant group using the premises if 4-3-090 SHORELINE MASTER such a change is determined by the Planning/ PROGRAM REGULATIONS: Building/Public Works Administrator or desig- nee to have probable major adverse impacts A. PROGRAM ADOPTED: to the immediate surrounding area; or The Shoreline Master Program, as issued and prepared by City of Renton Planning Commis- 3. Any proposed change of ownership of sion, of which one printed copy in book form has the premises. heretofore been filed and is now on file in the of- fice of the City Clerk and made available for ex- Such notice shall not be required if the proposed amination by the general public, is hereby change has been identified in a Master Site Plan adopted as the Shoreline Master Program by the adopted pursuant to the neighborhood property City of Renton. (Ord. 3758, 12-5-1983, Rev. owners, residents and/or business persons to at- 7-22-1985 (Min.), 3-12-1990 (Res. 2787), tend an informational meeting in the area, hosted 7-16-1990 (Res. 2805), Rev. 9-12-1993.(Min.), by the owner of the property or their representa- Ord. 4716,.4-13-1998) tive. (Ord. 4523, 6-5=1995) The following is an excerpt from the officially B. NOTICE CONTENT: adopted Shoreline Master Program:The corn- The notices shall indicate that a summary of the plete Shoreline Master Program, including poli- meeting shall occur at least thirty(30) days in ad- cies, should also be consulted. (Ord. 4722, vance of any of the above three (3) actions. At .5-11-1998) least fourteen (14) days in advance of the infor- mation meeting the agency hosting the meeting B. AUTHENTICATION, RECORD OF shall give general notice of it and the availability PROGRAM: following the meeting of the below referenced The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed meeting summary in a local newspaper having to duly authenticate and record a copy of the broad circulation in the area.This meeting is in- above mentioned Shoreline Master Program to- tended to explain the proposed changes and in- gether with any amendments or additions thereto, vite citizen input. together with an authenticated copy of this Sec- tion. (Ord. 3094, 1-10-1977, eff. 1-19-1977) • 3 -20.57 (Revised 10/00) MEMORANDUM DATE: it/cXY00 TO: Long Range Planning FROM: Neil Watts; Development Services Division Director SUBJECT: New Preliminary Application: C A 1-Q4u \I 1!( CoN LOCATION: ` i .Abe S - S PREAPP NO. ©p — 13O • • Please review the attached preliminary project plans for consistency with applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies. Please submit your written comments to no later than n - 1"1-00 . Thank you. We will not be able to include comments received after this date in the presentation/summary we prepare for the applicant. Ji z c is OLC3i C.N 7 c-^0 C.00rv- ..o2 \i5r1Tur(07\i i rJ r Fh Co inp fz��?1 No POLi C.` I SSC.36b `-\J�J�.4C?_� i Itl .`� USL 1S iVU7 I .)(ElL_ r, i r\► l\t c- O For s_. e H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev&Plan.ing\Template\preapp Revised 9/00 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Q 701 FIFTH AVENUE,#1800,SEATTLE,WA 98104 Order No.: 000581792 PROPERTY ADDRESS: WASHINGTON Your No.: DAVIS AVE.S./S.45TH BERNIE CONLEY 3080 POINT WHITE DRIVE DGt��LQp BAINBRIDGE ISLAND,WASHINGTON 98110 Pf�n,d F;rN -O J 'NG ATTN: 1/1 JA �� tfS2 Enclosed are your materials on the above transaction. If you have any questions regarding these materials, please contact us. Thank you for this opportunity to serve you. ««««««««««««««««««<»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» TITLE UNIT 6 TELEPHONE:(206)628-5610 FAX:(206)628-97 17 TOLL FREE:(800)627-0530 DARYL SAVIDIS SENIOR TITLE OFFICER AND UNIT MANAGER (E-MAIL:SAVIDISD@C11.COM) ROGER TERRIERE SENIOR TITLE OFFICER (E-MAIL:TERRIERER@CI'l.COM) BARBARA WAGNER SENIOR TITLE OFFICER (E-MAIL:WAGNERB@Cfl.COM) DAVID P.CAMPBELL SENIOR TITLE OFFICER (E-MAIL: MPBELLDA@CI 1.COM) MELANIE MINOR ASSISTANT TITLE OFFICER (E-MAIL:MINORM@L1.1.COM) *** RECORDING ALERT *** EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2002, RECORDING FEES ARE INCREASING BY $1.00. FEES FOR THE FIRST PAGE ARE INCREASING FROM $8.55 TO $9.55 ($9.00, PLUS $0.55 POSTAGE FEE). ADDITIONAL PAGES WILL STILL COST$1.00 EACH. TITLE132/RDA/0999 t. _.yam- ,s"- - - , — :. . ,, w sz_ ..._ . ,::..�.-.. � .. Win.,, Os' COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE g 1. 9. X CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 41- 0. 9 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Missouri corporation, herein called the Company, for a valuable4,2 20 y`: consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor 3 .01 of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby1 P Pin the t land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefore; all subject to the s r A provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Exclusions from Coverage (appearing herein) and to the Conditions and yy Stipulations hereof. '. J This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. a. 4 3 This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and v3 obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies • Y3 Q 2 committed for shall issue, whichever0. first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. , I. - In Witness Whereof, CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused this commitment to be signed and sealed At as of the date of policy shown in Schedule A, the policy to become valid when countersigned by an authorized S signatory. itk v, .. 4 s it 70 a. Issued by: `'' CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 1800 COLUMBIA SEAFIRST CENTER CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY o. 701 5TH AVENUE - <ffi:f, SEATTLE,WA 98104 By: 3 (206) 628-5666 77.....,:er:;,,y ../...fr _T ift k. President � •��tNs�gtic�. ti ti -i izz By: (..../......, Y BEAU? .` Secretary N Form C 9800(Reprinted 09/00) • S 4. EXCLUSIONS (Cont'd.) 4. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the Insured the estate or interest insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that is based on: (i) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (ii) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or • (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. ALTA LOAN POLICY FORM (10-17-92) The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation(including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii)the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separa- tion in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or(iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encum- brance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by(a)above,except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. t 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters: (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy,but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy(except to the extent that this policy insures the priority of the lien of the insured mortgage over any statutory lien for services, labor or material); or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, • or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness,to comply with applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law. 6. Any statutory lien for services, labor or materials (or the claim or priority of any statutory lien for services, labor or materials over the lien of the insured mortgage)arising from an improvement or work related to the land which is con- tracted for and commenced subsequent to Date of Policy and is not financed in whole or in part by proceeds of the indebtedness secured by the insured mortgage which at Date of Policy the insured has advanced or is obligated to advance. 7. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction creating the interest of the mortgagee insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that is based on: (i) the transaction creating the interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (ii) the subordination of the interest of the insured mortgagee as a result of the application of the doctrine of equitable subordination; or (iii) the transaction creating the interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. 9 CHI( JO TITLE INSURANCE CO -''ANY _1FTH AVENUE,#1800,SEATTLE,WA 98104 A.L.TA.COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A Title Unit: U-06 Phone: (206)628-5610 Fax: (206)628-9717 Order No.: 581792 Officer: SAVIDIS/WAGNER/TERRIERE/CAMPBELL Your No.: DAVIS AVE.S./S.45TH Commitment Effective Date: OCTOBER 27,2000 at 8:00 A.M. 1. Policy or Policies to be issued: ALTA Owner's Policy Amount: $1, 7 5 0, 0 0 0.0 0 1990 STANDARD LEASEHOLD Premium: $3, 313 .00 COMMERCIAL Tax: $ 284.88 Proposed Insured: CLAY-GODFREY-CONLEY L.L.C. , A WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Policy or Policies to be issued: Amount: $0.0 0 ALTA Loan Policy Premium: Tax: Proposed Insured: Policy or Policies to be issued: Amount: $0.0 0 ALTA Loan Policy Premium: Tax: Proposed Insured: 2. The estate or interest in the land which is covered by this Commitment is: FEE SIMPLE 3 . Title to the estate or interest in the land is at the effective date hereof vested in: PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 1, A WASHINGTON MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT WLTACOMA/RDA/0999 t CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A.L.TA.COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A (Continued) Order No.: 58179 Your No.: DAVIS AVE. S./S. 45TH LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT (Paragraph 4 of Schedule A continuation) LOTS 10, 11 AND 12, ONE VALLEY PLACE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 125 OF PLATS, PAGES 40 AND 41, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LOT 12, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 12; THENCE SOUTH 00°55'36" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 12, A DISTANCE OF 171.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 76°09' 03" WEST A DISTANCE OF 52.28 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF DAVIS AVENUE SOUTH; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF DAVIS AVENUE SOUTH ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 275 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 170.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; (A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES IS ALSO KNOWN AS LOT 2, CITY OF RENTON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT LLA-023-91, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 9108069008, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON) . CLTAGMA6/RDA/O999 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A.L.TA.COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B Order No.: 581792 YourNo.: DAVIS AVE. S./S. 45TH Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. GENERAL EXCEPTIONS A. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. B. Encroachments,overlaps,boundary line disputes, or other matters which would be disclosed by an accurate survey and inspection of the premises. C. Easements,or claims of easements,not shown by the public records. D. Any lien,or right to a lien,for contributions to employee benefit funds,or for state workers' compensation,or for services,labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished,all as imposed by law,and not shown by the public records. E. Taxes or special assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the public records. F. Any service,installation,connection,maintenance,tap,capacity or construction charges for sewer,water, electricity,other utilities,or garbage collection and disposal. G.Reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; Indian tribal codes or regulations,Indian treaty or aboriginal rights,including easements or equitable servitudes. H. Water rights,claims, or title to water. I. Defects,liens,encumbrances,adverse claims or other matters,if any,created,first appearing in the public records,or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOLLOW WLTACOM6/RDA/0999 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A.L.T.A.COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B (Continued) Order No.: 0 0 0581792 Your No.: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS A G EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY PURPOSE: ELECTRIC LINE AREA AFFECTED: A PORTION OF LOTS 11 AND 12 RECORDED: FEBRUARY 17, 1964 RECORDING NUMBER: 5699711 B 1.2K/ ASEMENT AS DELINEATED AND/OR DEDICATED ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT. PURPOSE: UTILITY AREA AFFECTED: PORTIONS OF ALL LOTS C 3 . EASEMENT PROVISIpNS CONTAINED IN SAID PLAT AS FOLLOWS: � f AN EASEMENT IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY AND CITY OF r. RENTON AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS UNDER AND UPON THE EXTERIOR 15 FEET PARALLEL WITH AND ADJOINING THE STREET FRONTAGE OF r' ALL LOTS IN WHICH TO INSTALL, LAY, CONSTRUCT, RENEW, OPERATE AND t; MAINTAIN UNDERGROUND CONDUITS, MAINS, CABLES AND WIRES WITH NECESSARY FACILITIES-AND OTHER EQUIPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING THIS SUBDIVISION AND OTHER PROPERTY WITH ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE AND OTHER UTILITIES SERVICE, TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON THE LOTS AT ALL TIMES FOR THE PURPOSES HEREIN STATED. ALSO, EACH LOT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT 7.5 FEET IN WIDTH, PARALLEL WITH AND ADJACENT TO ALL INTERIOR LOT LINES FOR THE PURPOSE OF UTILITIES. THESE EASEMENTS ENTER UPON FOR THOSE PURPOSES SHALL BE RESTORED AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITION. D 4. RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT AS FOLLOWS: NO LOT OR PORTION OF A LOT IN THIS PLAT SHALL BE DIVIDED AND SOLD OR RESOLD, OR OWNERSHIP CHANGED OR TRANSFERRED WHEREBY THE OWNERSHIP OF ANY PORTION OF THIS PLAT SHALL BE LESS THAN THE AREA REQUIRED FOR THE USE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED. CLTACM61/RDA/0999 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A.L.TA.COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B (Continued) Order No.: 5 817 92 Your No.: DAVIS AVE. S./S. 45TH SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS E 5. RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN SAID PLAT AS FOLLOWS: NO LINES OR WIRES FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC CURRENT OR FOR TELEPHONE USE, CATV, FIRE OR POLICE SIGNALS, OR FOR OTHER PURPOSES SHALL BE PLACED OR PERMITTED TO BE PLACED UPON ANY LOT OUTSIDE THE BUILDINGS THEREON UNLESS THE SAME SHALL BE UNDERGROUND OR IN CONDUIT ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING. LEV COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT: RECORDED: JULY 31, 1981 RECORDING NUMBER: 8107310439 COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, EASEMENTS AND LIABILITY FOR ASSESSMENTS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT: RECORDED: NOVEMBER 1, 1983 RECORDING NUMBER: 8311010611 8. AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: BETWEEN: GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND: DEAN M. ROCKEY, FRANCES ROCKEY, RICHARD LOMAS, DARYL CONNELL AND MICHELE CONNELL RECORDED: NOVEMBER 1, 1983 RECORDING NUMBER: 8311010607 REGARDING: MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF A STORM WATER DETENTION POND SERVING SAID PREMISES AND OTHER PROPERTY 9. AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: BETWEEN: PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 1 AND: CITY OF RENTON RECORDED: SEPTEMBER 23, 1988 RECORDING NUMBER: 8809230158 CLTACMB2/RDA/0999 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A.L.TA.COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B (Continued) Order No.: 5 817 9 2 Your No.: DAVIS AVE. S./S. 45TH SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS REGARDING: THE DEVELOPMENT AND PERMITTED USES OF SAID PREMISES J 10. RELINQUISHMENT OF ACCESS TO STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 5 AND OF LIGHT, VIEW AND AIR BY DEED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: RECORDED: JULY 26, 1961 RECORDING NUMBER: 5310544 K SAID INSTRUMENT IS A RE-RECORDING OF INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 5296201. L 11. RELINQUISHMENT OF ACCESS TO STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 5 AND OF LIGHT, VIEW AND AIR BY DEED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: RECORDED: JUNE 19, 1961 RECORDING NUMBER: 5296778 M 12. CONDEMNATION OF ACCESS TO STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 5 AND OF LIGHT, VIEW AND AIR BY KING COUNTY DECREE TO STATE OF WASHINGTON: SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER: 573456 N 13. RIGHT OF THE PUBLIC TO MAKE NECESSARY SLOPES FOR CUTS OR FILLS UPON SAID PREMISES IN THE REASONABLE ORIGINAL GRADING OF STREETS, AVENUES, ALLEYS AND ROADS AS DEDICATED IN THE PLAT. 0 14. PAYMENT OF THE REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX, IF REQUIRED. THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SITUATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF LOCAL TAXING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF RENTON. PRESENT RATE IS 1.780. ANY CONVEYANCE DOCUMENT MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE OFFICIAL WASHINGTON STATE EXCISE TAX AFFIDAVIT. THE APPLICABLE EXCISE TAX MUST BE PAID AND THE AFFIDAVIT APPROVED AT THE TIME OF THE RECORDING OF THE CLTACMII2/RDA/0999 • CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A.L.TA.COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B (Continued) Order No.: 581792 Your No.: DAVIS AVE. S./S. 45TH SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS CONVEYANCE DOCUMENTS. P 15. THE PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED IS CARRIED ON THE TAX ROLLS AS EXEMPT. HOWEVER, IT WILL BECOME TAXABLE ON THE DATE OF THE EXECUTION OF A CONVEYANCE TO A TAXABLE ENTITY AND SUBJECT TO THE LIEN OF REAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE BALANCE OF THE YEAR FROM THAT DATE. TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER: 639180-0010-05 LEVY CODE: 2127 ASSESSED VALUE-LAND: $ NOT DISCLOSED ASSESSED VALUE-IMPROVEMENT: $ NOT DISCLOSED Q AFFECTS: PORTION OF SAID PREMISES AND OTHER PROPERTY R 16. THE PROPERTY HEREIN.DESRIBED IS CARRIED ON THE TAX ROLLS AS EXEMPT. HOWEVER, IT WILL BECOME! TAXABLE ON THE DATE OF THE EXECUTION OF A CONVEYANCE TO A TAXABLE ENTITY AND SUBJECT TO THE LIEN OF REAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE BALANCE OF THE YEAR FROM THAT DATE. TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER: 639180-0125-07 LEVY CODE: 2127 ASSESSED VALUE-LAND: $ NOT DISCLOSED ASSESSED VALUE-IMPROVEMENT: $ NOT DISCLOSED S AFFECTS: REMAINDER OF SAID PREMISES T 17. ASSESSMENT: AMOUNT: $ 374, 336.42 INTEREST: 6% COMMENCING 30 DAYS AFTER: FEBRUARY 15, 1995 ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS: 10 INSTALLMENTS PAID: 7 INSTALLMENTS DELINQUENT: 0 NEXT INSTALLMENT DUE: FEBRUARY 15, 2001 LEVIED BY: THE CITY OF RENTON FOR: ROAD IMPROVEMENTS L.I.D. NUMBER: 329 CLTACMB2/RDA/0999 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A.L.TA.COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B (Continued) Order No.: 581792 Your No.: DAVIS AVE. S./S. 45TH SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ACCOUNT NUMBER: 1A U AFFECTS: INCLUDES OTHER PROPERTY V 18. ANY INSTRUMENT TO BE EXECUTED BY PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 1, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATUTE. SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF AUTHORITY MUST BE SUBMITTED. W 19. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION WILL INVOLVE THE CREATION OF A LEASEHOLD ESTATE. X THE LEASEHOLD INTEREST TO BE INSURED HAS NOT YET BEEN ESTABLISHED OF RECORD. DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO CREATE SAID INTEREST MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. Y THE LEASE OR A SUITABLE MEMORANDUM THEREOF MUST BE RECORDED. Z NOTE 1: SPECIAL TAXES FOR SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT AND/OR OTHER SPECIAL CHARGES, PAID IN FULL: YEAR: 2000 AMOUNT BILLED: $ 5.00 AMOUNT PAID: $ 5.00 TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER: 639180-0010-05 LEVY CODE: 2127 AA AFFECTS: PORTION OF SAID PREMISES AND OTHER PROPERTY AB NOTE 2 : SPECIAL TAXES FOR SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT AND/OR OTHER SPECIAL CHARGES, PAID IN FULL: YEAR: 2000 AMOUNT BILLED: $ 5.00 AMOUNT PAID: $ 5.00 TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER: 639180-0125-07 LEVY CODE: 2127 CLTACM132/RDA/0999 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B (Continued) Order No.: 5 817 92 YourNo.: DAVIS AVE. S./S. 45TH SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AC NOTE 3 : EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1997, DOCUMENT FORMAT AND CONTENT REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED BY WASHINGTON LAW. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF THE DOCUMENT BY THE COUNTY RECORDER OR IMPOSITION OF A $50.00 SURCHARGE. FIRST PAGE OR COVER SHEET REQUIREMENTS: 3" TOP MARGIN CONTAINING NOTHING EXCEPT THE RETURN ADDRESS. 1" SIDE AND BOTTOM MARGINS CONTAINING NO MARKINGS OR SEALS. TITLE(S) OF DOCUMENTS. RECORDING NO. OF ANY ASSIGNED, RELEASED OR REFERENCED DOCUMENT(S) . GRANTORS NAMES (AND PAGE NO. WHERE ADDITIONAL NAMES CAN BE FOUND) . GRANTEES NAMES (AND PAGE NO. WHERE ADDITIONAL NAMES CAN BE FOUND) . ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION (AND PAGE NO. FOR FULL DESCRIPTION) . ASSESSOR'S TAX PARCEL NUMBER(S) . RETURN ADDRESS (IN TOP 3" MARGIN) . **A COVER SHEET CAN BE ATTACHED CONTAINING THE ABOVE FORMAT AND1DATA IF THE FIRST PAGE DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL REQUIRED DATA. ADDITIONAL PAGES: 1" TOP, SIDE AND BOTTOM MARGINS CONTAINING NO MARKINGS OR SEALS. ALL PAGES: NO STAPLED OR TAPED ATTACHMENTS. EACH ATTACHMENT MUST BE A SEPARATE PAGE. ALL NOTARY AND OTHER PRESSURE SEALS MUST BE SMUDGED FOR VISIBILITY. FONT SIZE OF 8 POINTS OR LARGER. THE FOLLOWING MAY BE USED AS AN ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON THE DOCUMENTS TO BE RECORDED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RCW 65.04. SAID ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WHICH MUST ALSO APPEAR IN THE BODY OF THE DOCUMENT: A PORTION OF LOTS 10-12, ONE VALLEY PLACE, VOL 125 PG 40. END OF SCHEDULE B CLTACMB2/RDA/0999 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A.L.TA.COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B (Continued) Order No.: 581792 YourNo.: DAVIS AVE. S./S. 45TH SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AE THE FOLLOWING PARTIES HAVE BEEN SENT A COPY OF THIS COMMITMENT: VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER ERIC THOMAN, GENERAL COUNSEL 2/2 FOSTER, PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC RICHARD KEEFE 2/2 CLTACMB2/RDA/0999 , 0 CHICAGO TITLE ]. ;URANCE COMPANY 701 FIFTH AVENUE,#1800,SEATTLE,WA 98104 PHONE: (206)628-5610 FAX: (206)628-9717 ORDER NO: 000581792 YOUR NO: • DAVIS AVE.S./S.45TH UNIT NO: 06 LOAN NO: SUPPLEMENTAL COMMITMENT AF ORDER REFERENCE INFORMATION SUPPLEMENTAL NUMBER 1 SELLER: PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 1, A WASHINGTON MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PURCHASER/BORROWER: CLAY-GODFREY-CONLEY L.L.C. , A WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LOAN NUMBER: PROPERTY ADDRESS: WASHINGTON • Our Title Commitment dated 10/27/00 at 8 :00 A.M. is supplemented as follows : AG THE FOLLOWING NOTE(S) HAS (HAVE) BEEN ADDED TO OUR COMMITMENT: AH NOTE 4: THE POLICY TO BE ISSUED WILL INCLUDE A 103 .1 ENDORSEMENT INSURING AGAINST LOSS DUE TO EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF USE OR MAINTENANCE OF THE EASEMENT REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 3. AI EXCEPT AS TO THE MATTERS SET FORTH HEREINABOVE, THE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY COVERED BY THIS ORDER HAS NOT BEEN REEXAMINED. AJ JANUARY 11, 2001 AUTHORIZED BY: ROGER TERRIERE SUPPLCOM/RDA/0999 0 CHICAGO TITLE I URANCE COMPANY 701 FIFTH AVENUE,#1800,SEATTLE,WA 98104 PHONE: (206)628-5610 FAX: (206)628-9717 ORDER NO: 000581792 YOUR NO: • DAVIS AVE.S./S.45TH UNIT NO: 06 LOAN NO: SUPPLEMENTAL COMMITMENT #2 AK ORDER REFERENCE INFORMATION SUPPLEMENTAL NUMBER 2 SELLER: PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 1, A WASHINGTON MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PURCHASER/BORROWER: CLAY-GODFREY-CONLEY L.L.C. , A WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LOAN NUMBER: PROPERTY ADDRESS: WASHINGTON Our Title Commitment dated 10/27/00 at 8 :00 A.M. is supplemented as follows : AL PARAGRAPH NUMBERS) 2, 6 AND 7 OF OUR COMMITMENT IS (ARE) ELIMINATED. AM THE PROPOSED INSURED ON THE FORTHCOMING OWNER'S POLICY TO ISSUE HAS BEEN AMENDED/ADDED AS FOLLOWS: DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC, A WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AN PARAGRAPH NUMBER(S) 3 HAS (HAVE) BEEN AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: AO 1. EASEMENT PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SAID PLAT AS FOLLOWS: AN EASEMENT IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY AND CITY OF RENTON AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS UNDER AND UPON THE EXTERIOR 15 FEET PARALLEL WITH AND ADJOINING THE STREET FRONTAGE OF ALL LOTS IN WHICH TO INSTALL, LAY, CONSTRUCT, RENEW, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN UNDERGROUND CONDUITS, MAINS, CABLES AND WIRES WITH NECESSARY FACILITIES AND OTHER EQUIPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING THIS SUBDIVISION AND OTHER PROPERTY WITH ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE AND OTHER SEE NEXT PAGE SUPPCOM2/RDA/0999 • C____AGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY . Order No.: 581792 Your No.: DAVIS AVE. S./S. 45TH Unit No.: 06 SUPPLEMENTAL COMMITMENT (Continued) UTILITIES SERVICE, TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON THE LOTS AT ALL TIMES FOR THE PURPOSES HEREIN STATED. THOSE EASEMENTS ENTERED UPON FOR THOSE PURPOSES SHALL BE RESTORED AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITION. AP EXCEPT AS TO THE MATTERS SET FORTH HEREINABOVE, THE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY COVERED BY THIS ORDER HAS NOT BEEN REEXAMINED. AV OCTOBER 8, 2001 AUTHORIZED BY: ROGER TERRIERE SUPLCOM2/RDA/0999 • C) CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY • 701 FIFTH AVENUE,#1800,SEATTLE,WA 98104 IMPORTANT: This is not a Survey. It is furnished as a convenience to locate the land indicated hereon with reference to streets and other land. No liability is assumed by reason of reliance hereon. • �\ / l ��� • ylr� p.�,a0 I. 4/ ?'jam A,, !yt 07 t it e7notas� `--- - • -.,,J.D-Obe{G m.N �iO/b .e. ,w �wx,.1.— ` 1 irT7.—ate �a------4—i— .aw= ;TIC 9+/� "L. ' .rw = 1316.118 ,� N .-a.-.1✓ _—NM-0l-'J _. +. _ ..wio✓nm w2,1 .�1. , �"''M� $ 43RD ST p .rs.wo ��yp a • ,AUNT weo. W �..E— ----- 7 ...rig aI -nP-�,•%. ��,' —°1 � Tars" 4 a C sa Ei• J II 4. 0 nB S era91 �� c 1 �I if m t�R z ����F i/ B��+ 1mow I. • ,�t� I •.r✓ "� 11 �h / 4 ‘. .7- .r.' ,. • ,7' p **), 11 fi 1 PAP ,, a p 12 P 11�/�a' 4 -� °� i , II'. A.d. ® `bpi lif N ,t 77t if • abs-ewi/W y - Y I s v,, , �>a I e p� rr SI %,- Z. • ar II ' • •- a N b I ' i^ f� g 1': I ,..ka.a. '® i io i r/. pigQt T4, • �9` e Via, je ¢ f r( A°' v Iv 000 gli �F .,.,.co, //1 t 1 r-v .......,....,,,„ 71,,,, e II �� C I. ' l iAP , f6 11�p .is:f]LaN I J t I657 660.070 m Al T.5tt 4-ViliPs6arrera .A,0 'CI°' \AJA21.-12.11.ALS.2.-- %OgiiV:11;5 To_Sr.+AA •51 DEED n:;!"1 OF THE COMPTROLLER POW r 9�)a SPECIAL iIARStAH'L'7c Na:aw;:on (CORPORATE FORM) :cvv::y. ee THE GRANTOR, SEAFIRST MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a Washington •*".,,--, • .`, and K"'"�'^�=` corporation, for and in consideration of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) o ,.�r r other good and valuable consideration in hand paid, grants, ., fix b,i bargains, sells, conveys and confirms to PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT z a Washi[ ton ici 1 Corporatio �^ 4: NO. 1, GRANTEE the follow y' d cribed real estate, situated in '.. ,•` :. i v4 the County of King, State of Washington: .. N ‘ Lots 1 through 12, inclusive, One Valley ' '' OD Place, according to the Plat thereof recorded • C4 in Volume 125 of Plats, pages 40 and 41, in _'vim �'� to King County, Washington. r,.+ . 2*� ' • SUBJECT TO easements, restrictions and agreem'nts contained { I in instruments recorded under Auditor's File Nos. 5699710,• ;,;eta`,, ' 5333149, 5699711, 8109020542, 8109020541, 8109020543, 8107310439, e11 y •1. 8311010611, 8203150511 and 8311010607, records of King County, ,; ,:: Washington. 4 A . AND FURTHER SUBJECT TO restrictions contained in and on the { ,H. face of the said Plat, and easements delineated or dedicated on. 1:2.=•` .< ;r ti> the face of or contained in the said Plat. `� F2; AND FURTHER SUBJECT TO condemnation and/or relinquishment of ; z access to State Highway 5 and of light, view and air under King r-47:� i+ a County Superior court Case No. 573456 and by deed to the State of :::;;; r�5� 'V�I Washington recorded under Auditor's File Nos. 5296201, 5310544 and �tly£Ct�{3 'i�tir.r,_.... 5296778. '1.1... "e;" \7 AND FURTHER SUBJECT TO the right of the public to make •z :--..•-s•:• `\ necessary slopes for cuts and fills upon said premises in the {, �`'- 1.,..,..1 reasonable original grading of streets, avenues, alleys and rr.ads S%.;;?.;; m as dedicated in the said Plat. '�" _�` M �iT•:lL• � AND FURTHER SUBJECT TO unpaid assessments, together with sf.: :, -interest and penalties thereon, now or hereafter due in respect to grieg F,�•,� v,l the said premises from Local Improvement Districts 325 and 329, ? mEv.., v„fit:: City of Renton, which Grantee assumes and agrees to pay. : ; AND FURTHER SUBJECT TO second-half 1987 real estate t'xes, -,7.:: tr-zrA which Grantee assumes and agrees to pay. sir Kua`,e'': z: 07/O5/20 01121 rO 1 A ;+tg!4 '.?-`,;, RECD F 6.O0 i :l::, - 1 - CR 5HSL. ,ti**ef•00 :,A1,:.i ,i•.? M03AAZ K_ ', .,',, ..... . I .. .., ✓-..tn,•••, .,,,,.r:, -..•.:.vr,.. .,•.. _1...::..�. �.. .••• t.' i.�"••• L�."•."'n.i.'„ .e,'rnkt :14rga 'ia'�ti. Y.'.J tti*"�f jY^'....:44.'h:t r V. l'�4 .,krr F.. „,' ,'=tr fi?'' jti i^ •,.- q.: • ,,girt.`, ',-. .62,1%.. THE GRANTOR for itself and for its successors and assigns i. does by these presents expressly limit the covenants of this deed r to those herein expressed and excludes all covenants arising or to ,7 `` arise by statutory or other implication, and does hereby covenant ,*,- �'' that against all persons whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim by, through or under said Grantor and not otherwise, it will '4T.' ,f... forever warrant and defend the said described real estate. . spry IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said corporation has caused this yy���� s.?: : . rdi instrument to be executed by its proper officers this .4- day 1I' of May, 1987. GO ,:x. �^ Ct SEAFIRST MORTGAGE CORPORATION`By: �� /,(.��/i ���.,,.. �;.y.v I'ts: Vice PrTsident + '"'yy, By: l#,.�.� 1 �Y�<<-,v� .. e rr.'; Its: Vice President , =�`"f_ STA?E OF WASHINGTON ) `4 COUNTY OF SING ) J ,n::, On this .�tf day of (MhY 1987, before me, thee.,.9y;,; undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, ,=_ ' c;: duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Z(cahAD DuNN - •,a? : and Re.nega D. Beee35TEEL• to me kncwn to be the Vice ;;.V,E,, Presidents of Seafirst Mortgage Corporation, the corporation that Kam''r..'.= executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said vike-^F%_. instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said �`` 'w' corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on' '` '4' '” p P ;�..y'f+-,•.. oath stated that they are authorized to execute the said ..'' ..,:v." rir„e• -firr., :t instrument. - ry '- WITNESS my hand and seal hereto affixed the day and year in '•`i;,'`"•''- this certificate above written. ( + NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of ,; j1�r{`'., ""'-$.1.- •-•.- Washington, residing in. SC.kff- ~(, • � � ; ;,.,+u,:.' My commission expires: 3-/S-- 90 • ' % `i o f =' :: + ' -.so...:.•cam" 7y:►.. ..,,, - n t r41 rn MO2AAZ - 2 l•T ` • `!�j» ' S e�y.1..1.5 ,, ti l: 4. Al. .� ;i ywf.. ..o 1A•.i`g. •♦ yy��4 S -'. tt\ .n(}l ` y 4L.,.. I 1. 7 4 , I\ r♦ . "'rf�''''k iL(��L�,�y,,,'^ ��/ 314 ...,i A . f.f,'•l;Y;'�.i i[C,� Z♦irt(.A16;•.. (i-Yi • ... S :'f•'74�E,• 2.i� •, ,. .; • ti I,v\:i , -T4 0 ,� L• .'Ta-b , . THIS SPACE rtSElVED FOR SICORDers ESE, i Flied for Record at Request of 1 I m te.Lf�it L�GQQ _ •lal!/ tzt t Na Addrr.* /0 7 • Cte City aad Stata..21 l._ ._..__.._.... _._ _ 7_......_.. • LaN - ti Quit Claim Deed N o , • N .4 .• z • (V (CORPORATE FORM) M ti i _,• ` THE GRANTOR Public Hospital District No. I.R of King County, d/b/a Val ley � • 1-- •''+` Medical Center, a Washington Municipal Corporation a z • for and in consideration of Ten Dollars($10.00) P-. m re • conveys and quit claims to United Way of King County J I—I. • HI' the following described real estate,situated in the County of King Jo f State of Washington,together with all after acquired title of the grantor(s)therein: . W J ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 12 OF ONE VALLEY PLACE ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF 4,� RECORDED IN VOLUME 125 OF PLATS, PAGES 40 AND 41,IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, t I c . DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: is BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF ABOVE SAID LOT 12; THENCE S 00°55'36" W _ 5i ALONG THE EAST LINE OF ABOVE SAID LOT 12 A DISTANCE OF 171.15 FEET;THENCE N —‹ . 76°09'03" W A DISTANCE OF 52.28 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF DAVIS AVENUE SOUTH; xt.7 I THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF DAVIS AVENUE SOUTH ON A CURVE TO �_ THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 275 FEET, AN ARC LENGTH OF 170.10 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT t'i •2,'- 1 OF BEGINNING �� _ I. Lw iI S ill .I a.F— 1 a 'T r 1 3•J I '* ` 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,said corporation has caused this Instrument to be executed by its proper officer • • 1 end Its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed this . day of .19)1 i • I 1 g Pu,ji .spital Diptrict,,.Ns,.j_of._EingSounty, d/b ey Medical Center t ./. 'ic and D. Roodman hooideAftx • . . ... .. ......... ... ............................. iiiiiw 1 1 & County of King 1 •.` f On this kit- day of !..1 it C j, ,19 91 before me,the undersigned, 1 1 a Notary Public In and for the State of Washington,duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared YRichard D. Roodman And IIII to me known to be the Superi nten'e ides Aid - RXIA{XWAtt9f!?XTfX,of :i S the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrtuneat to be the free and • 1 ,;, voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned,and on oath stated that Le authorized to execute the said Instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said + I ,,, corporation. 1 = Witness my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and yyesr first above written. 1 , ../1-..e.a . - °' Notary nblic in and for the Stole o/W :fotr, 1 My Commission expires loZ 5;n7 . ' _.. , . .l 1. . .1 C%T Y OF RENTON01.51.4, -- °`""6" GRAPHIC SCALE la LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT LEA -023-9I '6I1►eII!'9Ir ` " (DI r.LT) PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 31, s 89121'16'C BT11,E We. ' H 1'1 A:. , I Ia1Y•60 ft• t TWN 23 N, R 5 E, W.M. IN THE CITY OF RENTON NORM L LINE OE SEC�r1 M y �6 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Ja1T/�°r`AR'""••ACAS tot ME ' MON.ZINC THE NORTH 380 FEET OF TIE EAST NALF'OF ATE NORTHEAST QUARTER O' Et.MON EX. MON I THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF TIE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION JI. /iN CASE - /AN CASECASEtSCUM IJIm MEETI N CMON A TOWNSHIP 23 NOPTK RANGE 3 EASE MAY.,I.I KING COUNTY, 6/ WABANGTOL LYING TIE RENT-REI'TOY COUNTY NO e0 r TALDOT N 89171'3e'w ROAD, EXCEPT THE NORTH 30 FEET MET:OF AND EX.EPT THE CAST 1e6.38 FEET THEREOF;EXCEPT MAT STR/F CS'LAND CG.Vt£TED TO TIC OTT o ,a1 as• Or RENTON BY INSTRUMENT UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. "•'I00479.AND S • w HIo• .A An r1Mawln .a.aa• ( S 88V8'04'E EXCEPT ME FTXLOMNG OECSRIBED TRACT;CQMMENONG AT ME NLRTHNEST .- CONSTRUCTION_LINE S�w 'H __15 ' q 30' CORNER OF SAID EAST HALF THENCE S 0055'36'W ALONG THE NORTHERLY c r+.aJc.r FRO.ECTON or THE EAST MARGIN OF DAVIS AVE S 37.40 FEET TO THE TRUE 1 -I LL�� ,- M.oa'afro v.''4IC i. N SOD 'Of'W a 1e' FONT O•BEGINNING THENCE CONTINUING S O 53.16'W.M17 FEET ?„ !el !l9.61' TV A PORT Or CLIME. THE CENTER Or MIION BEARS S 891D174'C OOOfff ^$ n p 903670' THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT MTH A 1'12 R.13.00' IMF LOW Of a.I,1 RADIUS OR'25 FEET FORA DISTANCE OR'39.86 FEET TO A PONT • o I. 0'Of..t v1 a Rae 31 O•TANCENCT; THENCE S 8808'04'E IJ9.82 FEET; THENCE N 0059 J0'C T 23.I R' TM as 6a ry I --- L.39.68' k A I. 10.18 FEET• THENCE N QBD601'w TO TIE TRUE PONT O•WONMNG fIIt�\\� _.Ul_ 13' H . i _� TOCETER MM MAT ROT ARY/Or LOT 12 Or ONE VALLEY PUCE ACCORONC =I [f.3876'2f'- 't'-- - ro THE PLAT IIILREG''REL'O'MLD N KILI/ME f?5 O•PUTS PAGES 40 AND i R.250.00' I I• 4L N RWG COUNTY. WASNMQTON DESCRIBER AS FELLOWS; al J SR'I.8716' a I IMM k BEONNINC AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CONKER O'ABOVE SAAH LOT 1k '� �O L 16772' ___�Kp, ,,,•, • —�i THENCE S 005536'1Y ALONG THE EAST LINE O'ABOVE S40 LOT 12 A ' DISTANCE OF 171.15 FEET; THENCE N 70TA'O.A'W A DISTANCE OF A•J57615' • •F� 11.1. 32.28 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN Or DAVIS AEEHLE SOUTH; THENCE R. 3576'' i 15 r-1 r , �j/�/ �`�/� I NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY MARGIN Or OAKS AVENUE SOUTH ON . T. 87.67' I --� i9IVCX./T0�(.J�J A CURVE TO THE LEFT MTH A RADIUS OF 275 FEET,AN ARC IDIOM OF L. 170.10' I2 OWN; d I T7O10 FEET TO TIE TRUE PONT OF IKONMNG 8Z IC -- Ir /'n I LOT TUT / I R �+' LOT 12 O.ME VALLEY PLACE ACCORDING TO TIE PLAT Tif71EOr RECORDED N VOLUME 125 Or PLATS PAGES 40 AND 41,N KING COMM ••I . / I `^ .^^, ,ma WASHINGTON LESS THE FOLOMNG DESCRIBED PCRTcw,• \ (1a '1 F^ IEONMNC AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CCNER OF ABOVE SATE LOT Q. '§•/ A•as,0 F' FEy PRp 1tTY_ w I C►aJ1LLKJtgI DISTANCE OF 171.13 FEET) THENCE N 7609'01'W CE S 0033'35*W ALONG IHE EAST LINE Or A DISTANCEL 12 A // is �2jB ti L 0 Ti pu � 552e FEET TO nE EASTERLY MARGIN Cr DANS AVENUE SYX/Til, THENCE ry ma. IRA tat a< 9\w.eahC\FIAYae WO�tt I I I "'� ` NORTEASTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF PAWS AVENUE SOUTH ON / A• 02595E r SYMMID A/O.eMOMIX,MS_Akar Cys24,-ItsZ A CURVE TO we LETT MM A RADIUS O'275 FEET,AN ARC LENGTH Or - / R.275.00' J •eaal sq. ft. y40dr____,__ f70.f0 FEET ID THE TRUE PONT OF LKOrvANG / / T• 7.20' �. 1.34 acres 2 QYQaaeO,r Y111.DIS n 40131 % �. 11.J9' 0• ammo we MM011D PIT$ Alt ar fall //(!/ 00�WWI TAX LOT TOE / imumuirsizentas y4 R R� \/ ,fi— ME J1 t .s kc7•WA e/f905.9,.. TIE NORTH 300 FIST OF FIE EAST HALF OF THE NORTEAST QUARTER OF / ' ` L 0 T 2 ' •Jr,I•-•w0 THE SOUTHWEST WARIER O'ME NORTEAST QUARTER OF SECTION X. / 9ny 1 N BRDY16'w (616!' / %ny R� �� o H PAAWNNORTw2LJ LMVC NEST OF KENT67RENTOO1'l C UNITY ROAD NO e0(►ALDOE / 79 10 i.0 38,690 sq.ft h ROAD_ THERE ').EXCEPT T NORM 30 FEET ME AND EXCEPT THE EAST Ile..366 FEET MEMO;EXCEPT THAT STRIP OF LAND DONVETED TV OE OTT a �'`tiM1 0•�acresa •• .^..` ` OF RENTON BY INSTRUMENT UNDERALaTOR'S FEE NO. 7304 0 004 7X u ST LINE OF THE EAST f/2 ' I <i OR'THE NE 1/4 Or ME Sw 1/1 / .1`. Or THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION J1-23-5 LOT 12 --•. / H.,H.,n / / . ^ CFRTFICATF PI VOLUOT 12 ME Ii5 OVALLEY RACE F PLATS PAGES 40 ACCORDING 1, THE MG PUTS OR'R£OGROLD • • • I(ME)HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM(ME ARE) INC OMNER(S)IN FEE Ii�9WCTOH. //..,,. $ SIMPLE OF THE LAND. R{//I'!///,I I/ RV,a,� h00e a. ! S 89DI'!1'W(PEAT) teJ.7J'ICALI 22I ,�i.ra rr t r Aa...,„r !� l 1 IEa.F 10.00 N B90I'OJ W(GALE) 23J.71'PLATI tr/' ER `a"�'�4f"'''''`' INNER Yltt, DM) c TS.m Jf '(y/ p7p151 410.00 50 OMNEf{1'/' V•F' ':��,,,,,,,,/ OWNER (,wk d.'"('y(✓vN) SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE ;'T•. RECORDING CERTIFICATE R[DCRD Mre6R ADME11 J OnER.GE•Ls THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE BY ' c. •.-. FILED FOR RECORD THIS_OW OF AD. AT Na Waa�'�1O'r��„"� Noes ( ) 0 ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION IN CONFORMANCE PITH IN BOOK— OF SURVEYS ON PACE_AT THE REQUSET OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SURVEY RECORDING ACT AT 1 Y' KENNETH J. OTTER. SURVEY OF UCN/LMC PROPERTY I INC REQUEST OF VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER f`. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ON MEMBER 28M. T990 {t•• - ..a .: . / n {�` `�d `A I•rN11H 1 N°YMIGI. 1920 •Itt 1/7'6 •r I X RCAIE I�M45524 WAGER SUPERINTENDENT OF RECORDS .Or'm'R 06 nt 515-034-88, • a ,Y` -�.-k,Yt ,, � '";,':J7•Js4.Yr "`:r . :.�k 3'. • l Vl.r17.16 A PA. • ' Y a —r � 3 Z +�fi 5;.. 569711 I r•34 • �t;4s .t / Dot. j sLL ^ 2g , 19 ' The undersigned, �' �'1r_, 'S T Q t4f AIL maisc� grants to PUGET SOUND POC.:R&LIGHT COMPANY, the right to install, maintain, replace, remove and use an electric ine, i i'y c22,34s ing of wire overhang lo. weeefsesYf r srw+ieor«sd•fiuhwes.,and to keep this line Free-of interference from tress or other • w„,; growth on the following property.situated in the County of King ,Stot.'of Washington: • Beginning 84 feet east of the Northwest corner of-the Easel/2 • of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31, Township • • i.- 23 North. Range 5 East, N.M.; thence west 150 feet; thence•south • 660 feet; thence east 250 feet; thence northwesterly to beginning, less County Road, less State Highway. • • • • • • • wire overhang The cse:s..1ine-of-.oi2 +c$i.4.ne to be.located os now stoked earses.eid- reeeryer from the northeasterl . corner of the above described property on South 180th Street arid extending In a south- westerly direction across said property. The Company shall have access for the purposes stated and shall be responsible for damage caused by negligence of :he Company. T eee terms shall be binding upon the successors and assl ns of the respective ies. . • • • Witness• ''z. • • STAT OF sf+ 0,6-1 � • COijt`ETY °►i ss • L �+'•_ reDnally appeared before me Ascot at (' . IA.. r S 2 - --- • top�e'kn'6%+nttt�l` ..h, Indivi 'al_described in and who executed the within aria foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that - l)l signed thii same as "ffree and voluntary act and deed for the uses.and purposes therein. mentioned. • GIVEN under my hand ord official seal this 00�day of_�. ��� , 19• .�0 otf7 cry lT„b is i for t Matt f Washington, residing at STATE OF WASHINGTON f • SS COUNTY OF 0n this —_day of , 19 before me, the undersigned, g personally appeared • and _ to me Known to be the President and Secretory, respectively, of • ' the corporation that executed the ioregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the he.and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and pa me ntioned.sea therein mentioned, and on oath stated that authorized to execute the said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. - {,tress -'y hand and official sea; hereto affixed the day and year first above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, C,EPTj� EASENc"'• £?NIT NO. residing of �} — r;...i i .'.ccc.a 19- 1 ) te•�_^s al? ;•t: �-d?ewer&itchCo r RQfifR. A YC`RRiS County Aadito, • - • r ONE VALLEY PLACE cird--er SECTION 31,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH,RANGE 5 EAST,W.M. / CITY OF RENTON r KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON - 8411150974,u f Yu _q/ tki FP-018-83 i� S •.72 -.a,. $'i1 i, o-o- nmtri.Y E -- .T --•71-• -r:� A F � 3r l 1 1 i I r A� — S I3rd 5!. e,S.EOM$T) . MIS DETAIL(ce aot Swat �.ma.I.Co. -:, :.. --- ,I ... • a?•A • � ,a ` `: ns'r.rrnr I scuE'f.ad i N39.04rti .r,./ w f}..fl l 1 s. i' / i I ::Y I.• y ' .4 ey: f AZ. i II., a. 4 fj0 // a?41 5Oief `1S• 3 i / 12 1 i • t4 � / P 1 $ 4,6/ •.... y tp �1f V ., 5 ^. / ISf.)r I < 1Q6 / a../ . . II I �+ Q , .a6 / Q ' n./ Jar n 1 ..'�,., .m.0• i ' .-5.:� m 1 :..rr .d�/ w.s'odJ r.� 1.. 10 I j• .° nr.s. .. r •.;.150 1: l al / • 7 I 5 71 � ••�: ..... 3—N.01 / �„•,,, l` ;b 45th PLACE `w wss�rY/► SE EVIL . — flf.A. .r r.MwL. Jff.J/ y 1 1 8 .. 301130 I. 9 •n `Y f, . % 1 P.III -, I 11'L- r.... - A .1. fro.fi .1.. y.,..a J.-tJ-11 .�1'i ry•. J09,f. w 3r'r OM. , , • r,waedt if 00.1 iiNP_4.':'F.:D ..n.«..f . ..s,r... m.—• LEGAL DESCRIPTION. a i 7I r vast AaY of Mr nofws/quarter of Mr z t11.51 Sus.of Or nc.'A ? plrtr end Ms west/d/d M.nor/Most Peer d MI sow/.wos/P+orlr.of Ms ,«,"s rot.3 ...—...,,, na'A'e st quarter,LMh I,Salk, 3/,Roim 23 Mrt,Rb,pe 5 East,W.M. p ..-r«•. .w.,« 3».. it Mill COY* Worhn➢+b''; .., .- ••�•.,�•� fip5 ::} ass Mora polars d a d to Me Sato of Mao'i'gh.r tor Allay Skits liA'w'oy hh 5 ;, dy doted!monied i. lOg Ow.,R3oad MM ig . rs 329677800'550544, S i A LESS A.nor*30 hat/a Cagy Rl hd, LESS Md prrhat Mo d Nr.nY•ig cony - 'a t{l wadg'd.d ncw'dtd utatr en;Co pKabg Hunt. 7304/00480, f AID Ma/paean of M.north hd/of Ni.south Poi of it*sash hat d he norMms/ ander d sod Socha"3/,M'g west of assay/hoc Mntr 97,khan as teat-tialbo Roach EXCEPT the south/33.00 le the Bost 327:50 Mt;and EXCEPT Ms teeth/33.00 hd »».f. /....rye d of...•rr«7. Ms oast 3/0.00 I.11 Mrr.ol;and EXCEPT Mdperhaa aThNa'.ed Ir PYMnvy SO!. ..nee....' c nw d ano smiler/wwrd w ss I �,,•.•'• M'ph.oy No.5,Soho 22et Stmt.n tot b of N • /Waal,Ey Ms Stott fahnota/31 wv dery r!y a T eds E* wr.Inc.. c. Canty Siphon awl Cons.Minor 573456. m�Sow, _ Sweieet to aortae.,of mares. SHEET I OF 2 SHEETS . k NO 9.7_ .. �_ .. S. • . '. . , . ,. . •- •. • . . .. ,. .. .•-• - .- . • . • ONE VALLEY PLACE • . • • ...: SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH,RANGE 5 EAST,W.M. • ••. • CITY OF RENTON KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ' _ 831.1150974 as I Yf - RESTRICTIONS FP-018-83 Ab bf em•potion Al I AI is!Ass*"'ha IA Waded ems.told a r Todd as moo.*okopmf of fromf000d otisoly ma comonfp es I som pelt"of *AVt EASEMENT PROVISIONS Oaf to los Am IA moo/.184'kr a.um:Ostia,a,obtk kasIod. An sosonsO 4 booty, 12 2'12 proof.<I A ISKI7 SOW,POSTE'?ATE LENT=SPAM/As/ Ab 1.0888.8 kr$A IsnostrobTo if okodrk proof to Ar lefpOso am,WV,Ens m• AICIFIC A097),WEST LIEU TELEFTIONE COWAN T,orl arr or ammo,..• poke sign"sr(a yew poysmo,she to pbosil s r poodAl f a Am pbOff flosT AW AO NO*AspotAo mammal as,ossimo,mob-led‘1,..AT TOofm 4 kw.P.**/we alsdf 1 fs Arttimr Two.min AD moo sAft to soirwmoof sr h cos*,sash,f I I o to AIT OW AwsIcs of AO kis is WA'S b hem'I,Im,moolve l,moo,opsrob ofsl...18,...op.,' kiktim. emobls,.12,mar end wive ofl•10.7 kaMos owl Mr smstoosof AT TO Poway of misim AA smATATOm owf oAN PITSTT8 MA ATTAM,lokobefo mol olko Wins., hr..oill as iipV As, LAND Susvcroft's CERTIFICATE - oVo•48812 RN kis a nit Noss As 1 s• a.w,rlofol.Aim,mot is Abs//a.14.1••R••••10Y ZS fost S web,perotWosifil=Swan/1••I 1 Alois IN hos lo•papaw a's011dos. Thos. I Amok,coliA Not WO AIN on crit JOLLEY PLACE I s bawd Toro a s Adolf M.. . moans*enonsf axe kr tom proms,NJ Po meow I m Two mr pooh*412 .miffs's,osollims mi. mot P.88/1.8 el S..#.,handsonASNA.lisogs. Ass I,EAT,"ma Ms oases ssO Asko>my.12 omit,Ifsfsot JAN Iff•moossoAds of/Iss AI osi Om TO .? •• rod 12moors 12 a., 'a T WA grant adOW/how My corpfsd WA AY • fro/dims of SW,Nollim mtsioffors. 0..L Se4,p ...ce.,.."0,...,/,Vese...2.-.•, ...4 t 8/01 SomtrAll,mow*too.51•14,- OEDICAnON .• g cow,.,.Th.WOO RACE ALL icy or MESE mesons/kW or.SW meksvirsoit sown is I.aNa.a*.h.,aaar i * .../. ...V dockr•Atii pOI Ire skstimb 112 am Al I I•poblr kroso•0 th.is sof worm 4•egisni,e°,.., thews wawa obi Ai—Ifismol a.'MI'Mak osmoses fd ImmoolsO AV I f o I f•am 122'*4••8 1.04'- pate PasOmoy pops, Woo Pm TOO if W sod••T mammy skim 1:r 12sod MA oar I s•kW owl APPROVALS &ham AbooT a his pill is P m saws foomfobls posivg si is 12 owl ammo,M.Ammo Of WITNE SSWHERETO'oo Asa sol Am boob mil mob. floporimsef a Ass:woo/of, EsomATT AA,WITTATT.TIT 4e.A,44.-il,.""g....8'14 qf-Y. e.c.,—„ore 14,,.Ay .11.. ticove-- 0..—tArs.d .L, 0.8, 10.88.•II.Ga./ O.C.*At.. Ossfy Amos ZL44- Z(' dr&4838•o&..‘Ciga 0.82 II.Roc. 7?'C't-7 4 7...-• Ftwace A.Roc. Soaffb-Rim Emmy Hot,rod Sa12A.Dspalsont x f.,,,e.;., ?,,,,,kr...1'7--T-,..., ,-st..ir,_ e ...../ Ifalerrey 0‘41.88.81 Esomood owl esboossoi an s.er 7...day o 1 ,No/ A.D./903 - , ..,..L L.. 0 . ACKNOWLEDGMFNTS Domfolmom of Redo Obis STATE CO 11419•VG7Cfe Caned ace owersof Ws arw<by 0 mar S.D./983 ' cavirr Or ATE • SS • This 1 lo orlby Na.a AM 12-4!teby.4.1. 14. ,1303, basso so,a.soirsipmf, 1...1.4.1-,C4. el..7 et-- . o Ahkry Pudic promo*spoMmOrl ob,.. f '• IX ici.J9 4'44`0441" ...1,-)124..... .# .. 0.8818 12 02. i' .14.-CLNAreM.4.2.. .tl&te- . lAnahlIteRARIaltIL a . k 1.• .AAA cm ca..1.Rostov STAAt4- lb m•loom lo bo Or lbsikok fob osoOM AV vials skskoliso 12offsmedpsi I no Owl OW Noriy Efookr,COI el Esswisof 8,8I.18.../la,.Ir.,.•.4,,a ',Iv_ A.D.1383. spud el salmi Po sow als for solssb7 sof mid&of kr O o cams end promos flown morohood end a•adh MAO AN Wm has mOsousof A 12 sod isdnossof. '1<jeL6i -j - DITIESS so Toni NW olScOf 12SW's!".waif tow Awl edam MI.. C----C'4.T,•3• R. hoe is md he As 47. of M.". eCA.Y:;44,1", .?:, R.I.n 110314.1,...?.G. ii...14.••••- •;••••,x0 V•illivv‘i.... clicof iterl%CoNissof ty lo aa.a a r.Gfy i I Rsofoo,IllfaOsolso or IfiolgIfy of.,#7b:y OE 1983 . 8 T AR la 1-:•• a - ;720.44.) 0 0-4^.4.,63:.•••••••2 •: a•• ..... . ...x ROLLER'S CERTIFICATE ,. .‘1.tr.R.,;•:...e..e.."'U...:...%.,C?.to.c;s.1 i 1 Sandy 01*1st or bosomy Sows my pod,Ad Aro ay As dsOmmosT mod&oommosnA 1224 b III effito 0.11 KING„.... . A.cabala,sof PM of:polo'amoonows s,f o millfod,espy of to popfr A boob Dotard.Wohold m Mosti, ‹iP• "..**••...ZWE.0 ' a mono,m to Ow pike Imo,erg pre k Adf. 71a..al.I.... cs....4ed: A.D.ISV '\S • ' OTT7CE Or WE merrouro . etPAPAct:hr C ''''"er45 - '"- •% i• . •••,a...*ce..•••••• \-.. f Al-,, ,—. tismsticio* /Sooty an*/NI Non my r o&Immo,spook/assossrmst 12 is mosoiN=mower so soy oi As ow.ry h.a.,costoisol delookof a Oro&a loos s a dbm polio mo my paid i I AS. nom;Airose,Cik co,R.20 RECORDING DECTIRCATE Mod kr mood of Pm mono o I do Ciff 6.ms7 MO o•of of A.O./983,of oiodsts post. M.essf moonforf 4*Am m'Ilter„Amoy ,liar*o I Xing Canty. Kim Croat,, WosAhmfoo Moan of Roan*and Eksfoor oisoos Sw.....8 a Rooms SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS • i . I •''IFI"'.'4,'. .- --:-".- •.•,....1--: ..,,..,........ . ••••,-•----- ---,- . .,•,-,-, ,.. .._ .:ttw,.•,...---••••-• -•,•••••,••••••••,--,.-4,--4•!•.--...• •• . ...... • . . .: 'i'•:••- '•••1 - - -!:.•:' ',,....• . • . • . .• . - .,...•:--•,..••,•:••••••••:•,.,:.,•-•.-.,•• "•::"' . ..... .;44•2..• .: ' • - .•- -t• •••?,:.7. ,I.P;;',':•rizio;.:.:•f!.-4.4i,‘K-41•4„;:5t.tp:=-••• •,*,_ , :.;?.-•:,....:.•,....'.. .;:!;07-....!e•f,...!•,,'.riirkft•-4)...,-,,...,......:,• . :• . .,.i...,..,,,..-. ,. •:‘ • :: ,:,;,..-'4.-.,....;,:::.4 42...'. .,.:1•' =-S-4,".5,4i0Si,-:......, ..'-.••:.-::r:F::::••.•:,:.• ,:,..;•.:s.In....fal...:---ACet..tMVA'4k-•"''''''r.'":-If".•-: ' '':....,:..".:'' •...''r."''':'•':.::'.. .i.F..i:•;':•:','"):Rilli"f;";•; •.44', •:::• • ••••••'••. •.,:.Ttl f :tt,',.•?'4,It:8.:.41...•,: :::'•:,•.1- ,:iirei.f.• -......•••••• ......',.•'-:..•••.`, '••,!;.i,;oid.:4ro.dIT,.-bob-.:;'M.Gbi'..,Iff .'',,A•t-. • STORM WATER DETENTION POND 7 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT A //(.; / : This Maintenance Agreement is made by and between Gateway Development Limited Partnership ("Gateway") and Dean M. Rockey, Frances Rockey, Richard Lomas, Daryl Connell and Michele Connell, as owners and developers of One Valley Place (collectively, referred to as "One Valley") . 1. Gateway is the owner of the real property in ,Renton, King County, Washington identified in Exhibit "A" ("Parcel. 1") . 2. One Valley is the owner of the real property in Renton, '•i King County, Washington identified in Exhibit "B" ("Parcel 2") . 'i OD 3. A storm water detention pond has been constructed on Parcel 1 for the purpose of collecting and retaining the storm water runoff from Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. • 4. Gateway and One Valley agree to be jointly responsible for the maintenance and repair of the storm drainage retention pond, including all pipes serving the pond, and to be equally responsible for the payment of all costs and expenses incurred in connection with the maintenance and repair of the- storm water detention pond system. 5. This Agreement shall be binding upon, and shall insure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective successors, assigns, heirs and personal representatives. T+c!1 filED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF AO NO1 I . OF COY C1EN i, " - RENTON MUNICIPAL Rom. 200 MIL AYE.S0. RfNTOi,WA 213055 • GEPTi • NO. o • Storm Water Detention Pond Maintenance Agreement Page 2 IN WITNESS WHEREO , the undersigned hereby execute this Agreement as of this day of October, 1983. GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: ONE VALLEY PLACE: BY: �/�, rtJnS` �n:e •:2S7n71 Nam, p GENE PARTNE . 6FIN M. ROCK H • 1-4 w-- FRANCES ROCKEY r4 RICHARD LOMAS D RYL CONNELL MICHELE CONNELL • ,•TATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING THIS CERTIFIES that on this Ly day of /,'- - ?- , 1983 , perscnally appeared before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, the within named i✓=����G/jl /2.t�C/!it//z known to me to be the person named in and • • who `executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that :-/ he/she executed said instrument freely and voluntarily for the purposes and uses therein mentioned. r. c) a pNotary publa'c in and for the State of Washington residing in ��':-L�XZ.e y 1.4 rl V) • • STATE OF WASHINGTON ) • ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) THIS CERTIFIES that on this 26k day of oC , 1983 , personally appeared before me, the undersigned, any PublicA4i in and for /1said �/}Count and State, the within name Cu k 1k't 61,47 '�k-f known to me to be the person named in and ho executed the foregoing instrument and ackm'4ledged to me that fie-executed said instrument freely and voluntarily for the urposes and uses therein mentioned. - , Ca t� GS s I Notary public in and for the State of Washiingto7 residing .FATE OF ✓Ji SH I NCGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING • THIS CERTIFIES that on this • b � day of(� <._, Q , 1983 , personally appeared before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, the within named ?�� �� known to me to be the person named in and 0 who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that CD he/she executed said instrument freely and voluntarily tor r4the purposes and uses therein mentioned. O rarl o a v. CL Notary public in A d for v • the State o-Was ington residing in Qk'Vc.t,� sz_. STATE OF washing can • King ss. ; County of On this 77th day -f October A.D. 1983 ,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for the State of Washi ngtnn duly commissioned and sworn personally appeared Lynn O_ Hurst _ to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument as attorney in fact of - • Dean M. Rockey and Frances A. Rockey. husband and wife, therein described, and acknowledged to me that --he signed and sealed the said instrument as such attorney in fact for said principal, freely and voluntarily, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned,and on oath stated that the power of attorney authorizing the execution of this instrument has not been revoked and that the said _Dean_14.. Rockey and Frances A. Rockey are xay now living. WITNE-S ray-hasd and official seal hereto affixed the day and year in this certificate first above written. Notary Public in andlgr the Sta o_ hington residing et_ ��� (.\•know•ledgment by Attorney in Fact.Pioneer National Title Insurance Co.Form L 30) I. 1 • E 1 k• ,% iV i• i 4.4t ' ei s ; •-: ' ' 1, 't 1• 1 P.1 It's' 'tl' ' 11 "11: L.' ' i.) q Irt 1 . 'g •4•E 'Yt• 1\ . ,:', i l'. ' ": 1 ''1 :11 e s• Nic 44 ii 1 4; 't S. • '1 .• l' ' Ai • '• A :1 t t. !, . ' , t• 1; t '1' ..{ +N. -' '\ 1 ; Y 1 • \, . ,',1 ql: ,, , 1'., • . le: Ni \ '• . • I '71 'I ..i \ il •• i 1 • . 1 : ''. : 4' t '1 • , . 1 . i? 1. , , •• -c it . . . .. \ ,• i . i ', ,. i• f s ‘: ' 'tt 1 4 — 1 '',' 1. I- .• `. %. . -: — , . i , --• • . • •. • • . .. , , I s . s. ! , t . ' • . .., • . ,,- ., , • —.— ( a . . .. ._. . N . .. • • • , • ., . • •• . • . ' . . . — . . ..• •. . . . ',..... • N • • PARCEL D That portion of the north half of the south half of the south half of the northeast quarter of Section 31, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington, lying west of County Road No. 80, known as the Kent-Renton Road; EXCEPT the south 133.00 feet of the east 327.50 feet; and EXCEPT the north 133 .00 feet of the east 310.00 feet Cthereof; and EXCEPT that portion portion condemned for Primary State O Highway No. 5, South 228th Street in Kent-Renton by State of v5 Washington in King County Superior Court Cause Number ri 573456. Cl CD R-OCS-85 Contract Rezone THIS CONTRACT REZONE is made this lad) day of , 1988 by and between Public Hospital District Nu. 1 of King Count , a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter the "Hospital") and The City of Renton, a Washington municipal corporation ("hereinafter the "City"). WHEREAS, the Hospital is the owner of that real property (hereinafter "One Valley Place") in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington, described as follows: Lots 1 through 12, inclusive, One Val l ey Place, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 125 of Plats, Pages 40 and 41, in King County, Washington. to CD NWHEREAS, in connection with the appplication of rezone of One Valley CD Place from P-1 to O-P, the parties acknowledge that the current 0-P zone does ao ao not appropriately establish the uses for this property contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, the parties acknowledge that due to the mixed uses surrounding One Valley Place, certain uses otherwise allowed under the 0-P zone should be restricted and certain uses otherwise prohibited should be allowed, and WHEREAS, to accomplish this Contract Rezone the parties agree to reference this document in the City Ordinance establishing the 0-P zoning, and to record this document on the title to One Valley Place. NOW THEREFORE THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: >?p� D2 F3 #0158 D RECDF 9.00 CRSHSL ****9.00 11 A. RESTRICTED USES The following uses, otherwise permitted in an 0-P zone, shall not be • permitted on One Valley Place unless specifically permitted by the City Council, or the City Hearing Examiner by way of conditional use permit, or rezone. l FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF: l '}GEPTjf' OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Q. NO. YENTON MUNICIPAL IILDG. 340 MILL AVE.SOUTH ^, -1- BtNTON.WASH. 9SOS `f 1. Principal Uses a. Financial offices such as banks, savings and loan institutions. b. Schools and studios for art, crafts, photography, dance and music. c. Manufacturing, processing, assembling, product servicing, whole- saling, warehousing and storage of articles, products or merchandise from previously prepared natural or synthetic materials, or ferrous or alloyed metals. d. Hobby Kennels. e. Motion picture theaters and similar recreational and entertainment facilities. c • In O 2. Accessory Uses CV • Oc0 a. Retail sales of products or merchandise produced as a permitted use. co • b. Repair activities ordinarily associated with a permitted use. c. Underground storage of petroleum or natural gas or any of their by-products. 3. Conditional Uses a. Churches b. Heliports. -2- 1 B. PERMITTED USES The following uses shall be permitted on One Valley Place, in addition to all other uses allowed under the 0-P zoning as restricted above: 1. Principal Uses a. Hospital (including outpatient only), or similar uses. • 2. Accessory Uses a. Financial offices such as credit unions that primarily serve the employees of the local medical community. C. DEVELOPMENT Unless specifically designated by the City or the City Hearing Examiner, ' p' the development of the Property shall be subject to the following: ON 1. Upon initiation of the first permanent development of One Valley c0 Place, a site plan covering the entire property shall be submitted with the site plan review application. The intent of this plan shall be to evaluate the scale, intensity, and layout of the overall development using building envelopes and general building footprints• rather than specific building plans or layouts. This review is to ensure that the development is compatible with the physical characteristics of One Valley Place and surrounding area, with the plans, policies and regulations of the City, •and that each portion of One Valley Place blends into the whole. The site plan shall comply with all relevant site plan review criteria contained in Section 4-738 of the City Code. • 2. Development of One Valley Place shall occur either through the aggregation of lots or through a development scheme that will enable each project to have the appropriate setbacks and landscaped areas • to meet the intent and requirements of the 0-P zone. -3- IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the parties hereto have executes this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. Hospital: City: Public Hospital District No. 1 City of Renton: of • unty By: H - By: ( � CN QA. Richa d D. Roodman, Superintendent Its: mayor Earl C1� STATE OF WASHINGTON ) Maxine E. Motor, CMC )SS. Date: Cl/e2/�; ti COUNTY OF KING / On this 12:44- day of , ,._ , 1988, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly Cj commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Richard D. Roodman to me known to be the Superintendent of Public Hospital District No. 1 of King County, a Washington Municipal Corporation, the entity that executed the foregoing 30 • cp instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of the said entity, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that they are authorized to execute the said instrument. Dated: 9-I2$a Notary Public My appointment expires: 5_i_clo -4- n! • STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss. COUNTY OF KING On this a//,t4 day of , 1988, before me, the • undersigned, a Notary Public in• and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , , f6, to me known to be the 4 tI. (Z, ( of the City of Renton, a Washington Municipal Co poration, the entity that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of i the said entity, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that they are authorized to execute the said instrument. Dated: 94/_erf • (// / vyv c0 Notary Pu i L.O N 14y appointment expires:/0—f-f? O co CO W rn � y I w cmi c. c. o ' ✓.- _ • -5- ,J..__ • •fe,91'.'!fe,..4.).--:'2.:,:,7,.,:;...!z.,•,4:..-,....,;:-..:,a....., • , . ._ ' 52944444 7—*- • . .0....2„.! a .., • I ..._ . • ' ;L 4 1-i. :.) -1 • il'l .-e.i3t(154.4 LIDiliTi'::',.. il._":.1::.;-.,ES .s , .:.,2001-1\--:II,.I 24../1.•I2•NO.-ill ...en.os WARRANTY DEED - . In the Matter of Primary State Highway NI). 5, South 225th at., Kent to Renton. KNOW:ILL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That the Grantor Joseph Ricnard Harm and Caroline Friner Harn, husband and wife. :.,.. 41 _. Caroline Friner Ham n also known as Carolyne ?miner Ham. :. . : for and in consideration of the sum of-----17X----($10.0e)) and No/100.. noliars. '..i; and other valuable consideration ' • .. hereby convey and warrant to the STATE OF WASHINGTON, the following. described real eszote st.11- arc('in : • County, in the State of Washington, to tlfe same •King ..• • 'A extent anal purvose os if the riulits herein grunted had been acquired under Eminent.Dornein :tic:tit/4. of t• titt. State of Washington: • '-? -._. - • • : • - • All that pnrtion ,.r th.- :ollowinc, descried 2arcel. "A" lyir.7 northwesterly ,..' -. ....:••• ,-- -:-. Jeacrifeel as folly...,: :.e,•inn :-.: at .a point opPoalte :ii,..)v.,ay Enineer's Statio:-..1 .... .......:".. ,.-. and.110 feet southeasterly therefrom when measured at,,richt anglew,from the cent...: of i•ri--;ary 3t1te Highway ';o.'5, South 228th Street; Kent to Itcnton;:;thence north 30' . . • ... al" east -..;1).5 feet; thenrQ north 1. '.1.511.6." east 315.9 feet; thence nortk 37023'..1"east 393.73 feet more or less, '.:. t.ne eaterly line of said Parcel "A". • f,", ...' .„. 1-1:::::LT. "Ad: ' The west 14 acren of the east half of t.:-,o n:)rt:r.inst quarter •• ';•of the sz-,ithw-st ;u.arter of the northeast luarter of section . .31,trNns'rdp ) :.)t-th, range '5 east, fi.,.., in King County, WasnIngton, .:4,.:.f.l'T tne r:outh 10 feet of* the .torth 30 feet . . - . there.;f, c•nv.ye•i to King County for road t-.:,- deed recorded . ..-. ,.:1 it-,:- at,!it...r.• :*:le ..o. 7,7.2,66Le• • . .2 N - ..... ?IV.' :1..:...% ..' :.1.. ..-), '?1 1' :-'•....i r 171t.lin V< .-sr- -: if 7.;: :4.::' s more ol• less, the ;,p:e.'f 1.• ., i--t.a.:.... )': 4.11::. ; -::•--.. '...-• ri-• :-.•in ! wi...;:in ti1,44. cer'..-13. : -..i: ,....4 of rcq•ordl a::;!. .-.;. file. i:. • -o' the ...rect.: ,f . ...; -.;s at .1.;,--.1...-...1, v '. :-:,..r Lnr, date'oil a.:.•:•:--,v-.: :o-.e:-.ir--•:• ", ,— ',-,, --r....,r ::.:-.‘•.: or wi:J.,,,, .1..; a•Id-., .: ..•-:. : -..f r. , ).c:-'. in VoluzLe .: •:;!' .ii,•:,:v at E : 7 '.. - '':. -, .7..._ney.% .,; ) :... i ,f : : ! . .•:' • ....... A. .-.- '.•:,- .71.-.!-rs •;• :-..--1- . .:-.,:. gr.'. wirr-int :....1 z..:.,-.. .it ,,...e :.!.. lils.:•.1:-,..:tor,. al I r: -',•.-s -:- .1..:• 1-....--: Ini ..i,r.:...;..: ;;.-t.•: .....: ,.... ::....i...,t.i.: :, f evare. s•,:. ,,-.:..•i:t la' easements "..,:- : .:-,: or :air ..:, :-...::n ,,r between said Pri.nary State .iichway No. :.;, 3o,.•...•.. Jtre't, Kent r.o :,...nt-r., ana the remainder of said 5.:..i-c•-•1 "'A". ::::, rantors hare In re,..!:--.•:- the ri'ht to remove t.i-F.: f.:-. r-vPrt.erit • from'the lan,:s :onveied, as..1u.!linf: all liat-:lity to persons ant/or pro:.-rty connected wit: :Jai' :.:,..:•;.-e- - Al. 9t an tine ..intil Ju:si l:•ith, 1961; hoWever, on sail date all iiTi.prov.r.1..!;11,L y.., r,2:,..air,L. . : in,- apon said landF. -ih-:'... t:•,c.:_rte the property of the 3t.tte of Washington am; al' ri..:nts • bf the grantors to said i:1;.-.roverlehts shall the cease and terminate.It is u.-.).ierstood and . agreed that the State of Washington, its authorized agents or assigns, s.1113.1 have the . . right..4.0c; enter upon the remaining abbuting lands of the grantors, their heirs, successors or assigns, were necessary to accoaplish the removal of said isprovements. • ill ,.. - . uDonamunr IXPOMILITAIIT . • . - ,. .. • i ' ,.. . i t'tte •: .."///!"4. . 6 ' , • ,... . . ., ,. 'etc.?' -. • ....Y.:,14 • .• . ,•,-;air...,•:•,.. ,••...• 41 ., I •It. IVTEN1...:-.WM:CI iitTrsia51 if...1.11.0i t 930 Mil ookiud • I,.....,.pilikrijkrA, i..11,11q113 ,Xl• .i. re-1-..,or.J.2d :.) .orroci the descriptior. Said ‘.0,..d was originally r,tr.r..; .. o. 1:.... 16, ! 'bi, in Volume ..!6. c.f DeeLis, page 46u, -noer Au.litor's File No. !, %;::::Ui , rucorC.s !.". ,1 'r:i::.4 Coo:,...'. f . 4' .1., • :4$ • • ! 4,e NO. -/... i-a:-c,-2. 1-330 .-, tts 4 7,5'.li'....':ViFii,t4-.11q0f74:441:. ;‘,-i.::.:t':.•*'3..i.'::-;--,f1V!7,'.':1.1V;.,7'.',.•,,01;i".'4:2;,.:-.....:. .4.7:N,,t21,-,:;r:' Ai,•':.':'.A.; "P'fi.fg'''.*-...V.•-e.z.-''.".ki.ewAi.t "::."•;:b.1.-:,:linr.:.•:•:,-,T,tf.Ftet:",?.',..:,.....,'...-.7.:••;•!,..'..,::''''',,,••••", •!",%""2"-•-.... ,_ a ' th •A .......,— •II.11 , • •... ,,..-, o- gICE '14 :. , • - ....,, I. e•E•••••• 1 • . IC is understood and agreed that the delivery of this deed is hereby tendered and that'the terms ..:v: and obligations hereof shall not become bin:ling upon the State of Washington unless and until accepted • and approved hereon in writing for the State of Washington, Department of Highways, by the Chief ...: ' Right of Way Agent. ,„..0) Dated this.... . .. .Z4. — 'day of......... • . .... '..:. • r / .7 ( / Accepted and approved ...(z." - " oositir • STATEXASHINGTON ... DEPART . OP HIGEWAYS ,7 •_!, V d/ ' Y;1'. .../( ?.• in BY • . -,,,., -- . . ..- -r .- • Chief Right of Way Agent.' STATE Or WASHINGTON. : . • • , • lSS.• • ' '..• County of in.& . . • • K ,. . 4. . I.the undersigned,a notary public in and for the State of Washington, hereby certify that on this • _-, ,,/i..? .• ••••''.. .day of May, 1961 • .personally appeared before me ' Joseph Richard• darn and Caroline.Yner liar& .-. . . -•:,•••-r:,--•:•:=44---- •i, • to-rag-knowiettii•be the individual.s. described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and .:„ .d.c/criowledgecri)intLAbey ...signed and sealed the same as... their . free and voluntary act and - . . ... . 7 tkm,c11."'f.pr... ----lie-ft-IA-ad, t . p-orposes therein Tentioned. . '. • • • : .... • • Give'undeFtnyitand and official se4 the day and year lasr)above written. • /7 .., • --- 4-",,-.... I. '." ......:-2,..2.Z.C...._§_e___gae.).1•17---ets _. . Notary Public In and for the State of Washingtvn, .• Residing at Seat.tle...... . .. ! I ,.- 4....,.. RECORDED ,.. . . PAGE PEOUFST 0' • c, ' i t • 1 • _,... _ .. 1 1961 JUL 26 PH 12 C c:, , :. . • E . 1 \ • ..----- - :.... .. . ' . .. • • ‘. • v.ROE: -.!'S0 COUNT': Olf•SH. .'- .------_•.._ .- DEPUTY :-• •••C.:F:•....', :•UOITOR . 1 . .• , - • ,... ; .. - Ix, II c: 1 .;:!' • 1 : 1 :-.... , . h . -.. 0 . Z A F.::C:.27: . . L. (..) . ,* j. . .. 1 CZ x 0 .. "A 4i6.2 Decd3 .0 I L4 or: c . •• .': 480..?.":"!:— 1 — a) CD • . ,. , ) r.-...4 a. . • f 2 '7z.t,, • c4o — , rn • ': • i ."..• 16 1 ll 11 40 15 I t'. c I E-, x v . i. s.. 0 .!.t - 1: f a r,i 1 Ck. ' ,- - ci ed Em. •••• r.: a r : c. r.,.. ,., .. . ,. .... ,, ... • . :. .1. . .E.. _ . • a ". >, i' s-' ..., --,:- i p_,... o i . '/ • i. . . Q ,_ A • 'P. 1 l',.. .0 . ! , / •... VA..h.:.k•i-.•••t•-r-..-4S: I . •• .C 7..... •..1 =, Tal ..!,. E4 • ; , I R. D.. cc> ..,... 0 1 1 -..>- r. III .' • • ; •. 0 C, "-' E•4*ii ..--\., •' . . ..c.: II . . I:... -.., . I. . "---)•••,•. -`• ' :••., • '-i', ., 71 •. II t '‘..a .• ' I.s. .1Y< - `. 1F.'r•`•...�t.. ]:e "`. . .. b''—`•..Y'.'Y. .`+`FY:. 529677S vol,f (t'1r 1 1 j • 9.F.No.3W-A—IRev.12-59,-12-59-5M.MSC WARRANTY DEED • LIMITED ACCESS In the Matter of Prima# State Highway No. 5, South 228th St., Sent to Renton KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,That the Grantor James 1.ston,a bachelor, also known as James G..Liston ;Y . for and inconsideration of the sum of TIN and N10/100 - - - (410.00) - - - Dollars. and other valuable consideration . hereby convey and warrant to the STATE OF WASHINGTON, the following desc:ibcd real estate situ- ated in Xing County, in the State of Washington, to the same extent and purpose as if the rights herein granted had been acquired under Eminent Domain statute of the State of Washington: All that portion of the following described Parcel 'A' lying northwesterly of a line described as follows& Beginning at a point opposite Highway Beginee_'s Station 1042+00 and 110 feet southeasterly therefrom when measured at right angles from the center line of Primary State Highway No. 5, South 228th Street, Kent to Renton; thence north 30°55'41' east 510.5 feet; thence north 18°15'46' east 315.9 feet; thence north 39°13'41' east 393.73 feet, more or leas; thence north 9°45'09" east 259.8 feet, more or leas to the north line of said Parcel 'A'. - PARCEL 'A': The east half of the northwest quarter of the aouthweet quarter of the northeast quarter of section 31, township 23 north, range 5 East, LB., in Ling County, Washington, EXCEPT the vest 4 acres thereof; ALSO t, Beginning at a point on the south boundary of the west half tc le e i_N, of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the s F northeast quarter of section 31, township 23 north, range 5 east, N.H., in Xing County, Washington, which is 184 feet ee'�',}', ' Il east from the southwest @owner thereof; thence westerly e:ee!, 184 feet; thence northerly along the west boundary thereof r1,'o'• i' ..meet- _ae to the north line of said subdivision; thence easterly 1 r ,.■' 84 feet along•said north line; thence southeasterly to the point of beginning. The lanar being conveyed herein contain an area .52 acre, more or less, the specific details of which are to be found within that certain map now o: record and on file in the office of the Director of Highways at Olympia, and bearing date cf approval November 22, 1960, and the center line of which is also shown of record in Volume 2 of highway Plats, page 89, records of said County: Also, the grantors herein convey and warrant to the State of Washington all rights of ingress and egress (including all future or potential easements of access, light, view and air) to said Primary State Highway No. 5, South 228th Street, Kent to Renton, and the remainder of said Parcel 'A', ALT, between South 180th Street and the rena;r•1er of said Parcel 'A', IICEPT that the State shall construct on its right of way at OFF are C1i APPROACH not tc exceed 20 feet in width, far those uses necessary to the no_^.rl operation of a farm, on the southerly aide, at or near Highway Engineer's Ctatic: 11+20, as shcwh on Sheet 6 of 14 Sheets of the above-mentioned map of definite lox-.'on, and to which Gin and CN APPROACH, only, the grantors, their heirs, successors cr aso'gms, reserve a ri ht of reasonable access, for that purpose only, which APPROACH shall be tr letained between the right of way line and the shoulder line of the said South 180th Se., by tee granters, their heirs, successors or assigns. The grantors herein f•.ir per ere;_t tc the State cf Washington, or its agents, the right to enter upon the granters' rema=nin- _.±� - t __.. mere necessary tc construct said approach. The -r r.tor herein reserves the _i ht to reecve tee _ :roverents free c '• t - _ the le-L. conve-e.i, assuring all lia;i. ty to persons and/or eroierte ceeeected with ..n_.. --.. al, at eny .i:.r natil J•i.j ist, 1961; however, on sa`_.. late all i-,:rovem ants ,Mr -- • iee uper. said lands shall secs.-,e the property o: said :;t;te Wasein�on :ne al_`:i:; ; c` the grantor to said improvements shall cease and per::-iaate. �,EPTi e NO G... =331 7. C •.� va..,,,.w, �a'' _ _mot_- .. z ; ltr,v3 ,*;;,!,:—A.''',:.."-.'; r - ih M T: c t rls P' qt.. , en- ,„ r� ,{-,v tf - y•.r,�X,ta.f^sw:' Gr ` VGL4lt) PGEII8 • • It is understood and agreed that the delivery of this deed is hereby tendered and that the terms and obligations hereof shall not become binding upon the State of Washington unless and until aceep:cd and approved hereon in writing for the State of Washington, Department of Highways, by the Chief �,•' Right of Way Agent. r` Dated this...... 26th........_.....day of_..........dPr11,..12k1__._..._ ' Accepted and approved_ 6 STATE OF GTON - DEPART INPIIIGHWAYS . µ...)' t..ief Right o Way Agent.-- STATE OF WASHLsGTON, } . County of. _Xin8__.._. SS...._.__.,JJ I.The undersigned,a notary public in and for the State of Washington, hereby certify-that or, thi. . 26th . day of...._...._AITTIls._ 1.._. ........-.... _. ...__personally appeared before me James.Liston._..._...._ to me known to be the individuaL_ d<scril.ed in and -who executed the foregoing in.strumen;, ::lid acknowledged that. _he. _..signed and sealed the same as. ...1111 ..... free and voluntary cct ,:nd deed,for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal the day and year e utn•ten. - Notary Public in and for the Stale 6f Warh:n y:an. Residing at.... Seattle • • ,r . i - • MV nn _ 1 >4 C a I; " r rj. tea :r J y -« a. v 1-1 \ ..� t — t �1 • 4 ,7 .1 • fa3i :ITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Printed: 01-25-2002 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA02-012 Payment Made: 01/25/2002 04:50 PM Receipt Number: R0200424 Total Payment: 2,500.00 Payee: DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES LLC Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 500.00 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval 2, 000.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check #1050 2,500.00 JAiv r Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee .00 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees .00 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers .00 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat .00 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees .00 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review .00 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat .00 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat .00 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD .00 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees .00 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment .00 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks .00 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone .00 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt .00 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev .00 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval .00 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Special Permit Fees .00 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees .00 5023 0 .00 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee .00 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend .00 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies .00 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) .00 5954 604 .237.00.00.0000 Special Deposits .00 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage .00 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax .00 :ITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Printed: 01-25-2002 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA02-012 Payment Made: 01/25/2002 04:55 PM Receipt Number: R0200425 Total Payment: 2.38 Payee: DARRELL JOHNSON Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount 5955 000.05.519. 90.42.1 Postage 2.38 Payments made for this receipt ��J,�C'4 \. uw�0 Trans Method Description Amount ' r Payment Cash 2.38 : ;•" Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee .00 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees .00 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers .00 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat .00 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees .00 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review .00 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat .00 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat .00 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD .00 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees .00 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment .00 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks .00 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone .00 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt .00 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev .00 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval .00 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Special Permit Fees .00 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees .00 5023 0 .00 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee .00 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend .00 5909 000.341. 60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies .00 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) .00 5954 604.237.00.00.0000 Special Deposits .00 5955 000.05.519. 90.42.1 Postage .00 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax .00 Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 It J 4j 1 t 7 . lIl1 4h 11 1 1 \ - ii:.?"1.•::i' 4:..7 4 i .,. i*, . • 1 14010'01,_ ••••11 - iihr.11"41 /7 • ' • it la* ,c it. • , ...;..... ��1 it y j r `• , r / .ter'' f ` • _ •i ' l l -as 440a1 • r J.• , ' i ' ii ♦ .• +r a. jy �:a y1 L a C , 7 r _ . - r i 1 -- ,:4.-,k4:d '4 , r le •... ' / f :i ,le '7/' -,-- .....*/' 41,1:L"."‘.' 411 i / Al '.. ' 11100 ' Jb. !1' � f ! t j. I 0"••••,. .(1,,il,.6 ,, , qi, '....• • "gt. ___\.:1 au it F� ,`. 'Cf�� " `w ` . - ; � / ` � i/ r �. . •. • ' "� ef Oh. • .: ft•• ,,... y�\V - I•. • , .a ,e - .•; , fi ta e•1 t. • � � ` .: — /• ,� 1..........1, . , . ,c. ... . 4.m...-:,\.\,& 4 f.:- • s{0.0 ,, ... , , 4...T, „..- ' lit i i, = re ce . _ is . ,..... . w o •• ' ionT. �•_A lw - . I r r .. if i 1 •I UP ! u 7 I Of'KW/. • cp- ; g* .... 4. ..,. .,,,,,.. ; t,,,,,,,_ ,, , , ..,:. , .t .. ..t.... . i.-..... .., , ,.. 0 •.., . k. .. ... ... , i• ,i .2, A . _ , .." , , F•• a i.4 d* A • .,,,, ., ,,,,_, . . ••-.1. ..,_ .......,..., .... 4,. ;,‘.., 1'J.._ i alibig /( ‘" V a • �.• r. - 4 I 1r.s,:t. *. .4.141'.1,,4:/" e t •• _ . 11:171.2 .;:; If y`1 W.;(f., .... . /1i y SC. ,a r ri• liti , PI 114 , 4j4101 1, A / h --3 ,-r• . ... . • • ... • . ..., ., . ?ivoif lir ,A.41' . V • 4...i5 t , i . ,..... . ,,,,,,, ,,,.. .... 4, .....„ „..... ,...:, .. t? 1 titti�tf1lillrt.. `l •.ii„. ,„,.. 4. „,,,§ . .�p� f�L' ', ' . , "fir P ' i i 1 i tt c� l > 'i 4 at •••%WA •• •i p '"ate J , t\� - \lie ' ) % , - ` ti i! )1 4.11111IN lea e:7": • : 4' . . ••-•r".... i 1 i ................• ,.. ,,k. iop. , . ,. Ch 0 200 400 a eau at V :::.:_,...:!..:.............. •:::::::— 1 :2,400 Davis Ave. So. & So. 45th Place study Area G�;T •, Economic Development,Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning J •. • Corporate Boundary • 05 April 02 Date aerial photo taken:Spring 1999 V —111 .f r fY li ..��I ee+ >t : E g 1 u . . O ® 0 4 W 0 6 ! [t i t Id ail lit iii O aim i 21 1� OQ �O® m ®pO ® A O ® ® ® O O ® ® e ® ® -^� �. . • . • . , • • ,• .. : . I • A i F I t..,.u.w,»ter.• 1 tl"WE /1 ,.;9 /, i i•. Yf}R.r11 f,t' 41l ii•• f / -"A__ •:,,'6`5'2+, fp OL1 .4 . 117.4,"44111111111_ 13.. II ! . :e111-7-;ms. i —/ :.I,04 "�: '; r ",! a . I / .,VrAir4:.sUM.i',.. i,;."*..,...:'t.t,40" ' a ' —:4-61.111----r411L 1 S 1 Z 1 )•• 1 -II= y tty j IIII W 2 y ni \ 4[Lig /r•�i , `i al 1 i co ... • ; 4—;IX; ;:r,f. ‘..r%I.r... ---: . — . . i , i ! 4 N i!iii it Il P / 'may i j+ . y �p ./ill• 1 , 4I. i iI :, :•;:". i t... n .:*.•;;•*--ti` I . / 1 ...%1‘; ! i 0 13 I / r e.....„.- ., :,,,t.. 0 :.. _,f .....r.,,,. ..::,.i:, !f, ../.- ,..t.;;.7.:4:,,.. ii F ll��_ Z F de IIi7 UU \ t �- -Sn1 :• I : i • :;;;;/... •.: * :0 L-624„ „11-.* t ii \/ • ...„... 4.4f, .... ''.\ ., .. . , . ,_..._. , _ to f•itirt. •i'• ,% . *j� t iII ' p 1 � % T'.i:.'2 • ���` ` Q�' 't.4 of ( r •`) 86 : 1 .. ,,ro. ‘ .;:. •. . ,.11':'..1,..,... pip. i /le - 4 ,,e-- ....„ ...., ,,,„„., ,;....., -/A.,.. Ir. ...";4.1 ... . .. .. „,q- 4•• / :T /$ . . l i'f;c•'C �! 'i` .�1,III� . . . �` 4 . r. I V' LEI�t� J ill . �.., :Q, ,. q Q 1J'�Cy t_ f fil. ".r.i...l...,-.-.',.4.z;•:17A... I • y 1 ••• '"�;'' -- ,...n..,1::::'i� • z f2• •dI,Z ' '�, fc ~.if f6 ` t♦ ... h' f .-.1;':':..:, ., .�1� Irt� irr;i, Q f.iot? : 1 'd na' -� I, I • i:'.'... '?:•�•�. , ' .. Si i; Muir '�[+ •:� ® . t • tOR.* 7 I V I XRIErrJ . 17 Plailfirg . , . : .....„.... • N O / Np - 4/ ' / N., • • II I I • o , o . • J O j o p /e/x^y>,,Z.,,,.c, •------__________________ -Nroo • .! 0,04,,,,,,,,, <4,4 „.,N, ,,s4 , 0,4 Ai, ., , ..,,,,,u, ....„,,, ...,N, .,. -- — - wt.,. -iw., ft:i.,44.. , 41 Nt .44ti r • , 11- ,'',,,; .4 /9---#40, . m - . ,. ,r, . w 4.4::4,-,. . 4,, . ' 1 11 Lt — ., Ak#, I } �4 ,o • L. RE 0 I M ' I I I . Lrl I slca� I , • N ! I"II�rA11 .. .. ��� • En �� . 1 1 1 I. • • }gg BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN i + F • I I MI TAYLOR•GREGORY I NAARCHITECTS I o CHATEAUONALLEY CENTER RENTON,WASHINGTON . S A43/0)(13 >/ ' A*j� .\''444\' * 414t, . \o->•,, - / A. ..-;."".1 ap ,11, 44.:21„, ,'.." Ait•re,,,":47r- "•.c •7 / ' 4 . \ I OZNIk'Y \-._ -, rt. twk*: ,, S. _a �.,•ego 41**44, 4.., 40116 ,,t A ,. 1,4 tor 111 -0 ile I ° . -, e I' E 4,..,:440,44,t _ 4 � . . � 4,,,,- „..4.e., . .441 9 4040,.., ,,,,,,,_. n . • iht./ 4W.eir - (...E/, NE. 111/_ i :El 11 i q _ iill oriN p� p Imo Imer-trits: L 111 .1] .. F <�ISrFl.001tPLAN �TAYLOR•OREOORY i.+ ■ ■� ARCHITECTS o 1 CHATEAtWALLEY CENTER �/(/ __ e t BENTON,WASHINGTON .. o UII_ 1,II I b \ I - X - -_ --_ .• ..m. \ F • I� =�` - %— -- -min mac= c li �a� < 1 €11= 1 L B. IG MI EjE �nm I -�I =O=== ' :in I!i I ailiililli iiliiiii6 _ r=- = :k WI "16 m iiiiiiiii, ' n= = n II lu , 1 ' 11 „ Rum .'=n=i =_ u n r — I1�: 11 1 1 IIIlr11! III1111= =_ ' ; ill _ _ � I �I_ iluiiiiiliuiiiii Midi nnuiiii _ -� �'Vr " ` _.—=1 It i II I =11 O u 5 _ vw - _ lid \\\\Q\-,- „.-\.i ! 1 iiii ' II. alma i - -_11 11 iiiiul _ • 111 � 11�= I = �II���i �11�1 —'� - w■■1_ I; Ilr/. 11 ■■ //'�Illlllw/�111111 ■// /m/I■I �■111111 Illlllw// _ , 11 '-,�._ = l _wUll= mow 11 p ■ II I 111111 ■�1 slim: _ 111111 111111 - �II': =Ew■■lEi Iuc mom u o id.Iliiii olills- 111111 N.■wl■I 111111 mu a 1 WEST ELEVATION 5 aoua.I..P.c. e © O 0 0 Q . * Wilk • AIN: 11= - I 1 I�- 11 11 1 a ! F'y �M ���' ' 'nlln ='1111TiI n iiiuil II I 1= 11 II 1 I . . __ 1nml _-_pnmmn!=..liiii„„„ =-gIowaop Imai ami_`_ ___ — It�A _ -- Z =_11= 7 • 11 I- Or ^��-- ,_ �-}}^^ 5 — 11 II II' W • 5 I1 =�11 �11 �11 11 11 I I I 1 —rillV z0 I un 311= 11.. 1�� vi 11 1 1 Or ..LL _11= LL 11 II' 11' on ..oww (DIET cam. Inliliiiill= Iniiiiiin L-_7 _iliiiililil�_W !hill'a. __ liliiiiiillla ��,yyIIIUI_^_ _-- __ _�� _ _ L _ ____ [Lip' .,�__ z ›., 1.3 • �I 11 �1. �- �11 -4- �11 11 11 �� i I �J 11 �M II � II II IP IIII ® a +.,,„" °1��_I „=.,IIII=— "iiiiiiiiii JJ. _ _ MN 111 1 „� z,--� ei 11 , `- -,- — Il Ii1g�—r . -=— w i iiii= Iiii u■� No-- -:--.�l -III _ I w I iiiiiiiiii wwll a� 1■��I ■� ■■ -- � 1�=1wfjT I s 111� n /■ � ^— § Rill�/=�Itllll�_ IF. _�111111�_ �1111 / IIIIII■�// ■■ E ■ _r■111 I ■1[� 11 n tw 2 O uu 11- - �1i......LLL - uu .�■ �111 ■■ c�I: 9---101 ra 11 .■ 1 .. .. pal—_=-�iliilniiil=_iiiiiiiiiii _Iiiiiiiiinl= ■�nitiNN �lil NNI :r�: F @�t�I� =_■�■nal ;Ai■m■1 o L - -1 Is Iliil- 1-a■Y�IIiiIr.Y�tY■■�_I_.. 1IN�1�M■ /IMF/wNI/ Ean �1MM■��"--- I W 5 t��■��111�LIM�����/w=_c 5 5 i 5 WEST ELEVATION 6 . 77\ , A_ __,--.7,---7-_,..,_ .... ._._ _ . ..--..40..... --...,'"--.... ___.- _.--..-..—, _i_ osp. .......... _A 601rel . vi 1 nnn j uw nun — mi ipla M is !� I :�� I ' n uun mua - I 1:11 I/ ==I', Jillll N IIIIN1111i enw._ t - 1 ■p ` . It I 11�11 _ I F j 11 I �� _� �1:=``�111111� Iltl IIII111111 - — ;YU . p , 1 U=11 y .■ ■ ■ /nuiliiiCl ililliliii Gw.�nm�iiii, Ain �.� wow.. ■■1/ 11 1II=■ ru 11 1111 11 1 T n - ,JIJ II::I: ■ ■il� I' >eww . coI ... _: Imlu� IA 11 �@"..u.� I .---1I r w,m.� ■ IIINIIIIIII - MOM ww Illll�llllh - - _■■ _ ,p,p ■■ 1■ rllln- 1ff��I �r- !!rIIII! t = i1111 rwnnu _ ® -- =■�5= 4� 1�1■� ;� —/ w ww �NNiiiifi � iiiiiiiiii' .w. = - .w. i �n � �C: i.1 • H --{ f I I l— F—I l I 1 ..� n rig Immowl���w��.III� �. -.—. t I w•1sw 15 NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION A2.00 oc.N.JA •r-t au.a.w•rW Program for Proposed Retirement Development at VMC: Our contractual agreement with our residents is a month —to- month rental with no buy-in or long term commitment required There are two basic parts to our contractual arrangement: 1. The basic contract that covers all residents. 2. the additional services portion which covers those who require assisted living/dementia care services Our basic contract covers: • rental of their private apartment • meals prepared by our Chef • all utilities, except telephone • connection to basic cable TV • full activities program ,�.. • scheduled transportation • weekly housekeeping and linen service • 24-hour staff and emergency call system When someone applies to enter our facility, if the marketing director determines that this person needs or may need some personal care assistance (assisted living services), the AL Director.is called to complete an assessment of the resident For those residents who have additional assisted living/dementia care needs the additional services portion accommodates a wide range including: • medication monitoring • bathing and dressing assistance • reminders and escorts to meals and activities • management of incontinence • transfer assistance • blood pressure and weight checks. • personal laundry • daily housekeeping o2-oiL(y) CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON ' M!!CROFIILMEU Prepared for Davis Avenue Associates,'L.L.C. P.O. Box 907 Woodinville, WA 98072 , December 12, 2001 r) %p oe Es 42 Transportation Planning & Engineering , Inc . 2 ,- h Ae ., Sui - Bell223evue112t, WashingtonvnueN.E 98004-2952te101 • Telephone: (425) 455-5320 Facsimile: (425) 453-5759 • - - CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Davis Avenue Associates, L.L.C. P.O. Box 907 Woodinville, WA 98072 Prepared by TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2223 - 112th Ave. N.E., Suite 101 Bellevue, WA 98004-2952 Telephone (425) 455-5320 FAX (425) 453-5759 http://www.tranplaneng.com December 12, 2001 gP�ov wA4,14,% , ff • 16615 • 1.0.4>CEG,5-r,VNYr `SI�NitiL�� [EXPIRES 915/ 03 i : - . , TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2223-1121h AVENUE N.E.,SUITE 101 -BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98004-2952 - VICTOR H.BISHOPP,RE.President TELEPHONE (425)455-5320 DAVID H.ENGER,P.E.Vice President FACSIMILE (425)453-5759 December 12, 2001 Mr. Darrel Johnson Development Coordinator DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. P.O. Box 907 Woodinville, WA 98072 RE: Chateau at Valley Center, City of Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Johnson, We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis for the proposed Chateau at Valley Center project consisting of 179 assisted living units. The project is located on the northeast corner of the Davis Ave. S./S. 45th PI. intersection in the City of Renton. The scope of this analysis is based on the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development that requires analysis of streets and intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development. Based on these guidelines, five intersections are analyzed in this report, including two site access driveways to Davis Ave. S., one site i access driveway to S. 45th PI., Davis Ave. S./S. 45th PI. and Valley Medical Access Rd./Davis Ave. South. The summary, conclusions and recommendations begin on page five of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION I Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and the surrounding street network. The site consists of three tax lot parcels totaling approximately 2.77 acres. The site is owned by Valley Medical Center and will be leased on a long term basis to the project proponent. Figure 2 shows a preliminary site plan prepared by Taylor Gregory Architects. The plan shows an assisted living facility with 179 units in a four story building. Auxiliary facilities include two dining rooms, commercial kitchen, community rooms, lounges, indoor swimming pool, exercise room, hydro tub facility, aide station, and medical exam room. The proponent plans to file an application with the state for a boarding home license that will allow all units in the facility to be used for assisted living. 1 i ' Wince glvincelProjects1R0697 Chaluau1R0697TIA.doc '114 Mr. Darrel Johnson DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES,L.L.C. December 12, 2001 Page 2 Access to the site consists of two proposed driveways to Davis Ave. S. and one proposed driveway to S. 45th Place. The north access driveway to Davis Ave. S. connects to a 30 stall parking garage in the basement level of the facility. The south access driveway to Davis Ave. S. is the main entrance to the site, which connects to a circular drive in front of the main building entrance serving as the pickup/drop off area. This driveway also serves an exterior parking lot with 39 stalls. The driveway to S. 45th PI. serves a 34 stall exterior parking lot. A total of 103 parking stalls are provided on site. Full development of the proposal is expected to occur by the year 2003. Therefore, 2003 is used as the horizon year for the purposes of this study. Pedestrians walk in proposed driveways from the buildings to the existing sidewalks along the site frontage on Davis Ave. S. and S. 45th Place. A facility owned 24 passenger shuttle coach and a 15 passenger van are planned to provide transportation for residents for shopping, medical and other activities. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS The project site is undeveloped but has existing frontage improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lights along the site frontage on Davis Ave. S. and S. 45th Place. Three existing driveway curb cuts will be removed. Street Facilities Figure 3 shows existing traffic control, number of street lanes, number of approach lanes at intersections, and other pertinent information. The primary streets in the study area are classified per the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan as follows: S. 43rd St. Principal arterial Talbot Rd. S. Collector Arterial Davis Ave. S. Local Access S. 45th Pl. Local Access Valley Medical Access Rd. Private Street South 43rd St. has a Type C traffic curb separating eastbound and westbound travel lanes, and therefore only right in and right out turning movements are possible at Davis Ave. South. The Valley Medical Access Rd. is a private street that tunnels under S. 43rd St. thus connecting the area south of S. 43rd St. to the Valley Medical Center R0697na tiR Mr. Darrel Johnson DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES,L.L.C. December 12, 2001 Page 3 located on the north side of S. 43rd Street. Valley Medical Center has authorized the use of the private access street and tunnel by users of the proposed facility. The closest bus stops to the site are at the intersection of S. 43rd St./Talbot Rd. South. Metro bus route 155 provides daily service to Southcenter Mall. Route 169 provides daily service to downtown Renton and the Renton Transit Center. Route 160/163 provides daily service to Seattle. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic Volumes Figure 4 shows existing PM peak hour and average daily traffic volumes at the intersections in the study area. Turning movement counts performed by TC2 are attached in the technical appendix. Level of Service Analysis Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate and LOS E and F are low. Table 2 shows calculated levels of service (LOS) for existing conditions at the pertinent street intersections that would experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development. The LOS's were calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual - Special Report 209 3rd Edition updated December, 1997. The LOS shown indicates overall. intersection operation. At intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average delay per vehicle. The LOS and corresponding average delay in seconds are as follows: R0697TIA Mr. Darrel Johnson DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES,L.L.C. December 12, 2001 Page 4 TYPE OF A 13 C D E F INTERSECTION Signalized < 10.0 >10.0 and <20.0 >20.0 and <35.0 >35.0 and <55.0 >55.0 and <80.0 >80.0 Stop Sign Control <10.0 >10 and <15 >15 and <25 >25 and <35 >35 and <50 >50 All study intersections operate at LOS A for existing conditions. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 5 shows projected 2003 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts plus background growth. The City of Renton Transportation Department indicated a 3% per year annual growth rate compounded over a period of two years be used to calculate the background growth in this report. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The 179 assisted living units are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown in the following table. 179 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS Trip Rate per Time Period Occupied Trips Trips Total Dwelling Unit Entering Exiting 192 193 Average Weekday 2.15 385 50% 50% AM Peak Hour 0.06 7 4 11 61% 39% PM Peak Hour 0.17 17 13 30 56% 44% A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, for Congregate Care R0697TIA Mr. Darrel Johnson DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES,L.L.C. December 12, 2001 Page 5 Facility (ITE Land Use Code 252). Per the ITE description, "Congregate care facilities typically consist of one or more multiunit buildings designed for elderly living. They also contain dining rooms, medical facilities and recreational facilities." These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including resident, employee, visitor and service and delivery vehicle trips. Figure 6 shows the estimated trip distribution and the assignment of the site generated traffic volumes. The distribution is based on the characteristics of the street network, existing traffic volume patterns, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (housing, shopping, social and recreational opportunities) and expected . _ travel times. Separate distributions were estimated for the entering and exiting PM peak hour site generated traffic volumes. The entering and exiting volumes were added together and then divided by the total PM peak hour volume to calculate the percentages shown in Figure 6. The following intersections will not experience a 5% increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development and therefore were not analyzed in this report per City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development: • The Talbot Rd. S./S. 43`d St. intersection carries 9 PM peak hour site generated trips divided by a total entering PM peak hour volume of 3106 vehicles per hour, which equals 0.29 percent. • The Davis Ave. S./S. 43rd St. intersection carries 20 PM peak hour site generated trips divided by a total entering PM peak hour volume of 2637 vehicles per hour, which equals 0.76 percent. • The Talbot Rd. S./S. 45th Pl. intersection carries 10 PM peak hour site generated trips divided by a total entering PM peak hour volume of 1297 vehicles per hour, which equals 0.77 percent. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 7 shows the projected 2003 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the - proposed project. The site-generated PM peak hour traffic volumes shown on Figure 6 were added to the projected background traffic volumes shown on Figure 5 to obtain the Figure 7 volumes. . Table 1 shows calculated LOS for future with and without-project conditions at the pertinent street intersections. The five study intersections all operate at an acceptable LOS A for future 2003 conditions including project-generated traffic. R0697T1A fill- Mr. Darrel Johnson DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES,L.L.C. December 12, 2001 Page 6 TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton requires a Transportation Mitigation Fee payment of$75 per new daily trip attributed to the development. The proposal is expected to generate 385 daily trips. The estimated Transportation Mitigation Fee therefore is $28,875 (385 new trips X $75 per trip). Minor frontage modifications to the Davis Ave. S. and S. 45th PI. may be required. Curb, gutter, sidewalk and illumination exist on both streets. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Chateau at Valley Center project be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: • Modify frontage along Davis Ave. S. and S. 45th PI. to provide three site access driveways per applicable City of Renton standards. • Remove existing driveways on Davis Ave. S. and S. 45th PI. and replace with curb, gutter and sidewalk per applicable City of Renton Standards. • Contribute approximately $28,875 as the Transportation Mitigation Fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions please contact Vince Geglia or me. Very truly yours, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. • David H. Enger, P.E., P.T.O.E. VJG:mc Vice President R0697T1A TABLE 1 CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY EXISTING 2003 WITHOUT 2003 WITH INTERSECTION 2001 PROJECT PROJECT North Access Driveway/ NA NA SB (A 7.3) Davis Ave. S WB (A 8.9) South Access Driveway/ NA NA SB (A 7.3) Davis Ave. S WB (A 8.8) Access Driveway/ NA NA EB (A 9.4) S. 45th PI. SB (A 8.7) Davis Ave. S./ WB (A 9.1) WB (A 9.1) WB (A 9.1) S. 45 PI. SB (A 7.3) SB (A 7.3) SB (A 7.3) Davis Ave. S./ EB (A 9.1) EB (A 9.1) EB (A 9.2) Valley Med. Access Rd. NB (A 7.4) NB (A 7.5) NB (A 7.5) • Number shown is the average stopped delay in seconds per vehicle for the intersection as a whole, which determines the LOS for intersections per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)- Special Report 209, 3rd Edition updated December 1997. (XX) LOS and delay for minor side street approach at an unsignalized intersection \Wince g\vince1Projecls1R0697 Chaluau1R0697TlA.doc Technical Appendix • c - -IP 1.• .• . — ---=-VralaMiiiiirAt 1 .' , - - t---. -7. k 9 1 .4. ---5-----en , IF; in 11 ii cc ... , .... T N:74111 ziy:'-21'''•,..tiv :-:o: . ff ' lei IP riri s17 i 9 .ecrsn 19111 ST § •$• 4 3,1 * g se e . • a.FS . - p ,• .1•71rin ,IN-16ST, p o t- $1. 11,87„,,,z,,(71 1.i. ./ •• i • • ILLJ '•r.;. , Iffy Erf•Inn, /3 5 v• e4. a,,it;17; Lc) -a . A sr . . ' A. . nu -4 1•••• - • I°° PUGET 1 /:74.„i te,,, N cc(1 "•• `,. 1 id• i,E „, . do _J w • . b Cr°4° , -•.st 21ST ,,, "i•" 01 i 7 , • tr 0 • '' •--N ....,SE HST ST 17- SW 23RD sT 3:. ':f 'iirgil lit ST . e ^° 1._ ,., ,7 MI/..11..—__ 1 I I TV.I.;.; '11):#.411,71 46Fipallitt ', .1‘,k, sr 6:: .1,;SZlir , J' NI tg ___Iii,;•.'i,:ift,!'''....-:.:::'4''',...4','•.:1.,;.• '''TJF IlltS!d';.:Tir„.. „,,, ‘(1.7, " ;3144.; .' 'o. i,s_ . _ \\ I_ 62ND -11 4 ST , , 2 WO : st 1- ' _ ,. • .. --I — :.9•&.)1' 7-7^.. '''- 7.,c p.i; 7 '4 4 fa s cr'S 1 rr. R SE 1.4111 - ST , 1111‘ '• SI I S 27711 ST ;,-,-LT,IFT7 --— 1 i IFii--. ,'"•4..,1••..;•-.L.:.,.,..,,,-.•.,:• :.te.,,, ST i• 15 tos P um <r /0 cl I 5 2811174: . I ' P,I,REllitON,),`:•ii.1.: tkEriANOS i 1 7 P '7 ' '1.4.I,r.'44:',1 T.,C 1 -''1'41•i':? ' .. i Te. • IsE_1601 _SE- -,8 29.1f1 S I ••1 ' t Y1 1.4 ST , ,..„..; ,,,,fil,..3-K,i.,..:,p-41•A?i''';','It•'S:1 SW 29T11 ST • ''• .0 x 5: . . I . .§1- , SI 187111 S/ .. 'I. • • • -(1'.?...1 Ni.Ij 'PI ....,:i.g..4•4!. • it,o,„..,,v,.. 30 .,;,..! '4')4' 0-'„ = ,.CT vr •.... , , 1 1 , il •$•,•• •-• 1E •,,i ,,,-- -i SE !69TI! Rb s'Sli 33110 ST 1 ii;t.., • . s..si,...:: sne ?. S . i ii E .., ..s_E trisoLmi6s9r rt. ,k, 111 ..cr I P.-e4 4 4'.' • Loi t..2, ..rwrinaiim . 1.. _LO ---• -Sr-F , sz 170 ST S.---lg'2; • gi- • ii."4 sw m4TH •,_1'T= ST i • ST rrzr r-J -1, .ff. • FiROLN'::::. c't r 34TH Si S .slsiri • SE 17.i115if.•-. 172ND ST Z'i SE72110 ST _1 %, -7\v•?2,,,, .--. 1 i R 1 o / 37 ST S 1.3 St 7 IL,SI' •I' 4• F _sw .0,0i,.....?,•• 111 3an, WinAisio . i .--. , pm. ,,,,,,t--•,:7, , . v;...,, , ,. :.• •-.1 r'1 1 , IE., SW 34111 ST Ds :4 _ 1§' g - 1.1, SE 176TH sT • • . , . ,,,• e> f.. co. 1 0 LLI''' &1011,ila _ Ix SW *-` 41ST sr i S 17 -DIA CJ g .,.,e c. op ,1 E t 1 MUT -IA; I .A I- 0 ,•••••-• Z > WIC&Err' j...1'A at c .... ...-1 t -, 17: • Pt ..%,... „1 5.. . ;T '4 SW ' :71.1< '3RD CIIITIR 11. VD)1,1 1?.. r,.., t -- %ow ti --- ' S ' RD • - -P. '''TCCARR I i -.1 0 (SE 180111 ST II ip7/ 14"05 ST E • 1 E 1 --I ter,.-1i-. 1s8r11-8 S0T I11m Pgt,t;•.8.7°,4,1111 s-t6IA,.:-.,5:,.,-xvc,," --"-'-"—-•ia-g,. sv I in st Pl 1 1 r, _ - SE 183RD /4 -q. 1 PARR Ill "ROJECT SITE , ',1' " t- ,.._ . RIX I SI •-•.. 8380 W , I • ›. 1••••Cr''4) A • 184til • •4., SE 184 •Ti..---- , E. I sr torp!,,i •._ 184T11_;:e, ''ci pi. o \/ L 1 47TH Sr . 4••• 1.11 ea e SE 186TH ' ST • .1A SE 1850 918 Ei tg I • Cc __1st will ii 3T-s-,53 .‘„iiiii 1,5111._ . ,...,;1 . . .._._ ( g,,,, , ... ...., -1 1 11,.. c , St mini I I S 187TH •T sr •-•8! SE. 188TH ST 1 1 ula,,,..-L. 181 CI .., ... . . . . . . . 51•T I a'N..•A CT i a SE e n SE› 189111 ST •fi" U (. 1- ' ,,,_ E • . a 190111 Pt‘,..1 Ei N Si, ..)....5.i'll 50? qk,s,.. ..\_ s_19.210 F. .S_ 5TH F- .T c- 192ND- "'ST SE _ . '"N•.,, --I 2 tl: 1 i - 1.4' ''' 192ND Si I . '7 1 i ‘..... a, cs, .,-- i 1.4 ' 5, al /- 2 sc. co •' _ S 194TII sr .._ __ill ,-,----7 12.'st_.A= a -- •--- .4., c, - ---- --- . ----.:i (1,:i.i,, . .i.,,, ,_ St 194111 IT ,•••••J tri En• S 196TH - 11 -.rt _ •••:t ?71,7 ELAND?4,i",,Ap7:: .141}.,'1 7 PARK::••-•.;J‘-.44... -1 sr ,L.P.s•-ipi • v-6-, ,. SE lc.fiTH 21 ST _ SE 96111_________.____. • _ risnir v, g SI c.t. tittisq- ,'ig tit' 2; S 198111 ST ' 7ailt 4,,,,, 4-,,- SE ST s-`4 198111 ST -7"E----r--t i.,-.-. .1.;--., 5, ::-. SPRI 411 --.......ten r, nikr? 4,' -- 141:4 192ill il s 200111 SI S,. 3 11' 03 r, IS \ 6!,_., 2200TH .-. R ...7 .ST,„ H:ter.,.1 N --: 2- SE . 200TH ST c , , 1 v, 1 I i v, ral; i --.1 2,`". - '-'• • I 9,010 Ll I .., 'I gr 51 • - • "Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS®. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS®. It is unlawful , . . to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. All rights reserved." i FIGURE VICINITY MAP . ..) CHATEAUTRAFHC AT IMPACT AVCATLLEAYN ACLEYNSTI SER 'il • I te / , , •/ ./ ///1.7' Li..: ...4: . , /i; i • :: , , • N A . / 0, • ,-; • • I i., . ' •••• ' • ',/•./ , i • ,o, , ..-. N .y• of/ I t. I 51.1Mil ," . '• ,• . ..... a . \ .:4 4 / i .,•i_., . . •• ' . •• . .0, •• 0 ..., ,1 'giii, -..,_1111. ..• . • • . , i ..i fining • .. - . .• • Ne7X9/./,1, ... i :1_,,ir.4., 1;:dim •, --! , • 1.IMP .!!Ali '. .... :: .1 i 11,-_„.1. Op: , -,-•:,.....,,,...::i N. •••°.• • IMF!. - -‘111 :: .:..•::':: '7777'22 N 9.,:... 0 ........ <1.Ek-...t. fallat :::'r • . .. • Mr i ' t:=I :I 01 . .. i m..._ V %I' II . 1i. -... ••• flip 1:.! ;,.. •, d4rV / r. ' i • rill 4'11 .: ;i/:: /./ofy i... .. - .... .*'`• ,_ ip?"14 : .:; ; ,- * ,0,1,• i./...... 0 • IF A 4 A' 1%04411.• : : 9 ./ : „. p ' \ • ... . - ... Ak I : • .e.-, : . , , II/,,./ .. 1.4:47.1.1 ,, ...,...... f......A1 :, i (...,:' 10••fri I/ I•A 11,./' '• ____ 111 .„A , ' • •. •144t. / - 11 41% Ilidami rk 1 gi a. • - 4k# 0 ikA.001" 4Ork•Ilkidi !. -./. .1.*$. • 4 IrAk /.. I 7.,..7' iii : ' "ylifss,fif . . V‘ 1 .• •• • il i..• •• •ill • .:, _ _ . ... .. . . -ri 1,[../, .... . ._. . ,..• 1 AN . . •• • 1,..-, R L , 1 its " ' • • 4 t** .... .:-: ' I i: :. • .._.. . 1 II • 1 ii : I III i'634%!. 0 * I • 1 1 1 1 ••• ........ 45th 1.... . I S STIZEET .1 .„.„.. ... .... . _ . r... - I ______ II I '14 ' I . 1 I I 1 ,1 1 1 i C . \ FIGURE SITE PLAN 'III CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER • 2 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS .1 , . Valley Medical -J CLE not to scale Center S. 43rd St. 1 r _a_—a. r -4 VI( Type C Traffic Curb on Centerline Valley Thlk Medical Access Rd. ui > CD > o ¢ I rfr a X 0 r ; f 2L 'i S. 45th PI. Thlk 1 �, Crestwood • LEGEND Park Apts. 0 Traffic Control Signal Stop Sign XX mph Posted Speed Limit Approach Lane & Direction XL Number of Roadway Lanes FIGURE EXISTING CONDITIONS CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER [. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Valley Medical N Center not to scale r co o 58 [25,320] rnt`� m-641 —1034* S. 43rd St. AI j ` F 33 11055*--. ! 951-4' 1 I I Monday n coo co 376� rn oo Vr- 8/21/o0 3:45-4:45 Wednesday 11/14/01 ... 1 55 J 1 4:45-5:45 Valley 47-ik I Medical N� Access Rd. U .5 a. o > o ¢ o co rr 0 o) +, u O Wednesday Wednesday 11/14/01 r,) 11/14/01 N 0) 4:45-5:45 — 4:45-5:45 11) •-I 1 ` NL—P-11 [880] ) IL r S. 45th PI. 55 1 t oao hrn Crestwood Park Apts. . . . . . . . • , LEGEND [XX] Estimated Average Daily Traffic Volume (Based on PM Counts) X—► PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction * Estimated from adjacent count 1 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR AND AVERAGE DAILY �FIGURE� TRAFFIC VOLUMES CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER 4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS j Valley Medical N Center not to scale [26,860] N�rn 62 �-680 S. 43rd St. J r35 [20,190] 112� r 1009—► 11r co* ° 399 "1/4 rn.V .t'(JD 16--if Valley 50-1k �� Medical Access Rd. > CD v > 70 < vi 141 o' 0 0 u) In IMO 1 ` /1--11 [940] 1 r S. 45th PI. 58- t N _ Crestwood • . . 0 Park Apts. LEGEND [XX] Average Daily Traffic Volume X--IP PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction PROJECTED 2003 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE WITHOUT PROJECT CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER 5 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Valley Medical N Center crE not to scale o ro — u 60% r ` 7% [231] in [26] i 20% 77 .—5 J S. 43rd St. 0—2 [ 13—' 137 if 2--0- 1— t 1—► I Ni to M 30% [115] 1 vi Valley 1 t -o Medical tnN cx Access �Rd. 1�1'� '�, o `rye ^D > ai o f� rn N 1 co to - •Project ` •r- .Site ..:-:.. -.... :s.-..•......„ -.--:-.,....1. . . �N . . . . . '` : . 33% rn •NN �1 .•-. [128] �5 .. .�., - 3 ":.4- 4 4 J 6-0- S. 45th PI. 4-0 4-0- 2-� 1 . Crestwood Park Apts. o 0) DAILY PM . . LEGEND ' ENTER 192 17 EXIT 193 13 xx% Trip Distribution Percentage -- TOTAL 385 30 (XX) Average Daily Traffic Volume X--0P PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction I SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT FIGURE' CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER il 6 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS J 1 I Valley Medical N ' Center not to scale [26,886] coo rn �62 S. 43rd St. J 1 ` r370 [20,267] 115-1k r 1821010J 1 t r CO N N 399� orn� C 16-0NIf Valley 50� Medical N`n Access Rd. N wry o > `r° r . (r; N ct ..` •3 '•... • .. Pro ect�• :` . • � i '`-2.. .• : .. site. ..:•.:: '• ' 1 . n NI I ON •• • •• • •..'. CO InNN ' NN' . . . • ,II I - j k .�r-116'..•:.,.'. ).;•`''!-'2 . .: . [1068] 1 j I. '-1 76 J S. 45th PI. 60 1 . 7.co —' co N Crestwood Park Apts. LEGEND [XX] Average Daily Traffic Volume X--► PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction.) r PROJECTED 2003 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE WITH PROJECT '1[1 CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER 7 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Technical Appendix . . , ' TC2 Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. 13623 184th Avenue NE, Woodinville, WA 98072 Phone: (425) 861-8866 FAX: (425) 861-8877 Turning Movement Diagram < 126 106 20 co i 47 5941 S 45th PI 1 10 21 11 88 67 cn al 8 A • 58 18 Check In: 145 ,c 76 Out: 145 %HV PHF Intersection: Davis Ave S @ S 45th P1 EB n/a n/a Location: Renton WB 0.0% 0.66 Date of Count: Wed 11-14-01 NB 0.0% 0.56 Peak Period: 4:45 P - 5:45 P SB 0.9% 0.80 Checked By: Anne Intersection 0.7% 0.81 Prepared For: Transportation Planning&Engineering, Inc TMO1u953 . , • , . ...... ..... . . .. . _ 1 TC2 Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. 13623 184th Avenue NE,Woodinville,WA 98072 Phone:(425)861-8866 FAX:(425)861-8877 , . • . Vehicle Volume Summary Intersection: Davis Ave S @ S 45th PI Date of Count: Wed 11-14-01 ,---- Location: Renton Checked By: Anne . , Time From North on(SB) From South on(NB) From East on(WB) From West on(EB) Interval ' Interval Davis Ave S Davis Ave S S 45th PI n/a Total Ending at T I, L S R T L S R T L S R T L S R 4I5.P. B:7::•::14:::::::::5:::::::::.:::b::::::::::::0:.::!::::::0::::::::::::3::::::::::•i::::::::•:0:::::::4::::::::::0.::::::::::2.::: ::::0::-::::4:::•:::.:.0::::::.::::6::::::::::::::29:::::::: 4:30 P 0 14 7 0 0 0 2 1 1 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 32 :::::45.-.1.7.:::::;::::1•::::::::7:::::::::•8::::: :::::::9:::::•:::::13::::;:::::::B.:.•:::;::::•:fi::::7::•::"1::::::::::!:::::::::4::::::::::13::::7;:•:1::::: ::::O::::::::13:::: ::::::0::::::;::::13::::::::.:.::::.: i:•.: : 5:00 P 0 8 8 0 0 0 3 3 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 30 ::::0::::':::1:5:::::::::1:1::::4:::::::0::::::::::::0::::::::::::0::::::::::::0::::::::::2:::::::::"0::: :::::3:::::::::::0:::::: :::::3:::: ::::0::::::::0:::: ::::::0:::::::::::0:::::::::::::: 4:::::::: 5:30 P 0 19 14 0 0 0 6 2 0 k 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 45 :::::•5:45:P•::::::::::1:::11:•47.::-:::::14::::k:::::!..11::::::;'::::!):::::::::::-.0.::::: :•::::1::::::::::::1:::::I';:::-0::::::.:::3:::::;:::::B:::::::::::0.:::: ::::q:::-..:::p::::,::::::p:::::::::::b::::-..";:•:::::::,10':::::::::, 6:00 P 0 7 12 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 25 , . 0;1:5:1›.:::::::::0:::.::::0.:::::::::4:::: :::::::0:::::::::::0:::::::::::A::::::::::::A::::::::::0:::::::::P::::::::A::::::::::A::::: :::::0.::::-::::1)::::::::A:::.::::::0:::::::::::0:::::::::::::::0::::::::: 6:30 P 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •:•:•:,0:45.P.•::::•:•:0::::•:::0•::::::•:0-:•::':•:•:::!.}:•:•:•.:::•13:•:::;:•:::•B:::::::;::::B•:::',;::::0:•:-::::41:::.:::•11:::::•:•:•13:::-:•;::::33::::,•:•".I)::•: 0:•:•7".:::•::0:::•:::::-....t)::::::::::::::i6::::::::: 7:00 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Total ;- 1 Survey 2 101 79 0 .0 0 • 22 14 2 23. b' 19 0 0 0 0 258 .... .. . . ...::::.:i::.:::::::i::::::::::::::::::i:::: :K::::40$: :i:::: :::.:*40-:.::::Pc44:ii.•6*•Sipiiiiiiiii .::. : _ :::. :: ,* ::::::::::,::i: • Totai ' 11541 47 f o o f 0 1 io ) 8 0 i 1.1 I 0 1 10 0 I 0 1 0 I 0 14-5. Approach 106 18 21 0 145 I %HV 1% 0% 0% n/a 1% PHF 0.80 0.56 0.66 n/a 0.81 Legend: T=Number of heavy vehicles(greater than 4 wheels) L--•Left-Turn S—Straight • R=Right-Turn , . IIV=Heavy Vehicles P1-117=Peak hour Factor(Peak hour volume/(4*Highest 15 minutes)) . I Prepared For Transportation Planning&Engineering,Inc TM01u953 . . . 1 . . • • , . TC 2 Count Consultants, Inc. 13623 184th Ave NE, Woodinville,WA 98072 Phone:(425)861-8866 FAX:(425)861-8877 Turning Movement Diagram 1235 cn a 1028 207 ":1 1 F S 45th P1 14 1013 1 K. Driveway --Av A 1 21 0 1 83 . II 0 2 7 62 0 r 1 ♦ v V 55 7 199 0 cn v V a 0 .a F 1068 206 Check In: 1297 c 1274 Out: 1297 %HV PHF Intersection: S 45th PI @ Talbot Rd S EB 0.0% 0.78 Location: Renton WB 0.0% 0.25 Date of Count: Wed 11-14-01 NB 0.0% 0.94 . ' Peak Period: 4:45 P - 5:45 P SB 0.1% 0.92 Checked By: Anne Intersection 0.1% 0.93 Prepared For: Transportation Planning&Engineering, Inc Tm01u954 . • TC2 Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. 13623 184th Ave NE,Woodinville,WA 98072 IPhone:(425)861-8866 FAX:(425)861-8877 IVehicle Volume Summary ' •tcrscction: S 45th PI @ Talbot Rd S Date of Count: Wed 11-14-01 !Location: Renton Checked By: Anne ITime From North on(SB) From South on(NB) From East on(WB) From West on(EB) Interval Interval Talbot Rd S Talbot Rd S Driveway S 45th P1 Total Ending at T L S R T L S R T L S R T L S R I . 4:15 P. 0 1 • 211 7 0 1 65 . 0 0 • 0 ' 0 0 .. 0 2 0 • . 13 .. ..300.. . 4:30 P 2 1 216 5 0 5 65 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 13 306 •4:45 P.;.. • 0 0 248 4 0 2 74 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 . 0,. 7 •; 336 5:00 P 0 0 254 5 0 3 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 8 324 I5:15P . 1 1 246 3 0 3 .42 . 0 0 • .,.0.. 0 : • 0: ..0 .: 2 . . .0.• ;,18.:. .......315.. . 5:30 P 0 0 238 2 0 1 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 310 ,._:5:45.P..:_. • 0 . 0 . 275 • . 4 . 0. .• .0 •. '53 .. 0 0 0..:::. 0 1 ...0.c. .:.1.-:, .. .0: ., ,,...14.., .:::.:,348 ,. I6:00 P 0 2 255 2 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 9 318 6:15P'... 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0. 0.',,. ...•.0• 0 6:30P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:45P - 0 0. 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 . 0 . 0.. . 0. . . , 0 ' .0 : . I7:00P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IIITotal Survey 3 5 1943 32 0 15 449 0 0 0 0 3 0 13 0 97 2557 •• • . 4:45 P to 5:45 P Peak Hour Summary . . • . Total 1 I 1 I 1013 1 14 0 I 7 199 1 0 0 I 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 7 1 0 1 55 1297 IApproach 1028 206 1 62 1297 %HV 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% PHF 0.92 0.94 0.25 0.78 0.93 I Legend: 'I'=Number or heavy vehicles(greater than 4 wheels) I L=Lett-Tum S=Straight R=Right-Turn HV=Heavy Vehicles IPHF=Peak hour Factor(Peak hour volume/(4*Highest 15 minutes)) Prepared For: Transportation Planning&Engineering,Inc TmO1u954 ' I TC2 Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. 13623 184th Avenue NE,Woodinville,WA 98072 Phone: (425)861-8866 FAX: (425)861-8877 Turning Movement Diagram 123 I >> a 105 18 A Tunnel(to hospital) 45 60 A 67 129 15 62 47 1 22 3 I Q A 107 25 Check In: 192 132 > out: 192 %HV PHF (to hospital)Intersection: Davis Ave S @ Tunnel p ) EB 0.0% 0.82 Location: Renton i WB n/a n/a Date or Count: Wed 11-14-01 NB 0.0% 0.52 Peak Period: 4:45 P - '5:45 P SB 1.0% 0.91 Checked By: Anne Intersection 0.5% 0.92 Prepared For: Transportation Planning&Engineering,Inc. Tm0lu955 2 TC Traffic Count Consultants,Inc. 13623 184th Avenue NE,Woodinville,WA 98072 Phone:(425)861-8866 FAX:(425)861-8877 Vehicle Volume Summary Intersection: Davis Ave S @ Tunnel(to hospital) Date of Count: Wed 11-14-01 Location: Renton Checked By: Anne Time From North on(SB) From South on(NB) From East on(WB) From West on(EB) Interval - --Interval• Davis Ave S Davis Ave S n/a. . Tunnel(to hospital Total Endin&nt 7' L S It T L S R '1' L S R IL S R 4 I5•P:•:•: •:•:0•:•: G:•:•::•:•7:•::•.:•:•:1.7.•:•:• :•:-0:•:••:•:•:-5:•:•:••:•:•:2-:•:•::•:•:0•:•.:•:•0:•:•..:•:•:a•:•:••:•:::o.:•:•::•:•D:•:� :•:0:•:••:•:•5:•:•::•:•:•0:-:•:••:•:15:•: •:•:•:•:•51•:•:•:•:- 4:30 P 0 0 7 14 1 1 5 I 0 0 0 0 0 , 0 4 0 13 44 •:•::4;45;1!:;:;::::::I;:;::::::Q::::•:•:•:t:l:•::: ::;:•:;9:::::•::;::1;:;: ::::;:4:•::::::::::4::::;::::;:0;::.:•:;0:::;;:::::0;:::: y::;:0;:;:•::•:;o:;::•:.:0::: ;:;:;3:::: :: :;D::::::::;:;4;:;: ;:::::;:35::::::::, 5:00 P 0 0 10 19 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 45 :::::si:15:k::::::::::4:::::::::0::::: :1:5::::.::::::1)::::::.::::a: ::::::A::::::::::::0:::::::::::0::: ::0::::::::::0:::::::::::0:: 0:: ::::0:: ::::g.:::: ::::::0::::::....Ali::: ::::::::30::::::::: 5:30 P I 0 19 5 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 13 52 :::::5;45:E;::::.:::;0::::: ::D:::::,:::::I;6.:::: {:}}S::}}::: :: :•:•:•$•:•:-:::::::D:;::::-:;:0::: ::;:0,:.::::.:U:::{}:.o:;:;::::::0;:•::::::0;:; :;:::4::' ;:::::0::;::::.:.I5::: >:;:;4S:.:.::{: 6:00 P 0 0 12 10 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 32 ::r5:15 I)::::: ::::0:::::: :a:::: :::::0::::: ::::::0:::::: -0::: ::::::0::::::::::::0:::::::::::0::: ::0::::::::::b:::::::::::0::::::::::0:::::::::0::: : ::0:::: ::::0:: ::::0 ::0:::::::::: 6:30P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :::::.:4 -.P:::::.,5 ::::P:::::::::P::::: :::•:o:•:•: •:•:•:o:•:•:• :::0:•: •:•:•:O:•:•:••:•:•:0:•:•::•:•:0•:: :•:•0:•: •:::•:0•:•:••:•:•:0•:•:•::•:•D:•:••:•:;0:•: •:•:•o:•:• :•:::;D:::•:••:•:0::: :: •:::;D:::;:: 7:OOP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Survey 2 0 97 95 2 40 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 85 354 :: :.4..::: :::::P::::::YcaktlohrSu:::bie•':.;'.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.>;.;'.:.:.;.:.:•;.:`;;;;.;;;.::•;•:;:;`:•:•:•: >:::::•:•::: Total 1 ' 0 1 60 1 45 0 ) 22 1 3 1 0 0 ) 0 H 0 0 0 . 15 . 0 . 47 192 Approach 105 25 0 62 192 %1IV 1% 0% n/a 0% 1% PHF 0.91 0.52 n/a 0.82 0.92 Legend: T=Number of heavy vehicles(greater than 4 wheels) L=Left-Turn r S=Straight R=Right-Turn HV=Heavy Vehicles PHI,-Peak hour Factor(Peak hour volume/(4•Highest 15 minutes)) Prepared For. Transportation Planning&Engineering,Inc. Tm01u955 - ICity of Renton bather :SUNNYTransportation Systems Division Study Name: TMC076P anted by:DRL/1TG Traffic Operations Site Cade 00@DN(+ .rrd 0 :D4-1029 2000 Studies Start Date: 08/21100 Surface :DRY • Page : 2 CARS/FEDESTRIANS,HEAVY VEHICLES _4 , ITALIC RD S 15W 43RD ST ITALIC RD S 19W 43RD ST . ISouthbound (Westbound (Northbound !Eastbound Start I I I I Ilntvl. _: Time I Left Tnru Rnht Otherl Left Thru Rght Otherl Left Thru light Otherl Left Thru light Other! Total Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 15:00 on 08/21/00 to 16:45 on 08/21/00 I Time I 15:45 115:45 115:45 1 15:45 1 Vol. I 180 176 197 11 33 641 58 61 196 87 42 31 171 951 376 51 • '.-Pct. I 32.4 31.7 35.5 0.11 4.4 86,8••••• 7.8 • • 0.8 53.7 26.5 12.8 0.91 11.3 63,2 25.0 0.31 . Total I 554 I 738 I 328 I 1503 1 - 1 High -I- 16:30• 1 16:30 . . . ... 116:00 . . . . , 1 16 i30 I . Vol. I 53 60 57 . 01 14 210 16 21 65 29 16 01 42 260 108 01 Total I 170 I 242 I 110 I 410 . . I_.. . P'IiF 1 0.815 10.762 I 0,745 10.916 1 • - l AI_t3O T RI) S'�t1';at?S;'FCI]FSTIZI ,•., -•'HEAVY VEHICLES 1 .i�;"' 190 "' 1'74 "' 177 58 i. ,. ., j.," 7 ., 2 . . 3 87 . �_ ==,,v-====_ ----- --- 171 „. 1 : 197 1 76 1:30 -------- N. 6 r� , 6 P. 316 1 nbcn_tnd 554 if Outbound 31.6 k ► , ♦ ) '• I Tot 870 '' 5 197b r 4 8 1034 641 ' 196 —_ ' 624 I ' 170 ----- 17 641 171 1 Inbc'und 1503 • Inbound 738------:::_=:------:----_-.--..-.0 i_:t bound 1034 . . . . Outbound 1 173 33 - - 934 Total 2=537 Total 1911 0 33 951 17 . 42 ----V 71 _.--.�-__--.-_--_ 951 173 i 7 6 •' b ..... . . 180 . . . . Inbound • 328 SW 4311D ST 161111 11101 fal'dta : Out bound 585 5 t, Tot a 1 913 5 , i. 1?„ 376 1'95 87 40 i 3 , 176 1 0 0 / I \ 33 =__- / I \ -; ------- 196 87 42 3 I 585 ,. North -• City of Renton Weather :SUNNY Transportation Systems Division Study Name: TMC076P Counted by:DRL/JTG Traffic Operations /ivM Site Cade : 00000000 Board 1) :D4-1029 2000 Studies Start Date: 08/21/00 Surface :DRY Page : 1 CARS/PEDESTRIANS,HEAVY VEHICLES 1 ITP.LBOT RD S 1SW 43RD ST ITALBDT RD S ISW 43RD ST ISouthbound !Westbound (Northbound 'Eastbound ___ I Start 1 I I I lintel. Time i Left Tnru Runt Otherl Left Tnru Rent Otherl Left Tnru Rent Dtner! Left Tnru Runt Otherl Total 08/21/00 1 1 I 1 15:001 2 42 59 01 12 213 25 01 40 16 15 01 32 205 84 11 752 15:151 25 38 51 01 10 133 21 01 60 24 5 11 48 226 86 01 728 15:301 42 51 64 31 7 146 19 31 49 24 '3 11 28 197 71 51 719 15:451 43 40 34 01 6 144 14 31 43 32 11 21 44 245 89 11 751 Hour! 112 171 208 31 35 642 79 61 192 96 40 41 152 873 330 71 2950 I 1 I 1 16:001 42 38 66 01 10 165 14 01 65 23 16 01 37 2007 101 21 792 16:151 42 38 40 11 3 122 14 1) 50 10 7 0i 46 239 78 21 695 •- 16r:301 • 53 60 57 01 . 14 210 . 16. . 21. . 38 . 16, 8 11 42 260 108 01 885 16:451 22 34 24 01 6 131 11 NI 38 12 5 01 34 196 65 01' 57B -Hourl . 159 170 187 11 33 628 55 31. 191 67 • 36 11 161 902 .. 352 41. 2950 I 1 1 1 1 Total) 271 341 395 41 68 1270 134 91 383 163 76 51 313 1775 692 11I 5900 % Apr. I 26.6 33.7 33.0 0.31 • 4.5 65.7 9.0 0.61 61.0 25.9 12.1 0.71 11.2 63.8 24.5 0.31 _ 7t Int. I 4.5 5.7 6.6 -1 1.1 21.5 2.2 0.11 6.4 2.7 1.2 -I 5.3 30.0 11.5 0.11 I:. I I 1 I I I • Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information 1 Analyst VG Intersection Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/20/01 Analysis Year 2003 WITH PROJECT Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project ID ti -- East/West Street: NORTH DRIVEWAY . . . ... North/South.Street: DAVIS AVE S Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 28 27 1 4 123 48 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 27 1 4 123 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 2 0 2 16 0 50 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 1 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 --... Configuration • LR • .. Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 4 4 C (m) (vph) 1599 931 /c 0.00 0.00 95% queue length 0.01 0.01 - Control Delay 7.3 8.9 LOS A A pproach Delay -- -- 8.9 pproach LOS -- -- A HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 • file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2kD053.TMP 11/20/01 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst VG Intersection Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/20/01 Analysis Year 2003 WITH PROJECT Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project ID East/West Street: SOUTH DRIVEWAY North/South Street: DAVIS AVE S Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 __ Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 - L T R L T R olume 28 25 2 5 120 48 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 25 2 5 120 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 — -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 2 0 3 16 0 50 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 0 3 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service -.. A pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 5 5 C (m) (vph) 1600 956 lc 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.01 0.02 Control Delay 7.3 8.8 LOS A A pproach Delay -- -- 8.8 A pproach LOS -- -- A HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 • file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2kD053.TMP 11/20/01 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst VG Intersection Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/21/01 Analysis Year 2003 WITH PROJECT Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project ID East/West Street: S 45TH PL North/South Street: ACCESS DRIVEWAY Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 4 76 0 0 25 1 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 76 0 0 25 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 . Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 0 0 0 2 0 2 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 2 0 2 .. Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service a pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (vph) 4 4 C (m) (vph) 1601 966 /c 0.00 0.00 95% queue length 0.01 0.01 Control Delay 7.3 8.7 LOS A A r pproach Delay -- -- 8.7 a pproach LOS -- -- A KCS2000T M Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 • file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2k6350.TMP ' ' 11/21/01 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY L. General Information Site.Information Analyst VG Intersection Agency/Co. Jurisdiction .. Date Performed 11/21/01 Analysis Year 2001 Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project ID East/West Street: S 45 PL North/South Street: DAVIS AVE S Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments ' Major Street Northbound Southbound -- Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 0 10 8 59 47 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 10 8 59 47 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 11 0 10 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 0 10 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) .... 0 . 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 H Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service A pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 59 21 C (m) (vph) 1612 900 /c 0.04 0.02 95% queue length 0.11 0.07 Control Delay 7.3 9.1 LOS A A pproach Delay -- -- 9.1 pproach LOS -- -- A KCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2kD082.TMP 11/21/01 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst VG Intersection Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/21/01 Analysis Year 2003 WITHOUT PROJECT Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project ID East/West Street: S 45 PL North/South Street: DAVIS AVE S Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 0 11 8 64 50 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 11 8 64 50 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 11 0 11 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 0 -11 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service •pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 64 22 C (m) (vph) 1611 894 /c • 0.04 0.02 95% queue length 0.12 0.08 Control Delay 7.3 9.1 _ OS . .A . A . . , •pproach Delay -- -- 9.1 pproach LOS, -- -- A Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 • file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2kD082.TMP 11/21/01 _.Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 , I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst VG Intersection Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/21/01 Analysis Year 2003 WITH PROJECT Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project ID East/West Street: S 45 PL North/South Street: DAVIS AVE S Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 0 11 8 72 50 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 11 8 72 50 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound • Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 11 0 16 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 • 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 0 16 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 72 27 C (m) (vph) 1611 911 /c 0.04 0.03 . 95% queue length 0.14 0.09 Control Delay 7.3 9.1 LOS A A pproach Delay -- -- 9.1 pproach LOS -- -- A HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 • file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2kD082.TMP 11/21/01 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst VG Intersection Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/20/01 Analysis Year 2001 Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project ID East/West Street: VALLEY MED ACCESS North/South Street: DAVIS AVE S Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 22 3 0 0 60 45 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 22 3 0 0 60 45 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 0 0 0 15 0 47 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 15 0 47 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v(vph) 22 62 _ C (m) (vph) 1499 . . . 949 lc 0.01 0.07 95% queue length .0.04 0.21 Control Delay 7.4 9.1 LOS A A pproach Delay -- -- 9.1 pproach LOS -- -- A HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 1 • file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2kD053.TMP 11/20/01 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst VG Intersection Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/20/01 Analysis Year 2003 WO PROJECT Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project ID East/West Street: VALLEY MED ACCESS North/South Street: DAVIS AVE S Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 23 3 0 0 64 48 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 23 3 0 0 64 48 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 0 0 0 16 0 50 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 16 0 50 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service A pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 23 66 C (m) (vph) 1490 942 v/c 0.02 0.07 95% queue length ' 0.05 0.23 - Control Delay 7.5 9.1 LOS A A pproach Delay -- -- 9.1 A pproach LOS -- -- A HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 • file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2kD053.TMP 11/20/01 ' , Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst VG Intersection Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 11/20/01 Analysis Year 2003 W PROJECT Analysis Time Period PM PEAK Project ID I i East/West Street: VALLEY MED ACCESS North/South Street: DAVIS AVE S Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 ..-.. L ..... T • R L T R olume 28 5 0 0 77 48 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 28 5 0 0 77 48 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- ' Median Type . Undivided 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 0 0 0 16 • 0 50 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 16 0 50 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 ' Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12-- Lane Configuration LT LR v(vph) 28 66 C (m) (vph) 1474 921 vlc 0.02 0.07 95% queue length ` 0.06 0.23 Control Delay 7.5. 9.2 LOS A A pproach Delay -- -- 9.2 pproach LOS -- -- A KCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 • fi1P•//( \WTNfnWS\TF.MP\n21c )O53-TMP 11/20/01 Frp,46. 4 02.--01-z, co . . ..-.. •1i .' . • .,.:•':.N. . DEVELOp MICROFILMED iview p C171(OF RENTIVIAIG • . JAN 2 5 2602 , • PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT . , CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER Davis Ave . S and S 45th St. . . ' BY SITE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 310 208TH ST SE BOTHELL 98012 (425) 481-9687 1 , . January 7, 2002 , , . ..,. *.c. et 10 • iv z. Tii. saii.. ,z1. . • . . I . , 131'42 .:=:, HN.wisIst - . 1 ,.. . ,.. ... . , FiXPI RE(S714.10.7 I . - . .. ......-... - 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION NO. Project Overview I Preliminary Conditions Summary II (not required) Off-Site Analysis III Detention Design IV (Includes Wetvault ) j Conveyance Systems Analysis and Design V(to Be Provided) Special Reports and Studies VI (not used) Basin and Community Planning Areas VII (nor used) Other Permits VIII (not Used) Erosion/Sedimentation Control Design • IX (to Be Provided) } Bond Quantities and Other Forms X (to Be Provided) Maintenance and Operations Manual XI (to Be Provided) _ 1 • ' 1 • SECTION I PROJECT OVERVIEW - • • PROJECT OVERVIEW Located on the northeast corner of Davis Ave. S and S 45th St. , the site is about 2 . 77 acres in size and is covered with trees and brush. The roadway frontages have all been improved with curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping and street lighting. The entire site drains to the north side, where a 12 inch storm drain collects all of the runoff. See the Offsite Analysis Section for a detailed description of upstream, on-site, and downstream conditions . The entire site is being developed as an assisted living facility. Surface parking is provided between the building and the streets, as well as in a parking garage located under the north end of the building and accessed off of Davis Ave . The main building entry is off of Davis Ave. , and a secondary access is located off of 45 St. Storm water detention and treatment is being provided through the use of a wet vault constructed in the north end of the site. All of the site is being detained and treated, except for a very small portion of the garage driveway. A.ViV.I03N;1171To!‘. - --- -- -------- -- --- -- - __ _ _ _ • CY1 . sEE/ 685 \MAP co ,. ,:ri` . • ir.; .....,48‘..0;7--1.--bA.:"s -I." ..' ' '--i. --'''. " --/ S 1- 1 4 III :T 'LI @ iv _ .... • „oral,gg i_ - ,I. 4,3q 1 1 _..4 ... :OTH AV $ x vr W _, 0 . vo OA 1.4 NI 81ST li /S 1.-. 4 D‘r '•P 2231H st . CENTRA\INN\84T1--1 AV r Cil r`•, m ... AV t? S ' co c. % cn. , , , , qg „ty EN3 r - 84TH - k. , ti 9 AV q S ;5TH M Sly. . • 111111141111rn S .NZ5 st‘-1S5e?' ME P';37t A • If't', , ,, , i• c- o. . 86TH AV $ P1 S Ir. 5 vi ''' ,#. , ....r IN) : 87TH AV 1 S Ili r4 - . 111.) */..5 86TH P L 113. . AA Co See),13811_0 ....s 6 88TH 1 AV \\S. \.....„.• s\88TH AV 4! 41'n i I tO 1 _IN) rsr 89TH AV . S IA 14 , i 4 _ • :,..THv"S _ 188Th. I kr. S E8TH PL Addinillin. S . .......„ i 91ST RWY 91S1 AV s A wi -14111ralirtil . . ,...1.. • n, 111;.:3:::: 1 ....„1"" -4:-.T. - •92ND AV -$ 4 9 ND AV S Is,:ho,w1-,,,.-•„•,,,4,,,,,..;.Ii-.----- . . ii• ....',I ,-,),";),-,-,--,..);-/V.,.)--,'...:: ,._, bill.%, ,:. • I-4 V) • ' . "4.,. S „) .if':.104'0,4-4.141'2':':-.'-'•.'fft:?4.4''',t44.i cr) ‘, CO 7 • 93RD 1-Av ,, i plw c'l 1 6 4." 94111 PLI96TH AP'a S4 Wr 'P °I ''..ge4. ''',i :- - '1'1••-,*".Z.'`c.i:4AF%fi'•-,'7:.:-‘'‘i'v:•v- P',:ii'•'•141- -''-0--i • - co 5 2 I ,s ...,_.9). •A.1 •-- •- ',,,,'413,,Wk!t,'..:?,,V34$-'4 i'''''',t11,-:!:V4.1:3 "'''''' .. ,' . s e 94TH AV S 94TH AV Ed 94no. r, si 94THAV S r-Ar•-• 8 PL'i 9STHAV S so.. . • .,"411',/4. K: '.',. 1".•} lit:'',..4'.",,,V..;‘.•'.1 ..4.•,4 :, .,.... IR,, •;,,,z ... 0:,:ft-L,414?-•" , .....qt.• .'•••''' '-'14*,• Mlo(S HMI TON RD) 11 S 11.1 11.4574.,t'Z' ''.":'• ..-L,:' ':''',:'•17'''r°7 ....t'•' : ;",...•:'' AN 9sTH Li_s___H,v,",,•er_frr 1/ ‘,.. 5 . 16 NM L4 IV . ;iii;'.;W4339P.*:,,fe:;;Vi.,!i?;;;',‘,„,3,--,,,•:,•:,t..,i 1 .S.\:- . P ./ .„g 96TH 96111,s Q S 22800 9. .,.., 7 96TH WY".•* " p-3 .,F. • i'7---CtilVS40(61. , . ,•.a.,...-..1t..a:..v..L.4./...r.,,,... L. ,,,q, '-• . swim p y-. ..t,L LI LrAlght. 96TH PL At AI NAM/ •• til '-:--L-1•'•:•...CK_'''''''A Llia,-4?..7&it'ZAUT OLL...! ligpo P...1. .. pi . v, 98TH fryilrir ,,, 1.11P ' r,, et 981. P.P...7_ .!iei• ••Tit:EL? 1 4,-.;,-_,R,,in,:.,!'',y.,''.-,,14,:....,;',iir;,:::41,f6rjA..ft, it , s ...... . 98TH ,:1. sg. .• Av s 98TH PL S . 4, 11 AV ', TO; ?LP ''''‘' i, - / Q,':.''':1;05.4....f•C''.12:::-.A-:4;'1.,'.-L4''''::-.-A-'..4.N1C5;.'" F'. t': , 99TH AV s _ -t'.4--.,"- • . ,, rn . g Dv .1 ,fli';':11k:if,VII pra NV!,..,,,,0:1,„!;,•• ':',,V,r''''f"•.iri i.''1'4 r.t,.1'3 f;',61,4.?'.i.?F 1 OCTT1111 AV V •E WI 100TH v' 4 ' ' •';•9., :.<• ,..•q4,4,11<r..'' ' in; ,:411,14,1tiRl?` '9 pi '•;...:t,101,'-.:1'/r-'4.'",', •,,,V;*. .:,',..:':.'JVt;,•`.,ii4,!:,It: : P,k1"AV SE ' .r014.4..JFI 7•...:';,1.Ti..,..3.::*,. ,5'‘..ts44''44 ' g I -`3 . q1m ni3 5 cn 0,1 N1 e-• ...? / 04 q5' t 4.ihimmielE RA 8 101ST AVASIS_, mei 4/1 101ST CT a 4 4.1,1041 2 + SE N^, 5 t, loam c'Pt.SE *,..-'.,,„ `.- 102ND :'.'f.40'11.7:•21V-0•11,1:4:1'vf, .2613 MI SE AV 34 '' col " I irg I r:1,60. 1,1 102N0 .,, „Aol 111MI Va..IMO 1,5 PL SE ...,.:. *. 1-1•-• .-.VI 5,:...,I.f,t,....i62.U.;-:.P.',...1,. ,. 103RD PL SE (.0 21,„ `'' -;,-f`Y,•TNT•711.0,,,IA,21r. -.: 104TH "- 4 AV IS-r- -§0,N 4- a -t4 g .,2 A V) 103R0 AV SE 'V M M 4. - -:,::,•••••••-A4007,,,,,?w, f y„, '.• -.4 PL SEg 103RD , 11 agg -e. 1 ic4R0 rri 104TH •', ' IQ = i.ming •-• -• ,:‘-•••••• .,,.. ,..."74.-,) :-.. eau IA k •:',: v.,103RD' PL SE "..4,n,„, IV : cr sE I" 474 P g A 1 t.?- rc,..e...,,,:•,:-......ksia..7.-., (BENSON 105TH AV SE RD 1051 AV S -I 6 EA '4 la'..'wet r:1 104TH PL SE '104TH AV SE Ki 4•41}1'i. zoit„ 4 pi ,sE A , L.. .T., 104TH PL :E V g 104111 104TH PL SE m 4 . ....PLSE E- 1114TH AV ' ---- --- %;19° A 10.Ell ELI'i 44.14:s111 i !1°5TSHE gm;;I 0, 1051/1.AV SE g II SE AuiLtA. 1s_'A.....4g. F1 r•-. •:.',.. ... I . • 31•191INIPI A I. • ;mei - 106111 at,d11117 ''• • A" AV SE 1°6n1 A WM sE -..:„. '4.-- ' -''.):,.. ,SIIII EN .0, Nk-6-..y. i ..,..k,'•;PL'...SE Z " .v.3711%-1.9 •4 , 4 kt,'..,„..i 4•Wal.,Eriri A r"1. t E AV D„ _ 106TH .„ :1:1 SE 106TH PL SE g-1 '. A 4 , 3S N4 • ' „ g"'' -..;• ' r a EA 4 A 107TH •A SE vs ... im 108TH fl..s? SE w , . 108 AV • ' 4 (31 4 11181111--I ,,3 DOI g 1011H AV en " Av ej I st SE PILE iu A pap 40.,...142)4.3s,r.,:i- • .1 4/Penal, 814 yr,s,- iorr 665 „ ?k_g ' :3s , Olt AuunT ••• tio SE . 1 3•3 0 ,9200 run., in 1084.109 110TH PL SE m. r- o - ,.., 4 '.- TL S ••.• AV SE nil '.: ST,,.., I_Lvi._... 110111 rsa p t.F.,.livoisil Q., 1 A 4 R 110TH 310TH" InIA n-1 1): -,2 r i ri. in'2 s I I L.. . ,, mi 4 CT SE.-PI. E • m 112T At St gi PL ii W 111THm SEAV '121H 4 SE .... 8,4 ,..A.V SE lif " • 1114. _M 14 14 L SE 12TH Al \ u,, Linii -o ----- I 411. E i Wcn a gi 0°‘ ilitm 1 •.,' k P ih,,.• ..p. oa's ru'.44A 3 t,re, 4 A n 4, .. ...... .._ ,,0, 113TH •-- 2 s, D6 s, r.,,PL A CT 1. SE "3TH"" -(''' r .2 rn AMNIA,,, 116TH 7-3-e,„ tuzicii... he IlEirrinimimminrsirra .,_,_, 4141111016 y6.t ' . 34" ; - 114T ::_____.g AV SE .• nyg r re . • AV SE•si 01. 4,Ant,..9 is;r:a, II Alum 1 ::•1,,iisTH -.3 ". c•." 115TH PL SE Y C.';4 3 -,ott,I...,4 „..„.....7.71_.• 4P ciSE 14 V....1k PL SE L,,, 14 1.L•1i•-.) isr...0,;.k. 4 b a, 114 _ 114 AV SE. n sc • i AV 4 r. 1- SE Z 3S AY 10 .-i!'05-46ii/ . . 0 .::' itsm g m •, P gitri 1 ii ,...__.,, I :,,, , 22,00 ./,T 21500 . v, '.0800.--P -ed -- 3 ui st 1 2 4 g i “." MX M 111111 "IV A '' rn •P• t. r., -.- D m s rn g g ir„ ,„ 4* + 1.- 19200. 116TH 18800 1"•, 6:: -.., . 01 Li 2 naTH ANI .. ::: 11110i SE 180001111i:-,: i 4 i ...-.--'" 119111 w PL SE AV SE .,.. 119TH Em /<fes „.,...E. „..., t• f .- -0 x ,••141 ni "' AN i.,2 ,,,,, , N 7^ f 0 gl 118TH" . t o ..:st x.rn. `0. MTErig11111 . . n--Z-Pn• 0'WIN WiginiiirN 6661 .1H018Ad03 I , ...ritk en ark ,..: ifflt - ,',.,,_ _ '..,_•._, ' „ , , , ,_,._ "llUal it:I ---- VII, 'WV I 2 nu. HIS ._.....Ali - -. . ,' . in . AFT CORE REQUIREMENTS Discharge at the Natural Location: The existing site drains to an existing 12 inch culvert located at the north end of the site. The completed site will drain to the same location. Offsite Analysis : This is presented in Section III . No existing significant drainage systems were observed on the site, and a discharge point meeting the requirements for concentrated flow exists on the north end of the site. Flow Control: Detention is provided in accordance with the 1990 King County Drainage Manual and City policies . A wet vault is proposed, which will provide detention for up to the 100 year storm with a 30% factor of safety. See Section IV for the sizing calculations . Conveyance System: These calculations will be included in Section V with the final report. For a site of -this size, 12 inch conveyance pipes are clearly adequate. Also, since the controlled release from the site is at the predeveloped level, the downstream system will not be significantly impacted. Erosion and Sediment Control : This will be provided with the final report. The final design will likely employ the wet vault, which would be constructed at an early phase of the project. Special sediment removal systems employing filters or chemicals are not anticipated. Maintenance and Operations : Procedures for this work will be provided with the final report. Financial Guarantees and Liability: All required guarantees will be provided when requested. Water Quality: Per City policies for this location, a wet vault will provide sufficient treatment. The calculations are included in Section Iv. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements: No such areas are none to affect this site. Floodplain/Floodway Delineation: The site does not contain, nor is it adjacent to a stream, lake, wetland, or closed depression Flood Protection Facilities: The site is not adjacent to a Class 1 or 2 stream, nor does is propose to construct a new or modify and existing flood protection facility. Source Controls : No special controls should be required for the site other than covering of dumpster areas, as no sources of pollutants are expected. Oil Control : This is not a high use site, nor is it redeveloping an existing high use site. Therefor, special oil control measures are not required. . ,e 1 . . . it { . • I i . .1 . SECTION III . . . • OFF-SITE ANALYSIS , L • 1 i i . i • j . i • . j OFF-SITE ANALYSIS Upstream: The only upstream area draining onto the site is to the east. With the exception of the vegetated slope immediately adjacent to the site, the upstream properties are developed with commercial buildings and parking lots. The drainage systems for those parking lots appear to outfall onto the subject site, but no such outfalls or signs of concentrated flows were found. The topographic survey for the project shows an outfall from the southerly most property. This pipe will be connected to the storm drain in S 45th St. The other outfalls will be located sometime prior to construction and conveyed to the common collection point for the site at Davis Ave. The upstream basin consists of the area between the east property line of the site and Talbot Rd. It is approximately 2.3 acres in size. On-site: The site was visited in the fall of 2001 during a period of significant rainfall. Although the site was wet, with minor ponding occurring where equipment had been traveling for the purpose of soils explorations. No closed depressions or drainage channels were observed, except immediately upstream of the culvert under Davis Ave. which drains the site. The entire site, including the channel at the culvert intake is well vegetated, with no signs of erosion or sedimentation. The culvert intake showed no signs of ponding or overtopping. Downstream: As shown on the enclosed downstream maps, the culvert draining the site enters a storm drain system in Davis Ave. that was constructed in about 1982 with the Plat of One Valley Place. According to the construction drawings for the plat, the piping is 12 inch CMP at a 1% slope. This system drains into an 18 inch concrete pipe that goes north under S 43rd St. That culvert connects to a storm drains system that continues north a distance of about 300 feet. At that point the storm drain outfalls to a channel that travels north along the east side of the SR 167 right-of-way. This channel continues north to a point beyond 1/4 mile downstream of the site, so the analysis ended there. • • •• ' ...'"-•••• '''',..,,,,,,,.. -....:.:,.. ",..,/x4,.. ..:•,.}.....,......,.:..,-.----•••••• •, . . . . . • ....•• • • H3 - /h \ ,.;•titz.,c-iii,;,„,14-. ..2-\,\•,1_ ,;;;-._ _ 4 ••— . , \ - -,•_. ‘.6,9k.--.;, ,•1••••;i„, c(--Q11(c,kitlii,\•)i.,..„.,s0,,,f4,,•",••••,. .:••..';'/' •' . .. . .,.. • . 30 T23N R5E E 1/2 . _.. 13 1 p ',, t\ `k i,..`..:1j.,',,,,,','/:,-•:-,_:---;-.,_,;...1„...`.-,.'..„,..4,,.,...,:::'.--,...,•\,..,--31-;,,,,:,?-:e,s,". ,1!,.,1.,i „,. .. . ,..;, .,,,f1,,,A",`.;?,„,.t..„11,;,,....„7.17•....,:-f, ,.. ..,. :. ._..,.• ,,, 7„ i -I II) \, \ 1 A7i,((-,. . ,..,.,..:/,fi•Y\I./i ,... ,,:t-„-..,- 14,,r1'.,,,,: .„.;,. ,:-:? , 1 inims,,,,,,\.,„,,,„, „„ ..•,; .. . i ,.. i ir ',.\..',,o,i'i ,"\ i'if/ft/ i.);',, -.-_-_:':); •••••,•''. - ..•‘',,_s_Da ii- A ,I 1 f' ( I ,l'',,=kA,',.,'=\'‘'‘k\\ ‘‘\‘ , ,• ,,, ! ' It'..10 -•,` ii.., i'ir i..r t,‘ , ..- ...• ...AP.047 er4r44B,„ ..',..\\;%,-,....\•,..1\r•,,v;., / 1 L______ --) ,--- — --) efire-1 1 .' -' .' \'''\ ‘" ‘.A 1:.' I 1.! ' Ili EIK"- ..'igy. •-•/.-:•.•:,-''. 1- %et".41•''''1111. 1'11.11J101//10411/1/111 . ' 7) //I •;/....1"-'.,1101."\\\\\•\'')', \\\ /;fest .. A.-.,A......„,.• IN' , ' 7., 264e-' . I, . C)/ /Ill' I lir•i••/-,1 ...,__:// i.... 11•1 •,:.\ •,1111111011 ... AM 0.-fr.;t41.,,,,---.046:A.:\it\•I\1\141100141 1/1110111"k t / 30,F22 • • ' ' • ''''k.c. \\ \I:' N' L.. t --I • .• 7 7,----. IMS.. .'".1.4.‘\1•11111110111 ‘\\‘‘‘i\‘‘‘ , •.-2---:::::::;ti-f 1 111.4#14,1[1—'-' bP)3118i, Si 115)1?\ ' i.,,,,ii( 6: 14 (•:'.. .- -,-----; •;.A.'e,p'e",f '1/411\1;‘,1r,',4\\,,\‘‘‘'. ,, z-*`-----;--%;•t.14-1 ' \ ( 1 1 . 1 4 ..404; IT:IL''.. :li .? i ii:i.,, ,/,i,,,• ,.,.. v.., ..../ ,m, _,., ,.,,..• 9,_. ,,,,,,„ ,4t,,. , .„..,,„„ .4.1_,,p,„,k,7,-v,.i.,, \,„, : , . •. 3°12-3 •fkl• .--:-/.... '-/1/ ')t‘,, V ----";-/'=IV / ; . /hi IV /,•i. iii / !.i• 1 MINA 3 3 /1,,c,..--,A ;•„-.*-0.•.;444 ,r1-.:rtn-f,..?//,,..7. -••..„• ,, .. -----1 .i612- - ••• \) ,, '(-i i lir' 1 ir\ . _-).--// • ./ 1, . 111,41 ,...'..P •ii ; : !; -.-- :1 .l, . ' '-•.-.0,z r.... .. .,. . , . ::-)'.; I' .'•. (V•I'il Ili 'it , -1..... • ':' '''./ .. ' - : • .„-.... ZIOv.., 30,E2-91 30,E2-11 ,,• !'-''- ‘ i r. lif• 01.-,, ..• VI ,'AV.. • ''^ l'•'4\fi •,I :11.C•'K.'', :•• ''''.41111 ... '. .;:i,•'. ••.'• .• , ; 1 ''' .. . . , . • - ''.1 30E2 10 . 4141'2, •'... i ,..!.':I •ii fr,•-•47',-;.11:: 30.E3• CF3 .• •• • .. p• •.. '..,! L',Zi-_4•-30 16.) ‘.!'.' iPt• r\..„(.,' .::. 11.,(1 C.-e•-'''•‘.‘ •'• •'''' '''' ; ! •.' : ',, , . ,./:,/,,, ,) ; . i 1. .. \ iA• .k. i''' / .?/'' ..,'e ; : • i i;i i • .., / , ••1 ; ' .1•1 . : .•'''.q '''' ....//,/•'-A . )• ' Cl. 2- - 1.1 I I,•',.• 's'4, •'•-•;..'i,.....,•;•,.., 0.)NuQ• „-,.•:, .,,': , / • (1 / f)• rZ. 1, \ 1 I ,.7-, .v-.. Oi ‘i.4•,-,,, . ' ' / -1--.\\11././//%-,..-....1 \I ‘ \ -\ 1 ,•, _..) i • 1,• ' / -.., ''-';:: Q.) '•/,' .,,.../.':,.:-..,....., „i-•,1 i / ,/ !,' f .. ,../•r,' I .-4' . ‘1. \ "Z.N.....'--.:„ -,:,„1..‘114.‘% "•...,,, - ,/I / ‘1%,111,, I i p ) 1 if)1 Iii7•-1 10"..1r- 1.'..‘itc .:,--- Valley .11 0.''d.,;,5.--:70„:nt-i'lill / I,/ $Vil ', I 1,,,C ,l'-j) 1 : ( % ',r-r.:•-%:. '92iRi t-131-Pi)/A4.-)\' '‘' 9.I S. I'. ) I /,,: 1 o „,,,, ..„/1,.- f., - ,.., ,., v.ii,,.,K,?,..-•..\,.••.. i.,1 i •)/ ;•••)) '; ' ts ' \, 1 1...,'4 ....):f,tc,c. ..-.....insinr_ifilA. k ' i . IE i`bi- /- y''\',I •---..; //,,,/////.x..-., \...qs• ,,,/' : .7' ,- .... ( r'-',i6. ) ,(,;,;-;',/,,,-.-,--.----- ' , 1)",„.,-,1 qi I 4,2 r•--1 ,1, .--.; //7,/,.ih, ./ -•••• , / , ,., ; , , , , HI!1,,, o/ .-,39. W"...XMID . // i'i II ' I,$'/ r '/,-•,, ,•‘,11//7,/,';',",,/ i'.-. ,,, . ,,•' / L'../. Y.?. 'f. Ni..•'/.P- , • -- /39 341A //'' ,y ''' i ,,>-/ frN'•- I' ''-';-''/17/•//(Ci / 'i 'Cl''''' `\‘' ';',/ / il'. 1)‘ A,111ft --- -R -6 ..'. 47. tr‘\\ vc ir-- . i • / c ' ,r.',. E 4;S•. .•'-•: A 2.,!\•1, .'..(;.,l'.•E-.,„•-•g.•Ei''ea;m•',-,-1.1 1fi••,.I• iI 30;7-44d1 1 i-h N 1/•i.,t4,'ii;oI4A u'•'i.'.Ii4i,y,',,,4t''')1•f.:P)/, r 4,/4'._ '"_)4)'r'_-.')k(•-}1,--is()-rr;-:-,\:--•-1s\-1\„(:,/,15•°-7(i.>.t A.,Tc,.,'2\.••i'•t;',.a.-:.:g.i:-.-2•.:.k'.4.‹.,3';,•.-,-i.,.1,.3.-._..l.p1.....,.:g'',L''.-':(,p'e',.,,/i -.7/iI---I0.4.§j i-.,1l//;-r>i-1'A1 t,ep....:,,-.1.,R/f.r,..,i,''i..,.il.,.t l/3/.:i„/'!'0.7e'.,IiI1'q.:G,1\'..%Nz"\,)a„.l.•4 II•/,r'.4,.,,,,:.1,,i..44P,,I;'1-5-,-1C:.,.'E61.#.I•:J,..',.;-'i:,,:.,,IG6'....,...-,-4:,•-•,--e.-.41„i,;._.,-/t,_„jn.v/,-•,‘-.1f...,:/-.1y,.1.k.11---A_,,./^..;.,.,,i.A•.-:•-l.-„I,4:i,•.'.,i•'.'.••i,1.1d i.:i 1.•7--?.•A,/611.i'.-.•; ,:„•.0-O-,7---4-4-.-'E.-170-0-•-i--:2-O/-•_..,,...•---/`V-,4./„7.,-;/.:'.l':.•,".:•i3..:-•?:s:/•:•,.._,:;:'.;/...:1..•.. --:;..'..\.,'..;„..;./,:...:-,,.A,•.../,-,•..,,--,.1.,•,.,••)-.,,.1,,•.i'.:,,i.,e•;,.i',,.•.-,/-....•.:.,...-.—•.../...-....,d,--.''r..,-'.,.'4,t1,,'i.;3r4r/.•.,4.0i.,/),,,„-/,1/.l•:4','•,/9,i,,';,,,-.,,..,W,..),7,:.,,-,,/,_(,..'/-•,/.'.//',,),.Yw-,,1/,..1-),1; /,„)./.)-1 i.•.).;f':r/.I.\:i,,-,,',\.c'"•z.A/).\k.,(„\.•/):?:-.,i,,..,0,:/-.'v 1-..I).-„i.,i11'..a.:f.„,/:,4..:_0..i4,2 t.-‘r.1-,k..-',:,1se:;z\,E.4-.‘.).,,-).._.„•;),4'--4'a-,,•-"„i••-.,.t!•-.•i,\,)r•,k\Z,,--.,.)i‘,,--r\3-i.'.f.-_..,_)_1•.•,•;\•ti,Q•r''/•..0 i,:1i.,,/i.p//1i,4(--'1:,,-4-/7.i;,3i.(1.li.:.,',-.'-...•..:-•'.„._.,.,.„.'.4.'....p,,'*.-:,.I,/;,.1--,4\:,,t'A)\.ii!'o,,1%t,/,,.7i/,..R),,:r•,;,71-4:/t1.,..r•,;.;,',;4dk'A1.4.,I?;.N,;•i,:;\.n:-k1,‘.\9 1/-‘•,,1:'--\,.\k,s'1i1,,1 I‘i1':S'.4'ii:.‘'.,,:'1ri..:)•'-,.v1si,...:91,:.•j•:,k...,I/.:..$t•.1 W"`..\.^‘1\/U!)''•,',',.':;.,i;.tI)-v‘4,i-•..,.-f•Z't\-Q.'/;'.,-.2:.'-..'",Ai‘c..s ..I\•:.:\kkIk(,'iZ\•.45;l,,.k).\i1.1 \•,..,.4.'‘.\,,.•;.',e*-,'0.r..',i4 I\,z..e(.•„i‘•1k\••ks-\;'.,,_,h,:k•,A••,,•.c /,—'•.,,•••-,-,,-/T/4.,•,1-•.•',-4 V-,.,,:•,'--,-..,-. .,-..•.....7,•... .'-.„.5•'.-:--:--.---4_.7.••:S,,--.' •- -.' ._,,.... .• •. ,,• ,..._ i j I 14 *Et'irt; '(- ,\.4,..?„.4...<1.3: . ,• IV i I il 'f',,) /(....„1:. o.G4A //::,..... \i,...-••,......:////mi/ Als:::'"--)--..,_ f---......., 1 1,1,40,„N't, 4..,":,---... •--. ,t:'," / rivmm .. ••• 1 I r"-- (' .. " „ ...._...-•-•:-.-:,.-- -, 4"c}: , g'' '((1,;`,,kwAN ,. , _ . • ',.„.....\-., ,P v,..../..1111 -.',• ' &g...'"- / --,-..:`,',/,',"/", illiik---:'N!--- . ll/ 4.-- , 1.1"L),. '' 11\p;e\t‘n;tr.kiklti: ..• / I -'11- '•,) 1.1,1 m\...--:\/-.---44- z- , V, ‘\\\ ,r'il'ilikAlb. -0.;142- ) L.-7.,,,,...._...4,-._.:.'N.......), _ ,-.1 48(.4 ,/,' ;.„/f • ,t.:9 • i.,- •-',4ifsiiii,;-'i."1' ii, \...i/„: dr..y Ldri;(1!;0 0/1,,,ti.,:::\,\ , z.;.......,: ,......_ 1.." ,;(rg,,,/15/'-14'.-,Ili-6' 1 / i'-''' 40/14P-41;10 ;I'(-72.7,I.• 'I.:FA ''..'II,. :":(4:1,-'-'•---.'--lj".. :..--<illailt-.:,,4'...1%.4::''./../f1•:.....4.‘‘..N'..\-\r-k\..:'-/-"'-'./.-..--i-;;;: c71,:W,,7-..--;"zil:-':.1.,';-1. ,,,,./i.,%;1--...''...i:1;'7'.'.1r„g...:,..-„).!ci.ts'i:?‘-'.:: -1)-11V-s !.i L\-, 1/'j///,,///V(-‘,1---- --"‘-\'''/ ,I, 1,..1;;L-.',,,.4."Pi /; -'7. .,I.6AR-6•A4-"Ai!J:(.; ',I.:".,•:,- P.-\'.I' , ."..... 'Y:-;....•"...:......"144t;k1Yfil >', !\"':.7:-.././1...::cti.i.....1:..--.1 ..'..',.--- ./ '.*::.';‘,,V.: .-N....."..,, ..':,..•-.:c.//r ,/1;)(1.:1 I /C VI 1 it.Z%'-,.0 .3,3 i // Irr 1.!..TH..\;::: . )'-'..1.',•:;,'.- - '..' '...f..,;'!:'4,',1,;.6`. ..A.i'i;; '.,... - .:,"iii,-;•.'-• • •.. ... ......,;.:,...';'•••,:.:".• !:'. 1?..;\:...-,..•'' ,... --- .: . , / . .1 ea. i•r• ' ) ,, 1. •1`:::..../..//A: ,:. • , / A/ ..i':.•'N''•;j41:1)(..;4!),;'-..'...:•: . •• : ':,.`,,;;;I. . i''.'I':!1' . :, :. I .1.:‘7.Z.I.:''''C';'"ii•':••••i' : 1,1•4 • -:.' . '. . ....; ..'' ....4!viSIII.V,iek±ii:•:, r;!.•.:';':,••.. . ."'•; ''.• .' ..••. . '1.'I• •-`,-..•si7•74-1:; ut& : 1 .• .•, / ,..„-..i4iiivi..,.- ii . .•• .• _.../..;..wi•.,117.4V<;',. /./,0...'" . ....: ;•• :1;.%:,/ ..1./ ,,:,,,-,;i.!;_ .• ; . . ;.1.t...f,:r ''•• ' -.. i•-••, ? . •0 . Ii-,,,kkinneir,',/, / 1 , • - • i" - • " .• ---• '. ..'z.,.,' ';''''' i.6=::-' 117/i/. ,,,,,,II , ,.'op;,..• -• ,) \'!...,, I ,-)Y il ,,./1.,',P,Ptifil /1,i ./d '• --- 'AC ' ,:• • : ,--. ••:..,:::,•,...„,,,,,,,h,,,,•,...,.„..,\,..., ,, : , . ,, , •,/ • , ,• 2 g I ... •_.-............, , , at, ..s....„---.)/ , .------" I)) j ./ al/4..,, ••• _..-- -"..,., , ; 1"4. t. - . ingimamortunarg.1.n,j..!, ,,,,, .. . . . . .. ... ‘,..,, , ,:ttt . ......,.. ._,. , d, ... .‘„,. Ie.:,rjr.,;(err,,•; ,/, //ii rumill, , , I VI i.;i..i.;:,, .,,'...:,',.,,,,,..'.•24611 .,,,?...‘,..*,,,,,A.,,rfa-1 •s ,., '• .--„- , 1/...',,141,1,11:2)./-,•---,'„'., te)- ,/ ill ' .30...10 304.5=16 (41:49 ""/•l 1'6,,i/)6% ‘', /' ,.•/ ,• ./ ...., • in gy,.... xv., C 4,....--,4,„t ,..,,,...4 I / t4 :11itt, // i.11.1 (:/,,......, •.,/., .171,...,--•;)/ I iC:14 t\it iris,?,(,,,-..,„,,h/o. ,,,,,,/o. 41/44,..YrIt AM\041•, ,\ ,......;.`,..s,..„.;., _ 9,0,,,..•,/ 1(1. 2....1,5,/44.A.;./ ....••„,...,/ , illif 30.G5-1 ,-• ii// iii! :1• t,°'1.3 DI' ikt•47Fri.',/' //,//galfiliillM, i .4 ,_, • or.-11. i ? •WI / :!--7.:-. -' •ji,• ''' ' ' 'd./"I • ;/•ti ii i• 1 I'i i'' ' 11,11111'114V MHO' '. le.= 17 is•t ' •4;410,,,,,": ...• '01.4f1:-4'=:•-'1,/,'"':',c‘ \\\ ,•••••• .' •' i._3 I '[ /1 I "I" ill'a '.2677-'4srilacKilY • ealeliail;t1'\'' ).• I ' • '.,,/,i'l ' t/..„. /4/1 ,ii• '1,40 Hot )''..-'1.0..,,;.7,'' ` „t,i7,"•,::!j::';','.-,e4..i. .":,-;Aittil--5.,?..-_,W/0. *;.,/.,- „• , rj I ---- i i /131 flfiffi,r J• 1 - -'my - • , C"••/3.ds`-se.‘ /—'11-I,,•11(4.1.44 iLis ii:I ii,,/,,,i.;14111V111/7/141 till ', 'H"- zEtt.'t;; .-:17;:ic.5...--.....f&BF,12.7.--4•';;;V-•-c--,.. ..1,e,k,`,,,;%III I, I. // ts.) ) /I i/y Hula' gr/j, \ 1 1 ( ) •.;i' 1;`_./l.'-')\ */ \\ .1 ie"--21q;.!II•'''Jo') I iji 1•/////1/..//,':,••;;//,;/(s,1,40 al.L';', 't ,,,x• •••,.';r.-.•:•!`. 1-:..:Fir—'•••"•;:i-4....."....5-J-.-.. /, -\ \,,,,‘,.\‘.....1 ,. . (.14 , ..._...„..: .....k., ..j-': II I 16.1i(1141, ' inf. .\__ _$,. . .11,_4)\PA51;p9.- is:iiii Of)fv,:R.c.,,,,(1.-7.......gi ra.6 f.,5,_i fri,,./,..,.,.u.,,,,...ii,,,-,„,,,,,,,,1 ilicital caLlot,,^447.../' '',4:14.72'.:i.T''''•fiXii6F, ...".11•" " ,:i!'".....,-/•-••• -.../ . ..,....,:',.‘,:x„,: ii. . .:! 1,...4 ' A,//:1 )ii ,' r'reiv0..1::,;1.t`''.% 1 ----.1-; .---,•1 ,,G . (dGi: //'•.,Q Wit i ..i1H• !PI /hi !f 1; 'a c Al.'i 1/(T., ‘jil.iiiin11511,„1", ;S:/'/*/.?•-,":• ••7';',.A/,---.„.../. ..,-- .,------- ..,.,, • -: -. 4 ) _ I ,,,,,,',...,,O;, Il/I ) VIV J711157•.i / • a=•-:301. ‘,1,--"'/ '• ' :i Itrk,t3'3•9:) ,11 1 r. 'I'1 i f•! id) i;;; 01 ' !),,'" 'A'''.1 .11,14."';44''-'1..1.5!;•./.•'''..' •"(C11 ! .' '' - . •• ‘) .' •u4h," !O. f ', \ 111 , ,, !,'r , ,• •,:i 1 \\ , 11,1111•4!,4,1:1111, /./../.•,..,.., ,, ; • / .. Mi I •----,111;:r..1 ', i I) i ii 1',Iii,11' (66' • (^....! ‘i 5-; ci ) / , , ,•;13..o-6, 1//1°6.T ••• .1.' I'' :••I •.„.' • . ':: , I!id);l1,1plekAlilEvilAI•li'."1. .'.....:•'.,,•• / - „ - ,• _•1.. „.imtw,,.. i , i • l3.6.559 .....A.,„1.11,,.i••lif,/ .\,, c...-1:-N ,,u s! „If; Q:L.1,4.1:111;•.',,10:'i:ii lib/I 4?/,', ,.'4it;i0f.:till.1'11,17,V.,`it',Vii: ',::,.././,',/7/ i / /I ' . ‘.4....\\ ,-,,1-,:.,..• d p6p-i,7:ii::&.Faci.il,,)) . y,, ;,„.6)e.:11/11mwr ,. Id! ) .:, I i 0 il, CI ill /.%/i illt)1\. 11,1 ,,/ ;fq /fox;levaditsamun an,n 01,1,1s:,...-_,.• i ...• . • • ' li ,-,...z.:0 p i)( //kJ i 24 -730 Ge;-3•'' 9.G6'1 39 •- i ‘,. :„: ,i., /A I;:1;;:hypA.1.1.01902111.199911Millit'7., '•'I.'.'-- ........"-il rt 7Vc 40 ''I li 1( IN t,11 • r .- t?,..._..:___•, ,i. ,. •I. ,.(i ,,/,tre.e. i ,• ),,,.,,,•,,,„.14,-,,,.,,,,,,t.,..,„..,,,.,.. ... .: . . .•• • . "' 1 f--,1,\\ ,,y,/i! i, , .........,004,-. •,..7 . . - . L•alr_. ........„,.. ,„ , ,... • ,, .,,, •.7/ ,;.,./.7 •••,r ir•,,f....,„,..„r,„,„.,„111,f,...., •:. , , .., , ,• I ! :At ; ill 1,r, i.r.r.,i.. ...,:r.titi., \\, 130,r§-3...j.iolf-611 .....(3_,..",,,, ..,ii.......,....,,i,. •,. : i.. -', •;.. r'..•...; r,r ••••• . .. , .... -- . ( , , i al if r'' !.!! ! .) •i,i01,1,,tint,m,itiatutP41,11111,!1; r • i.:',' fit 1,) g ,.•,,Ixi.,340,,iiii i .,, ,....., \.,..) , .•,-., -, ,....,,,.... . •, :.-: ...,,, ...„ r„., ,9,)..,,s1., .,,,,„„dv,4,...;-;•• );,: iii,imylailmanuillyi,,,,I. : - /- \,., 1.1' „---- 4 i .,.,1 ii,,, ...:•,, \ss.,..s.,:s,.,....,‘,v,itr41. : ....' ti/ j..„1/, (..;....:;',/c' it'Li 1I 0;c„... (,,li i ttu.r, ,..2;zzt$4,1,,,,,,,(,,,,. ...—z-„,.. c :s::•:::::--..".,\, s-- ,..,..„------------\ 1:i I:? ;' . '•sv . ,,•141f.,:;.s..). •., <.--'‘ -, i\,,Nos\--, ‘ \ c•.......7•'..r.,'.,qi r-,\\\\\'d k \\\II lu `1101: ,...,-,-, ,,, . ,,•-, k 4 - .; ,./41 •Ili 1, i,i,. •,.,. ',1%i'il„' 4t:i';'40 •.s.',\`s\`.'\ \\1‘1 II ' l' ''i .1,\. ' I 1'11 \\\I‘• Pi Ili\ \\.1\ III tas4trauti,Adilli,1,•,,, 6\ "\ il' 'II \ III/, I , (, l' I I. I f,111 I 1111%,..11; '.t ! 1 1 \, ''Illatilltilklatillelif,11111111,111111111 j1,--'-s7rn...1_-_-:- i; i Il'A i i ix, ( ir I \\ ' • i 1/ II , ri.!/14.141'1, \\ 1 .. 1. , , (kurilliqiyolviriiIIIIIIIIIIIII ‘...y„.••••------- / I 11,11'i / / / r/r 3. .... II;A ini '11///1/1,1111/Iiiil 111%,t1A1'\t"Vill ri)i \ • I;\ ;1 1 liff:•,:f$,/14...‘:• \• • \'' \ ,t,,ulah.rtnOtliA0‘,\\.„ —FL:-•••, 1 I.711,, ,•• r ,..,--,, .,,:c ••• ., • I III t b i."- / /1,1111$/t1) 1‘11111Ir\\\ \II,VAC('-'"I• ' .. \\ !' \ ' ''I 1 •‘: '''' s il'II.1\ 4)\' I,' I :,'ilft•‘11=9,11144.4 .::,.1. '----,•.- „ /:.f'',1)11( ; : '' Ts ‘. , / ':II 7/ /1 i • ftvs.•Al.,,:i 7,,y--,y • 1 1 \ \ . ,\y.... t, t ,),t,', (/( /II/ ,',11//iji/(/(//t ///, ',11,0,,,i/OP44, `,Zni..bil. ).f77,-'?' .',1:,i.i•- • ...'.:'::_.;1.,..' • ' c . , .• . /: i I /11 f \ \1 11:',-,,,,,,,',-'714••(i\ I /(/(;..."."-' ) ) ' „L..,..,k ••41\/ (uk. \ 1 li..11 I.1,11 1 11,111,i'0 Ili!lij,Ifii!WV f',./,')71(11‘..utto..iii•Wr•F.,. ..,....::22.1i;:!,•..0.•,:,••• ( . . ., • / II"1/./01.'"1114161 \ f /" 1 \^. , \ . 1 .1 I il...`, , 1 1111 '.',:, 11'.•11; i II,/11.1 lip All 14;•"1,-,,i..-t.•,, :,,,. i • .,),';' r‘ I/i 4; 1,4(4.tr, I!1 0.`.,\‘‘,•1,\!, \\.,\,,,,.....,,, /,///1•-...' -- ./.-.. . •• • • • ..:( ical:11,y, ;,ir:i!f kV,,• - f‘'•'=,,;':kic,\;•••';','(c..i.f,u '&• . .'• i; •••.•'• pi,, i;.; • ....,‘'• "...Vti, ,'•\‘‘\\\%N"....",••• . I la/1 : / / ' • */ .; , :1, ' .,1,1,`',$, ,..S,0',.•,0•.‘.1)1`,`.`,•,.1"11‘..,‘.N ''•/ I/• i \ •''•• I • . " /: .: k ':3diGc..:i.',. L. ....:j.,. '\\N1•".‘••i''.-;7?;I'll•'.4::1•It i 's , e ,A i : ;SE 1 t st '0 '1' !.1' ,1 •••••,;;.',VA-141.0ii•,C, '‘',i\ '....•`-. '..1,'''.\:1 I i'.! ,li '',.•-• 7.:,, • ••• • •: ‘.. %••• .,1...i 1.: i r.t. ':,•••••,)\,' ..,/,,i/Ji s- :•,,,, 1" ‘, -)1...P \ + , ip 1 illy ; ," (,..,:'.'.,1\‘‘'.,,,,14,xirtkittia.tkil`.\..,••,.\\\w '.. \\\\\\\•.--..._,s...:,.\•:,...... .,.,‘ .,,...,.(,,:.',..... ',..:\ I . ifi /Ill ( '...\\n'n;: _..),Mit\N‘4iN\,,.\\ ,..p V.\\n,\.•.... (•-..,--...:•••\ '‘.. ,`.`\•\ ‘..`..1. '.; V:S(i I\\.,.!,.\ rtS,\101, \,.\\‘\\11/tie('i'l,\,;1111.1\\1; \iL )\,11‘;''‘kf.,,i_iltiff l',,i71,*, ?,.'01'.‘ ''['le(' !/ li 1 ; I'll\ ; 11itil 1 iii ,,' • *•` \‘\'.....',1,441?,%\,\\'.1.•\ \\ . \\.\\-.7.( ...•'..,\,\."•••• •-, -\\'.\ \V\.,%N.•s. V•k•..\:i'\ 'II!I HI V \ \:• ('\\I li I`01434:413; Pi i,jii*•'•';•,k':, •‘1\1\ r, ,.:/•!,11, i il-v.1\ ,1 I if 1 \ %s s.."'..":2iiil'It4 \ \ N:1',5).I\\\ '''‘1 1 '\.'•\ \' 'I\\K \0\1\Y-\I i''1:0‘ \.\\. \ .\} . \\ -0111‘'.\\k/"*,)Viic4,11\\11\‘,,1%'III \ ‘," -'") ,% _.., N. . '\ .,";;•:..-:,....,,,,,giAkt,\\ ::-..,, i. ) \ \1,\\ I:.t,1.... ,..,,, .1 j,..,...,1.,7. , , ,. i ,s 1 , ,ve,,\,,,,c,tig 0,„, \r,, '4,,,,)itirtil)/I, ,I ill\. 1/1/,',,,••••••-• lh I •- '• ‘ ` i i‘Nskia! -, \' ...,I ) )('' ''.-S" 7 1 i'11)7L 11111h1 \A \‘ \\11‘11:,IikelIPM.\PIII\‘..-4tlilq11111114 / ) . ., .1, , • \ -, ‘ .. ,4,,,, .1 -. • I' I•Ii•el'•‘1.IL'-- .1 icil I/11 ; .-•' i 1 1, 0;1,;j1i'llikhr.,:c illoe,.1 171 i\ A\ \ -) I I) - .,„, i ii ,...., .,, , , .„,,,,,.„,_,,,,,....,7,„..,..,,If \\ ‘ , ,. .. , 1 ,1 i I •,•..I.I.*, ',.;,,..9111= q\\ \\,\,. 0 L.,;.,..„... ....,,,,,, . w, , i ,./) ..,1813 t...... • !,, I, • ,.., / .,R1-,,,, ,.41.,vi,,,/Om,t‘ \\ ;1 v\ 11 1 1 \ N t /•/,•( ;3947 t--, T.;.:;;•.y A ilii ....DIM,‘‘,\ \\ A ‘i.\,',',II, ,,,lt„,r..A,..., ,8s,,„„).A.N,,,,,,,,,,..: : ,, , • ,. . ,y • ' , ; ‘,,,,,,,,,,,,,,t,\1,7,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,',,,\;.,.\\ ,,,\.:,,„,1,\,\,,,,‘0,,‘,,.,,,,,,.N.,,,,..i,,i i;,. k...,-...:.G:.1-;ii..T.,:,...\.,4 cf.. . .. .!ik,,jr.4.7141 ;,\\\\\,,.,..,,4\-\\,.,s.,'\,1.6‘‘a.:1.,,\ •,•,•ivili..\k',k..v,‘,::.14,,....•-,,111..4.01,i,:#::..141,41.11\4141,,;''0:`..:"•......,', I ,'• •'' M i If -jji i /g , ''''-I '' ".•'41',1\4'4ik4‘''‘1 \‘'Iti‘\"s\\\\•\'''‘‘*;''''''\'''''''Ik'''''''\ .V.111111"211. 111114k‘‘4110111.1\\\s'\''' 1 Al.*:‘"1 :44.11 ‘'V.....111';64';04."1 ' . ..' .. • ' . . . /' s\--•'II":In\''Citt4$40\'A 1 I 1''''1' \'‘‘ ‘''s%\%•\.,'s‘.•''.''--:\ *raNPErkiiii •Ii‘:\‘1 ''''‘.•1.:•'''‘'‘N‘‘‘'NZ•.Y?iiiii'l'"°‘01•,,,71.19';':‘' • ‘‘• • • .' iii if A' ;1,1,141\ ..1,M 111,j,•$.10 11'011:!i• ;",s•••••....' .::.••••'.‘'•.-:'‘',:,'-, :/9."•••IneliBMINN lib ,1,;•..•.•.1..•••••••,`:.\\\`‘%‘‘ •19,ttiAllill'et•IPiIII•tfi';'''friii,, ,. I I • r:, „),giii,,11',.1;.; , ;;;,\;",'4';‘,..;•; •‘'.:z:`'-':,.-'',\\`'';.,:':`\;' sj.` :,/ . ,..'.!'`‘,',-9,,,?.?....4 ( ( ? ),...'',\.-'),..2') ....\'' "`' ',\'‘.1..4?6,:A,! ; 1ii11..1 ( .....'d',...1....I 1.'.il•' ' ) • . , , i'i ,' ,. : ,I,/ /. \ ,,'.,',/,',,,,...' ',.''tii, ..'.,.. .‘...,..'•• •• ••••:.1 .; ; •.‘ \‘''',iV...\\\\‘‘:\\‘'k!..•••••)i•'...)..".••,'••;:': :..41/1!::::;;,6.1.;111;t1. 4;:iltti ‘..:.A;CV,‘ ••.:71, .\.7;1.... ., '-.•:------ 1 , . , II bille, jil,',ef.:::::-. .7:- . ','-i':;'-:--3‘.::-.1!:::!,!'..- ---,7 IV/, \1:.4-.: ::..,,',•;,\V,v.,...'0,1,..k.V.:: . ',..:. [1,71'1 ::117,.fl.i .. ,',•„ikrk,47;;;,--'', -,,.1.v..-„,,-;;;;;,,i ',. , ...".... -i L.„. - ' ! , ., .. ,, .;;•.:.,:. .,,,,„.,\,,,0\,....,;•,!.0.,,,,..,„ ,,,.,...,;,,,,;; ,,,,,.„.... ....,,,.•, 1111,1)I1 (1,',,y ti k..\`' ("1\itil i;' tolf,ri. r'i,.(//, i§:ti„1 i\k,\I,., ,\‘‘.‘,•,..„,,,,,..,.•,,,;,;*;.•;,...7., N ) i ' $..‘....l.:v•R•t'•::,:qts:VLL2V0/11 //1';'''//''.'•ri.:•':I.,'•:.•:•\\\:‘`':',2 \' i(.:\,.:\.\\\.V%\\\uk,‘,:\1.•\''..\:\‘..\\\'c‘\kVil i'11,111 rAfigii i'll 1 114\‘,%4\\Oxt,'Ist..,.. i.Q.s*' •:.// s‘t I,it 1,1),Iii li il C., ,. , ..,',N , .,:::•:;:it'1‘;,141:417,.ft:',/:!..(''',11:1;11',11::\ '';./(11;:lif.:..,....;> ‘../.) ,\t \\‘‘\\i 1 \..1\ k‘'\.\\'‘‘s VII:1;!1;111,51V10111, I'll, \AIM\1\4'1146 ..''Zst:"•;:\::\\\I‘VI:111/,‘Ii 11 11 r j S .) 1 • \`;\W\'••••••:;"1///1/WIMSOV\\X-0\•••.'•••\c%' • a 'I':I',••,', i' I ", X \1 i\1 ‘, \. 1\\'..,, , \ ,Illil'iiiill',eV/1110R\',1,11,1 II 1!;;?.,R,Z** j,„,..,..• ‘....,\\11 1)///%• I . / . ii • .•'. I, . 1 .00‘1,,,p.,,,,,,iiiiii,%\‘‘e‘o\ow,x,i II : , : :.,1.,!t•, : , ; 1 _‘ \,,‘• I. \L. ;... ).,.,, - , 1, „,,r.,',II••I lt II k \Tv\" . ;..,•:•,i,,•-:•,; ., ,,,,t1,;•.,1‘,I.,',i•I‘;. I. • „ .• I 'r 1 ii-(4( 1410,\t&o4Vot,g1 e',"01,111`,;0,1 `,,• 1),-•-••,' P ; , , ; \.,,,,,,,,..,,,,,,, , „,,,,,,,4,„\,, ,,,,,,.,:,‘,,,‘.,\,,,,‘,\,,,, , ,,,,., .,\,„..,...:., .,.... \ 1:. \,.(,, c\,., (,k ,., k,,„,10.,„,‘,,0 . k4. tt,41,,,,t 1 \,\tVkqt,itlt r . ..1 ' A, '1 it 1,10„\ •‘‘‘‘\‘\$ °4 ‘kAO\4'\\ ..‘k.‘ .\\‘ ' ..:731:1"111!)%11;°,i nki\1111 ,1 1 • llII i .-'.`\ii .\..0y1,11,.4A.‘4.?„ •: V, \,:.‘ ,......`..•:',...'.',:;...' ,91,?:\‘' '' .:=c4.>,..,:•sei.:.,, ,,„ ‘4,\,/;1!11 i)'•','5Ilt ltoil i if 01401.7.44,4,!,,e‘tlii!1,)1111,1,1,111.‘ 1.•,,,-:-..., i 2, .., \., -i 1 . 5; ; ." ' -' , ) '''''' '' °'\‘'k\\"\N''\.,'‘,% ''.e.',$ •.:••••'''''-:::i.)1 ',....- . \\•\'',\Vi'.1!•,P(Y)/1)'.;it k..1,•: ,‘,0,\IVI''•, ','''''',).1.1W \,.\\\iiV0',',`,\:\ /,q,:',.:•'::: , ..--- 'st\ ••• , :::•:!:'' .... . .. 1 ' • ., ,. , , : ,, ., ., ,,,,.„.,,,,,ii,,,,,,,,,:,..,,,..,.„,.. ,,,,,,,„,;..,.....;:,•,,,.;„:„.,/,../.. .,,.•-•-,-.,/..-....,\'‘, ,...;. ., , •,../,,,,,, .„.,-;..••;,,,•3.‘....!...c.,, ::;,,T1,i,';,', ,',; ',:; .i.f.1.,,, :''".•:'i'''N ..:I' .''" .• ' .I. ' ' '. d .. ' . .• 1 •. .• ' ' 11'11'1'11"1..1\N:k\\`‘\. • 4111. • .... 1,°' •. ' ' ..•': Pi!II:I' ' .:':‘'•"...."".'"'II:Id';'.'•..14' ‘%."'.. .`•'•...''‘.;1.‘•% '•' : .•' •• .:. • .,/ ..• . . .I ' '61,1',,t!'.\‘‘, •) /„:!1'.I. •.'. ' .." .....<0 .,: • ( •' : "I!' ..'• •-'' • ...'. • '..'.".',.., : ' A- •., . , ' 'N..1 ._ i .• • . • • . ,.•'' . . /' " :•• . ' 'Ir'•:' ......*. `'.1•'11:',, ','... .;....'.•'‘'•‘• s'....\•••'... . . f •:': ', ), '..I'.. :•••:1...... ••:!''';i;• '.•,.I•‘..."°@‘".., ,'C.., •P\•;....1r..11•.„ :•h•• ••• -, ': .•.' ..".••....! : .4,.. ik0 \ , . .o.• ., . . •. ,.. / •" • -' . .• . :1'•..\•'NC.'....\\Al,'".,‘:•.',\:‘..I.......••••:''''....•••:.,:'::........'•;•. : ". !:!:!'•i; : ':.•'‘...'i,' t ),'•••.\!••••t••l'•'::::1'„4‘',:•::, 1:;::;,• 11.'" ,•.0;1;:(P'''''. • ':: .,....., ; . : .• / • ; ..-.. •JI i!•1!\ .•.:.•,‘‘.:".••‘‘..:‘,.,...•.‘,.'‘.'• • ‘2..:\i‘•:•.:,:\-... ., .\ .....••,•%, I:),,A:)..!‘•.:Ii 111:#,..,?../A;'n. .1 is, .,.;/1..1! 1,!,1:74.4.• S. / i • .• . . . , „. . " ". • ,-.. .6\'N'•,.'-''..,•-•:•;' ,',;; ....".. 'N',.'.\•:\-,..:',..‘\'':'':',...\'•‘.\I \ '''•. :t'•',•'.',.....L'‘';',..,',-• '..,',....,‘;‘, ,-,`;.\'‘, (if `i',..;,'; -5 )/,,','I, , wog., , r. i ..; • i • , .--.',.. • - , ;„ %A\v.:\I\•,'• \,....% ',„'•'. •,...•"••' \.k: :.•.:.\•,\ ''\••••: \‘‘.\'''I.:`'''••'t\jifl il r idiri,,'„,#,,,,,,,,,,,i ..,',',,,i1p-.4,.01,1,1,Li \ ' --- . ,,„ \\• . • I )3 . • S 25'+kri,t(1.../---....-1..-1 .1.1f0'V C // )1i\!)ki'.\‘.\\ ‘-`' ' •"'\• '\ "' /..1 '\\\ s .'\' ' t. ...-..t Ai° ''' '4au'r- --)i.n .1, 101t•• I , 44.§1..,. ,.k i \,. ),1 /. , ,, • ct frira ( ‘ ., ,, 1,, ... ,w -Ar c .. ..„.... . .,....,. ........ , r,____ ,_ .__. ,,,,,,,<1.(,(i-mimwegazglawcp.;.... v ,,,,c (i( c 1,111w_ . m-, \ •,4\I \ 1 . „ ..,----.... . I ,, . - Ax,..,4. ., \ r55.tp._,s,.t., pv,., ,,\•\.,\ f .., ,,, ,_•••,•,,.. ,..\,, \\./, I,, 11 ,,•,.\•\•,.....,.:„,‘,, ..,,k,-,\\,, (,. \-\\,v).(14741,,,;.;\), \\.,), .,\‘ . 1Q3.)11","1",•„ -0, ,,,, , , s.--, ,,?,-. t.-s-t.„- A,Ii........,,,,....-&._,-------- ...--- -' l '\(\ i ' • j! ; i • 1/;',I I \ \ \ ; ' \'.‘ -6. il\i. • 1 Ns'‘ a•-,),',10,\V-•.'c\ ii•Pii,',', ','• th , ', ( — .,,=---;\)\\A-t". _ f•,,,r-) --- c .., •)) / .• ‘.. ( , ; i • i / ; • , .,\„ \ \-....., ,,...,..i. \ it., \.is , ,ff#,4111.,,e,..„H., • ., ,,,,,,,q,,,;,,,\0,,, , , ?:01,('• , ,l-ilk,A'.-,L , ,„::.--•::::•, -,•-••• i, , ••, ‘:.. , , " : , . .• ., , . , \ \ , • ,• • -0 k Im L.%\ ,m‘‘Hill) 'IL. ••••i k!`ii,,,',,\;;;',,ii,, , ,‘,'••11,\‘. \ \\ • '• 4g) ir"-.1)\\s•,-,.oil;-,-....-- —ill '•-:kk__-•-,••••:-.' ._,',/i,( ,,-;) . : 1, ;, , ..., • .. \\ ‘ t\\;\ •,..,.,\ ,,\ mil, •\.0„Iiii, ,, : ,.' •''..-- \'-'•\'N--,' ‘‘;'•• ' / , • , 1‘ ! ' 1.- i , • , L • ••••\ ' — ;f:;*-31 ::%,„,_.-. --6 11,,o,V.\, -------- ••• , • ' J3 - 6 T22N R5E E 1/2 . 0 CtT ?M42 ° 4 13 • 1:4800 Y (-) ------• Renton City Limits Cr'il..*)--'4' UTILITIES DIVISION Contour Werra 0.5 or LO noun 31 T23N R5E E 1/2 ,:. ,..... + P/B/PW TECHNICAL SERVICES Datum: NAVD 1968 Meters \IP .,,/..4e" ilinsioo SECTION IV DETENTION DESIGN 1. I. r • t PD`.a'` `vPF..�'C A. r'tt-"1 '~— V� t e� ' ` t J P-t tr- k.t'V''•o e f to #A_✓c l! C t 4-y �:is f""#., i C6 *v' 6 C t S S 1 tsc U Ci-Cc_ti.r lS at.-r ,' J J �� OS r i f t o %./00 . i( 1V- f Q f. a Vz I. o r 1 .7 r2 tz, +j 1. (:'C.3 ,,A,-..„,,- ,,, -4_ „:1,...,:cy In n- o N to CD' i t to f. 0 c� r' r��'�=Y'( C�4^ °t G t �H,s �V'O �i �� �..� � �...� �'�+-- -.' ,�ft f,•_:a nyk.SC k.L'c�.�C.�1i.,�,F G.r t+'-�i C"t n G! �- 5' S ! O 41 `r 'S t ey v~-..- �', ( e-n1 t'S L,3 o L. 7 s c �-e Cs �('e-GL ,. I Z.d) g 7 U r. `Z... 7 4 r dL i t&u :' p9 G- 1,'� r • _. . 1,3 loo f :3r 1 el se r S {--0v- 5- kYot. e..�� r z 1 3 J•��r..c�PP t70 e ' .L,L.... -tv--.ltrp t.J3 r L v2tctee,/ ; of S.Z 5-' r _ r r,Gras . .a tJJ k, roc 4 d9 — Pe77 /-G 1".0.-r,4 0 LAs ir V , a c 4_4- C ea-4 r--- eg C.3.- 1/2Ct- A ilk_ '..9 ,' t Pew 0.-i �T'� < l f,'J, vy e . • ' . - • ' . .. . . . . , . . ' . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . • - • . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ' • . ' SECTION - IV . . • . . i . . . . DETENTION DESIGN . . . . • , . , , . . . . . . . .. . ',. . . .. . . . . ., . . . . . . . ‘ . ,. . . . . . ,. . . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . , . „ •.. , . . .,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .. . . .. . . , . . . . .,, .. . . . . .. . . . .. ...,. .,, , . , , . , , .. . • . .. . , . . . . . . . . .. . ., , . . . . . . . . .. . , . . .. . , . . .. . , . . . . . . . . , ,,..,. . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . ,. . .. . . . , . . ... 1 . . , . . . . . . . . . . . , . .. . . . . .. . . . . ,. . . . . . . 1 . . , , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . ' . . . ; , . . • .. . . ; . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . , . . . . . . • . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . • . .. . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . . .- . .. i . . , . . . , . . . ' . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . ,. . .11 . „ . ,. . , ., . . • - , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . „ . . . . . . 1. . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i. . . , . ,. , . . . . 1 . . . . . . , . . , . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . , r 1,_ \t C___ [ t t P-e kr ak.Ckr-•t c' ' 0 cA...' IJ tr -�t L�� -t-ca +-) �!C *.. SCr'j (/) rJ j ':`tt(A G•Cc.cr•c, ice.kr•' I r 17 a (,7 0 . i I"— . 5 `-•d.]V"I.A./A... Z.. st rr yV 0S 4 rai.Q v.`.._,0p �W'� ! t 1 r _0 1 o o% ,_,L '0/ - !Q v- 1r 5a. t r p 4-- J i ..f CC-- r-1 f`'r.2 r" 'f j n�-+—Q '�Y co tr) ' �tC . !� � t . , g)a � .2C l ' (l r r 1�`er.r- �?LrV�t' G��r 1a ��'Q W� Ci r1 `j F ;) rf-'-J �l.rs.^ .,.L`G?.t C.�%j.w=.w. (.r!!n azs,l.� 'f'f,`^tit 7 et C"'.e__ S Y' 0 41 G• L�0 , +s.^Q r�J "'� V~•.rci �. ( L/� �' C� 1t . . s it--..Q c._<r`-e c.,_ ', t z d) 8 z,7 o if"' 7-- 7 7 4 - 1 ; 'c- -7 d© t y , °r0 L b let .)47.� ► dr r v /e. J_f....Le- ••4ff0 uJ r L U20er, + �( ` 7 s r . 're-. Ga.t : a 5_Ia cc ' 67cr- !. ? i4- . 5 - r� — '-? 1 r ^ (1 , .,s .s ......, r i..... ••-. • .,,,." '.../,...,c."--.--el'•le'•-•!'2'''C' :'''' ---- A , 5 4...,. 44A.ct , — 1 1A c-- r P% ..... . .. P ''P" • .1 -7" -,........ 11,410 .. it 7 1,563 4_0 I . , . ., --s, (--, le 1 t • : 1 , ........4 .... ......."''..As . . 4 .a ..- ' A 'i\-.-. _ -.-- : - „ - ,. , N 1 N • , 1 , c I. WEST ''N\-‘ A-r•pfs!.,', . EAST \ ./ P U . 23,950 \ 1,860 i _.7. 1,239 . . . -- .i I. 1,3605 \.&.------ i i ... ----- ---/ ,. I . N.. \hi... . _ . , . 'N.„\..4... . ' 1111116h:-,1 . . -.N . ..........,...42.... 10,240 .._ i _ . - - - ,___ - • 411111414414r . .). , ..iir ... % . 15,015 _____ • I 40,875 • \ - , L____I ------ — -- --- Ism am mi. .. Ea. me. m•• •• am. me smn. ... , en am r: • KING COUNTY, WAS HINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL r _t FIGURE 3.5.1C 2-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS ILI ti-T: %;. =P- ,k - - - ,- - - ..:\ yrilY4iStril .... . \. .._ ..c, .110...1 , . .1 g = /4 olitl'36441iy ro-A----4-114%-*Aie * T'"' '. - Ito- 1 lq 41111011 Fifa iika t iii 411 i .,, Raw !9` s— II..... ii\ ir �f. A vrerst, A V. Oip . co? Pit r' •` '!..".ie r_ ci ;A .rl�� .i ce ,s . llik klik\iNiv4111 )70 ..o. _ co !,,,Am\• -s itikt g,_ tdi4ii -"' , I .. ! �11 P dtli NNITtit.;....S •emsL1J441 L iti (... .-0,Ah- ,"1P8 \ . loi _A:40- .......1.14arig.-_,41.--A. , ..,„ .L...„...:_. ,: it . , . .6..,t 11101.1,21,1 ,30„...1,7 :01,, ,..firio. . *3 vegutip,A, t ..1. 1/ I -,,,,__ i rwitptik - ‘)-- ii vii4er 1.,:pror "Ito , ..1 ,./. -= kr\ ft, _ \ IF ii.kkx \ r . . r , -". iliiiirSi ":11:10ZIAX, - 1 Na4. ' ‘N4114:: /1=7't' ' - . Vitliiiitl. Ik410110•\ 4k. It i. „- 1 larilitilt, jr1011nUtt:\ 00* J 1 , ,,..... 6 141' .-1 1.01144 -S. ' bilarilk,71tiAN \ rAVI 110. ....._, - ..-Ilt ' 'k, . i ,,,,e, _ i i' • 1I1tiod aim i \ .1.— 1 , ..m..„ f-, ! 1 101,11t, _ -0,„ , Las . ow-Kr- 4. x N .4 .454 / /-1 / %.' Mai 1= ''' 0. "MN"rtirraip41.1.11111 4T !kV'411141 4= 'Jr- ' i ( all,lb4. '--. it IN.V.11111111111 \\\ : / 4 ..,... • tb, ila . _- _y_ Eltiillike ' ,-' . ' . 17 I: 7—' Rilaiglii NREIPJ.:-.=. Iiitigig \ I=.1 ( (•-- jegiiiii lib - 1141-4111111 pai 41 G---ar ' \-Isk, J-- -/N.\.-,-.44,6sairdiettRiliii_ tamo"1". - • ,:ttliff". 7 -- • (1c NIF I, ,k, -- - - /I^a 2 il ' Ati Ilik cli . Irk 174211 (1011L 4.- ' - ...,. 4, /viir,_ :,,i "4. . , - - tiz, ior i„ _ . •.• ., • III _ior .-- ...(-10‘....6k 4- 0 ••• ._, A ..-.. _ 2-YEAR 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION ,�� � lit ..„ .3.4�' ISOPLUVIALS OF 2-YEAR 24-HOUR �► 4 35 TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES �. �i MIiiiriessetme vmirls - 43,0 '1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mlles -' (1r _ 1:300,000 3.5.1-8 r �� 1/90 4 - KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL ' ` I FIGURE 3.5.1E 10-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS 4174--3,16.:-. ...,, „dr_..,,,, ....._-,.....powit. A \ m n ' ar...s......„...,\ (twilit:dor -0-w intvaii . Amon w it iwilik‘ 24 i . simpq e . AlliAlAkii , - trifiti irporair lag 1 24 I -7:441.1.1M.:Lig&11 'k r =1111141LW isik_ 10 o;_ 2.7 , l. 'illirdeMiiii 111;E:41,117Fe4 ..- ro Ilikab4411rAlps 1"N, 249 /"-- Liiirifff-tePrit: ! . ' it ‘ ‘1401, /� .\ ti �C�r: �� �.��." � � �'� � c.A111�umirAL � ..11ow ..„aotri_ .#1,,,,„.„,..... ., lam- l.,� ��"'oil i1111616402 irnommit , - 1� w� 1 S 0411, NL. i Ill .fit it al46,441,0W ,;'� •:VW': � All `It& Ilk *AVM ��I��I� '���im�� � ,iii lku, ts) ill ill 1 .6„r.o. :4 , 1/41 rot .�►' ►�33 .)"." \ 11:11% 4i, x N ._ vomi /ILI .... =�' ..4., ;mpg -A\ 1 - AP*41117% hc r 1 , . .,=. , - liptvami 001.0-4‘ wr, -.... \ .!.,t, .., •,....;_ A • . ii, 11,*. t itproomenx ,* , , • _ ‘ Lpi? / li . _ via.,-Ai .... ___.-....* pit.... _ _._.,,4, A_ , , i . 4 . ' r l' e \--/ 'z ' — - - 7 0 i -II "litiNife4 Will ' I. MN :.---, „,...\ . \a.,--._ 'ur . , fp) 061, IR ‘ / _ mg mliwt- i pdg , / , . , Mir % itita ...:_-..._:___;-- I _ ,„.. , ( . ' rivr.‘. :'r 6i4 ig �� ri . - \ iliiiiiiin ' 1 h MAW" - ill I i \- . -......_,- irgirl, plifieSIVRib - - A , ., -, - -- '-'llgirl- 7:11: ; ATP- " *\-----W. •\;:: r 1E% alrillik, 1 , fi L MAIllegig.t b. .1* 1157! 11111111 ImINIII•aihipp.--..4. log , ,,,,.f ME w *Vi, • lc- - ff--' 7'. ------- .-Itimm At Li IF 0 frit - 10-YEAR 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION 1NIARFPLI '. �i► ; OYe mii i 3.4� ISOPLUVIALS OF 10-YEAR 24-HOUR O �����•I�� r' r � TOTAL PRECIPITATION.IN INCHES 3, ,` `, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Miles 3 . 11 1:300,000 3.5.1-10 3y " I/90 40 49 . 1 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL FIGURE 3.5.1H 100-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS I a/ VliAlf.4 ,;( ei 4 114 —41/." i ' ir 1w., li s 1 „7,,. ,+ iinglli�W111.11Nraligilig -,11, A m ;oirrid vs 4rimirist Alb . ..r ill. ,/,e9r. 3,0fivelf=1 -iirmuly d ist, , .t.,,, t.t. 114.e./ 'AlLiti*,,Eig „mi.- .. 1 ,.._,41141411Pli li VI 1 41 , --- --- 47.1-iiiiirs0CFAINW-41 % yi 4 iN-0-piotorwva 104-Itovroe - e ' I &Itiffelk....,- - 4ft ...amhik ai.3 ) ... _ k,„: ,,„,,, 44, ,4„, 1_4,,,,g;,__ __iri,..--„wp, _....&..._..41,c-70, i c• 4;4 .\. .4.4..A . 1 .....-yrm=torromisramshingepo,* ''1 A lik.„-- i, ,- iv iii, 4 - 1 ,oes ....m.40--- -v ° svf IA IfV17 .1111 , 1...link i ,, --4.,# .4 ._ Al Arti, )4;_row•-___ _ aw.....1", .{ - ...t Ant .'.iiiitt . I..b.,\ V litattr* ,41,11.0,1,w .ju.s.vomisiw..111---ilirtiell'd \hi. 167 'C' ItTI he.1 Ilk\te I ) 1 k (AVIV telh 0 02 alltaajo AS 4 f 11 111N - (/ i 44x.- ,. rk 4,4014k-I!I.,. :•10,;_ -'./. 'isi tali L' itillW tre- viipow*" - 5 '--i-i - - '-iiroti.Aiokiti .-_-i0.11. 14-sNc,\AI\- N 1 Nov -\*. * \/ I./r--; . - milktIxtbz.:,,,- RIFWNIROt \ ,. Villio INVitiktjklilliapIM- .1". , "4"-.1)41) .- iiigelviimillialtri--- 16--x' k \ ,oh', ! r.• r 7- .a" Airay# . ......_. . ; 1 0,-- , •i 1st it Arm& Q514.A.lilik ‘ i 1 - ..:5:.:/ ___. 1-41641 - - 4--**k\)1% Ar ,, .__ i iii.ssik.1. --..,. Lima ti,F1IILF viv Val , - ingOr-4piii ilfatimsulisartd. -its•- vz -Th rid, v iiRi ‘46‘kitiig -sitetlice. Ilisto mum 7_-__ pi oi 1 4141/14101 11 A.15.1149#ES turmimpue=loi r . owirsi 4' ----1----- \1:\ , ..-,..-I rip „1.1rtrkWati -,,,, al if*4111 Alii - . Ike_ _ 1.,‘, 1 ." P 1 11/114V/P.f74 A' ' , I* 7iff .iii arAPPILVe011 kg;tr. , , - % . 1. i',,,,,ME v 14,, Afp IT % - _ 1 s , _. ___ IrArAli . .rA 1 toc cb )O.YEAR 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION 0 ungoilA-0 ISOPLUVIALS OF 100-YEAR 24-HOUR C. p�'� 4 ,�itiR'�i 6 ` 3.4 ��s:Mi .. 5.5 TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES 0� 61� �� - .( 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mlles ' 3.5.1-13 �OP O -, - 1:300,000 1/90 , I I I . 1 1 .,,-•( ,C. t, r I •4 (:=t 197-4-5. ti, i 1.• ,— ' , —...._ • ...-,-....0. , . . ' 1 . . I 1 ..t_ f A 1 , 4. , 4.04, t-! r"k.A. 4 . ,..—r• i , t st: t.,If"' 1 2- ‘5-7,, ,..1A, P. 1.-.. CZ i c 1 0 .IFI -5— yn_ 0 ! . D _a) 1 %no 1 z4 i L . -5— ( \ C.4 5 .,,,, - c— D 1 1... —x— its . 1 . 1.L.1 ra A-1 42 1 1 1 r7 r • 1 I L ; kr ,,,, 4,- .. r.,_ -.=. / 4'9, it i ) , . 1 ' , . 1 i . 1 . 1 , . , • 1 . I i I 1 I . i 1 ' 1 1 1 I - II 11 Predev Event Summary: BasinID Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event ------ (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) ac /Loss Predev 0.14 9.00 0.1395 2.77 SBUH/SCS TYPE1A 2 yr Predev 0.36 8.67 0.2856 2.77 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 10 yr Predev 0.66 8.50 0.4703 2.77 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 100 yr Drainage Area: Predev Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor. 484.00 SCS Abs: 0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 2.7700 ac 81.00 1.01 hrs Impervious 0.0000 ac 0.00 0.00 hrs Total 2.7700 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Predev 81.00 2.7700 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet First 300 feet 300.00 ft 3.30% 0.4000 52.25 min Shallow Concentrated Flow 240.00 ft 3.50% 3.0000 7.13 min Postdev Event Summary: BasiniD Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event ----- (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) ac /Loss Postdev 1.00 7.83 0.3479 2.77 SBUH/SCS TYPE1A 2yr Postdev 1.54 7.83 0.5433 2.77 SBUH/SCS TYPE1A 10yr Postdev 2.16 7.83 0.7655 2.77 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 100 yr Drainage Area: Postdev . Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor 484.00 SCS Abs: 0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.8000 ac 86.00 0.36 hrs Impervious 1.9700 ac 98.00 0.02 hrs Total 2.7700 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Pervious Area 86.00 0.8000 ac Impervious CN Data: Impervious Area 98.00 1.9700 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Sheet Flow 160.00 ft 1.25% 0.1500 21.26 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Shallow Parking Lot Surface 135.00 ft 2.00% 27.0000 0.59 min Channel Pipe Flow 140.00 ft 2.90% 42.0000 0.33 min • Node ID: Vault Desc: Wet Vault Start El: 100.0000 ft Max El: 108.0000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Length Width Void Ratio 80.0000 ft 24.0000 ft 100.00 , Il f ,_ Control Structure ID: Orifice - Multiple Orifice Structure Descrip: Multiple Orifice Start El Max El Increment 100.0000 ft 108.0000 ft 0.10 Orif Coeff: 0.62 Bottom El: 98.00 ft Lowest Diam: 1.0400 in ?v. out to 2nd: 5.7400 ft Diam: 4.8800 in RLPCOMPUTE[Level Pool]SUMMARY 2 yr Match Q: 0.0705 cfs Peak Out Q: 0.0703 cfs- Peak Stg: 105.7.3 ft-Active Vol: 0.25 acft 10 yr Match Q: 0.3591 cfs Peak Out Q: 0.3107 cfs- Peak Stg: 105.88 ft-Active Vol: 0.26 acft 100 yr Match Q: 0.6564 cfs Peak Out Q: 0.6567 cfs- Peek Stg 106.55 ft-Active Vol: 0.29 acft • p Discharge Rate in cfs 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 o s i� w in in "co is I CD i I I f I - - I I 100.0000 i'ti\\ 100.5000 101.0000 101.5000 102.0000 102.5000 N cc ' ci 103.0000 v r« sw 0 103.5000 73 104.0000 tu~ 5 co n 104.5000 c CD 105.0000 I 105.5000 106:0000 106.5000 107.0000 i 0 c L o c.•• .!0 cA-•t vcc ' , • (.1111. C2 ;I'1-0 1";" Vco (.0 7 • ( trtri C42 614, 40 p 12 \ect tj -a as CI. a k10 ( WL 4-•errq4A. :42 4 c9 o 7— a cz, 0 , . C 14 7"t'' %. 0 c _ -5, a c (3,7S, al Z 1,r4 \,k, 4-1 = =z- ,57 `'S 4.. . - • 4 5.,!• t.,t, (431 Cr 5,40 r.) (2— c% OTo. c?A C.,e1(6: 100 1-1/3-erwto V1/4•-4,kj.47 ' L 4 ,20 06, -s--0 "4- C v ch.v-atic,C(e_ , X 09 4-0 t" tA r • - - da 3 ape .t 4 .1 0:40 r • • ------- '" ` / r`t Xr. )OCC [ ,r! '••••'4 L./ L.4• C-fi Y-4 • • • • „ s • Postdev Event Summary: BasiniD Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event ----- (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) ac /Loss Postdev 0.24 7.83 0.9820 2.77 SBUH/SCS TYPE1A WQ STORM C � f 3 ' it °"ZAI AP• R2920Z 02 ciry dapvED 3:35- # S OFF/CE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION APPEAL Transportation — Reserved Parking Requirement Parks and Recreation -- Parks Mitigation Fee for Chateau at Valley Center Assisted Living Retirement Community by DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC 15021 Woodinville-Redmond Road Woodinville, Washington 98072 April 26, 2002 DAVIS AVEN UE ASSOCIATES, LLC { P.O. Box 907 Woodinville, WA 98072 Phone: (206) 488-2400 Fax: (206) 488-1089 April 26, 2002 City of Renton Hearing Examiner do Susan Fiala, Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Chateau at Valley Center, File No. LUA-02-012, SH-A, ECF Appeal of Environmental Determination for: • Transportation—Reserved Parking Requirement • Parks and Recreation -- Parks Mitigation Fee Dear Ms Fiala: _ Accompanying this appeal is our application fee payment of$75.00. We are appealing two items in the Environmental Determination: (1) The additional reserved offsite parking requirement and (2) The amount of the parks mitigation fee. Transportation—Reserved Parking Requirement Appeal: The reason for this appeal, is that, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) approval of this project includes the condition that, in addition to the proposed 103 off-street/on-site parking spaces,we provide an additional fifty(50) additional off-site parking spaces in adjacent parking. In essence they are requiring 158 parking spaces (103+50) for this facility. The Renton Municipal Code provides no category for"Retirement Housing". No insight was provided in the report indicating the reasoning for the large numbers of parking spaces are being required. It is evident that they consider the proposed 103 on-site parking spaces as being inadequate for this facility and we suspect that is based on their knowledge of multifamily parking requirements. We agree that the on-site parking provided must accommodate the facility. In the absence of an appropriate on-site parking category for this type of senior housing by the Renton Municipal Code, we conducted an investigation of existing senior housing facilities similar to Chateau at Valley Center. Our study was based upon field data collection, thorough analysis and review to establish reliable criteria, from which parking demands for this type facility may be determined. We respectfully offer the results of the study and our on-site parking calculation methodology, which provides conservative guidelines for determining on-site parking requirements for this ) type of senior housing facility. Conclusion: The 103 on-site parking spaces proposed for the Chateau at Valley Center project was not determined by code requirement. Rather, it was based upon what the Developer and Operator felt was the optimum number of parking spaces on this site. Initially, the Snohomish County Code "Retirement Housing" SSC 18.45.055(2) was used to determine the minimum number of parking spaces for this facility, because it provided criteria for on-site parking requirements for "Retirement Housing". However, Davis Avenue Associates, LLC, the developer, looked at the 59 parking spaces (179 x 0.33) required and decided to increase the parking count to the 103 spaces. It was understood that the agreement to allow for overflow parking on the Valley Medical Center lot across the street could be terminated at any time, so additional parking was designed into the project. In light of the results of the attached empirical study we did for this project, the decision to provide 103 on-site parking spaces turned out to be more than will be needed. Our study projects that a maximum of 87 parking spaces would be needed. This number includes a 10% safety margin. The 103 spaces provide an additional 20%margin and, when combined with the 10% suggested in the study, a total of a 30% safety margin. The additional 50 offsite parking spaces required by the City staff is obviously over kill. As far as we can tell, this number was just pulled out of the air with no data, facts, studies or evidence of any kind to support it. This overkill is not in the best interests of the citizens of the City of Renton. The Residents of the City can best be served by having housing and medical facilities developed on this property located on the Valley Medical Center campus. Vacant parking lots serve no one and in fact are detrimental as they produce addition storm water and are notorious polluters of the environment. This study confirms that the proposed parking for Chateau at Valley Center exceeds the required amount. We respectfully request that you accept this appeal and, thereby, approve the proposed parking count of 103 on-site parking spaces, without need for supplemental reserved off-site parking. Parks and Recreation -- Parks Mitigation Fee Appeal: The following is in response to City of Renton Staff Report for Environmental Review Committee Meeting of April 9, 2002. In the referenced report, the Parks Mitigation Fee is $38,372.16 [(179 units— 15 dementia units) = 164 units x $354.51 (multi-family fee)x 66%]. While we agree that the proposed retirement community project should contribute to the community by paying a parks mitigation fee, the fee proposed in the ERC Staff Report is, we believe, excessive. In the Development Impact Mitigation Policy for Parks and Recreation, Introduction, it states "...mitigation will be in proportion to the need created by the new development" (emphasis mine). The Policy goes on to prescribe impact fee calculation methodology, and notes that multi-family dwelling units use an occupancy ra tio of 1.7 persons per unit. Our concern, and the reason for our appeal, is that Resolution 3082, and supporting zoning codes and policies, make no provision for this type of specialized senior housing (or senior housing of any kind). No accommodation is made for a small but significant segment of the City's population—senior citizens with impaired physical and/or mental capabilities who are unable to care for themselves and who either choose to, or, of necessity, must live in this type of housing. Further, the Ordinance fails to recognize the minimal use that this type senior is able to make of parks-related recreation and, consequently, the resultant relatively light impact that they have on the parks system. In the absence of an appropriate park fee schedule category for specialized senior housing, especially assisted living senior citizens (we are being specific here because there are probably other sub-categories of senior citizens that may have greater or lesser impacts on parks; depending primarily on their level of independence and mobility), we respectfully offer the accompanying study and alternative fee calculation methodology. Please see the attached. Conclusion: We respectfullyrequest thatyou accept this appeal q p and, thereby, approve a total Alternate Parks Mitigation Fee of$21,784.00 Sincerely, Darr Johnson Development Manager _ _i Onsite Parking Requirement Methodology for Chateau at Valley Center Assisted Living Retirement Community by DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES LLC 15021 Woodinville-Redmond Road Woodinville, Washington 98072 April 26, 2002 11 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Methodology for Onsite Parking Requirements 3 3.0 Proposed Required Number of Onsite Parking Spaces 6 4.0 Summary 7 Actual Auto Counts at Various Senior Housing Facilities (spreadsheet). . . . Addendum A Photos of Cars at Various Senior Housing Facilities .Addendum B 1.0 Introduction The following is in reference to City of Renton, Staff Report, for Environmental Review Committee Meeting of April 9, 2002; and in particular, the requirement for an agreement (joint-use contract) for use of supplemental off-site parking for this facility. This requirement implies that the proposed 103 off-street/on-site parking spaces are insufficient and require supplemental off-site parking. The Staff Report does not provide insights into their reasoning for making this determination other than indicating that the two nearby parking lots "would be available for use through an agreement with Valley Medical Center", who also owns the property on which this project is sited. While it may seem reasonable, that Valley Medical Center(VMC) would have no objection to a formal joint-use agreement for five years for overflow parking from this facility, in fact, that turns out not to be the case. Informally, they might allow us unofficial use of the referenced off-site parking spaces, until such time as they decide to develop the site, but they have indicated that they are not interested in a formal agreement in this regard. There are no provisions for on-site parking requirements for Assisted Living and other closely relate forms of specialized senior housing communities in the City Code and policies. This may be because the phenomena of this type senior housing is a relatively new and growing concept and many municipalities do not have guidelines in place to address the particular needs of this special housing, even though there will be an increasing number of Senior Housing facilities constructed over time. These facilities are tailored for a small but significant and growing segment of the City's population: senior citizens with impaired physical and/or mental capabilities who are unable to care for themselves and who either choose to, or, of necessity, must live in specialized senior housing communities. We suggest that the City Code and policies should be updated to recognize the minimal demand this type senior makes on parking facilities, due to their reduced mobility, physical and mental capabilities, and the presence of facilities with amenities on site which accommodate their needs without leaving the grounds. We assume that if and when the City does this determination, it will base the parking requirements on the real need and actual use of parking as revealed from parking studies and from the testimony of experts active in the industry. Page 1 In the absence of an appropriate on-site parking category for this type of Senior Housing,we conducted an independent analysis of the parking requirements, based upon data we collected in the field, in the form of"hard" empirical data, on the actual numbers of cars and shuttle vans parked at various facilities on different days and times in the Renton/Kent/south Seattle area. We also collected other information about each facility, including the total numbers of units and the ratios of dementia, assisted living and light care units. We respectfully offer the accompanying study with a recommendation for required number of on-site parking spaces required for this facility. By way of background, Chateau at Valley Center (Chateau) will be a licensed assisted living senior housing facility and will be constructed and operated in compliance with State of Washington Boarding Home licensing requirements. The other buildings in the study have the same license and are required meet the same state requirements. The average age of the residents of these facilities is about 80 years and many do not own or drive cars. The facility provides housing, meals, housekeeping, organized activities, entertainment and recreation as well as assisted living/dementia care services to those with the need for heavier care. The facility is virtually self-contained. Transportation, in the Chateau's coach(es), will be provided to events, activities and shopping in the neighboring community to those able to avail themselves of this service. Chateau's residents, and those in the other facilities in the study, can be divided into three categories: (1) those who require little or only light assistance with their normal "activities of daily living" (Light Care); (2) those who need significant assistance with their activities of daily living and/or have significant limitations of mobility(typically walkers and wheelchairs) (Assisted Living); and, (3) those with significant dementia who are prone to wandering and who need special care and containment within the facility(Dementia). Residents in categories (2) and (3) generally do not venture beyond the confines of the building and grounds, unless they are being taken to their doctor or to a family member's home for a visit. We bring activities and entertainment into the building for these people. This group comprises approximately 60% of our population. The majority of the residents of these communities, because of their physical and mental impairments, do not own or drive a car. Of the other 40% of our population,which require only light assistance, a relatively small number own or drive a car. This group also averages about 80-years of age—they have some degree of impairment and have slowed down significantly in their lifestyle and activities. Even this "light care"resident would not have nearly the demand on the parking facilities as the typical multi-family household on which the requirement for supplemental parking appears to be based. Typically, senior housing serves persons of sixty-two (62) years of age, or over. They have no children living with them and many have lost their spouse, therefore, the average number of persons per unit (1.7) per City of Renton multi-family standards is inappropriate for this category of housing. More typical for this group is a ratio of 1.05 to 1.15. Page 2 2.0 Methodology for Determination of On-Site Parking Requirements In the absence of an appropriate parking requirement category for Assisted Living and closely related types of special senior housing, we respectfully offer the following methodology to determine on-site parking requirements for these facilities: First, we identified seven (7) "Retirement Housing"facilities, similar to Chateau at Valley Center, which are located in the Renton, Kent and south Seattle areas. We visited them to gather data. To obtain a reasonable range of data, we included weekends and weekday, as well as morning and afternoon. We visited each selected facility twice (a.m.&p.m.) on Sunday, April 14 and once (mid-day) on Monday, April 15. During the visits we took attached photo (Addendum B) to show the number and pattern of parking for the visits to each facility. The data we collected from the various facilities is included in attached spreadsheet (Addendum A). The spreadsheet lists the facilities arranged in descending percent of assisted living units and shows the following actual "hard" data collected for each facility for the various visits: 1. Total number of parking spaces occupied, as well as the numbers of spaces occupied, by type (i.e., Standard, Handicap, Shuttle Van). 2. Total resident units, along with numbers of dementia, assisted living and light care units as well as percent of total units occupied. The spreadsheet also contains the following information calculated from the data: 1. Percentage of dementia, assisted living and light care units for each facility(%). 2. Ratio of total number of cars present/unit(Autos/Unit). All Autos/Unit ratios referenced below are understood to be "Worse Case"values (i.e., the highest traffic period, which corresponds to the highest value of Autos/Unit ratio for the group of visits to each facility. By inspection of the information on the spreadsheet, it is apparent that, there is a definite inverse correlation between the percent assisted living units in a facility and the number of parking spaces occupied. In other words, the higher the percentage of assisted living units per facility, the lower the Autos/Unit ratio tended to be and the lower the predicted number of occupied parking spaces. The Autos/Unit ratio in our analysis ranges from 0.18 to 0.43. The "worse case"Autos/Unit ratio will be used to reliably predict the number of parking spaces to be occupied under heavy traffic periods. Below is a summary of the data contained in the spreadsheet. Page 3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF EMPIRICAL FIELD DATA: (note 1) (note 2) TOTAL ASSISTED ACTUAL AUTO/ FACILITY: UNITS LIVING% AUTOS UNIT Renton Villa 80 100 14 0.18 (Renton) Stafford Suites 63 100+/- 18 0.29 (Kent) (note 3) Arbor Village 89 66.3 27 .030 (Kent) The Lodge at Eagle Ridge 99 53.5 36 0.36 (Renton) Farrington Court 120 30 52 .043 (Kent) The Lakeshore 158 26.6 67 .042 (Renton) El Dorado West 70 24.3 22 .031 (South Seattle) Average (Auto/Unit) 0.33 Page 4 PROJECTED NUMBER OF OCCUPIED PARKING SPACES FOR CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER: (note 4) AUTOS/UNIT NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION AUTOS at CVC Facilities with 50% to 70% Assisted Living .33 54 spaces Facilities with less than 50% Assisted Living .39 64 spaces Facilities with more than 70% Assisted Living .24 39 spaces Average of all 7 facilities .33 54 spaces Note 1: This value indicates the "worse case" (largest) number of autos counted from all field visit results for a facility, including cars & shuttle vans on Sunday, April 14 &Monday, April 15, 2002. In general, two visits were made to each facility on Sunday(morning & afternoon) & one on Monday mid-day. Note 2: This value is the ratio of"worse case" (largest number) of cars counted for a facility from all field visit results for that facility(see Note 1) divided by the total number of units in the same facility. Note 3: One facility, Stafford Suites, indicated that they have "all assisted living"units, but the Autos/Unit ratio was significantly higher than expected for an all assisted living facility. We suspect that they have some light care residents even though they do not classify their residents in those terms. Note 4: This value may be used to project the"worse case"number of occupied parking spaces a similar type of facility will experience, after the facility achieves stable occupancy. It is based on project size of 179 units less 15 dementia units for a net of 164 Assisted Living and Light Care units. It is a coincidence, but in this case, the Autos/Unit ratios are identical (0.33) for Chateau at Valley Center, whether Autos/Unit ratio is the average all seven facilities in the study or the two facilities, Arbor Village (66.3%) and The lodge at Eagle Ridge (53.5%)which had Assisted Living percents close to Chateau at Valley Center (60%). Page 5 3.0 PROPOSED REQUIRED NUMBER OF ON-SITE PARKING SPACES FOR CHATEAU AT VALLEY CENTER: At Chateau at Valley Center, of the proposed 179 units, approximately 15 will be dementia care with no automobiles. Of the remaining 164 units, approximately 57% will be Assisted Living and 43% will be Light Care. This ratio of types of residents reflects how we operate our buildings and is in line with the other communities which we operate. Using the results of the study for facilities with a similar mix of Assisted Living and Light Care, the analysis indicates that Chateau at Valley Center can normally expect a worse case number of autos on site of 54. Only during the times when special events are held at the facility would we expect this number to be exceeded. The determination of the number of additional spaces required for special events can be arrived at as follows: The number of family members and hence the number of additional parking spaces required for special events is limited by(1) the number of guests that the building and staff can reasonable accommodate at a given time and (2) the number we can serve without exceeding the maximum occupant load allowed in the common areas where the residents and guests would gather and eat (the event usually involves a lunch, brunch or dinner). Normally when you invite family to the building you expect to have a son or daughter along with their spouse and a couple of grandchildren attend. In some cases you have less and in some cases more but the average number of family members that arrive per auto is about 2.5. For the very popular events, like mothers day brunch, we have to limit the number of families that can attend and we do this with a reservation system. Most residents attend each special event but not all their families are able or wish to attend every special function and we normally expect (must limit the attendance if necessary) between 10% and 15% of the residents to have family members present. If you take the worst case of 15%, that would result in 25 addition autos on site that day(.15X 164). This would result in the facility having to accommodate 63 additional people (25 families X 2.5 guests per family) in the building dining room and common areas where the function is held. Add this to 166 residents, assuming 90% of the non-dementia residents attend and you have to accommodate 229 people (number of residents estimated at 164 X1.12 = 184 plus 15 dementia equals 199 total residents). Feeding and seating 229 people in a facility of this size is at the practical limit of what we can safely handle. This indicates therefore that a maximum of 25 additional parking spaces would be needed to accommodate special events. When you add the normal maximum number of parking spaces required for this facility(54) to the additional number required for special events (25), this implies a total maximum parking requirement for the facility of 79 parking spaces or.48 parking spaces per unit (dementia units not included). Page 6 To verify that this parking ratio is adequate we can compare it to what we have and been proven adequate in our other similar projects. They are shown below. Chateau at Peters Creek, Redmond WA 63 units -22 parking—ratio= .35 Chateau Marymoor, Redmond WA 59 units -23 parking- ratio = .39 Chateau Pacific, Lynnwood WA 212 units- 95 parking—ratio = .45 Our 4th community, Chateau at Bothell Landing just opened and is just starting to fill with residents so we have no experience as to the adequacy of the parking. Chateau Pacific is very close in both design and size to the proposed Chateau at Valley Center and would be the best indicator. Therefore, based on our experience with similar projects, the .48 parking spaces per unit would be adequate to meet the worst case parking requirements. In order to arrive at the final recommended number of parking spaces for Chateau at Valley Center, we felt it would be appropriate to add a safety factor of 10%. Therefore our recommendation for the number of parking spaces for this project is 87 parking spaces or a ratio of.53 parking spaces per unit excluding the 15 dementia units. 4. SUMMARY: The number of on-site parking spaces required for the Chateau at Valley Center project should be 87. This provides adequate on-site parking for special events as well as the normal complement of vehicles plus a 10% safety factor. This number was determined based upon a reasonable and valid methodology and verifiable data. Page 7 , Addendum A Chateau at Valley Center I I I 4/19/02 • Actual Counts of Automobiles Parked at Various Senior Housing Facilities - -- - Total Undesignated Handicap Van Total Dementia Assisted Light Care Percent Worse Case Facility Parking Autos Parking Autos Parking Autos Parking Autos Units Units % Living Units % Units % Occupancy Autos/Units Autos/Unit Renton Villa,Renton: 80 0 0.0 80 100.0 0 0.0 100 Sunday,4/14/02,am 10 9 0 1 i _ 0.13 Sunday,4/14/02,pm 14 13 0 1 0.18 0.18 Monday,4/15/02,am 13 12 0 1 0.16 Stafford Suites,Kent: 63 0 0.0 63 100.0 0 0.0 98 Sunday,4/14/02,am 16 12 3 1 0.25 Sunday,4/14/02,pm 13 11 1 1 0.21 Monday,4/15/02,pm 18 14 3 1 0.29 0.29 Arbor Village,Kent: 89 0 0.0 59 66.3 30 33.7 100 Sunday,4/14/02,am 22 20 2 0 0.25 Sunday,4/14/02,pm 20 17 2 1 0.22 Monday,4/15/02,pm 27 24 2 1 0.30 0.30 The Lodge at Eagle Ridge,Renton: 99 0 0.0 53 53.5 46 46.5 95 Sunday,4/14/02,am 24 20 3 1 0.24 Sunday,4/14/02,pm 34 30 3 1 0.34 Monday,4/15/02,am 36 30 5 1 0.36 0.36 Farrington Court,Kent: 120 0 0.0 36 30.0 84 70.0 95 Sunday,4/14/02,am 38 36 1 1 0.32 Sunday,4/14/02,pm 44 41 2 1 0.37 Monday,4/15/02,pm 52 50 1 1 0.43 0.43 The Lakeshore,Renton: 158 0 0.0 42 26.6 116 73.4 99 Sunday,4/14/02,pm 62 56 5 1 0.39 Monday,4/15/02,am 67 62 4 1 0.42 0.42 El Dorado West,S.Seatle: 70 0 0.0 17 24.3 53 75.7 97 Sunday,4/14/02,pm 21 19 1 1 0.30 Monday,4/15/02,pm 22 20 1 1 0.31 _ 0.31 Sum of 7 values 2.30 Average Autos/Unit Ratio 0.33 ADDENDUM B Page 1 l�� , Renton Villa Assisted Living Community Parking _RE\rO :1 counts were taken to determine acutal cars parked at the facility at _Imerim-t al different dates&times. Sunday,April 14,2002,am Sunday,April 14,2002,pm Monday,April 15,2002 mid-day . ,. -4 e 4 del! -1} _.. '. 1 I ■] talair t -, .i cJ� .n„ gip' I � nBIJI■ciietionutto `Fi F . R y:V i r 44 Ila iroira . - .. . . .4 it ,4-4„ _, _40. Pi_ _ 1/16111116-.. - 01 11 2025 09 30 =` - ADDENDUM B Page2 Stafford Suites,An Adult Assisted Living Residence- ISO Parking counts were taken to determine acutal cars parked at the facility at different dates&times. Sunday,April 14,2002,am Sunday,April 14,2002,pm Monday,April 15,2002 mid-day "ke. ____116 , ,•4L4t. _ * j414;i1 . ' "'"-•.., .** --' ....t. 's"7 wri .. 04 44 2025 1740 04 14 2025 NsT 4 R -erz 411 .fw,„, - ,, 1 vac tir - :..do_ . ..• +use. .' -•s st• tr. y" s 24 iiiiii ` as 2az6 n4, ,. zo5 T .....-i v ml III _ . il„f III 11 �I 7 _ " III .`��`4r — T ,a.. _, pupa =4~ ^—i a ' �nor -,_i_twille,....., .� • 04 14 2026 1446 ADDENDUM B Page3 Arbor Village Retirement and Assisted Living taKicir_____„....7..., ,,es .4ysz _/.0 ,- Community-Parking counts were taken to determine acutal cars parked at the facility at different dates&times. Sunday,April 14,2002,am Sunday,April 14,2002,pm Monday,April 15,2002 mid-day i�\, .r.- HI If ,. . , A ,,,, _ lov f Till4,41. 4 ,tla• 4� r I I 1 in l"a 0111111111r.— .. /1-- ' . 14158 _... , _ _ ,___:.,-,:_ -__t,,,.. 11u li 111II 3DI I' I I israilimiliiilow— ____-- 11100 111;11'11111e--: Ir Y .. ,. - 04 . ,. 1500 4 __________Li. - —_- 1 ' 1•. `��Th' l l . I iv A 54 :yj1�% a xp llfB}. �4 I. r _ 77'.�^+wee. ".� , OW I }p� 1025 15:02 041,2002 13:02 ADDENDUM B Page4 a The Lodge at Eagle Ridge-Parking counts were taken to determine acutal cars parked at the facility at different dates& times. .0. Ii; t..t x,i Sunday,April 14,2002,am Sunday,April 14,2002,pm Monday,April 15,2002 mid-day ;ciL_ ,, - I_ V..; 4,_ ,.. 0,12 i/a. ., ,„ _. , N NI 1111 ' •-fig] ' ---. I:—7 t aa ..... -:r-- — ' Ill..' .141,1 im e, • a , -4, 4441$0_ , . ::,,i,a,,, 441 1.`- h Or_ w v ' ,04142425 08:37 ., 2U7!i toir 1 leli -- ., "- y s..�) arm , �.• .� ~ "04 14 2025 08'39 .:4 04 15 20152 1,21. ADDENDUM B Page a _4 a - Farrington Court A Leisure Care Retirement --F' "'C,n- ( I Community- Parking counts were taken to determine acutal ...If I - cars parked at the facility at different dates&times. r Sunday,April 14,2002,am Sunday,April 14,2002,pm Monday,April 15,2002 mid-day ' ,, Tori , ._ ,pr / s_.". c r A ear, I 41 �;� a �I , i b . .1wr, -.:- A4- 1 It r f Ili ,4 1 r Irv ' �` 1 Y / R ilk � • 4, r, _ Illiisama I' - _ i ,_ y -IR • - - , ADDENDUM B Pages The Lakeshore Retirement Residence-Parking counts were taken to determine acutal cars parked at the facility at I, t h I;S fl 0 Ii I. different dates&times. r ., „ icy�d,•.„ Sunday,April 14,2002,am Sunday,April 14,2002,pm Monday,April 15,2002 mid-day NO SITE VISIT SUNDAY AM - , C. w. B NO SITE VISIT SUNDAY AM - Y n `: mill'" "! 11 . . ... , ., ai. a 7 moo 9144Llte 11111k&a1114 NO SITE VISIT SUNDAY AM , 4.0.14-iii NO SITE VISIT SUNDAY AM k „....- . -*wr a ADDENDUM B Page7 _ — 44)1 r. El Dorado Retirement Community-Parking counts were taken to determine acutal cars parked at the facility at different dates&times. Sunday,April 14,2002,am Sunday,April 14,2002,pm Monday,April 15,2002 mid-day NO SITE VISIT SUNDAY AM v - v"Z!. . 'a , _ y .a.r *NV, y tO NO SITE VISIT SUNDAY AM w1 NO SITE VISIT SUNDAY AM d i.J. ,:4 . Ice 'tom., NO SITE VISIT SUNDAY AM - 1 a}H 202@ 1124 Illik _. . Parks and Recreation Alternative Impact Fee Calculation Methodology for Chateau at Valley Center Assisted Living Retirement Community by DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC 15021 Woodinville-Redmond`Road Woodinville, Washington 98072 April 26, 2002 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Methodology for Alternative Park Impact Fee Calculation 3 3.0 Summary 5 1.0 Introduction The following is in reference to City of Renton, Staff Report, for Environmental Review Committee Meeting of April 9, 2002; and in particular, the park impact fee calculation therein provided. Neither City Resolution No. 3082, nor supporting zoning codes and policies, make provision for this type of specialized senior housing (or senior housing of any kind). No accommodation is made for a small but significant segment of the City's population: senior citizens with impaired physical and/or mental capabilities who are unable to care for themselves and who either choose to, or, of necessity, must live in this type of housing. Further, the City Code and policies fail to recognize the minimal use that this type senior is able to make of parks-related recreation and, consequently, the resultant relatively light impact that they have on the parks system. In the absence of an appropriate park fee schedule category for specialized senior housing, especially assisted living senior citizens (we are being specific here because there are probably other sub-categories of senior citizens that may have greater or lesser impacts on parks; depending primarily on their level of independence and mobility), we respectfully offer the accompanying study and alternative fee calculation methodology. By way of background, Chateau at Valley Center (Chateau) will be a licensed assisted living senior housing facility and will be constructed and operated in compliance with State of Washington Boarding Home licensing requirements. The average age of our residents is about 80 years. Many do not own or drive cars. The facility provides housing, meals, housekeeping, organized activities, entertainment and recreation as well as assisted living/dementia care services to those with the need for heavier care. The facility is virtually self-contained. Transportation, in the Chateau's coach(es), will be provided to events, activities and shopping in the neighboring community to those able to avail themselves of this service. Activities of daily living ("ADL's") are prescribed in the State of Washington Assisted Living residence standards (standards under which the Chateau will be licensed) include, by definition: • Assistance with dressing, medication, bathing and personal grooming, • Reminders and escorting to meals, activities and entertainment, • Incontinence management, Page 1 • Supervision of those with confusion and cognitive limitations, • Transfer assistance, • Blood pressure and weight checks The Chateau's residents can be divided into three categories: (1) Light Care -those who require little or only light assistance with their normal "activities of daily living" ("ADL's"); (2) Assisted Living-those who need significant assistance with their activities of daily living and/or have significant limitations of mobility(walkers and wheelchairs); and, (3) Dementia-those with dementia who need close and constant supervision and containment. Residents in categories (2) and (3) generally do not venture beyond the confines of the building and grounds, unless they are being taken to their doctor or to a family member's home for a visit. We bring activities and entertainment into the building for these people. This group comprises approximately 60% of our population. The foregoing information is based on our direct experience with similar assisted living retirement communities, such as Peters Creek and Chateau Marymoor in Redmond, and Chateau Pacific in Lynnwood. These facilities are owned and operated by our related companies. The majority of the residents of these communities, because of their physical and mental impairments, make little or no use the community parks system. The other 40% of our population, which require only light assistance, would utilize the parks to some extent. However, this group also averages about 80-years of age—they have some degree of impairment and have slowed down significantly in their lifestyle and activities. But even this Light Care resident would not have nearly the impact on the parks system as the typical multi-family household to which the parks mitigation fee- calculation is keyed. Citizens of this age group, living in this type of facility, would not have children or dependents living with them; and the majority of these citizens have lost their spouse. Typically, senior housing is limited to persons of sixty-two (62) years of age, or over, and their spouses and/or live-in caregivers. Therefore, the average number of persons per unit (1.7) per City of Renton multi-family standards is inappropriate for this category of housing. Page 2 2.0 Methodology for Alternative Parks Impact Fee Calculation In the absence of an appropriate park fee schedule category for Light Care, Assisted Living and Dementia senior citizens (we are being specific here because there are probably other sub-categories of senior citizens that may have greater or lesser impacts on parks; depending primarily on their level of independence and mobility), we respectfully offer the following alternative fee calculation methodology: ASSISTED LIGHT CARE LIVING DEMENTIA RESIDENTS RESIDENTS RESIDENTS TOTAL Value of $354.51 $354.51 $354.51 parks/person Percent of 50% 22% None value to be (note 1) (note 2) charged for impact Impact fee $177.26 $77.99 None assessment /person Average 1.12 1.06 N/A Number (note 3) (note 4) persons/unit Total impact $198.53 $82.67 N/A fee/unit Total units 179 179 179 Light Care/assisted-to- 40% 52% 8% total percentage Number of 71 93 15 Units Park &recreation $14,096 $7688 N/A Impact fees Page 3 Note 1: Approximately 40% of the Chateau at Valley Center residents will be Light Care. Although they are more active and healthy, by definition, they also are elderly. Thus, 1.12 persons/unit(experience data for Light Care—see Note 3) divided by 1.70 persons/unit (City's multi-family occupancy) equals 66%. Assuming Light Care persons are 75% active as park-users relative to baseline multi-family use, 66% x 75% = 50%. Note 2: The balance of the Chateau at Valley Center residents, 60%, will require significant assistance. The entire facility will be licensed by the State Health Department specifically to provide assistance to residents. We feel that this substantial percentage of assisted- persons is significant, especially with regard to parks impact, because the majority of these residents are too infirm and/or too immobile to avail themselves of the City's parks. The few that are able to enjoy an outing will have to be shuttled to a park in our van and accompanied by an escort. As a practical matter, because of the emotional stress that such outings can have on these infirm residents, the typical assisted living resident will participate in—and will desire to participate in—very few of these occasions over the course of a year. Thus, 1.06 persons/unit (experience data for assisted car—see Note 4) divided by 1.70 persons/unit (City's multi-family occupancy) equals 62%. Assuming assisted care persons are 35% active as park-users relative to baseline multi-family use, 62% x 35% =22%. We feel that 22% is a more than fair percentage value for the calculation of the park impact fee for our assisted living elderly residents—especially considering that they, unfortunately, will have extremely limited ability to use and enjoy the parks. Note 3: Average number of Light Care persons per unit. Our Chateau family of companies own and operate four assisted living communities in The Greater Seattle Area, which are similar to Chateau at Valley Center. They are: Chateau at Peters Creek, Chateau Marymoor,Chateau Pacific and newly opened Chateau at Bothell landing. Typically, they have 1.12 Light Care persons per unit. This number is similar for all our communities and is typical for the industry. Note 4: Average number of(assisted living)persons per unit. The same data referred to in Note 3 above indicates 1.06 assisted living persons per unit. With regard to the average number persons/unit, especially as applicable to Note 3 and Note 4 above, we are using the standard definition of Senior Occupancy: "Occupancy of this type of housing is typically limited to persons of sixty-two (62) years of age or over and their spouses and/or live-in caregivers". Page 4 SEE DRAWINGS) • I , GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY CHATEAU VALLEY CENTER -SOUTH 45TH STREET AND'DAVIS AVENUE,SOUTH . RENTON, WASHINGTON t A LM D E- 51 January 16, 2002 . PREPARED FOR. S • DAVIS AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC (IG 102: (era • EXPIRES 7/Zc/ 14.' C/ A,,, Raymond A. Coglas, P.E. ,, Project. Manager J,4 oA,ditt Earth Consultants, Inc.. 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 • (206) 643-3780 •• Toll Free 1-888-739-6670 IMPORTANT INFORMATION • ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT ' , More construction problems are caused by site subsur- technical engineers who then render an opinion about face conditions than any other factor.As troublesome as overall subsurface conditions,•their likely reaction to subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent proposed construction activity, and appropriate founds- have been lessened considerably in recent years,due in tion design. Even under optimal circumstances actual , I large measure to programs and publications of ASFE/ conditions may differ from those inferred to exist, The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in because no geotechnical engineer, no matter how the Geosciences. qualified,and no subsurface exploration program, no The following suggestions and observations are offered matter how comprehensive,can reveal what is hidden by to help you reduce the geotechnical-related delays, earth, rock and time.The actual interface between mate- rials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report cost-overruns and other costly headaches that can indicates.Actual conditions in areas not sampled may occur during a construction project. differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated,but steps can be taken to help minimize their A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING impact. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET REPORT consultants through the construction stage,to iden- tif variances,conduct additional tests which may be OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS needed, and to recommend solutions to problems encountered on site. --I A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur- face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS set of project-specific factors.These typically include: the general nature of the structure involved, its size and CAN CHANGE configuration; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; physical concomitants such as Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly- ; access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities, changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi- and the level of additional risk which the client assumed neering report is based on conditions which existed at 1 by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory the time of subsurface exploration,construction decisions program. To help avoid costly problems,consult the should not be based on a geotechnical engineering report whose geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with the geo- which change subsequent to the date of the report may technical consultant to learn if additional tests are affect its recommendations. advisable before construction starts. Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and otherwise, your geotechnical engineering report should not natural events such as floods,earthquakes or ground- be used: water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions I ' •When the nature of the proposed structure is and,thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical changed, for example, if an office building will be report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refriger- apprised of any such events,and should be consulted to ated warehouse will be built instead of an unre- determine if additional tests are necessary. frigerated one; •when the size or configuration of the proposed , GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE structure is altered; PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES •when the location or orientation of the proposed AND PERSONS structure is modified; •when there is a change of ownership, or Geotechnical engineers' reports are prepared to meet .for application to an adjacent site. the specific needs of specific individuals.A report pre- Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems pared for a consulting civil engineer may not be ade- • which may develop if they are not consulted after factors consid- quate for a construction contractor, or even some other ered in their report's development have changed. consulting civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, ' this report was prepared expressly for the client involved and expressly for purposes indicated by the client. Use MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" by any other persons for any purpose,or by the client ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES for a different purpose, may result in problems. No indi- vidual other than the client should apply this report for its Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical only at those points where samples are taken,when engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose they are taken. Data derived through sampling and sub- other than that originally contemplated without first conferring sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo- with the geotechnical engineer. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING der the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming re- REPORT IS SUBJECT TO sponsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing MISINTERPRETATION the best available information to contractors helps pre- Costly problems can occur when other design profes- vent costly construction problems and the adversarial sionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations attitudes which aggravate them to disproportionate of a.geotechnical engineering report.'Ib help avoid . scale. I these problems, the geotechnical engineer should be READ RESPONSIBILITY retained to work with other appropriate design profes- READ RESPONSIBILITY sionals to explain relevant geotechnical findings and to CLAUSES CLOSELY 11 review the adequacy of their plans and specifications k relative to geotechnical issues. Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines.This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against geotechnical BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE consultants.'lb help prevent this problem,geotechnical engineers have developed model dauses for use in writ- SEPARATED FROM THE ten transmittals.These are not exculpatory dauses ENGINEERING REPORT designed to foist geotechnical engineers'liabilities onto someone else. Rather, they are definitive dauses which Final boring logs are developed by geotechnical engi- identify where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities neers based upon their interpretation of field logs begin and end.Their use helps all parties involved rec- T (assembled by site personnel)and laboratory evaluation ognize their individual responsibilities and take appro- .l of field samples.Only final boring logs customarily are priate action.Some of these definitive dauses are likely induded in geotechnical engineering reports.These logs to appear in your geotechnical engineering report,and should not under any circumstances be redrawn for inclusion in you are encouraged to read them closely.Your geo- I architectural or other design drawings, because drafters technical engineer will be pleased to give full and frank may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. answers to your questions. Although photographic reproduction eliminates this problem,it does nothing to minimize the possibility of OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO contractors misinterpreting the logs during bid prepara- tion.When this occurs,delays,disputes and unantici- REDUCE RISK pated costs are the all-too-frequent result. Your consulting geotechnical engineer will be pleased to iL_ To minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpreta- discuss other techniques which can be employed to mit- tion,give contractors ready access to the complete geotechnical igate risk. In addition,ASFE has developed a variety of engineering report prepared or authorized for their use. materials which may be beneficial.Contact ASFE for a Those who do not provide such access may proceed un- complimentary copy of its publications directory. I '. • , I Published by AsFeTHE ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING FIRMS PRACTICING IN THE GEOSCIENCES 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106/Silver Spring, Maryland 20910/(301) 565-2733 0788/3M 441\ , 4 Earth Consultants Inc. 11)/ IJJt W Geotechnical Engineers,Geologists&Environmental Scientists January 16, 2002 E-9511 Davis Avenue Associates, LLC PO Box 907 Woodinville, Washington 98072 Attention: Mr. Darrell Johnson Dear Mr. Johnson: We are pleased to submit this geotechnical engineering study for the proposed Chateau Valley Center to be located at South 45`h Street and Davis Avenue South, Renton, Washington. This study presents the results of our field exploration, and engineering analyses. The scope of our services for producing this study was outlined in our proposal PR-9511, dated October 11, 2001 . Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion development of the site as planned is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The proposed retirement facility and parking garage will be constructed throughout the central and east portions of the property. The proposed finish floor elevation of the garage level will be approximately elevation 103 feet. Based on the existing ground surface elevation along the east margins of the property, excavations of approximately eight (8) to twelve (12) feet will likely be necessary to establish .the building subgrade elevation. Temporary slopes or a combination of shoring and temporary slopes will be necessary to construct portions of the building excavation. Silty sand and sandy silt soils were generally observed at the test pit locations. The soils were generally in a loose to medium dense condition throughout the upper ten (10) feet of the excavations. At the time the test pits were excavated (October, 2001) the soils encountered were generally in a wet condition. In our opinion, the proposed retirement facility can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on competent native soils or structural fill. Recommendations regarding foundations, excavation support, and other geotechnical issues are presented in this geotechnical engineering study. 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201,Bellevue,Washington 98005 Bellevue(425)643-3780 FAX(425)746-0860 Toll Free(888)739-6670 Davis Avenue Associates, LLC January 16, 2002 E-9511 We appreciate opportunity to provide our services during the design phase of this project. If you have questions about the content of this report, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Sincerely, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. • 11, Raymond A. Coglas, P.E. Project Manager RAC/jme Earth Consultants, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS E-9511 PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 General 1 Project Description 1 SITE CONDITIONS 2 Surface 2 Subsurface 2 Groundwater 3 Laboratory Testing 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 General 4 Site Preparation and General Earthwork 5 Shoring System 6 Cantilevered Shoring 7 Soldier Piles 8 Lagging 8 Shoring Monitoring 9 Foundations 10 Permanent Retaining and Foundation Walls 11 Seismic Design Considerations 12 Slab-on-Grade Floors 13 Site Drainage 13 Excavations and Slopes 13 Utility Trench Backfill 14 Pavement Areas 15 LIMITATIONS 16 Additional Services 16 Earth Consultants, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS E-9511 APPENDICES Appendix A Field Exploration Appendix B Laboratory Test Results ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Test Pit Location Plan Plate 3 Temporary Cantilever Soldier Pile Wall Plate 4 Retaining Wall Drainage and Backfill Plate 5 Shoring Wall Drainage Plate 6 Typical Footing Subdrain Detail Plate 7 Typical Utility Trench Fill Plate Al Legend Plates A2 through A10 Test Pit Logs Plates B1 and B2 Grain Size Analyses Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED CHATEAU VALLEY CENTER SOUTH 45TH STREET AND DAVIS AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON E-9511 INTRODUCTION General This geotechnical study presents the results of our field exploration and engineering analyses for the proposed Chateau Valley Center facility to be located at South 45th Street and Davis Avenue South, Renton, Washington. The proposed development, subsurface conditions, and the site were evaluated for the purpose of formulating geotechnical recommendations. The general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1 . The approximate site boundaries and location of the proposed facility are illustrated on the Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2). Project Description We understand construction of a 179 unit retirement facility is planned for the site. A parking garage will occupy the lower level of one wing of the complex. One level of below grade construction will be necessary to construct the parking level. The finish floor elevation of the parking garage will be approximately elevation 103 feet. Based on the existing ground surface elevation along the east margins of the property, excavations of approximately eight (8) to twelve (12) feet will likely be necessary to establish the building subgrade elevation. Temporary slopes or a combination of shoring and temporary slopes will likely be necessary to construct the eastern portions of the building excavation. Based on our understandingof the proposed site development, gradingof the buildingand P P P pavement areas will primarily require cuts. The majority of the cuts will be necessary along the east margins of the property, and throughout the footprint of the parking garage. We understand the amount of fill necessary to raise existing site grades will be minimal, and will occur primarily throughout the pavement areas in the northern portions of the site. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Davis Avenue Associates, LLC E-9511 January 16, 2002 Page 2 We understand the building construction will consist of post-tensioned slabs throughout the proposed garage, and relatively lightweight wood frame construction throughout the remainder of the facility. At the time this geotechnical study was prepared, specific loading criteria were not available. However, based on our experience with similar developments, we estimate column loads will be in the range of 200 to 400 kips. We estimate wall loads will range between 2 to 4 kips per lineal foot, and slab-on-grade loading of approximately 150 pounds per square foot (psf). If the above design criteria are incorrect or change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The subject property is 2.77 acres and is currently undeveloped. The approximate outline of the property and adjacent roadways are illustrated on the Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2). The site is heavily vegetated with deciduous trees and a variety of groundcover species. The site topography generally slopes downward to the north and west. The overall vertical relief across the site from the southeast to the northwest is approximately twenty-two (22) feet. The topographic survey completed by Touma Engineers indicates the presence of a storm drain that may discharge onto the site near the southeast corner of the property. At the time the test pits were excavated (October, 2001) areas of surface water that may be associated with the storm drain were observed. Throughout the northwest portion of the property, an existing drainage ditch appears to be collecting surface water runoff and directing the water to a storm drain that enters the property along Davis Avenue South. Subsurface Subsurface conditions were assessed by excavating nine (9) test pits to a maximum depth of twelve (12) feet below the existing site grade. The approximate test pit locations are illustrated on the Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2). Please refer to the test pit logs (Plates A2 through Al 0) for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions observed. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Davis Avenue Associates, LLC E-951 1 January 16, 2002 Page 3 Loose to medium dense silty sand and sandy silt soils (Unified Soil Classification ML) were primarily observed at the test pit locations. The geologic map of King County indicates the site is located on the margins of the alluvial deposits characteristic of the Kent Valley. Pre-Vashon drift (Qu) undifferentiated, is identified on the map in the vicinity of the subject property. Lacustrine sand, silt, and clay, as well as glacial till can be encountered throughout this deposit. The King County Soil Conservation Survey (SCS) classifies the site and surrounding areas to the east as gravelly sandy loam (Agc), or glacial till. Immediately to the west of the property, the SCS indicates the presence of urban land (Ur) which is associated with areas of land disturbance due to cuts and fills. Based on the soil conditions observed and the geologic and SCS map classifications, Hydrologic Soil Group C should be used for the site drainage design. At the time of the test pit excavations (October, 2001) the native silty sand and sandy silt soils were in a wet condition. In our opinion, due to the wet and moisture sensitive nature of the soils, use of the soil as structural fill will be difficult. A summer construction schedule, in our opinion, may help improve the feasibility of successfully using the native soils as structural fill. Groundwater Groundwater seepage was observed at several test pit locations at depths of approximately two (2) feet to seven (7) feet at the time of our subsurface exploration (October 2001). Control of groundwater seepage will likely be necessary during the excavation phase of the planned development. Groundwater seepage levels and the rate of seepage are not static; fluctuations in the level and rates can be expected depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the level and rate of seepage is higher in the wetter winter months (typically October through May). Laboratory Testing The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided in Appendix B, ( or at the appropriate sample depth on the test pit logs (Plates A2 through A10). It is important to note that these test results may not accurately represent the overall in-situ soil conditions. Our geotechnical recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results and their use in guiding our engineering judgement. ECI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Davis Avenue Associates, LLC E-9511 January 17, 2002 Page 4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the subsurface conditions observed at the test pit locations and our understanding of the proposed development, it is our opinion construction of the new retirement facility is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical considerations are associated with foundations support, site drainage, and excavation shoring. Throughout the proposed building footprint, loose to medium dense sandy silt and silty sand soils were observed at the test pit locations. Due to the variability in soil conditions and soil density observed at the test pit locations, it is our opinion the proposed retirement facility should be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on competent native soils or structural fill. Cuts of approximately eight (8) to twelve (12) feet below existing site grades will be necessary to establish the finish floor elevation for the proposed parking garage. The finish floor elevation for the proposed parking garage will be approximately elevation 103 feet. The construction of temporary slopes, or a combination of temporary slopes and cantilever shoring will be necessary to complete the excavation. Based on the proposed building footprint, the use of cantilever shoring will likely be necessary to support the parking garage excavation along the east property line. The use of temporary slopes can be considered throughout other areas of the building excavation that are not in close proximity to the property line. The extent of cantilever shoring necessary to support the proposed building excavation should be determined once the final finish floor elevations and building footprint are established. Design recommendations for cantilever shoring are presented in the "Cantilever Shoring" section of this report. Surface water runoff entering the site from the east will need to be intercepted and directed around the building site. We understand the project civil engineer has assessed the influence of offsite surface water runoff entering the site. We understand the drainage plan will provide drains along the perimeter of the site, as necessary, to address offsite surface water runoff. The installation of perimeter footing and foundation drains will be necessary to intercept groundwater around the building foundation. Drainage recommendations are provided in the "Permanent Retaining and Foundation Walls" and "Site Drainage" sections of this report. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Davis Avenue Associates, LLC E-951 1 January 17, 2002 Page 5 This geotechnical study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Davis Avenue Associates, LLC, and their representatives. This study was prepared for specific application to this project only, and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the geotechnical profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We recommend that this geotechnical study, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Site Preparation and General Earthwork The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped of vegetation and deleterious materials. The ground surface where structural fill or foundations will be placed should be observed by a representative of ECI. Excavation depths of up to approximately eight (8) to twelve (12) feet below existing grades will be necessary to construct the parking garage and adjacent building areas. A combination of temporary slopes and cantilever shoring will be necessary to construct the excavation. Temporary slopes used to construct the excavation should be covered with plastic sheeting to reduce the potential for soil erosion. Groundwater seepage encountered in the excavation should not be allowed to collect in the excavation. Where groundwater seepage is encountered along the temporary slope face, two-inch crushed rock can be used to help reduce soil piping along the slope, if necessary. An ECI representative should observe the excavation and temporary slopes to verify soil and groundwater conditions. Based on the subsurface conditions observed at the test pit locations, medium dense sandy silt and silty sand will likely be encountered at the building subgrade elevations. Due to the moisture sensitive nature of the native soils, measures to reduce soil disturbance along the building subgrade may be necessary if the construction is performed during the wet season. Two-inch crushed rock or larger two-inch to four-inch quarry spalls can be placed along the building subgrade to help reduce construction related disturbances to the native soils. The building foundations should be supported on competent native soils or structural fill. If loose or unstable soils are encountered in the foundation areas, overexcavation and replacement with structural fill may be necessary. The foundation subgrade for the proposed building foundations should be observed by a representative of ECI to verify soil conditions. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Davis Avenue Associates, LLC E-9511 January 17, 2002 Page 6 Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under foundations or other load-bearing areas. Structural fill beneath foundations should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of ninety (90) percent of its laboratory maximum dry density. The maximum dry density should be determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-91 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. The native sandy silt and silty sand soils were generally in a wet condition at the time of our exploration. In our opinion, the native sandy silt and silty sand soils will not likely be suitable for use as structural fill in foundation areas. Structural fill used in foundation areas should be a granular material with a moisture content that is at or near the optimum moisture content. During wet weather conditions, structural fill used in foundation areas should consist of a well graded granular soil with less than five percent fines (percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus 3/4 inch fraction). Samples of fill soils intended for use in foundation areas should be submitted to ECI for laboratory testing and approval. Shoring System The use of temporary shoring will likely be necessary along portions of the east building excavation. Due' to the proposed excavation depths, conventional cantilevered shoring consisting of soldier piles and lagging can be considered for temporary support of the excavation. In our opinion, due to the generally loose condition of the existing fill and native soil that will be encountered in the building excavation, soil nailing of the excavation will be difficult to accomplish successfully. The potential for groundwater seepage and water bearing sands along the lower portions of the excavation will also create difficult soil nailing conditions. If desired, the feasibility of soil nailing can be assessed further, if requested. ii To reduce the height of the shoring, temporary slopes can be constructed above the shoring wall in areas where there is available space, or where easements have been granted. For preliminary design purposes, temporary slopes constructed above the shoring can be inclined at 1 .5H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Davis Avenue Associates, LLC E-9511 January 17, 2002 Page 7 Cantilevered Shoring Temporary slopes constructed above the proposed temporary shoring will impart higher lateral earth pressures on the shoring. An active earth pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of forty-five (45) pcf can be used for shoring where slopes inclined at 1.5H:1V are present above the shoring. Where horizontal backfill conditions are present, an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five (35) pounds per cubic foot (pcf) can be used. These lateral earth pressure value assume no surcharges, and no hydrostatic pressure. Where applicable, surcharge loading from adjacent structures, vehicles, or any other load source should be included in the shoring design. Surcharge loading from adjacent roadways or buildings should be considered if the load source is within a horizontal distance equal to the excavation depth. To account for traffic surcharge loads, seventy (70) pounds per square foot (psf) should be applied in a rectangular distribution along the height of the shoring wall, where applicable. ECI can provide modified equivalent fluid pressures to account for sloping conditions above the 1 shoring that are different from those described above. Passive pressure acting along the embedded portion of the soldier piles may be used to resist active earth pressures and surcharge loading. The passive earth pressure may be calculated equivalent of h . upper two feetusing ofan the embeddedfluid portionwitha of theunitweight soldier piletree should behundred neglected(300) pcf when calculating passive resistance. The passive resistance can be applied to two times the diameter of the soldier piles. Mobilization of full passive pressure assumes that the excavation bottom is horizontal for at least four times the depth of the soldier pile embedment. ECI should be contacted to provide appropriate design values if sloping conditions are present along the excavation bottom. A typical pressure distribution for a temporary cantilever wall design is shown on Plate 3. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Davis Avenue Associates, LLC E-9511 January 17, 2002 Page 8 Soldier Piles The cantilever soldier piles must penetrate far enough below the bottom of the excavation to prevent wall movement. As mentioned previously, passive resistance along the embedded portion of the pile can be calculated using an equivalent fluid of three hundred (300) pcf. The allowable axial capacity of the soldier piles in compression can be developed from a combination of end bearing at the tip of the pile and skin friction along the shaft of the pile. For design purposes, we recommend using an allowable end bearing of 10 kips per square foot (ksf) for piles penetrating at least ten (10) feet below the excavation level. Resistance along the embedded portion of the pile shaft can be calculated using a unit skin friction value of 0.75 ksf for piles penetrating at least ten (10) below the excavation level. Above the excavation level, frictional resistance along the soldier pile should be neglected. The piling contractor should be prepared to case the soldier pile excavations if groundwater seepage and caving of the excavation are encountered. The success of open hole excavations without casing should be verified at the beginning of construction. The bottom of the soldier pile excavations should be free of loose soil prior to placing the structural concrete or lean mix. If an excessive amount of groundwater is encountered at the bottom of the holes, the concrete should be tremied into the holes. Lagging The effects of soil arching between the soldier piles allows the lagging for the temporary shoring to be designed with a reduced value of lateral earth pressure. For soldier piles with a center to center spacing of at least three pile diameters, a 50 percent reduction of the lateral earth pressures can be used for the design of lagging. Lagging installed between the soldier piles is used to support the sides of the excavation, and helps prevent subsidence at the ground surface around the excavation. When the excavation begins, installation of the lagging should begin immediately to help reduce sloughing of the excavation. The contractor should be prepared to address the potential for sloughing of the excavation during the lagging operation. Groundwater seepage may also contribute to sloughing. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Davis Avenue Associates, LLC E-951 1 January 17, 2002 Page 9 The void space between the excavation and the back of the lagging should be backfilled with a free-draining material. The shoring wall should be backfilled as soon as possible after installation of the lagging to help reduce subsidence and lateral movement of the excavation. The backfill should not prevent or impede the passage of groundwater. Where localized areas of sloughing and the creation of voids develop, the use of lean mix injected through the lagging and into the void area can be considered. Shoring Monitoring Whenever excavations are made adjacent to existing streets, utilities and structures, there exists the potential for excavation related ground movements. A monitoring program should include the surveying of adjacent streets and structures for purposes of detecting any horizontal or vertical movements related to the excavation. We recommend the establishment of a monitoring program such that excessive movements are detected early, to allow for remedial actions to be taken to prevent serious damage to adjacent facilities and structures. Prior to beginning the proposed excavation, we recommend performing a detailed photo and videotape survey of the adjacent pavement areas and structures. Periodic monitoring of these areas should be performed throughout the duration of construction. Survey points should be established along the temporary shoring wall to monitor horizontal and vertical movements during the excavation phase of construction. The survey points should be established and monitored by a licensed surveyor. ECI should meet with the contractor and surveyor prior to the installation of the shoring to discuss the location of the monitoring points, and to establish a program for acquiring the readings. All readings should be reviewed by an engineer from our office. We estimate lateral movements at the top of the soldier piles should not exceed one inch. However, movements in excess of one inch may occur as a result of construction related disturbances or unforeseen site conditions. Piles with movements in excess of one inch should be evaluated by ECI. If necessary, remedial measures will be recommended. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Davis Avenue Associates, LLC E-9511 January 17, 2002 Page 10 Foundations Throughout the proposed building footprint, loose to medium dense sandy silt and silty sand soils were observed at the test pit locations. Due to the variability in soil conditions and soil density observed at the test pit locations, it is our opinion the proposed retirement facility should be supported on competent native soils or structural fill. Loose or unstable soils encountered at the footing subgrade should be overexcavated and replaced with a granular structural fill. The width of the overexcavation below the footings should extend a minimum of twelve (12) inches beyond the edges of the foundation. An ECI representative should observe the foundation subgrade and the placement and compaction of structural fill soils in the foundation areas. Provided the foundations are supported on competent native soils or structural fill, an allowable soil bearing capacity of three thousand (3,000) psf can be used for design of the footings. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) inches, respectively. Loading of this magnitude would be provided with a theoretical factor-of-safety in excess of three against actual shear failure, provided the foundations are placed on at least two feet of structural fill. A one- third increase in the above allowable soil bearing capacity can be assumed for short-term seismic loading conditions. Provided the foundations are installed in accordance with the recommendations contained in this report, we estimate total foundation settlements of approximately one inch and differential settlement of approximately one half inch. Most of the anticipated settlements should occur during construction as dead loads are applied. Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the supporting soil, and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of the foundation. Resistance to lateral loads from passive earth pressures can be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of three hundred fifty (350) pcf. To achieve adequate passive resistance, the foundations must be backfilled with a granular structural fill. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0.40 can be used for foundations bearing on granular structural fill. These lateral resistance values are allowable values; a factor-of- safety of 1 .5 has been included. The footing excavations should be observed by a representative of ECI to assess soil conditions and the need for overexcavation. Density testing of the structural fill placed in foundation areas should also be performed periodically by ECI. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Davis Avenue Associates, LLC E-9511 January 17, 2002 Page 11 Permanent Retaining and Foundation Walls The foundation walls for the proposed facility should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures from the retained soils, and any surcharge loading. For a restrained foundation wall condition, an equivalent fluid of fifty (50) pcf can be used to calculate the lateral earth pressures on the foundation walls. For unrestrained cantilever retaining wall conditions, an equivalent fluid of thirty-five (35) pcf can be used for calculating earth pressures. Lateral earth pressures calculated using the above equivalent fluid values assume drainage will be provided around the walls such that hydrostatic pressures cannot develop. If sloping backfill conditions are present behind the walls, ECI should review the slope configuration and provide supplement recommendations for surcharge loading, if applicable. For traffic surcharge loading, seventy (70) psf should be applied in a rectangular distribution along the height of the wall, where applicable. The walls should be provided with a perforated drain pipe and backfilled with a free- draining material. The free-draining material should extend at least eighteen (18) inches behind the wall. The remainder of the backfill should consist of granular structural fill. A typical wall backfill and drainage detail for the foundation walls is illustrated on Plates 4. In areas where the permanent foundation wall will be constructed along the temporary shoring, sheet drain,material such as Mira-Drain 6000 should be attached to the lagging of the temporary shoring. Two-inch diameter weep holes spaced approximately every six feet should be installed at the base of the wall. The weep holes should be connected to a collector pipe installed along the inside perimeter of the foundation. A typical sheet drain and collector pipe detail is illustrated on Plate 5. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Davis Avenue Associates, LLC • E-9511 January 17, 2002 Page 12 Seismic Design Considerations The Puget Sound region is classified as Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The largest earthquakes in the Puget Sound region have been subcrustal (intraplate) events, ranging in depth from fifty (50) to seventy (70) kilometers. Such deep events have exhibited no surface faulting. Weaver and Shedlock (1989) researched the probable or known source areas for the crustal, intraplate, and subduction zone earthquakes in the Washington and Oregon area. Crustal and intraplate earthquakes are the only events in Washington and Oregon in which there is a historical record. Shallow crustal earthquakes occur within the North American Plate, and typically do not exceed focal depths of approximately 20 kilometers. Intraplate earthquakes occur in the subducting Juan de Fuca plate, and typically occur below depths of 40 kilometers. The recent February 28, 2001 earthquake that was focused just north of Olympia, Washington was an intraplate earthquake, and had a magnitude of ML =6.8. The subduction zone earthquake, in which there is no historical record in the Washington and Oregon area, would have its source along the interface between the North American Plate and the subducting Juan de Fuca Plate. Magnitude 8+ earthquakes are thought to be possible along this interface, and would occur at depths of approximately 50 to 60 kilometers (Weaver and Shedlock, 1989). The UBC Earthquake regulations have established a series of soil profile types that are used as a basis for seismic design of structures. Based on the encountered soil conditions, it is our opinion that soil type So from Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC should be used for design. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time during an earthquake. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential settlement for structures with foundations founded in the liquefying soils. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain-to-grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid for short periods of time. I To have potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain size distribution of a specified range (generally sands and silt); it must be loose to medium- -1 dense; it must be below the groundwater table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of groundshaking. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Davis Avenue Associates, LLC E-951 1 January 17, 2002 Page 13 Based on the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the site, it is our opinion that the site has a low susceptibility to liquefaction. The medium dense to dense condition of the native soils is the primary basis for this conclusion. Slab-on-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors for the proposed facility should be supported on competent native soils or structural fill. Loose or unstable subgrade soils should be compacted or, replaced with structural fill. A minimum four inch capillary break consisting of free draining sand or gravel with a fines content of less than 5 percent should be placed below the slab. A vapor barrier consisting of 6-mil plastic sheeting should also be placed below the slab to help reduce the buildup of water vapor below the slab. The subgrade soils in the slab-on- grade areas should be observed by a representative of ECI prior to constructing the slab. Site Drainage Installation of a perimeter foundation drain around the foundation walls for the proposed facility is recommended. Plates 4 and 5 illustrate a typical perimeter drain at the foundation walls. Plate 6 provides a typical perimeter drain detail for a shallow footing. Groundwater collected in the perimeter foundation drain system should be directed to a tightline drain system. The roof drain system should not be connected to the perimeter drain system. The presence of groundwater seepage should be expected along the face of the proposed temporary slopes for the building excavation. Greater amounts of seepage should be expected if the construction is performed during the winter and early spring. In our opinion, the impact of groundwater seepage during construction will be minimal if the construction is performed during the summer months. An ECI representative should be on-site during the excavation phase of construction to assess groundwater conditions. If excessive groundwater conditions are encountered, the use of sumps may be necessary to collect and discharge groundwater seepage from the excavation. Excavations and Slopes The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. Earth Consultants, Inc. �_d GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Davis Avenue Associates, LLC E-951 1 January 17, 2002 Page 14 In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state, and Federal safety regulations. Based on the information obtained from our field exploration, the soils observed would be classified as Type C soils by OSHA. As such, temporary cuts in these soils should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 1.5H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). ECI should observe the excavations to assess soil and groundwater conditions, and verify the OSHA soil type. As previously •discussed, groundwater seepage present along temporary slopes may cause piping and erosion of the slopes. Two-inch crushed rock can be placed in these areas to control piping and slope erosion, if necessary. Temporary slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting. Permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2H:1V. Cut slopes should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve stability, including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. In any case, water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of slopes. Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. Utility Trench Backfill Based on the soil conditions encountered at the time of our exploration, the native soils should provide adequate support for utilities. If remedial measures are necessary to provide adequate support for utilities, the unsuitable soils can be overexcavated and replaced with a rock ballast and pipe bedding material such as pea gravel. Utility trench backfill is a primary concern in reducing the potential for settlement in pavement areas. It is important that the utilities be adequately supported in the bedding material. The material should be hand tamped to ensure support is provided around the haunches of these structures. Fill should be carefully placed and tamped to about twelve (12) inches above the crown of the pipe before heavy compaction equipment is brought into use. The remainder of the backfill should be placed in lifts having a loose thickness of less than twelve (12) inches. A typical trench backfill section and compaction requirements for load supporting and non-load supporting areas is presented on Plate 7. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Davis Avenue Associates, LLC E-9511 January 17, 2002 Page 15 Pavement Areas The adequacy of site pavements is related in part to the condition of the underlying subgrade. ECI should observe proofrolling of the pavement subgrade prior to constructing the pavement section. The top twelve (12) inches of the subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM D-1557-91). It is possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may still exist after this process. Therefore, overexcavation and a greater thickness of structural fill or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. For preliminary design, the following pavement section for lightly-loaded areas can be used: • Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB) material, or • Two inches of AC over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB) material. Heavier truck-traffic areas will require thicker sections depending upon site usage, pavement life and site traffic. As a general rule, the following sections can be considered for truck-trafficked areas: • Three inches of AC over six inches of CRB, or • Three inches of AC over four and one-half inches of ATB. These pavement thicknesses may be modified based on anticipated traffic loads and frequency. Asphalt concrete (AC), asphalt treated base (ATB), and crushed rock base (CRB) materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. All rock base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D-1557-91 laboratory test standard. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Davis Avenue Associates, LLC E-951 1 January 17, 2002 Page 16 LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided to us by you, and our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test pits. Soil and groundwater conditions between exploration sites may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. Additional Services We recommend that ECI be retained to perform a general review of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications. We also recommend that ECI be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility for the performance of the foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construction observation and testing Earth Consultants, Inc. a t 4 .—_ 04r_ Kalllr -.-.‘1"'''':':' �w�; � 1 Cu �;3Rll �csx �k :_ :1' STccMR RB) : SE ]79THrm E � snl cue iaarr I r ST S 4 i ST 17 `� �' ' ' am ,• a IrS a ,� ll r'' sr s -cc 9 i 5032 v) 4 , 4.11 1 mil- 4-,4. vti • ,.."-_,Y ST ... .- f*. c Ki S TJr g 5k d?iti 5T __ ---, st 1estH "• r S 116 j- 77 ,;. r-.4. t �- S !! ST I S 1 R7r1 S T 1 f 0 s 911 1 t ST ftt,,,.°2_,1! I5E ISBN ST�� S 14QTH $T, CT g b ' V'' T:12:1154SE 1 N 4.5 ?. ol N., sr LmiN ioo� i-z I 1 -5 ,UZND ST -- 41 r 5 55TH ~ _ l `� 1V4TH ST End I �,, !� $` n 1-+— —, "CC CLLVELMO 1 PARR'S 196TH S 196TH ST iQAQIL - '� =Ta ,� sr 1_. sr s� t... ST ll ' rr; - , 4•i ,, a S 19/1TH ST I ,K ,, U '1' - 5 19�8TN Sr -T `T--1 SPRI , I '4I 11 1 : - Tcf' ;1 44 E n I (a 199i11 It ' � --- 200111 Sr c� � vp1 f S . 200TH •I �'---SST i� J-f 5!! �T ZQlJ1 N l I "II f 1 in a vs ,I§k. r Li t �q 515 .... 1 Ria. 'i F. r,:t II 81 Z assl I _S_ ?PIMP_ uil 15r 1 S t le sr lJ « s Jf, -J R rs S1 u }� �� N 41! X K 2a13RD ST $ S ► �' "° SEj 2 Th S. S 2 . I 5 2057N F p1" A( tAn ' 205 `JIB to+w , r -.-Es b. P. ic''' ; * t+� rnl to �� n. � N. L^V- 'M718ER 41 S 208Tt rum �F6TTS SIB 5E 206TH L�t CAKE 209,m n_i __ _ 4 Rti .i bpi I ii JE2wil 2 .11 ffinFR — a= r.i.6 S *MR 11� r" �_ _ SIR. MR Reference: d"�; il\' ��4► Puget Sound Area ihoirr`-1JL;/f 1 Earth Consultants, Inc. Nov` F technical Engineers.Geologists&Environmental Scientists King County/Map 686 By Thomas Brothers Maps Dated 2002 Vicinity Map Chateau Valley Center Renton, Washington NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent Drwn. GLS Date Nov. 2001 Proj. No. 9511 misinterpretation of the information resulting from black&white reproductions of this plate. Checked RAC Date 11/20/01 Plate 1 r _ TP-7 ! \ N. Approximate Scale MONICIIIIIIINCI � \� 0 30 60 120ft. W . INI \ \ I 7Lot 10 I \\ \` 0 Ij ` lk -iftP-r \ \N 4S LEGEND I \ • I • ' N G'�y`. �k�ww-- TP-1 -1-Approximate Location of CO i - \6 \ 'Vt, T ECI Test Pit, Proj. No. TP-8 I_ Lot 11 \ r\ --AA E-9511, Nov. 2001 T 1 TP-9 —1— v T- TP-5T \ \ Subject Site I' Lot 1 \ Proposed Building 120 \ ,00 --r _ 100 ' \ TP-11_ A L \ _ —1 TP-3 TP-4 I— N Utility Easement _ _ _ i _1__ T— T \ TTP-2 L _ L \2 _ _ Utility Easnentr_ — 110 ('`nt (�'�f,`A j I Earth Consultants, Inc. / Geotechnical Engineers,Geologists&Environmental Scientists NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. Test Pit Location Plan ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent Chateau Valley Center misinterpretation of the information resulting from black&white reproductions of this plate. Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date Nov. 2001 Proj. No. 9511 , Checked RAC Date 11/20/01 Plate 2 Traffic Surcharge(Where Applicable) Temporary Slope / II / (1.5H : 1V Max.) 1111 III—III-III- Temporary Soldier —I ll Pile Wall \_ i ai Active Pressure ' as / 4 2a w as H = 12' (Max.) j Use EFP=45pcf 4 'Q ill 0. 4 ~ a) Q. a) ' IC-3 3 -g, , . 1 , /d a. Bottom of Excavation / Q III-I I I I I I I I I- 2,� _ / a A D C / . Use EFP=300pcf ► C CG C / D= 1.5H (Min.) Passive Pressure / D / /. C / C C / D�_../ . NOT-TO-SCALE NOTES: Calculate Active Pressure using Equivalent Fluid Pressure (EFP)=45pcf. For 1.5H:1V slope above wall. For Horizontal Backfill use ././Y,\ ,pV; A EFP=35pcf. �Y`���\r Earth Consultants Inc. �����,(�j,1 `�� J Geotechnical Engineers Geologists&Environmental Scientists Apply Passive Pressure over 2 times the diameter of the Grouted Soldier Pile. Use EFP=300pcf. TEMPORARY CANTILEVER SOLDIER PILE WALL Chateau Valley Center Apply Traffic Surcharge of 70psf in Renton, Washington rectangular distribution (where applicable). Drwn. GLS Date Dec.2001 Proj. No. 9511 Checked RAC Date 12/4/01 Plate 3 • 18 inches min. A • III=IIIIIIIIIIIII 12 inches ;r •:` ..;:::� III • '•o ' V° oL'000o. ti-o ) O V 00 H Varies ° oo0°°0°o a0 o e ; °:•-= 4.0 0 O o ° o0O°o •' •O . •0 : o°000Op p ooO ado O 0:V.• o0 °°o O 0 0000 0 • ...•eV•.•::i 0 0 ° o Excavated Slope ° 00 op 0 °°0 o°o o�- •o.. 00p 0000 000 0 • • .f 00 0 O 0 O00o a 0 -oo00 00O 00 O •••,• . ° 0 O ° 0 0. p �. FF Elev.Varies °° O ° °oo°°°°O° 0 ' . o 0 00 o O0 :•o o° o ° o0 0 .�c • p Q0 0 o . 0o0 00000 0:. 4 o0 0 ° 000°°0o Perforated Pipe 00 °o 0 0 0°o a° 0 -°== Wrapped with 18"min. 0,—0.° no o ° ° ��-�� � Filter Fabric STANDARD NOTES LEGEND 1) Free draining backfill should consist of :f Surface Seal; Native Soil or other low granular soil having no more than 5 .. ="•, permeability Material percent passing the#200 sieve and no particles greater than 4 inches in o °o pO o 18 inches minimum of Free Draining diameter.The percentage of particles ;°° ° ° Backfill, passing the#4 sieve should be between 25 and 75 percent. .: :.: Structural Fill Backfill 90 percent relative °--- - compaction 2) Structural Fill backfill should be free of organics,clayey soils,debris and other °00 1 inch Minus Rock or Pea Gravel deleterious materials. It should be °°° placed at or below the optimum moisture content. SCHEMATIC ONLY-NOT TO SCALE 3) Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING PVC pipe laid with perforations or slots facing down;tight jointed;with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated p1: //I►\ plastic pipe. Drain line should be bedded Earth Consultants Inc. on and surround with free draining 1 inch 41114;(1401) �Of�hnical Engineers.Geologists lfi Ernironmenlal Scientists minus rock or pea gravel, as desired. The drain rock may be encapsulated with a RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE AND BACKFILL geotechnical drainage fabric at the Chateau Valley Center engineers discretion. Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date Dec.2001 Proj. No. 9511 Checked RAC Date 12/4/01 Plate 4 WATERPROOFING PER ARCHITECTURAL PLAN WOOD LAGGING CONCRETE FACING CONTINUOUS MIRADRAIN 6000 OR EQUIVALENT 77 tI) • (PLACED WITH FILTER FABRIC (• FACING SHORING) j • 2" DIAMETER PVC DRAIN PIPE • 6'O.C. 111 / 111 : ; CONNECT TO PERIMETER-DRAIN 111 III TIGHTLINE -III- �' , %III : � SLAB-ON-GRADE FLOOR • (PER PLAN) III / • NATIVE SOIL — • EXCAVATION • 111 \ 111 ; III-111 �• � ' • o O. d , a . 1I1 —,_'--------,.• b c 1 PVC TIGHTLINE • o ' III D TURA • T cTRU • . : o • FILL.. DRAIN GRATE J . . . . • :° • / • - v \• N ' ,, : m : p . • FOUNDATION PLAN) Li.. :o . .. .•.: b . o III—III—III-IIIE111 -III- -III NOTE: DRAIN THROUGH WALL SHOULD BE INSTALLED AT MIDDLE OF LAGGING. Earth Consultants, Inc. kg (1��,`,V ) Geotechnical Engineers•Geologists R Environmental Scientists SCHEMATIC ONLY-NOT TO SCALE SHORING WALL DRAINAGE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Chateau Valley Center Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date Dec.2001 Proj. No. 9511 Checked RAC Date 12/4/01 Plate 5 O Slope To Drain ,�o i 1 . O 'p ° . 0 . inch in. _ 6c o ° �e ° ° a 0 °".• :�;o: • .:- .a: •r - a -° .Q. .®:.,:..o. : ° . 0 18 inch min. ° 4 inch min. ▪ ; _ o' ,":.: ° o Diameter a :-:%•: °.' ° Perforated Pipe • • : ` Wrapped in Drainage e- • :.: o.= • o°a o• °o a Fabric �• = T 2 inch min. 2 inch min. / 4 inch max. 12 inch min. SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING LEGEND Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material. -•• ' Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9-03.1(2) of the ° !a:.° WSDOT Specifications. • O Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or slots facing down;tight jointed;with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing lines. Wrap with Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent. 4*, 'P 44\ TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL /yEarth Consultants Inc. Chateau Valley Center 11; ir�/�, Geotechnkxl Fngln°ers.Geolog sts&FsNmnmental Scientists Renton, Washington Proj. No. 9511 I Drwn. GLS I Date Dec.2001 Checked RAC I Date 12/4/01 I Plate 6 Non-Load Supporting Floor Slab or Areas �•Roadway Areas 0.1 [44 • � 0 00 0 °°°0 0 Varies A • ::' •:}: 1 foot min. Backfill ▪ :s�;:ter?•:� . . :i; ;�:, �: ; Varies ., •.raj.. t; •.• • : •.r� :.y: tip: j'• •'L'.• .•:: :si;'.••• :; •his• A o //• , pipe v.•-•aPag9 = D°Qo:0b�oo°U. �oA7o°.00°Oo[ °c'b0 0:° ° • -o°° a °Oag0 0° Varies ° ° Bedding D°Q9o.�oo°4.Qo.o.o0 4.Q:c ' o £Qc t °Q go•°91 trod° 0•°.` o0Q.gO .` o0Q c LEGEND - Road Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab °°'0-0: SCHEMATIC ONLY-NOT TO SCALE 000 Base Rock • " NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Backfill;Compacted On-Site Soil •• or Suitable Imported Fill Material. cMinimum Percentage of Maximum 90 Laboratory Dry Density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557-91 dip,. E��: �i�► (Modified Proctor), unless otherwise �1(1-1.1)`J, EarthConsultants, Inc.s ecified in the attached re ort text. �ih)� \i��J Geotechnlcal Engineers,Geologists&Environmental Scientists p report Bedding Material; material type depends TYPICAL UTILITY TRENCH FILL a °-'s: on type of pipe and laying conditions. Chateau Valley Center Bedding should conform to the Renton, Washington manufacturers recommendations for the type of pipe selected. Drwn. GLS Date Dec. 2001 Proj. No. 9511 Checked RAC Date 12/4/01 Plate 7 A P P E N D X A 19 p-e. it) I APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION E-9511 Our field exploration was performed on November 2, 2001 . The approximate test pit locations were determined from existing landmarks presented on available plans. The locations of the test pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on the Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geologist from our office, who classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative samples, measured groundwater levels, and observed pertinent site features. All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System that is presented on Plate Al, Legend. Logs of the test pits are presented in the Appendix A, Plates A2 through A10. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory tests of field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. Earth Consultants,Inc. MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL SYMBOL a d CI GW Well-Graded Gravels,Gravel-Sand And Clean Clean Gravels 1Graan4nan gW Mixtures,Little Or No Fines Gravelly (little or no fines) ` ` 111 GP Poorly-Graded Gravels,Gravel- 1 Coarse Soils • ■ ■ Grained gp Sand Mixtures,Little Or No Fines Soils More Than + 11 Ii gm I GM Silty Gravels,Gravel-Sand- 50% Coarse Gravels With 1+ Silt Mixtures Fraction Fines(appreciable 1 - Retained On amount of fines) • f� fe GC Clayey Gravels,Gravel-Sand- No.4 Sieve ' Or , g gc Clay Mixtures ' Sand o ' SW Well-Graded Sands, Gravelly And Clean Sand ' o,,pQ o e v SW Sands, Little Or No Fines 1 More Than Sandy (little or no fines) , ;,+,.,:1}.:•! :;; ;:; Poorly-Graded Sands, Gravelly Soils Q:r%i Y. Q%�N SP y �xs(?uq:}►.;;; #; S Sands, Little Or No Fines 50% Material I� • - • Larger Than More Coarse Than. No.200 Sieve SM 50% Silty Sands, Sand Silt Mixtures Size Sands With Sm Fraction Fines(appreciable ' • Passing No.4 amount of fines) w. SC Sieve ,i SC Clayey Sands, Sand-Clay Mixtures ML Inorganic Silts&Very Fine Sands,Rock FIoI.r,Silty- 1 I ml Clayey Fine Sands;Clayey Silts w/Slight Plasticity GraffSilts Liquid Limit �� CL Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity, Grained And Less Than 50 ^ CI Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean Soils Clays Organic Silts And Organic I I I I I I I I I OL PI Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity MH Inorganic Silts,Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fire • More Than mh Sand Or Silty Soils 50% Material Silts Liquid Limit Smaller Than And Greater Than 50 CH Inorganic Clays Of High • No.200 Sieve Clays Ch Plasticity, Fat Clays. Size /1 OH Organic Clays Of Medium To'High j , , / Oh Plasticity, Organic Silts �• `err LI PT Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils Highly Organic Soils i.4 `‘i, `%r, %I pt With High Organic Contents Topsoil '4,4,4,4,J Humus And Duff Layer ��•�•�•�•�• ♦♦♦♦♦♦� Hlyhly Variable Constituents Fill ♦♦♦♦♦♦ The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented In the attached logs. DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classification. C TORVANE READING,tsf I 2"O.D.SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER qu PENETROMETER READING,tsf W MOISTURE,%dry weight II 24"I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER - ' P SAMPLER PUSHED * SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED i WATER OBSERVATION WELL ' pcf DRY DENSITY,lbs.per cubic ft. ' LL LIQUID LIMIT,% 2 DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER PI PLASTIC INDEX DURING EXCAVATION Y SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W/DATE thi 'ik "44 ,,j Earth Consultants Inc: Ivl .... ull...,iglu vrs,Geoiogisis&IfivlronnelUal ScieniLsis • Proj. No. 9511 I Date Nov. 101 !Plate Al Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of Chateau Valley Center 1 1 Job No. Logged by: Date: Test Pit No.: 9511 KS 11/2/01 TP-1 Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation: NW Excavating 118' Notes: Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil &Sod 2": blackberries General w :2 2 -E. . la ,0 2 Notes (%) •• • SM Brown silty SAND, loose, moist(Fill) •,,• --•-• I ••• •• ••-• •• ••• 10.5 *A: 2 — • • •• -•••-•• •• 3 — .4*• ••-••••• 17.9 . 4_ SM Brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist 5 —6 21.3 ML Gray sandy SILT, medium dense, very moist 7 8 -mottled brown/gray banding 9 -native 16.6 -52%fines 10 -becomes dense ,.. . _ SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist . I - ' 11 Test pit terminated at 11.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 7.0 feet during excavation. NOTES: Test pit excavations performed by a CASE 9010B Track Hoe Excavator. Elevations estimated from a Topographic Plan by Touna Engineers, dated Nov. 1997. 12,.- ,-- 0 0. a. 0. - itds-.. Test Pit Log iliA lir-/)6.„1101 Earth Consultants Inc. ( Chateau Valley Center Renton,Washington Il mr)/ wil Nap Gcotectintc-al Fnginetas,GeologIsts&FxwIronmenral Scientists a w Prq.No. 9511 Dwn. GLS Date Nov.2001 Checked RAC , Date 11/26/01 Plate A2 I-- Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of ffnfnrmnfinn nroacinfori nn fhic Inn Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of Chateau Valley Center 1 1 Job No. Logged by: Date: • Test Pit No.: 9511 KS 11/2/01 TP-2 Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation: NW Excavating 116' Notes: — Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil&Sod 4":trees/blackberries General W ' Notes (%) ei• (73 Da. ML Gray sandy SILT, medium loose,very moist 2 -mottled 18.8 -51%fines 3 4 5 ---15.8 6 - SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist . 7 - _ - 8 -slightly cemented 10.7 9 10 Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. 0 dAd`` /1111‘ Test Pit Log Earth Consultants Inc. Chateau Valley Center 8 wrii Nlof miry Grztectinical Ensineras,Geologists/1 RwIronmental Scientists Renton,Washington Proj.No. 9511 Dwn. GLS Date Nov.2001 Checked RAC Date 11/26/01 Plate A3 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of onfnmnalinn nres*anfcarl nn*hie Inn Test Pit Log ' Project Name: Sheet of Chateau Valley Center 1 1 Job No. Logged by: Date: Test Pit No.: 9511 KS 11/2/01 TP-3 Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation: NW Excavating 111' Notes: 0 .7, w . Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil&Sod 4": blackberries General W Notes (%) 0 tO D ML Gray sandy SILT, medium dense, moist,with organics ML Brown to gray sandy SILT, medium dense, moist 2 3 16.4 -with gravel,cobbles 4 -mottled 5 18.5 6 7 8 ----- 9 SM Gray silty SAND with gravel, medium dense,very moist 23.6 10 Test pit terminated at 10.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. a co (9. ' (9. Test Pit Log (10( r Earth Consultants Inc. Chateau Valley Center Nlof 0e:owl mica!Fnglneets,Geobgists&Fiwlmnmenral Sclentigs Renton,Washington 6 Proj.No. 9511 Dwn. GLS Date Nov.2001 Checked RAC Date 11/26/01 Plate A4 , Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of onfeumofinn nrcleonfeael nn filicInn Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of Chateau Valley Center 1 1 Job No. Logged by: Date: Test Pit No.: 9511 KS 11/2/01 TP-4 E avation Contactor. Ground Surface Elevation: NW Excavating 105' Notes: General W t — t a u, — Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil&Sod 8":trees/blackberries Notes (%) eco o " ML Gray to brown sandy SILT with gravel, medium dense,very moist 2 -with organics 3 -mottled 17.8 -seepage at 2' 18.8 = 4 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense,very moist 5 s — -42%fines = 7 — 8 11.7 € SP-SM Brown poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, medium dense,wet r>a: 9 s? ? -7/a o o.. fines a:a 10 — 14.4 -becomes very dense at 11' 12 -with cobbles at 11.5' Test pit terminated at 12.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 2.0 and 7.0 feet during excavation. -- 8 ,���� Ear, -i4k. Test Pit Log ,i ]/1i1`��i1r I Earth Consultants Inc. Chateau Valley Center 8 J w ri f to Now Gtortenmkai Pngtnerls,Geologists&FrivIronmesdal scle,nsts Renton,Washington a W Prq.No. 9511 Dwn. GLS Date Nov.2001 Checked RAC Date 11/26/01 Plate A5 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of ,nfnrm4Hnn nroenn4nri nn*tic Inn Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of Chateau Valley Center 1 1 Job No. Logged by: Date: Test Pit No.: 9511 KS 11/2/01 TP-5 Beavation Contactor Ground Surface Elevation: NW Excavating 104' Notes: w Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil&Sod 8":trees/blackberries General W ow fit E E E Notes (%) j;• o Dc>„-. SM Brown silty SAND, medium dense,dry(Fill) 2 — -with organics 10.5 -34%fines ML Gray to brown sandy SILT, medium dense, moist(Native) 3 4 10.5 5 6 13.8 7.777 7 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist I r-,,:•1 8 = 9 -becomes sandier at 9' 13.6 47. 11 • Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. 13 I O. LIJ — EL #4, 41V Test Pit Log s fiviiijj Earth Consultants Inc. Chateau Valley Center g 10/All, \I,IFF Geo4ecimIcal Fnglneess.Geologists&awkonmental Fick:111%s Renton,Washington 0. Proj.No. 9511 Dwn. GLS Date Nov.2001 Checked RAC Date 11/26/01 Plate A6 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of Anfnrmafinn nrocanforl nn flak Inn • Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of Chateau Valley Center 1 1 Job No. Logged by: Date: Test Pit No.: 9511 KS 11/2/01 TP-6 Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation: NW Excavating 112' Notes: t — a -6 Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil&Sod 2": blackberries General W Notes (%) o LL m r). C9 Ls. kn SM Brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist(Fill) TPSL TOPSOIL 2 ML Gray sandy SILT, medium dense,moist(Native) 3 15.0 4 -mottled 5 6 7 14.4 8 s Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. 0 c9 ��� , �f�}: a�►�, Test Pit Log Earth Consultants Inc. �11y),tt`1�� � Chateau Valley Center \1 �t` Gcoltctmlral PI-Oncra..Geologists&FIWItonmenral Scic ntlsis Renton,Washington Proj.No. 9511 Dwn. GLS Date Nov.2001 Checked RAC Date 11/26/01 Plate A7 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of Inlfnr,ofunn nrocan+G1+M+hie Inn Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of Chateau Valley Center 1 1 Job No. Logged by: Date: Test Pit No.: 9511 KS 11/2/01 TP-7 Excavation Contactor Ground Surface Elevation: NW Excavating 115' Notes: • 0 — w — Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil&Sod 2":grass General W E E 1)) E Notes (°A) x: SM Brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist ML Brown to gray sandy SILT, medium dense, moist 2 3 -mottled 4 5 • 6 12.2 Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. I u, (.9 Test Pit Log mc° (hit 41ii Earth Consultants Inc. Chateau Valley Center wry GclateclinIcal Frigineds,GedogIsts&DwIronmentalSclentigs Renton,Washington a. 6 w Proj.No. 9511 Dwn. GLS Date Nov.2001 Checked RAC Date 11/26/01 Plate A8 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of .nfetnnofinn nnacnninel nn*tie WI Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of Chateau Valley Center 1 1 , Job No. Logged by: Date: Test Pit No.: 9511 KS 11/2/01 TP-8 Excavation Contactor. Ground Surface Elevation: NW Bcavating 112' Notes: 0 — . Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil&Sod 8": blackberries General W 21 CLE E co E Notes (%) ML Brown to gray sandy SILT, medium dense,very moist 1 2 3 4 20.7 5 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel,dense, moist : - 6 -47%fines 11.6 - 7 Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. a tli O. 1- /Pis: A: /Mk Test Pit Log (hilt it 0/10 Earth Consultants Inc. Chateau Valley Center mrki mill, wig/ GeotectnIcal Fnglnetas,Geologists&awlmnmenral ScientW Renton,Washington w Proj.No. 9511 own. GLS Date Nov.2001 Checked RAC Date 11/26/01 Plate A9 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of enfnrrnefinn nreecinforinn f hie Inn Test Pit Log Project Name: Sheet of Chateau Valley Center 1 1 Job No. Logged by: Date: Test Pit No.: 9511 KS 11/2/01 TP-9 Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation: r NW Excavating 107' Notes: o — Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil&Sod 12":trees c U) General W . 2 E rr_ E co E Notes (/o) ML Gray to brown sandy SILT, medium dense,very moist 2 3 4 5 - 18.6 6 7 8 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist 9 Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. (9. 0 v- /Ps:, It 444\ Test Pit Log illeiqk*9010 Earth Consultants Inc. Chateau Valley Center s rj/ w GtowctinIc-al PrigInetds,Geofogtsts&Rwtrorm terra]Sctentigs Renton,Washington tum) Proj.No. 9511 Dwn. GLS Date Nov.2001 Checked RAC Date 11/26/01 Plate A10 ' Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests,analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of onfewnsofinn nreseanfnei etre fhie Inn A P P E N _ I X � B APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS E-9511 Earth Consultants, Inc. .9 SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES I NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH.U.S.STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN M M • ? N N v a\m co T 0 p ep O O O 0 co Op ON co a tl N O O O S OOO Os 0. O O O O, tD a (1 N t? rri O 00 0 i� so \�r 10 G §- .0 80 20 m Z70 •'� 3o m r --I z iv) '11 60 •= - —I 40 win y m - I�• O s: DO D a • 5" 50 50 73 o g. ,--1m 40 _ 60 COC g' 0 _I 30 - - 70 m n 23 cco 20 80 --.I c, M CD -- 10 90 cn pd � 0; I III 11 I I I LIII I I_ I l IIJII_L-I 1 1111 _ 100 O O O O O O O O O co to a CO N .— CItD a M N a— CO CD MN O CD M N a•� mocom ID 03 57 0 0 0 CO CO et CO N e— • O O 0! 0 0 O O O O O O O G 0 y M N GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z Cu COARSE I FINE COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE 0 COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINES W m 0' m Z tv Boring or DEPTH Moisture oN D KEY Test Pit No. (ft.) USCS DESCRIPTION Content I%) LL PL 0 rt. rnn O TP-1 9 ML Sandy SILT 16.6 --- --- 13 CDLT K CD p--- TP-2 2.5 ML Sandy SILT 18.8 --- --- td p...... TP-4 4 SM Silty SAND 18.8 --- --- s SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS B. B. SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES 1 NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH.U.S.STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MM 1. ••. p coOD i0 CA0 ^ $ f O O Z N NaamN m 0 � 1. O p O 9R0S Oa 0O OO . O 0. 00 O 0 0 O 100 \- •.11 s1-- .16iiik 90 • - \� ----11•z . . . , 10 i - : m • v -o 80 \ •Q 20 P 1-1 2 5'.' n . , • •• . - m O m 70 - 30 73 n \ z 1 cf) 11 60 - -- • N4N _ - - • - 40 —I °qC z ti - C ich m \a .� O ,� 50 III N - - 50 D O CO 1 , y - _ 3 • -< -1 m o E 0 m 40 • \\ ` , 60 co n G) 5s o▪ N -1 30 - • 70. m 20 80 •-1 o CD CI. - 10 _ 90 pd0GT 0 ' I III I I I 1 I (III I ( 1 I ' LLJI_ LI J - I_ LIII _ 100 - O o O O O O O O O co f0 R M N a- OD fO Cr M N - COW C' M N , O O et CON N il O '� 0 0 O CO CO a CO N -'• • O O O O O O O O O O 0 O rt rt D CO N GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS O O O o O O vw Z COARSE 1 FINE COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE CD - 0 Cl). COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINES m IV oD Boring or DEPTH Moisture fp D KEY Test Pit No. (ft.) USCS DESCRIPTION Content(%) LL PL o nc) �� 0 0 m p TP-4 8 SP-SM Poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel 11.7 --- --- m H CD p___ TP-5 2 SM Silty SAND 10.5 --- --- 1`' 0 .. TP-8 5 SM Silty SAND 20.7 --- --- r ' DISTRIBUTION E-9511 4 Copies Davis Avenue Associates, LLC P.O. Box 907 Woodinville, Washington 98072 Attention: Mr. Darrell Johnson Earth Consultants, Inc. ADDENDUM B Page6 .■ i a. The Lakeshore Retirement Residence- Parking counts were taken to determine acutal cars parked at the facility at different dates&times. Sunday,April 14,2002,am Sunday,April 14,2002,pm itrMonday,April 15,2002 mid-day NO SITE VISIT SUNDAY AM • ,wilit J aiLi F , l L NO SITE VISIT SUNDAY AM — j • `•44rAt ZiLisitl. NO SITE VISIT SUNDAY AM , Al / it 111 rt t. __ _!I ill. /1 ji NW 41111111111N1 NO SITE VISIT SUNDAY AM riir:, ••"ern , • l . , ., 1, 7. ii, - is w 's d..a... '..._.� ' . ADDENDUM B Page 7 El Dorado Retirement Community-Parking counts were s S IRADO taken to determine acutal cars parked at the facility at different •` M � dates&times. Sunday,April 14,2002,am Sunday,April 14,2002,pm Monday,April 15,2002 mid-day NO SITE VISIT SUNDAY AM .' ,;. 4411,, YL►-1 Y ii i s F. iiiimmiimiiimeminimmiiiim. .., .. .--- ; ' ata• ILI:L... NO SITE VISIT SUNDAY AM 1 �w �i'" d Z — liw ,,44-ii iiii ii NO SITE VISIT SUNDAY AM ., A .4.4 AA - - �, mow.. �� - , __ :\ #l" W' 4 .34 NO SITE VISIT SUNDAY AM vfrlf. ,:„ 0.� IN �" . - . ADDENDUM B Page4 ' The Lodge at Eagle Ridge-Parking counts were taken to j { determine acutal cars parked at the facility at different dates& ', times. .ii,�. Lim x'i Sunday,April 14,2002,am Sunday,April 14,2002,pm Monday,April 15,2002 mid-day yy nmg' 40.+y. .._ —.. .R.,.�•- -: ,>. -_ Alt e RF' Jr aiiiiiillik .. '2092 i9i26. it� _ ,_kua w'taz6:0e:ar - 2926 .a44 ME NW 0Y a- pL '."- =- ' ill, -041/2926 0830 e ADDENDUM B Page O ' Arbor Village Retirement and Assisted Living ills - Community-Parking counts were taken to determine acutal .... cars parked at the facility at different dates&times. Sunday,April 14,2002,am Sunday,April 14,2002,pm Monday,April 15,2002 mid-day iiiiiiiiii. r7Al A-- v. Y. �'.'�--• ,r r,�„ ^e11 y+— ''$ . sl 4 — F,,i _ r"' fi, *, 4 , it...., ... . --:. i 11 41 ar •11' 9 I I i i ' } I: t ' liLsaili' 'ilk.' '7, -...''', , ..., 41.4..".%.16.11"..t.' ,�y_,n i it-1- r :I 3C N�fit�l i '+ .,...Y a�'^ w t sue, n i): - 2025 15:02 Se y ADDENDUM B Page 1 rj j Renton Villa Assisted Living Community-iiiParking counts were taken to determine acutal cars parked at the facility at 1` ,-d different dates&times. rr II Sunday,April 14,2002,am Sunday,April 14,2002,pm Monday,April 15,2002 mid-day s - - A- -- W r ram.. 7-7 T milkt - 1 "Imir-r-prw,*-,,_, ii- r..--::- d____7 4,r11 lino i In ; 1:141.1tir- Ilirrfr-r , — - a 016fr".'471=ir k 4.1.--._ -A, ..-- „,,,,,,,..f I t,,,':-, -',.-Pik.*.v.+).'164',2: ''11144: 1. 17, , rfl -, r.,,i Li V .- .1 4, -----_,-, _ ,„ , ,__ .1- 6-4 , 11E11 -44 .ram • Y ADDENDUM B Page2 Stafford Suites,An Adult Assisted Living Residence-Maki Parking counts were taken to determine acutal cars parked at the facility at different dates&times. Sunday,April 14,2002,am Sunday,April 14,2002,pm Monday,April 15,2002 mid-day i r 4 r 4 7 011/2028 11:00 CV f' yµ 2 t livols.-- Air w a 20,5 raIllyill Iiiregitib' agifir.......`*... I ' iii � ill �� ) 1 t p IF - ,,,- iiiik, IA _.__ ,..„ ,„ t Mod+ s< s* j ADDENDUM B Page5 ''.0 ilk OFFarrington Court A Leisure Care Retirement Community-Parking counts were taken to determine acutal 1`I. cars parked at the facility at different dates&times. 1- Sunday,April 14,2002,am Sunday,April 14,2002, pm Monday,April 15,2002 mid-day ill *,� * i rr , - nr 7 rill rI saw • ll :aw'r % ittiat IF - ("r i I , �r B. �— . -.� f r - q ittE y,�. T) Arx.� �_�. I ..,/} gyp.- b {dam• ALie+ .. : a. ‘-'I 'k 1. L. 04 14 202E tY.. - ..