Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA96-067 a'� ti . CITN „)F RENTON y Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman L I 1 October 3, 1996 Mr. David Combs Greenwood Memorial Park 350 Monroe Avenue NE Renton, WA 98055 Re: CEDAR VIEW MAUSOLEUM,PHASE II , FILE No. LUA-96-067,CU Dear Mr, 'Combs: The reconsideration of the Examiner's Report and Decision on the above referenced matter, . which was issued on August 26, 1996,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. ,;: - i Please feel free to contact this office,if further assistance or information is required. ' Sincerely,. . ...cL r Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examinei :: cc Jennifer Henning;:: Sandi'Seeger,:Development Services 200 Mill Avenue South-Renton, Washington 98055-:'(206)235-2593-" ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer 4$ ° 4-1, ' CITN ,.)F RENTON Hearing Examiner , Jesse Tanner,Mayor • Fred J.Kaufman September 17, 1996 Mr. Ben Stark P.O. Box 98638 Seattle, WA 98198 Re: Request for Reconsideration, Cedar View Mausoleum, Phase II File No. LUA-096-067,CU Dear Mr. Stark: I can assure that each application is treated with the utmost respect and seriousness. This application shares most of the characteristics'of the prior:application and that is reflected in the report and;ultimately the decision. In addition,since this is'the third or fourth review of this matter including two separate SEPA appeals and a request for reconsideration,this office has relied on both Findings and Conclusions that'have already been scrutinized and in which no errors were found. As the report indicates there have been no significant changes.in the site,the neighborhood or the abutting(your)property. Not only does:your letter:ignore the fact that no concrete proposal exists on your site, but it ignores the fact that the view is not protected: The applicant could erect a fence on the property line which could foreclose a view: 4-31-5D8b. Fences: Fences,rockeries and retaining walls with.a height of forty.eight inches(48") or less may constructed within any required setback;provided, that they are'located outside of the - twenty foot(20') sight-triangle specified in Section 4-31-15C of this Chapter. Fences:six feet(6) or less in height may be located :. • within the rear and sideyard setback areas but must be reduced to : • forty two inches.(42")to locate within the front yard setback: `. In addition,this office is not interested in the sales tactics used in selling mortuarial services but. understands that some advanced planning is required so that the unfortunate needs of the dead are ultimately met in a timely fashion. In addition,the report does not ignore the fact that there will be some impacts on your property. .. The fact is those impacts are not undue, not untoward and not unreasonable. The landscaping proposed mirrors that which was agreed on by the applicant after the original • j proposal. It will take some time to mature and will be maintained so that it does not grow to ' - undue heights. 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 -.(206)235-2593 A�!� l a This nailer contains 50%recycled material.20%post consumer In conclusion, there is no reason to alter the decision. If you are not satisfied, you may appeal this decision to the City Council within 14 days of this decision. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufm Hearing Examiner FJK:mm cc: Parties of Record Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg= Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members, Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson,Development Services Director Art Larson,Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann, Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney James Chandler,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Mayor's Executive Assistant Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Valley Daily News pnow , SEP I 0 1996 OITY OF RENTON Ben G. Stark ' P.O. Box 98638 E� Q Seattle, WA 98198 CITY OF RENTON �g� phone (206) 878-8466 HEARING EXAMINER RECEIVED CIl'V CLERK'S®FFI�� Sept. 9, 1996 Fred J . Kaufman Renton Hearing Examiner 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, VIA 98055 In re: LU.A -96-067-CU;ECF, Cedar View Mausoleum Phase 2 • Dear Mr. Kaufman; I am filing this "Request For Reconsideration" of your August 26, 1996 Findings, Conclusions and Decision on the Conditional Use Application for Cedar View Mausoleum Phase 2, as an aggrieved person, feeling that the decision is ambiguous and based on errors of law, fact and judgement as listed below. It appears from similarities andin many instances identical wording of the Findings, Conclusions and Decisions on Phases 1 and 2 that the Examiner has given little thought to the dif- ference in size and impact of the phases. I realize a lot of time was spent on consideration of Phase 1. This would not have been necessary if the staff and administrator had required the rear yard setback as required by the code def- inition at the time of application. Since the rear yard code definition was changed before the final Phase 1 decision was issued the decision was not challenged in court0 At any rate, I would hope that you will do a fresh review of Phase 2 without being influenced by the prior Phase 1 decision and. testimony., If you feel you are unable to do so I would expect you to recuse yourself and have Phase 2 reheard by another Examiner. Finding 13. (error in fact and judgement) The pyramidal evergreen shrubs along the rear facade do not and will not screen the property to the east from the rear blank wall. Finding 15. (error in fact) The property owner to the east testified extension of the blank rear facade will cut off the outlook, airflow and_ sunlight from his property. Finding 21, (error in fact) The applicant furnished no evidence that crypts in the current mausoleum are nearly sold out . In fact there are currently 3 mausoleums and no evidence was furnished that an.y of them are sold out. page 1. Conclusion lobo (error in fact) General community need for the proposed use at the proposed location has not been demonstrated, As of July 18, 1996 there were 188 empty crypts and 150 empty niches presently available. Only 39% of the now existing crypts and 36% of the now existing niches have been put to use (needed by the community) in the cemetery's 79 years of operation, Market demand as used in this instance demonstrates sales pressure not community need. Typically mausoleum crypts are sold pre-need for big prices by hivh pressure salesmen frightening older people with the prospect of a damp grave invaded by worms. In this cesrcommunity need is non-existant. If you think this is not true make some discreet inquiries of mausoleum salesmen. Conclusion loco (error in fact) There will be undue impacts on our adjacent property by the blocking of our westerly outlook, airflow and sunlight. Conclusion l.d. (error in fact) The proposed use is totally incompatible in scale, due to it 's length, height and massive rear facade with any possible use of our adjacent property. Conclusion l.h. (error in fact) Landscaping as proposed would be totally insufficient to buffer neighboring property. Conclusion 20 (errors in fact) Conditions have changed sub- ' stantialy since the last mausoleum was. approved. It has been built and it has cut off the westerly outlook, sunlight and airflow from the northerly portion of our property0 It has caused us to put our urn garden on hold. We felt an urn garden would be a passive use. of our property, compatible with the cemetery and our other neighbors. Because the north end of . our property would be used mostly for parking and a very small office an urn garden might still be practical. However, if a second mausoleum is built our urn garden will be out of the question and we -will need to come up with another use for our property which will be very difficult with a giant tomb along side it0 The City of Renton has two cemeterys, bothof them have maus- oleums. 'However many cemeterys have no mausoleum. Mausoleums are not a necessity since many successful cemeterys don't have them. Conclusion 3. (errors in law) The proposed mausoleum IS NOT compatible with the Zoning Code. Ambiguously setback require- ments of the SF R-8 Zone for a residence have been applied but accessory building requirements of the Code for this zone have been ignored by the staff and the Examiner0 The City of Renton Zoning Code states: page 2. 4-31-2: DEFINITIONS: ACCESSORY USE OR BUILDING: A subordinate use or building located upon the same lot occupied by a principal use or building with which it is customarily associated, but clearly incidental to. 4-31-5: D.9. Height: b. Accessory buildings and/or structures shall not exceed one story nor fifteen feet (15 ' ) in height. 4-31-5: D.11. Number and Size of Detatched Accessory Building/Structures a. A maximum of two (2) detatched nonresidential buildings and/or structures, up to a maximum of 720 square feet for each building, such as are ordinarily associated with single- family dwellings; or b. One detatched building or structure up to a maximum of one thousand (1,000) square feet for each building, such as ordinarily associated with single-family dwellings; Clearly in this instance the cemetery is the principal use. The funeral home, the crematorium, the sales office, the maintenance building and the three already existing mausoleums are all accessory uses on this 37.5 acre site. Obviously the number and size of allowable accessory buildings under 4-31-5: D. 11, a. and b. have already been exceeded on this residentially zoned cemetery and an additional mausoleum may not be allowed. The 16 foot height proposed does not meet the 15 foot height limit under 4-31-5: D.90b. . Although the site has been presented as 37.5 acres, actually the proposed building site is a 30 foot wide platted road strip, formerly 128th Avenue S.E. as I testified at the Hear- ing. This 30 foot wide strip does not meet the 50 foot minimum lot width for the zone and already contains the Phase 1 maus- oleum, 782 square feet, which can not be enlarged to a greater total size than 1,000 square feet under 4-31-5: D011.b. 0 The regulations for accessory buildings under 4-31-5: D.110 speak of uses ordinarily associated with single family dwellings but if single-family dwelling setbacks apply then the:above accessory building and/or structure requirements should also apply. . However, the minimum lot width requirement of 50 feet, under 4-31-5: D.4. , prohibits building on this 30 foot strip, , page 3. Conclusion 4. (error in fact and judgement) There may be a com munity need for burial space at this location and the applicant may have "sold'' any number (although no proof has been offered) of pre-need crypts and niches this does not demonstrate a demand for this type of interment space. Further, an artificially created demand should not be construed as a community need. See further explanation under Conclusion 1.b. above. Conclusion 5. (errors of law) The precise location of the mausoleum on the subject site would be a violation of the Renton City 'Zoning Code. (see explanation under Conclusion 3 above) The proposed use and landscaping are incompatible with any possible future use of and will constitute a permanent blight on our abutting property. Conclusion 6 (errors of fact and judgement) The undue adverse effects of Phase 1 on our easterly property are severe. The existing shrubs do nothing to break up or screen the 61 foot long rear facade. The proposed 89 foot long new addition • will be an unrelieved monolith and the already_ existing 8'8" high (not 5 feet) which will attach Phase 1 and Phase 2 will do little to break the effect. This connecting wall wa fd be only 3'9" below the roof of Phase 2. The comparisum of single family homes on an east-west street really does not apply since we are now considering a building 150 feet long running north and south. As indicated by Architect Fred Stark's letter and sketches our abutting property will be severely impacted by shade .which would increase as the building is extended to the south due to the flattening of the land gradient. Conclusion 7. (error of judgement and fact) The similarity of use between our properties will not occur if Phase 2 is built. (see Conclusions 2, 5 and 6 above) Conclusion 8. (error of judgement and facts) Regardless of the rhetoric of the applicant's attorneys my objections have nothing to do with holding their property hostage. The applicant's property is already fully platted and developed as a cemetery. The owners have enjoyed the use of it and the profits from it for many years. Rather, this is a case of a large out of state corporation, through it's local subsidiaries, over reaching for a conditional use which does not meet the requirements of the Renton City Code under 4-31-36:C. and the other Sections cited above. While it is true the existing tall trees do cast intermittant shadows., they do not block our outlook, sunlight and airflow from the west as Phase 2 would if built as proposed. page 4. Conclusion 13. (error of fact) The existing landscaping is not sufficient. It does nothing to screen or soften the rear of the existing mausoleum, The proposed conical trees would be the same. The applicant's attorney testified the type of trees they used would not grow behind the building, which is hardly suprising,cut off as they are from the sunlight, DECISION: I believe the Decision should be reconsidered and the application should be denied. 1. The Covenant of Tree Retention and Maintenance Agreement, Exhibit No. 7, should be recorded and enforced, as pro- posed by Dan Drais letter dated July 21, 1993, as it pertains to Phase 1. It was my understanding this was required under the approval of the last:• mausoleum, Respectfully Submitted, Ben G. Starq page 5, SEP 9 1996 CITY OF RENTON CITY OF R ENTON HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON SEP 0 9 1996 PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS RECE1vci) MEMORANDUM CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE: September 6, 1996 TO: Fred Kaufman,Hearing Examiner FROM: Jennifer Toth Henning VA SUBJECT: Cedar View Mausoleum Phase II (File No. LUA-96-067,CU) The Hearing Examiner decision for the above-referenced project, included a condition extending the time limit for the implementation of the Conditional Use Permit from 2 years to 3 years. The condition states: "2. The permit shall expire of its own accord three (3)years from the date of this decision." This condition appears to preclude the applicant from requesting an extension of time the permit is effective as permitted in Code Section 4-8-14.E. City Code states that applications or permits approved by the Hearing Examiner be implemented within two (2) years of such approval, or terminated. The Examiner may grant one extension of time for a maximum of one year for good cause shown, and with the burden of justification resting with the applicant. Staff requests that the applicant be allowed to have the opportunity, if needed, to request a one year extension of the CUP from the Hearing Examiner, if the applicant determines such request to be necessary. MEMO.DOT/ AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION +Tecsica Borg , being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the NuiIut uh ENVIRONMENTAL Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular DETERMINATION meeting in the Council Chambers on the VALLEY DAILY NEWS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washing RENTON, WASHINGTON ton,on July 23, 1996 at 9:00 AM to consid- 600 S. Washington Kent, WA. 98032 The Environmental Review Committee er the CU permit. If the Environmental (ERG) has issued a Determination of Non- Determination is appealed, the appeal will a daily newspaper published six (6) times week. Said newspaper is a legal Significance for the following project under be heard as part of this public hearing. newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Published in the Valley Daily News July months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the CEDAR VIEW MAUSOLEUM PHASE II 1, 1996. 1769 English language continuallyas a dailynewspaper in Kent, KingCounty, Wash- LUA-ss-0splcant e 9 The applicant seeks a conditional use ington. The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal newspaper by order permit (CU) for the construction of a 1,293 of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. sq ft mausoleum at Greenwood Memorial ParThe notice in the exact form attached, waspublished in the ValleyDailyNews concretec. The 90-foot wouldy 17- containt single storys structure casket (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers crypts and niches for urns.The mausoleum during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a would be built near the northeast corner of the cemetery site and would be 16 feet in height.The building will feature stucco cov- Notice of Env Det ered concrete and granite facades, and a concrete roof slab. A cantilever concrete retaining wall having a maximum heigh'' of about 3 feet will extend outward from the northwestern corner of the building, and was published on 7-1 -9 6 concrete walkways will abut the southern and western sides. The proposal requires Environmental Review and a public hearing The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of for the CU permit.The project site is located .\)\/.\i. within Aquifer Protection Area Zone 2.Loca- $ 6 7 . 38 r lion: 350 Monroe Ave. NE. The 15 day comment period with con- current 14 day appeal period for this project will end at 5:00 p.m. on July 16, 1996. t g I Clerk, Valley Daily News Following this,the City will finalize its Deter- mination unless comments received require a reevaluation. Appeal procedures imposed t by the City of Renton's Environmental Subscribed and sworn before me this ay of v 19 Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division,Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington %4ZZt98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be ��/ ec- _joro rr �� ��� Pons. A Public Hearing specificared to make ll be held by tthe i0 F..N•M Zri,N. Notary Public or the State of W hin ton /A... .,$510A1�""7,c,,�� residing at l�vbnrn .U �Dzq��Y ��'e:. i King County, Washington k,i. • •• P...�& cO:z� • - VDt1+r •-e-•o. 31.t,..s, FWAS AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. County of King ) MARILYN MOSES , being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 26th day of August ,1996, affiant deposited in the mail of the United States a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: ' V ICLf, `—G Caen SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 26 X day of Lk , 1996. 0,7 6 , ary P bli in�} for the State of Washington, residing at , therein. • Application, Petition, or Case No.: Cedar View Mausoleum, Phase II LUA-096-067,CU The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT August 26, 1996 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: David Combs c/o SCI Washington Funeral Services, Inc. dba Greenwood Memorial Park Cedar View Mausoleum Phase II File No.: LUA-96-067,CU LOCATION: 350 Monroe Avenue NE SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To construct a 1,293 square foot mausoleum at Greenwood Memorial Park SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on July 16, 1996. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area;the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the July 23, 1996 hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,July 23, 1996, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. " The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Vicinity map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 3: Site plan with landscaping Exhibit No.4: Site plan Exhibit No. 5: Letter to Fred Kaufman from Ben Exhibit No. 6: Excerpt from Hearing Examiner's Stark dated July 23, 1996 Decision of September 27, 1993 Exhibit No. 7: Letter from Daniel Drais dated July Exhibit No.8: Letter from Frederick Stark dated 21, 1993 May 27, 1993, with shading diagrams I " David Combs " Cedar View Mausoleum Phase II File No.: LUA-96-067,CU August 26, 1996 Page 2 The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by JENNIFER TOTH HENNING, Project Manager, Development Services, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South,Renton, Washington 98055. This project is located in the Renton Highlands and is bordered by Monroe Avenue NE and NE 4th Street. The overall project site is the Greenwood Memorial Park. It is approximately 37.5 acres in size. This particular proposal is for the addition of one mausoleum building in the northeast portion of the site. It is 1,293 square feet and the dimensions are 90 feet in length by 17 feet in width by 16 feet in height. This particular structure would include crypts and niches for caskets and urns and would have no interior spaces. The caskets and urns would be loaded from the outside. All of the development would essentially face to the west. The east side would be landscaped with no courtyards or public interaction. The applicant anticipates over the coming years they would have possibly two additional mausoleums. Those would occur along the eastern property line tending toward the south, as the area that is currently a gravel pit is filled in and reclaimed for cemetery and mausoleum uses. The structure would have 48 single crypts for caskets, 120 double crypts for caskets, 168 urn niches. They would be single loaded from the north,west and south facades. This new mausoleum would abut the mausoleum that was constructed in 1994, and it would connect to the niche wall of the existing mausoleum. It would feature stucco covered concrete and granite facades and would have a concrete slab roof. There would be concrete walkways that would abut the southern and western facades. The applicant is proposing that the landscaping include pyramidal evergreen ornamental trees and ground cover along the east facade, and flowering trees on the west that would help to provide some focus and ornamentation to the hard surface courtyard area. There would be seeded lawn and low evergreen ornamental shrubs also around the courtyard. This particular subject site is designated residential single family in the City's Comprehensive Plan(CP). The cemetery is designated R-8 and surrounding properties are zoned for Center Suburban, including the property to the east. A small portion of the northwest corner of Greenwood Memorial Park is zoned Arterial Commercial. The CP does not include any policies regarding mausoleums or cemeteries. It doesn't either encourage, discourage, allow or preclude. However,the zoning code is more clear. It does allow cemeteries and mausoleums in the R-8 zone subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit(CUP)by the Hearing Examiner. Development standards of the zoning code must be met. In this particular zone the minimum size requirement of 4,500 square feet is met. The proposed mausoleum does meet all the setback requirements and the closest the building would come to the eastern side yard is approximately 8 feet, so it does exceed the minimum by 3 feet. The height permitted in this zone is 30 feet or two stories. This particular proposal would be 16 feet, so again it meets the criteria. The lot coverage is 35 percent as permitted in the zone. There does appear to be a community need for this proposal because the existing mausoleum built two"years ago is nearing capacity. The applicant has stated that they don't intend to construct this particular mausoleum until 1998 or 1999, but they wanted to complete the permit process at this point in time. They are delaying the construction of the proposed mausoleum so that it would be built at the time the need is established and it would preclude a concentration of a use in advance of the need. Since Conditional Use Permits are generally valid for two years from the date of approval,the applicant is requesting and staff is recommending that if approved the CUP remain valid for a period of three years. Since Greenwood Memorial Park is a dedicated memorial park and it includes a cemetery, funeral home and mausoleum, and it also,includes areas that are being reclaimed from gravel mining and are anticipated to be 'used for these same purposes, it is believed that this particular proposal is consistent with the existing and . I David Combs Cedar View Mausoleum Phase II File No.: LUA-96-067,CU August 26, 1996 Page 3 future use of the site. This project does feature ornamental landscaping that would help create a transition between the eastern facade of the structure and adjacent properties. The adjacent property to the east would experience a change in view to the west. However,the proposed landscaping would be expected to diminish that impact and to enhance the view over time. There is sufficient parking on the site to accommodate the proposed mausoleum. It is anticipated there would be less than one traffic trip per week generated by this type of use. There would be pedestrian traffic on walkways and because there is a private driveway allowing vehicles to reach this site,the pedestrian and vehicle circulation has been appropriately accomplished. It was concluded there would be no noise impacts resulting from this facility except during the limited construction phase,that light and glare would not be expected to occur. There will be a new building on the eastern side of the site that would result in shadows being cast to the east. This would not be expected to be detrimental beyond impacts possible with other development allowed in the zone. While it is a larger structure than a typical single family home, it is significantly lower than the 30 foot height allowed in this zone. Staff recommends approval of the Cedar View Mausoleum and requests that the CUP be valid for a period of three years from the date of issuance and that any extension must be requested in writing by the applicant and granted by the Hearing Examiner prior to the expiration. RAMONA MONROE, 600 University Street,#3600, Seattle, Washington 98101, spoke on behalf of the applicant, and gave a brief history of Greenwood Memorial Park. The mausoleums along the east side are one of the few remaining areas of the property to be developed. There is a community need for additional facilities in terms of cemetery space and mausoleum space. There are two mausoleums that currently exist on the property. One is remote from the proposed site in the southern portion of the property. The other is adjoining the site and is nearly sold out at this time and therefore the need has arisen to expand and build another mausoleum or Phase II of the previous mausoleum. Ms.Monroe explained that in order for mausoleums to be feasible to construct,they have to essentially be pre-sold. Therefore,the market demand needs to be present and the applicant will pre-sell spaces before the mausoleum is actually constructed. The construction would occur at the time they have pre-sold a certain percentage of the space. The architectural design of the existing building will match and the wing walls will be joined. It will essentially appear to be one structure with some articulation so that there is some privacy in different areas. BEN STARK, P.O. Box 98638, Seattle, Washington 98198, stated he was the owner of the property to the east of this proposed mausoleum. Mr. Stark disagreed with the applicant's assessment of community need for the project, and disagreed with applicant's statement that the mausoleum and wing wall would have a minimal affect on the easterly property's view, light and fresh air, and that the trees lining the eastern side of the building will provide a pleasant view from the adjacent properties. Mr. Stark stated there are now three existing mausoleums in the cemetery, not two, containing a total of 306 crypts and 233 urn niches. On July 18, 1996,. 118 of the 306 crypts and 83 of the 233 niches were in use, leaving 188 empty crypts, 150 empty niches presently available. Only 39%of the existing crypts and 36%of the existing niches have been put in use in the cemetery's 79 years of operation. He stated this did not demonstrate a community need for another mausoleum and that it resulted in an over-concentration of use in the immediate area. He also felt that the proposed use would result in an adverse affect on the adjacent property. David Combs Cedar View Mausoleum Phase II File No.: LUA-96-067,CU August 26, 1996 • Page 4 Three years ago the cemetery built a 61 foot long mausoleum just 7 feet from the adjacent property line,which creates a long blank wall which blocks the westerly outlook,the air flow and the sunlight from the north end of his property. This proposal is not an identical mausoleum,but an 89 foot long addition, 15 feet 9 inches high along its entire length. There are no jogs for wing walls as there were in the previous mausoleum. Combined ' with the other one it is going to result in a 150 foot long solid wall within 7 to 8 feet of the property line. He cited the various ordinances regarding side yard setbacks, obstruction of view and ventilation, building heights, incompatibility with the residential scale and character of the neighborhood, and stated his objections to the proposal. In a September 1993 CUP,the applicant was required to provide additional landscaping to buffer adjacent properties. Mr. Stark stated this condition had not been met, that the landscape screening east of the existing mausoleum is totally inadequate, even though the applicant offered to record a covenant to plant and maintain a hedge at the height of the structure and wing walls. If the proposal is approved he asked for mitigation in the form of a(1)covenant of tree retention and maintenance agreement to provide for planting and maintaining a hedge at a height equal to the roof of the proposed mausoleum; (2)that the proposed mausoleum be moved forward to the west as far as the location of the existing private drive permits; (3)that the top tier of crypts be removed to lessen the cutting off of light and air from and to reduce the shading of his adjacent property; (4)that an enforceable agreement be entered into ' between the applicant,the City, and Mr. Stark to waive the setback and/or screening requirements to allow a zero side yard setback for any future construction on his CB zoned property. Ms. Henning stated that this project did undergo environmental review and the ERC issued a Determination of Non-Significance. No comments were received and no appeals were filed. Staff comments were very minimal on this project. The Examiner responded that the ERC's determination does not mean that a project does not have some impacts that might need mitigation. The mausoleum has changed in dimensions as the wing walls were lower, so there was at least a jog in the building height. It wasn't a continuous wall of 90 feet and approximately 16 feet tall. Ms. Monroe further testified that there are three existing mausoleums on the site as noted. One is dedicated to veterans use and is a fairly small structure. With respect to the comments regarding impact on Mr. Stark's property, she stated that the landscaping that is in place at the existing mausoleum is the result of negotiations and discussions with Mr. Stark, and it was at his choice that the trees were planted as opposed to the hedge. The trees were planted per the agreement. They are a fast growing variety of tree and have not been pruned since they were planted. They simply have not reached the height of the wall, but it is certainly the intent that they will grow to cover the back of the existing mausoleum structure. As Mr..Stark also indicated,his property is currently vacant. There are no existing views to obstruct and it seems rather speculative to try to determine at this time how the proposed project should be designed to best accommodate something that does not yet exist. With respect to moving the building to the.west toward the road,between the road and the mausoleum there is basically a sidewalk that forms a bit of a plaza in front of the structure. Services are held in that plaza. The structure cannot be moved directly to the road or crypt-side services would have to be held in the middle of the David Combs Cedar View Mausoleum Phase II File No.: LUA-96-067,CU August 26, 1996 Page 5 road. Regarding any agreement with setbacks on Mr. Stark's property,they would have to go through the procedures and meet the criteria for a variance, and would not necessarily require applicant's concurrence. The Examiner asked what the impact of reducing the scale or the height of either the wing walls or the main crypt area would be. Ms. Monroe responded that the wing walls of the existing mausoleum contained niches ' rather than crypts, so they are not deep walls. In this case the wing walls extend east-west as opposed to north- south, so if the niches were made shorter they would not affect the facade of the building that faces east. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:05 a.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, David M. Combs, filed a request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 1,293 square foot mausoleum on the grounds of Greenwood Memorial Cemetery. This will be the second mausoleum in this location. 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 No. 1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance(DNS)for the subject proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 350 Monroe Avenue NE. 6. The subject site is located on the south side of NE 4th Street and east of Monroe Avenue NE. The proposed mausoleum is actually located on the northeast corner of the grounds of the Greenwood Memorial Park. The entire cemetery is 37.5 acres in area. 7. This new mausoleum will be south of and in line with the existing mausoleum. The mausoleum would be approximately 90 feet long by 17 feet deep. It would be 16 feet tall. This new mausoleum would be directly connected to the south wing wall that projects out from the rear wall of the existing mausoleum building. 8. Due to a grade differential,the north end of the west facade of the building will be somewhat below grade and this "step"will be protected by a handrail. 9. This addition will receive similar facade treatment as the existing building;that is,there will be a combination of granite and metal trim. All crypt shutters would be finished in granite. The east or rear face would be finished in a stucco-like material called thoroseal. David Combs Cedar View Mausoleum Phase II File No.: LUA-96-067,CU August 26, 1996 Page 6 10. As with the existing mausoleum,there will not be a normal interior or entrance, but the west facade is considered the building front. Crypts will be located long the north, west and south facades. 11. There will be 48 single crypts, 120 double crypts(front to back)and 168 niches for cremated remains. 12. The proposal will observe an eight(8)foot setback from the eastern property line. 13. The landscaping will be similar to what was installed for the existing mausoleum. There will be pyramidal evergreen shrubs along the rear facade to screen the property east from the rear blank wall. There will be ground cover, lawn, flowering trees and ornamental shrubs along the front and sides. 14. The neighborhood area is mixed in character. The cemetery dominates the south side of NE 4th,with the Renton Technical College, an apartment complex, and commercial uses located north of NE 4th. 15. The property to the east is undeveloped but that property owner has objected to the current proposal since it will extend the blank rear facade which is his westerly view. 16. The cemetery's zoning is split. The zoning in the area of the proposed mausoleum is R-8(Single Family). The zoning at the west side of the cemetery near the funeral home is CA(Arterial Commercial). The property immediately to the east is CS (Center Suburban). 17. The parcel to the east is approximately 24 feet wide by approximately 292.5 feet long. 18. The property owner to the east again was concerned about the shadows and shading that would affect his property. He noted that as now proposed,the applicant will be creating a continuous wall. 19. A single family home on the subject site could be as tall as 30 feet, and depending upon roof angle and peak, it could be physically taller. 20. The applicant has again indicated that they would attempt to install landscaping that does not further impede views or cast unnecessary shadows to the east. 21. The current mausoleum is currently not filled but its crypts are nearly sold out. In an attempt to plan for future needs,the applicant has proposed this expansion which would occur in 1998 or 1999. Normally, Conditional Use Permits must be used within two years,but the applicant has requested that the expiration period be extended by one additional year. The purpose of this is to allow them to plan at the time and judge the market conditions for the additional space. CONCLUSIONS: 1. For a Conditional Use Permit the applicant must demonstrate that the use is in the public interest,will not impair the health, safety or welfare of the general public and is in compliance with the criteria found in Section 4-31-36(C)which provides in part that: a. The proposal generally conforms with the Comprehensive Plan; ' David Combs Cedar View Mausoleum Phase II File No.: LUA-96-067,CU August 26, 1996 Page 7 b. There is a general community need for the proposed use at the proposed location; c. There will be no undue impacts on adjacent property; d. The proposed use is compatible in scale with the adjacent residential uses, if any; e. Parking, unless otherwise permitted,will not occur in the required yards; f. Traffic and pedestrian circulation will be safe and adequate for the proposed project; g. Noise, light and glare will not cause an adverse affect on neighboring property; h. Landscaping shall be sufficient to buffer the use from rights-of-way and neighboring property where appropriate; and i. Adequate public services are available to serve the proposal. The requested conditional use appears justified and should be approved. 2. Since.conditions have not changed in any substantial way since the last mausoleum was approved, most of the conclusions will follow those of the last decision. The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically delineate where in the City cemeteries are permitted. The subject site is designated for single family uses in the Comprehensive Plan and has been zoned SF in conformance with that designation. The City's SF zone permits cemeteries by Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, it seems reasonable that if the proposed cemetery or more specifically the mausoleum meets the Conditional Use Criteria,that it would in fact be compatible with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. The site has been used for cemetery purposes since 1917. It is also clear that a city the size of Renton would house at least one cemetery. Mausoleums are generally associated with,cemeteries. As noted the last time,there were already mausoleum buildings on the cemetery grounds. The older ones and the one adjacent to this proposed mausoleum apparently have blended in with the background cemetery use and not created any problems in the community, although the neighboring property objects to,the landscaping and any additional development. 3. The proposed mausoleum is compatible with the zoning code. The 16 foot tall mausoleum meets the height restrictions of the SF Zone. The setback on the north and west are substantially larger than code standards and while the eastern setback is nowhere near as generous,the approximately 8 feet is 3 feet larger than required. This office still believes that the zoning determination that NE 4th Street is the front of the cemetery grounds is binding although this building is no longer the northernmost building. The 8 foot side yard on the east complies with the zoning code. 4. The existence of the cemetery at this location sets the stage for continuing to meet the community's need for burial space at this location. The property has appropriate state approval and it has served the community for more than half a century. The applicant has "sold"nearly the entire capacity of the new mausoleum. This demonstrates there is demand for this type of interment space. David Combs - Cedar View Mausoleum Phase II File No.: LUA-96-067,CU August 26, 1996 Page 8 5. The precise location of the mausoleum on the subject site is dictated by a number of factors including the layout of existing gravesites, a circulation road, future gravesites already platted and special requirements. The additions to the cemetery created by filling old borrow pits will not be appropriately stable for a number of years which limits construction in these areas. The proposed setbacks, existing and proposed landscaping and proposed abutting uses do not appear incompatible with one another. 6. The criteria include a provision that there will be no "undue adverse effects" or impacts on adjacent property. The exterior treatment and landscaping will soften the facade. The existing trees should similarly soften and break up the appearance of the mausoleum, particularly from the east. The new addition will be linked to the existing mausoleum but by an intervening 5 foot wing wall. It is not an unrelieved monolith. In addition,the new building is still no where near as tall as a single family home could be. While there is no doubt shadows will probably fall on the site east of the subject site,the impacts are not necessarily undue. Analogizing to single family development: any array of single family homes aligned along an east-west street system would shade one another in a manner not any different from what will result in this case. Actually,with a potential height of 30 feet, single family homes would shade one another more severely than would be the case in this factual setting. Under the circumstances it is impossible to conclude that the shadow impacts will be unduly adverse. 7. In terms of similarity of use,the proposed mausoleum is as compatible with the proposed use of the adjacent property as any that might occur on a cemetery. It is a continuation of cemetery purposes. 8. The development of the subject in the proposed manner cannot and should not be held hostage to the potential development of the easterly property. While the neighbor has suggested that an urn garden will be constructed on the easterly adjacent property,that property could potentially be used for an enclosed building or a building with no windows on its western wall. In that case the impacts of the proposed use would be inconsequential. The proposed use should not be delayed or conditioned on the speculative proposals for adjacent site. In addition,the impacts of the proposed use are almost inconsequential in any event. As noted above,while the 16 foot tall mausoleum will cast shadows across the,adjacent site almost anything located on the subject site, including the existing landscaping and tall trees,will cast easterly shadows. 9. The proposed use is compatible in scale with surrounding uses. At approximately 16 feet, it is equivalent to a single story building. There are no single family homes located close to the proposed use that would be affected by the proposed use. Regarding yard requirements,this office will not revisit the issue of yard setbacks. There was an administrative determination, unchallenged,which is determinative, and the yard setback proposed is appropriate. (See discussion above) 10. Parking is accommodated on the internal roads as it is at most cemeteries. This parking arrangement should be sufficient, and with the exception of interment at the close of funerals,the periodic visitation to the mausoleum should not create any undue parking demand. 11. Similarly,traffic impacts should not be significant. There have been no significant reported problems with the existing cemetery. 12. Construction may introduce noise but that would be limited to the construction window. There could also be the ordinary sounds of voices,possibly more during services but the impacts should be minimal. David Combs Cedar View Mausoleum Phase II File No.: LUA-96-067,CU August 26, 1996 Page 9 13. The existing landscaping coupled with the proposed landscaping appears sufficient. As currently proposed,the applicant would limit the height of any plantings to minimize any additional spill-over of shadows onto the adjacent property. In order to assure that no unnecessary shadows impact the site to the east,the applicant should maintain the landscaping just below the roof line of the proposed mausoleum. DECISION: The Conditional Use Permit is approved subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall maintain the landscaping along the east facade of the mausoleum just below the roof line of the proposed mausoleum. 2. The permit shall expire of its own accord three(3)years from the date of this decision. ORDERED THIS 26th day of August, 1996. FRED J. KA N HEARING E MINER TRANSMITTED THIS 26th day of August, 1996 to the parties of record: Jennifer Henning Ramona Monroe Ben Startk 200 Mill Avenue S 600 University Bldg,#3600 P.O. Box 98638 Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98101 Seattle, WA 98198 David Combs Greenwood Memorial Parl 350 Monroe Avenue NE Renton, WA 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 26th day of August, 1996 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,PlanBldg/PW Administrator Members,Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson,Development Services Director Art Larson, Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney James Chandler,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington, Mayor's Executive Assistant Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Valley Daily News David Combs Cedar View Mausoleum Phase II File No.: LUA-96-067,CU August 26, 1996 Page 10 • Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., September 9, 1996. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. Appeal of the Examiner's decision is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 11, which requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within twenty (20) days from the date of the decision. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the ! evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. ,The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. • • I——_, aTe © rr-i_mci) (3. (--c-,r- maus © em-Eim , , Cp.. 0 i :,(„(, I i l__F Zi\ (/C\mow h • _ . Ny !, ?D I ---I II 115 WI 44.4..s 0..MC., u.np,PFourB Y I _ __ __ .I i II 100,15,.E v.1 51 A.IP.u.F n0.u1B980 Paw E4 I. Ao 9Yaetril[InCROM] I B • • .1 5 1POFr S2'A.ISS5.51A•. 51 9N]. Eri, • ' 8. `ua,r m 1 CLL.54312 1 II LEGAL DESCRIPTION GENERAL NOTES INDEX TO DRAWINGS. t o . PA.. (I a iI FJT ,v 1.5 51 .<. 1 PP T F P. • 11 *..: ..., Ii JEC MOM. USq[w.P1.4 f.0 1 II I' II ] JY6P 4¢E..UDO 1auw14 PM( • _ __ _ __ ---- I •f F69Ei1.F(51 Wui,[9 U IM OJPr.,C.51 w.F r[v J[SIC1 16 350 u0W10L.,(xUL u[ Plan +.5...1]s MCA,liwfL a L.sl..0 w,ac CUP.. .11w.....7.4 98DY Ci O�®� ��� �8�� - ��� • ii L.CLPI n. P r 11[9(011Y.5.Iw.rK FCSM.s.l..(151 •R0 DA.COWS ��� F F(11 ,1n 11.;T .[�, [Ksrr,r[�r K ter. I]a)]>,"1511 Al G�o���1�48ow ���I D�4�8� ' I _ I i I NA R!1 or rot.trn„u rt[r u sac.11..�(5r a.uno. ,ZIT.PL. .PPRO ..Ru 4.Lv[s /(p��/��J� [��} [y (p�1{� [{�([�,1� ,�L($� /! 1., II `01 1P.PC C0 C11..1.0I 51gE.r:11 A P A.P.15 .. .Ln51..L Z..v:vE ISP(C14 USL FIRMI 0.7FG) ALS Y Dooll L, OC9111U and Do LSa l& II: [„wr.....u.4.•e ..�9.FD S..;ee Ea SOS..4 s -^K( pppp ((�� I� �//y�{� 1@ ,k - ~-. � _ e MS.LOADS v Y LK 10.0 ..(D y LNG. 1Y1BO�:.IBU11� ���V C41 lStOrJ BASIC 01.SPUD 1 W uPn /T . • -.- ,.10.510U4.Y.1U.0C.SA..FOUPPSTOP.L Ak Bundling 5@©48one, E 1994 UBC L(YW.Uw P OCCUPANCY GROUP B (@ 9 199.WC TYPE d CONSIRUCDw B /1/2,........... MQ6110 (�,ecttlate 11 m10.140APu 1.29,]e59 AO V11 V l4 11 5<[1P..L,LOAD 0 AG f oo4 POsn and D®teaDss El E[1@va 8oa0 POan • BPI' SpeolI Icegliowss • i a1F.T1F.[ .> 41a9.�1:. • • POAR �..- "ple,mmmliXi frame s�wl�es 1 41111 POLL : • Pa • I ,.•. ' —\•�;var)."s`u.14 li.mmtriG��..a�1ai��ds�� . --- - • - - -_ .------------------ -- - .' I. T1 IIi T..' • II: I.l.kii,1im0,:,I::I C•:f•-,i•-t.0,IAi4,,,1.-c i-1i.-'i..-i•,iM:,i itr rM.F.•/..• :I il._.iIo.r.......E.::..:,:.-.2.-:— P ! L' 7:• a /, dF 4,,4-.,::.0; f•:", '.___ ' wI 5e OG.wIN Y'9'�—<n PWr.rE Dv1,[= ------(--- —C�- -�_ -- — 'Thf -----(-1 r."-• a Site Plan �Q ]D' m4 � GREENWOOD 2-RENTON, WA. ' V.1/.COv1.EP _—_—_—_—_— III . :h OAR)S]6-9r]]..O JMN.1.199E ' . . . Cl of 1 . • ... . • . . . • . 1 • _ic.......,u.11•10,(Iled maid Ilamo t I . ..... . Grand.trii I . . • . • . - . I 4,....R.4.11 mega I r . Ii n I \, •e>..11.. . anullels, I,(huller‘ I 4 Ira., I .,.,,,----=XPoo I I \ \ • ...met --> I ' C.....mns II 4 ;---1 1 Cocenl•Will _ II . .."---.44-.-....„...._......... . CD West Elevation • • , - . Adlik, -. ,Atk -. . ..., ... -4F4-oc,- --41.4;41z,'"----- ......... ..... 1 --,- tw'Mirninig.1 Mr--------- 1,/////,/////,/////,V/AVA V V/A.V/./..V.',/,//..Y. • I \ .;?,..V./A V A• //A YAV/I V//A/ A/ /A I". .S... • ...` 111111111111:.unir •N•.4% 1=.4t.Pa.n. 1 0 PEI 1111111111111111,1111 Siniiinn _ ; . 01111111111111/11111111 :: plillillIZZLISIIINE,, `:".'""-- si.' niumnsenur,11111111111111111111111111111 c..,... ...A.•,, ,.!!'.4 -==--....,..,..,..-4. I - i-r----r 1111111111111111111104 __LL,1. _ ._, ..-- 1.-1.--1.-0Q---.—- sMN — __ i ! ... . "•-----—' — ----- - •%.9:/..../......V.,..,.•/.0%/A.I.V.,/,40/AV/IV/MI C)South Elevation ‘ 0 North Elevation . • - . . . . •. . • . . . t rm. .I. . , I ' . \ . . I . . 1- I • • . I I —.. . I I I ,• ( Moos., ( . _ Thom.. r) (---1••11,(moots niche ea > . I I I . . II I•m.... .. .-........... .,-.-....... .. ...7.,. 4 51 __. —-————————-1--——————-——-—-—-———- ____________I [ ..-.--. .....=`'.. . • .St I -I- . 1 •1 . .9REENWOOR 2• RENTON, WA. 0 _ • CI)East Elevation E'r . • . :,. ,....,...,4,,,,:c..„, a i - 41%s , immanuciabar i . ..'.: . ..7.., . •. :. rhi-4.-ara A3 of, 6 .. . ...., • - •. . .....11:i ' �'''A' CIT�c OF RENTON '`'q;,, Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator July 25, 1996 Mr. David Combs c/o SCI Washington Funeral Services, Inc. dba Greenwood Memorial Park 350 Monroe Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 SUBJECT: Cedar View Mausoleum Phase II Project No. LUA-96-067,CU,ECF Dear Mr. Combs: This letter is to inform you that the comment and/or appeal periods have ended for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non-Significance for the above-referenced project. No appeals were filed on the ERC determination. You will be receiving the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Conditional Use (CU) permit in the next couple of weeks. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 277-6186. For the Environmental Review Committee, o), J J niter Toth Hennin���� Project Manager FINAL.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 A City of Renton PUBLIC Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date July 23, 1996 Project Name Cedar View Mausoleum Phase II Applicant/Address Mr. David Combs Go SCI Washington Funeral Services, Inc. dba Greenwood Memorial Park 350 Monroe Avenue NE Renton,WA 98056 Owner/Address: Mr. David Combs I do SCI Washington Funeral Services, Inc. dba Greenwood Memorial Park 350 Monroe Avenue NE Renton,WA 98056 File Number LUA-096-067,CU,ECF Project Manager J. Toth Henning Project Description The applicant seeks a conditional use permit (CU) for the construction of a 1,293 sq ft mausoleum at Greenwood Memorial Park. The 90-foot by 17-foot single story concrete structure would contain casket crypts and niches for urns. The mausoleum would be built near the northeast corner of the cemetery site and would be 16 feet in height. The building will feature stucco covered concrete and granite facades, and a concrete roof slab. A cantilever concrete retaining wall having a maximum height of about 3 feet will extend outward from the northwestern corner of the building, and concrete walkways will abut the southern and western sides. The proposal requires Environmental Review and a public hearing for the CU permit. The project site is located within Aquifer Protection Area Zone 2. Project Location 350 Monroe Avenue NE B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record SCI Washington Funeral Services, Inc 2. Zoning Designation Residential-8 Dwelling Units per Acre (R-8) 3. Comprehensive Plan Residential Single Family (RSF) Land Use Designation 4. Existing Site Use Cemetery . City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner Cedar View Mausoleum LUA-96-067, CU,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 2 of 7 5. Neighborhood Characteristics North Multi-family residential, Renton Technical College, commercial East Single family residential South Public— King County Shops, Courts, City of Renton Shops West Commercial, former gravel mining 6. Access Monroe Avenue NE via NE 4th Street 7. Site Area 3,400 square feet of an existing 37.5 acre site 8. Project Data: area comments Existing Building Area New Building Area 1,293 square feet Total Building Area 1,293 square feet C. HISTORICAUBACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Comprehensive Plan 4498 2/20/95 Zoning Code 4404 6/7/93 Annexation 2249 6/20/66 D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities Water Existing City Water Mains are located on NE 4th Street and Monroe Avenue NE (12" on NE 4th Street, 16" on Monroe Ave NE, 12"on NE 2nd Street) Sewer Existing sanitary sewer on Monroe and the East Renton Interceptor is located in NE 4th Street. Surface Water/Storm Water Stormwater facilities are in NE 4th Street and Monroe Avenue NE 2. Fire Protection Provided by City of Renton 3. Transit Metro Transit 4. Schools N/A 5. Recreation N/A 6. Other The site is located in Zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area HEXRPT.DOC i • City of Renton P/B/PW Department - Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner Cedar View Mausoleum LUA-96-067, CU,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 3 of 7 E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Section 4-31-5, R-8 (Residential- 8 DU/AC) 2. Section 4-31-36, Conditional Use Permit F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. None identified that address cemeteries. G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicant, David Combs, seeks a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 1,293 square foot mausoleum at the existing Greenwood Memorial Park. The single story concrete structure would be 90 feet in length by 17 feet in width by 16 feet in height and would contain crypts for caskets and niches for urns. Forty-eight single crypts and 120 double crypts, and 168 niches would be accommodated by the new structure. Building elevations indicate that the crypts and niches would be single loaded from the north, west and south facades and would not be evident from the east facade. The new mausoleum would abut the existing mausoleum and would connect to the niche wall of the existing mausoleum. The proposed mausoleum would be located near the northeast corner of the Greenwood Cemetery. It would feature stucco covered concrete and granite facades, and a concrete slab roof. Concrete walkways would abut the southern and western facades. Proposed landscaping. includes 23 pyramidal evergreen ornamental trees and groundcover along the east facad, flowering trees on the west defining a hard surface courtyard area, seeded lawn and low evergreen ornamental shrubs. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on June 25, 1995 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the Proposal. 3 COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures were imposed by the applicant. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA HEXRPT.DOC • City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Heating Examiner Cedar View Mausoleum LUA-96-067, CU, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 4 of Section 4-31-36 lists 11 criteria that the Hearing Examiner is asked to consider, along with all other relevant information, in making a decision on a Conditional Use application. These include the following: A. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMP. PLAN, ZONING CODE 8 OTHER ORDINANCES: The proposed use shall be compatible with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standard of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and any other plan, program, map or ordinance of the City of Renton. (1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT The subject parcel is designated Residential Single Family in the City's Comprehensive Plan. No policies are contained in the Comprehensive Plan regarding mausoleums or cemeteries. (2) ZONING CODE The parcel is designated R-8 in the City's Zoning Code. Mausoleums are permitted in the R-8 Zone subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Hearing Examiner. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 1. SIZE OF USE The proposal is located on a parcel that meets the minimum size requirements of 4,500 feet in the R-8 Zone. 2. SETBACKS: Setbacks in the R-8 Zone are 20 feet for the front and rear yard setbacks, 15 feet for corner lot side yards (street side) and 5 feet for interior sideyard lot lines. The proposal would meet all setback requirements and would be consistent with the sideyard setback for the existing mausoleum located in the northeast corner of Greenwood Memorial Park. The minimum setback would be along the east property boundary. This interior sideyard setback would be approximately 8 feet. 3. HEIGHT Building heights in the R-8 Zone are limited to 30 feet or two stories. The proposal complies in that it would be a maximum of 16 feet in height. 4. LOT COVERAGE Permitted lot coverage in the R-8 Zone for parcels exceeding 5,000 square feet is 35%. The proposal would result in far less lot coverage than is permitted. B. COMMUNITY NEED: There shall be a community need for the proposed use at the proposed location. In the determination of community need, the Hearing Examiner shall consider the following factors, among all other relevant information: (1) The proposed location shall not result in either the detrimental over concentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. HEXRPT.DOC • City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner Cedar View Mausoleum LUA-96-067, CU, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 5 of 7 There appears to be community need for the proposal since the existing mausoleum constructed in 1994 is nearing capacity. The applicant has stated that the new mausoleum would not be constructed until 1998 or 1999. By delaying the construction of the proposed mausoleum, this would preclude a concentration of the use in advance of the need. Generally, Conditional Use Permits are valid for two years from the date of approval. Since the applicant may not begin construction within this time frame, staff will recommend that the Conditional Use Permit remain valid for a period of three years to enable the applicant to construct the building within their anticipated timeframe. (2) That the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. Greenwood Memorial Park is a dedicated memorial park and includes a cemetery, funeral home and mausoleum. Portions of the 37.5 acre site are former gravel pits which Greenwood is presently filling, and which will be converted to cemetery use in the future. The proposal would be consistent with the existing and future use of the site. C. EFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. The following site requirements shall be required: (1) LOT COVERAGE: Lot coverage shall conform to the requirements of zone in which the proposed use is to be,located. Lot coverage is less than permitted in the R-8 Zone. (2) Yards: Yards shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Additions to the structure shall not be allowed in any required yard. Required setbacks of the R-8 Zone are being met by the proposal. No structure or portions of structures would be constructed in the setback areas. 3) Height: Building and structure heights shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Spires, belltowers,public utility antennas or similar structure may exceed the height requirement upon approval of a variance. Building heights should be related to surrounding used in order to allow optimal sunlight and ventilation, and minimal obstruction of views from adjacent structures. The proposed height of the structure would be 16 feet and one-story. The R-8 Zone permits buildings that are two stories or 30 feet in height. As proposed, the project complies. D. COMPATIBILITY: The proposed use shall be compatible with the residential scale and character of the neighborhood. (Ord 3599, 1-11-82) The proposal for the mausoleum features ornamental landscaping that would create a transition between the eastern facade and adjacent properties. The adjacent property to the east would experience a change in view to the west, however, the proposed landscaping would be expected to diminish the impact and to enhance the view over time. HEXRPT.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner Cedar View Mausoleum LUA-96-067, CU,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 6 of 7 E. PARKING: Parking under the building structure should be encouraged. Lot coverage may be increased to as much as seventy-five percent(75%) of the lot coverage requirement of the zone, in which the proposed use is located, if all parking is provided underground or within the structure. (Ord.3903, 4-22-85) Parking would occur along the existing drives and in the parking lot as occurs presently. The existing sufficient for existing site use and the proposed mausoleum. F. TRAFFIC: • Traffic and circulation patterns of vehicles and pedestrians relating to the proposed use and surrounding area shall be reviewed for potential effects on, and to ensure safe movement in,the surrounding area. Traffic trips would not increase in a measurable way under the proposal. Pedestrian traffic would occur on walkways proposed as part of the project. A private driveway on the property would allow vehicles to reach the site. This driveway would connect to the concrete walkways leading to the masoleum. G. NOISE, LIGHT AND GLARE: Potential noise, light and glare impacts shall be evaluated based on the location of the proposed use on the lot and the location of on-site parking areas, outdoor recreational areas and refuse storage areas. , Noise and glare impacts would not be expected to occur with the proposed mausoleum. Proposed landscaping and the building would result in shadows being cast to the east,this would not be expected to be detrimental beyond the impacts possible with other development allowed in the R-8 Zone. The project meets all applicable development standards including height limits and setbacks of the R-8 Zone. H. LANDSCAPING: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by building or paving. The Hearing Examiner may require additional landscaping to buffer adjacent properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use. Landscaping is being provided on the east and west sides of the mausoleum. The landscaping is intended to provide buffering to adjacent sites, and to define the paved courtyard area in front of the mausoleum. Flowering trees would be planted to provide an accent-along the west side of the building, while tall columnar evergreen trees would soften the height and bulk of the mausoleum as viewed from the east. 1. ACCESSORY USES: Accessory uses to conditional uses such as day schools, auditoriums used for social and sport activities, health centers, convents, preschool facilities, convalescent homes and others of a similar nature shall be considered to be separate uses and shall be subject to the provisions of the use district in which they are located. Not applicable. HEXRPT.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner Cedar View Mausoleum LUA-96-067, CU,ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: July 23, 1996 Page 7 of 7 J. CONVERSION: No existing building or structure shall be converted to a conditional use unless such building or structure complies, or is brought into compliance, with the provisions of this Chapter. Not applicable. IC PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The,proposed use and location shall be adequately served by and not impose an undue burden on any public improvements, facilities, utilities, and services. Approval of a conditional use permit may be conditional upon the provision and/or guarantee by the applicant of necessary public improvements, facilities, utilities, and/or services. Adequate public services exist to serve the facility. No undue burden to public improvements, facilities, utilities or services is anticipated. H. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommend approval of the Cedar View Mausoleum, file no. LUA-96-067, CU, ECF subject to the following condition: 1. The Conditional Use Permit shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of issuance. Any extension of the CUP must be requested in writing by the applicant and granted by the Hearing Examiner prior to the expiration of the CUP. HEXRPT.DOC ,fir--' _. a 7 © ,znw,,, c) c) c-or: ,.r�Ti [..,. I :'wn'im,'I I I I Ipi_f_r_Las . • , .sev I I .1. •I 54. ., li — . '. .W 0 I_ • I' 100 arc;w u5 OGW. ............4 014441. {A) r>� O Mfflah[11711:10t � O. I ____--- -- - 5,10. tm.D 550[,•.t5 151.5 oop.i},,, '\/��/1W W /�IIL.\ll'A. I I •\ j1 10p 5.Rq1 Stdl1,155.0uw,u 965}. ••� •.r. 1' .[..:..�II 0[U:..4 ii0'W. d4,. I 11 0>r Vi%ur.> I (ay.N}11 • i ' II I LEGAL DESCRIPTION GENERAL NOTES INDEX TO DRAWINGS. t I q ..+� I i I, p1 p0 t a I.R SUe.t, I 000,01 W00.11000 u•..5p[w.NUS[I.0 ,.:_— II .w[1t 0 } U.•• arcl.40(0 KW iu R.R C�. l ©OWSP and SHe Glen I.RMMA51 WWI,a In/WNW.,Ww11•a LON.,e. p50 u01mR•NRU[RL 0 _ _._ .. .._....____.-. .. I; tor.zRP n+GA1^.•wu5us,.+.. s wo[....1.•,a.,,ey, o.1a..•vep,00 05055 16[>I 1.1 itPln.U.[Rla,1K.i11".,,et.[4M y FM.451 AIM o•,.0 Cain I 11 ' n_ 5:Z[t1 RM.?1117 H 4[1, da.• .WI' V!v1I•a.+^1N.r pm}»-., /.l T Found atliOn and D®ftallO[ 1 (/o! 1 nw I.[L[usl 1}rt[+a I,a WI'.}r[n u I.i aul. (f,1 Il IJ-"0 l�IC41 lS and D 6C41 [.n.,1 I , • IW Ftll a+M RGAI^330 Fat a 5.1.pNtrA51 0.kmR•, l arc•R1• ARi•aw•T,41.GA[5 1^+ I 1 \7 yio w`,1"Z 4M.0..=a 5W[[g r.q.+i,p R1N.4 .lnslw0 tam.0 Re 1WULL uY KRIM GRAMMi p _Roca' Pilo and naftene • a fA }I'M u124.,.. .4 rt•UN.p RAU•9 NAIS I. 1w+.t:.50.01.[ 'e e•.•.v•p s.•se.n•DRos L...":' u.u..FL. 5 I .{, - --� - - --=------- e MO.LOADS to P1 O,[u.0 10 09 G° S DmBffid lin Glloea4Bon s { . , -. .... , 11414 L. Sinn S R.w. //p�\//G�� I1��.5(lI II ((�51�8I/� (1\�� 1�,��5/ I�t@ 1 14a0LD USI a OU.pM"LAI 080 0.SIM.•r Mk Ban OD�.11Ing Sa UBoU11P� e 15},U01.a1.N•I01,a aill.l.c,GAUP 0 //p�\2 [��Y(���//� 1 /��\ /1O�(�( (�e IA.,•K 1.a ctNSAU-MA 0 W.-,�1......... ......UV aIlll G®V� tOone • F.pt.GAD D AS ..I©© Plan and DD®4a8Be ET CAD®o41z8oi0 PDanu • SP........... .... .... . Sp®o04Boa4Bone ...0515 On.ILIL1 u.,,u1 hI I I e.,•,., ! C ' • i�ic�: Illillllii I �:• — l..• ..s a,R r�allrw�eFw�I�ez TLI i• ��� O.` .-•- __ - - - - - `-- -'::iiiii _ •• din.IL I 1 :[.m.e. 1.6. lei .1 I. �[1^.,«.a - _ I 1�� _ �Ru.en:i�^ 1 'Th S q.NIiI • in 1i I •• , 11 I 1 AOSite Plan 1•. 20• GREENWOOD 2 - RENTON. WA. ft • CO S O,O 152f 6' Y ` M 1.1..t.PP 50,A•5i 8/4 CORL.I0 I 0.a,:ON.0.,.. ,IS, ! Dn4»e)10A J.....AX .elfin Cl . ... • • 1 • • __ • . . . ll.11./..na V., ..••••••••••••• ea',in- ,, .4.- 1..2 1/2"4. 9- 24.-5 I/3. 1.-4 I/3.•-, 11.-4 Sir IV-3 lit •P' 4' 4' .......... I i _..... ''- -' ......"' _. .........---'- tus a•..alul Nato .• i• / • .......-- . .. ..-. • • • .• = ............- .• ..".. I' • • I I ........,.. .• • •P"•••j r .... .,....... -..:'•Z-. --..•-- --- ••••••_.. 1;• ......... .. ........ / f• Is.! • -•• • .. ...... .•-. r I .. ... 4' _ •5 4i)1:14. ........' 7..• <----.' .j 65 ..-' I i.T...-%''•.4.. .• III _ . - _ ... . - - _• _- -,,......._ ' it, r . .... - •Pvr'' • .--___ .ca, i • ) ' .,• F.• '''1. ; • ,.. i . . ...- „ . • . ...- • • :. I i7,, t. f..-7'.....--•'.'•. - ••.'•- 'T•F::-'.....';'..:4,..,,,;:.;',-;---- a I _.• : O.; ..4 -"11-..-' 1 4-:. ...•- • •b 1.. .•- ./- ; . C I : ., • . .." 1 - -. . .!. ; Isl.;i. ,.....11, . I ,4.,‘,/,/, I '' _ .• •,.., ,_, Cantrada nsla. I -••.-.i''. q.4401 .1-- .. , . . . . •-, 1 ,., • 1 1-.--;;;"' . .... .., „.. ... I (10 ..... 74 ' 7:-•,.'ii,. •,••• ' grik .. __ • 1 '• . , -lit, er.--eb. Ei - „ ., . . • Aik ..• • .; .1; ; • "11W i .. . i lui • ... "...nut'l . . .. • CIP ...- . 1 .. . ---- . i .• 1 ,, 1 1 • , I I 1-.• 1 1-..,•• . . ... .. - • • . 4 1 <.1 • ' 1 I..- . i'••• .•• 1 - • . • - . . - a 1_,.1. ...I• ! ..- -• A._ I. .. . . ... 4. • "I,.. • - •. .. ... ,.., I • •• ; ..; . _.. ._21..: LI- ..-.._...;•....•i 1.' 4 (1)Floor Plan ce ....,....,......„".," •....,,,....,„,... ,,....,....., .,.,....„ .... ..... ...,•,,,.....„ • i,. , 1 1. 1 ,........ •. 2-1. '1:-:'::•-!:- --. ,....,....-••iiii.----.,1 - -- •-•,- ,1 GENERAL Floc*PLAN NOTES. .. ''''''.I'.e•-, 1 .• '''''... i I•• •..1 ••'. ".'''.*". .f.:4M..0 . Dm..lir pa,a4s mato..ah 4...03 Ps,. • st,... ;;.T.'.7.',•Tr I'll: .- •, _vi:t.' Am•Ine.,I.maw.Saw,put. • . -•.:.. •.... '''...er4.',.-....::1:.---... ...„.,....„,..._ •••I'`..4 4 ';,,,'.••il : ::::::....'--I,i 1, 1 • . ..," ,,e''' '''''''. I ,--,.........4.„,,., 'al 2 .1).4.lea....,p1•••••••al was losams algal __ ._ ---.., -.7=§.. 7 4t--1-4---.I ...•••,' I: '',11' , -J. Iron .. l•• .., 3 Contra,.ass.04.410.3s49.4 fat Is,.psaa, •••4433.4.4.........ap•a.,hem...10., " ',it's,/ • 1 '.. we.103.-.. --. I •• .41..o., 1 i '""".."---'---li•Li• -.---, - •i• 1 \._\-------- ....--•-• 1 1 - 1\---, . Poled euSlaq Strodua.and lanO•cat,••••••• Ounap•Napa,Ca damage eau.III CanOnalua 1'1:1°11mo. .f u l• I .\"""'".""'" II I • ••• -- I Lassie 4,,,Itas - I 1.1 .1 0 •;., 'Li --= :.:474. 0,1 tresab .30,..a...• •..li-.1--.1''. ...'` , - • - --. •arab Maid Italu• Coon.ta Iron•ands -13ssense.- . . •••• b•••••I••••,./...o. r•••••02 PAW 0/.././. to cant stsars aids& Maras..Accent"Ice as 4.1•41W Press..mod 4.44. (Er)Horizontal Detail "13")Horizontal Detail c-i-)Horizontal Detail . F•e7\Horizontal Detail [posed comes aalks litan•Oreols -3•0•44 31.4.4- QC4 3"•l'3, ,,4.3 42 1".1.-O. 4.:41.!,) I-4,r.O. Calas0n4 . ".- 'Yr .! .?: ,,,.g:,•2. - } u•aula,....11er Puo WI saw.sa,,, ,,, „.„,,,,. ,,,. 4.14Sals owls,nat.* ,„,,,,. • . •• • .. • • • ;...:..,...,.:.-..---itf,rI6-,-,--'---,•-.-...-..d,.i-d d.iF,1.Ai1.J]II-I•1;1'1 I-r--_---.-----b kgaG'.,.:a..a:mr.isa..p.-ie...slPs.1.4L•l..'•:0a.'..,.t'.aI 4./aes...n7 o....n0.l..a 1.'«2s t'e;nas‘0GRC:&-•!.L.?..oOC. .aEZ-Ib.s.a.•.t..l'.il.ae1..v1=.:s."...al."=.a....s..t a,,nIo...: s'....•.••.•,.`••,N...„.-.,- r),1:L.t,o-;.e_it nt-_V-.-_:-f,p1-pIeI2°.-A'O14'II '"'4v;.. ..sPt.1V.11P!,..yICP.t.•0 P•r•ol•at•••ph4••.oau t• Gem.two ''..f.',."...-.f.,-_!1±V.../..40b1F1..lI,..-.;--_-4;-.I•„, .•-.•-•••.•,..--------•--',,-,7-..j4fb ..•"-.•.--./•_-_,_„.._.01jC.c1(T.i,•..,;•es.,4•.na•".4•01•asv.tA...1.D4..•.o..1,•..i . " c , fD Horizontal Detail • P Horizontal Detail d Horizontal Detail Horizontal Detail . , 1V .• -0 - . I'•1.-0. - I'.I-0. 0O 1w. .1s .u.l0cei sC,:t. . • . •".. . • . iIi G1 1R.:.%E-;f.4cE,,,?4.N.i..l WN.,•/cO,O2 GREENWOOD .OIU1'2D,4MAm0• 0o34m•2AR•S-ECL72MoN1aed1.Omb 3T..M.M I•I oOeIZ.1 oO1n4.N/1fD..101O g,.5 1SS•a M•IOm C/WWtZo-7-04i-11thS4A/4••1•03O92460./4, .. • • • _ . •- .• ••• - ••.. • . . • . . • ---- • ... --. ......-.. -- .....--..------.-.-- --.....• .-- .,. • • • . . . • • • t Vi • . . . . II.....11.1.1.11 ess. . 4... .. 0 i T.. ........ .1—- I —--1?-.14-..P--.(...•Om C.....,,J _I.-I... . •_ i i I I __-----.4-1-- — , :-.,......1•• ..II., ...^0 1 I I \: . 1 I .1 (---...............-.. a...... --.-----1- .. •..- •'-4-----.-- — -- Gler.l•S. .?.; I aulo 1.• . . . .. . . .... . . I I CD West Elevation • • Ai siti . Hem IIMIIIIIIMIIIIIiIMIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIM.n... ---(F 2114414- • .----1e-11;r3 --°—-—-— ____________________________ ,----meoue [ , .....—______. P,MiliMM . I ••••/....f------ /Z,VII.1, .........p..... 99. i! • n:TZ::1...‘'''' is;!:5 5 Willilitil- CZ' Celli:. ,...... .,.. , •• _ 111111111111111101111111111'-'NER11111 1 '"..1"'—''''' itilliii#P13111111.111111111111111111111111111111 1.7"...• I ilincouff .... _ ,„.,,,t,,,„._. ....,.., ,_1---4----ha--— -- ...1 ! .111-„„„linlinn l' ..IL,1.,9_ . !L._ ..L__. . & sks\l'.' . . - . . L__ . , ........._____ ,....,-„,„.,,,„,„,....-.....,; - . ; r . . I ' C.)South Elevation . . North Elevation . • .. . • . • t it.........1 erta. .1•—.' • I , • . • • I I • . i•• . \ , c I . I . ) .•.1 )n...... (----tm..........1. .. c I=..... . • I - coci.- .....-.. . .41. \ : .I . -. • I . I I H.... ....1.-..--'.."...."-.. .'"'-'--------------1 Ii: !,. .._ii-L__.Si..• — —___ ------ —-— —- ___...__.t.... ___...._ _._.. - -—-..--- — --..--. -....-- — --1-----—-—.•-—- --1 .' .--- ..( -1 -1- . 1 I GREENWOOD 2- RENTON, WA. 9 East Elevation . • • ':, 111 COCJIWOVIAB- • 1..-.4ffiesmr, A3 of 8 :... ., . ... 5 • . . .• ,... : - • • .••:,,,i• .:,,.i.:•:,;-.,-. . . s .,,,,,, •..)...)0:0,..)... A . az• MI mr31.‘,_... ------- • .. . •-iF • ,411:, .eg , .„ ---,ir ______kr_sirrr... .- m" OmMrin n ,_......•Um/ / i ' r1 rimrimnrnm7 ::: , ' • .• • . mElm I n ,. il, 7 -7mm mmnLiim' :: .• ! . . . . . •:i mm s ! g-_ NI . M M j \, \G00%Nato. I I n ''. • . .- . \ .'..< 1.. Li ± . 111 111 ! \ .f.' <‘. N\ ; —,- ...:.—.,--.--I.--: —........„_F1-_, . 1 n rim m • i I . ,...k,,vr:.:.v.7,„,_- H EN . 1 H E) HP' _ .,........„.„.....„...:=7„,,_ ._ -----h-‘ .---, . , 1 • ,._ _ . _.,.....5.5.90. L_ _ ( e , ) U Ik2=557.2=7; :4.111rNi , , I , ............ ,______ 0 Building Section midi, lzip ,....._..„(13-, , i )/, ,__ _ _-kmilc=-, . : _ - Er........... ..._i__,,,„i„_, .,.....,......___,__,_ , „ _ 1 . _ _____, I I! I I , ,."PO. .,. • IIIIII . IIIIIII I ......' • \ Ill .."... MIN I it 111111 3 I 1 11111111111.1111111116111 .. .---immui 1_ - -- - I II -1 - 1111.1111 . .__....,...._ ___. 4 ____;____ • .2.E-..T—.==_. .. _,—___ 7 li------ ---i-t-----C-il I ....., . .. • 0 Building Section 0 Building Section . . . . •. . . . •. Lr"- ,.., \ — ,55 50— 5• • • .. -- __Waral=11INIIIIIIM1111111111Mill11111111•11111111 all \\, , i .': Poo. // N Ito)...owe. foi:oFp.o'It5.1 .I —II ' 4-, lo• 14 , . .,/ I ._. •,--: R.;..,sol 50.0od—5 11:1=.1141.....-:-..-.,to-La—I__ • . I—III.—II••-III=III=III.,-..11=-III— j 111=111_111ElliEllEll1-11-Hrri ' r;.---i oo Imopoolof sool Noe n 77rfr;:oll. 111 011 i oro ----- '''' I I I PA d • . it N Ob.t. :frl=rff'-':•1• . .. P.: nig 011111 . I "• ..•t.11 F Ft—11'• 0::::41•..X4 ' . i it —'1W'''''iii=1119 -Ign-j 55 5 .317 MilI I—Eli W=r11411.737 ''a'' MEM I Ccou010 oolkooy M.II leo of . f IN.. ' iiiiimmion GREENWOOD 2 - RENTON, WA. 7 ?Ot„•151 "' , 111 oaorcroi/or¢h . i I. •4t.1 of,-.A ilkitegoodeeer • i... ®Retaininil Woll Section (D Retaining Wall Plan • - . , I i . WO IKON 1a511n.pa.so.a.. • . . . '. . C's.,.....',49. (Z,S)S2S-ri3nAx:26::::o. . I ti;',!:-.:? .. 1NV. ...UM T 1010 •. . • •' . '." • k-lro A4 of 6 .• . •-ii......1:: . . . ... . / -' • • . , . . . . . . . . .,.. . - . • . . . . . r. Ben Stark • P.O. Box 98638 Seattle, WA 98198 phone (206) 878-8466 July 23, 1996 hand delivered Fred J. Kaufman Renton Hearing Examiner 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 In regards to: Application Nos.: LUA-96-067-CU; ECF Applicant: Greenwood Memorial Park Project Name: Cedar View Mausoleum Phase 2 Description of Proposal: Request to allow the construction of 1293 square foot mausoleum. Location: 350 Monroe Ave. N.E. Dear Mr. Kaufman; The purpose of this letter is to file formal objection to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for the above referenced project, which does not meet the criteria under 4-31-36: of the Renton City Code. 4-31-36:C.2. Community Need: (states in part) There shall be a community need for the proposed use at the proposed location. There are now three existing mausoleums in the cemetery containing a total of 306 crypts and 233 urn niches. On July 18, 1996 118 of the 306 crypts and 83 of the 233 niches were in use, leaving 188 empty crypts and 150 empty niches presently available. If these empty crypts and niches are unavailable due to "Pre-Need" sales it would appear the cemetery may be creating an artificial need to feed their corporate coffers rather than the need of the community. Page 1 Ertl,, 5 • • Or to look at it in another way, only 39% of the now existing crypts and 36% of the now existing niches have been put to use in the cemetery's 79 years of operation. Surely this does not demonstrate a community need for another mausoleum. 4 -31-36:C.2.a. The Proposed location shall not result in either the detrimental over concentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. • The addition of this proposed 168 crypt, 216 niche, mausoleum to the already existing 96 crypt, 131 niche mausoleum, in this small northeast corner of the cemetery will create an over concentration of this use in this immediate area. 4-31-36:C.2.b.That the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. The proposed location is too close to the adjoining property on the east for the proposed use. 4-31-36:C.3 Effect on adjacent properties: (states in part) The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. • As owner of the easterly adjoining property it was our intention to develop an urn garden • on our property or in the alternative to sell it for that use. Our property enjoyed a sweeping, nearly unobstructed outlook across the cemetery and we felt this would be the best use for our property. Three years ago, over our objections, the cemetery built a 61 foot long mausoleum,just 7 feet from our property line, creating a long blank wall which blocks the westerly outlook, airflow and sunlight from the north end of our property. This forced us to put our urn garden on hold, especially so because at that time they stated they might build three more identical mausoleums extending south along the property line. Now they propose not an identical mausoleum but an 89 foot long addition, 15' 9" high along its entire length, to result in a 150 foot long solid wall within 7 to 8 feet of our property line. This will certainly have an adverse effect on our property and eliminate any possibility for our urn garden behind this monolithic wall. The shading effects will be extreme(see enclosed shading diagrams). 4-31-36:C.3.b.Yards: Yards shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Additions to the structure shall not be allowed in any required yard. To consider the yard behind this monolithic structure a side yard by applying a residential side yard requirement would be absurd in the extreme. Has anyone ever seen the side of a house 150 feet wide? Page 2 A mausoleum in this location will be an out door commercial use in a SF residential zone. A 5 foot side yard setback requirement seems unreasonable. Especially so, considering the Renton City Code 4-31-10.2:D.7.a. (2) requires that an indoor commercial use of our adjoining CB zoned property would require a 15' side yard setback on our property adjoining the applicant's SF residential zoning. (under 4-31-10.2:D.2.b. 0 side yard set back is required in a CB zone except when adjacent to a residential lot zoned SF or SF4). Therefore the applicants SF zoning is allowing him a 5 foot setback, while imposing a 15 foot setback on our CB zoning. 4-31-36:C.3.c.Height (states in part): Building heights should be related to surrounding uses in order to allow optimal sunlight and ventilation, and minimal obstruction of views from adjacent structures. To allow a blank wall 15'9" high, when it will be 150 feet long, this close to the property line by applying a residential height limit is also absurd in the extreme. In this case the height should be limited to the 6 foot maximum which would be allowed for a retaining wall or fence within the required setback, not the 30 foot height limit of an ordinary house. This would allow optimal sunlight and ventilation and minimal obstruction of views as the code requires. 4-31-36:C.4 Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the residential scale and character of the neighborhood. (Ord. 3599, 1-11-82). This project, if allowed as proposed, will be not only incompatible with any known residential scale and incompatible with our adjoining property, but incompatible with the character of the cemetery itself. A structure of this size will change the entire effect of the open lawns and evergreen trees in this part of the cemetery. The applicant's environmental checklist A.7. indicates they plan two more duplicate buildings. If connected, as has been proposed in the past, this will result in a solid wall of mausoleums along the east side of the cemetery 328 feet long, 28 feet longer than a football field! Does anyone think the people who bought grave sites here bargained for this kind of change in their surroundings? The time to stop this is now. 4-31-36:C.8. Landscaping: (states in part) The Hearing Examiner may require additional landscaping to buffer adjacent properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use. On September 27, 1993 the Hearing Examiner approved the Conditional Use Permit for the existing Cedar View Garden Mausoleum on the condition: 1. The applicant shall maintain the landscaping along the east facade of the mausoleum just below the roof line of the proposed mausoleum. See enclosed Sept. 27, 1993 decision. • Page 3 This condition has not been met. the landscape screening east of the existing mausoleum is totally inadequate, even though the applicant offered to record a covenant to plant and maintain a hedge at the height of the structure and wing walls. See enclosure July 21, 1993, Dan Drais letter and Covenant of Tree Retention and Maintenance Agreement, paragraph 3. If this permit is approved we request the following items of mitigation: 1. That the enclosed Covenant of Tree Retention and Maintenance Agreement be recorded and enforced by the City and that the Covenant be extended to provide for planting and maintaining a hedge at a height equal to the roof of the proposed mausoleum also. 2. That the proposed mausoleum be moved forward, to the west, as far as the location of the existing private drive permits and that the top tier of the crypts be removed to lessen the cutting off of the light and air from, and to reduce the shading of, our adjacent property. 3. That an enforceable agreement be entered into between the applicant, the City and ourselves waiving the setback and or screening requirements under 4-31-10.2:C.7.a. to allow a 0' side yard setback for any future construction on our CB zoned property. Respectfully Submitted Ben G. Stark Enclosures: September 27, 1993 Hearing Examiner's Decision Dan Drais letter and Covenant of Tree Retention and Maintenance Agreement Shading diagrams Page 4 Da' id M. Combs ( I Cedar View Garden Mausoleum September 27, 1993 Page 12 9. The proposed use is compatible in scale with surrounding uses. At approximately 15 feet, it is equivalent to a single story building. There are no single family homes located close to the proposed use that would be affected by the proposed use. Regarding yard requirements,this office will not revisit the issue of yard setbacks. There was an administrative determination, unchallenged, which is determinative, and the yard setback proposed is appropriate. (See discussion above) 10. Parking is accommodated on the internal roads as it is at most cemeteries. This parking arrangement should be sufficient, and with the exception of interment at the close of funerals, the periodic visitation to the mausoleum should not create any undue parking demand. 11. Similarly, traffic impacts should not be significant. There have been no significant reported problems with the existing cemetery. 12. Construction may introduce noise but that would be limited to the construction window. There could also be the ordinary sounds of voices, possibly more during services but the impacts should be minimal. 13. The existing landscaping coupled with the proposed landscaping appears sufficient. As currently proposed, the applicant would limit the height of any plantings to minimize any additional spillover of shadows onto the adjacent property. In order to assure that no unnecessary shadows impact the site to the east, the applicant should maintain the landscaping just below the roof line of the proposed mausoleum. 14. Given the history of this case, this office is convinced that the matter will be appealed to the City Council. While this office does not believe that any additional conditions are necessary to make the proposed use compatible with either the subject site or adjacent properties,there are two possible methods to further reduce the minimal impacts of the proposal on adjacent property. These suggestions, and their apparent results, are discussed to reduce the potential fora remand of this determination. The applicant could reduce the depth of the structure by one tier of crypts effectively pulling the structure forward and increasing the eastern setback from 7 feet to approximately 9.75 feet. Similarly, a tier of crypts could be removed from the top of the structure reducing the height by approximately 2.5 feet. Both methods would probably reduce the shadows that could occur on the adjacent site. The two methods are similar and could be combined to further produce more dramatic results. Finally, as • indicated above,this office firmly believes that no additional conditions are necessary to approve the proposed mausoleum, other than'strict landscaping control. DECISION: The Conditional Use Permit is approved subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall maintain the landscaping along the east facade of the mausoleum just below the roof line of the proposed mausoleum. ORDERED THIS 27th day of September, 1993. FRED J. KA AN HEARING E MINER •/y-1 1 'V J�( • STOEL RIVES BOLE)/-,' • JONES &GREY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY ?ENTON ATTORNEYS AT L.W 36TH UNION FLOOR JUL 2 2 1993 ' ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY STREET • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101:3197 Telephone(206)624-0900 • RECEIVED Tde pier(206)3867500 MCI Mail No.4955830 • Eas7Lmk Na 62413580 TDD(206)628.6208 • • • • (206) 386-7584 July 21, 1993 . • Ms. Jana Huerter • City of Renton Building/Planning Department 200 Mill Avenue South • Renton, WA' 98055 • Re: Cedar View Garden Mausoleum, No. LUA-93-011-CU: Landscape Retention and Maintenance ' Dear Ms. Huerter: • We have previously discussed the City's desire that Greenwood record a covenant reflecting our agreement to abide . by City landscape and vegetation standards. I have enclosed a draft' of such a covenant for staff review. The substance of Paragraphs 1 and 2 was taken from your letter to me dated, June . 2 , 1993 . ' Paragraph 3 reflects conversations we' have had at various times concerning landscaping at the rear of the proposed mausoleum. If the City decides that a vine. might be preferable to a hedge, as you have recently suggested -that it • might, we would., of course, change that paragraph accordingly. • Please let me know if the draft covenant meets the • . City's needs or if you would like to discuss. it further. • Very truly yours, • Daniel G. Drals • • • Enclosure cc: David Combs w/enc • ' • SEA2-16154.1 32303 0007 • SEATTLF_ PORTLANO. BELLEVUE VANCOUVER. BOISE. SALT LAKE CITY. W SI IVA;TON. VcASIIINI:TON OREL ION WASHINGTON WASHINGTON LT-II • DISTRICT OF Ck)LI'\IBI 11114411 COVENANT OF TREE RETENTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT • KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the undersigned Service Corporation Washington, d/b/a Greenwood Memorial Park ("Greenwood") , in conjunction with its application to the City of Renton (the "City") for permits necessary to construct a mausoleum on its property, hereby agrees to bind itself and its successors in interest for so long as the property described in Exhibit A remains in use as a cemetery: 1. Greenwood shall comply with all applicable City Tree Retention and Maintenance Standards expressed in valid and applicable ordinances now existing and as hereafter amended or adopted. 2 . With respect to trees removed in connection with the Cedar View Garden Mausoleum, City LUA 93-011-CU, Greenwood shall replace all trees of eight inches or more in diameter in the following ratios: a. For each deciduous tree measuring twelve inches in diameter to be removed, a tree measuring two inches in diameter shall be planted on the lot; each tree planted shall be a Norway Maple or a compatible species approved by the City; b. For each deciduous tree measuring more than twelve inches in diameter to be removed, and for each additional two inches in diameter greater than twelve inches, Greenwood shall plant a tree measuring two inches in diameter; each tree planted shall be a. Norway Maple or a compatible species approved by the City; c. For each coniferous tree measuring eight to twelve inches in diameter to be removed, Greenwood shall plant three trees measuring six to eight feet in height; each tree , planted shall be a coniferous species approved by the City; d. For each coniferous tree measuring more than twelve inches in diameter, and for each two inches in diameter greater than twelve inches, an additional evergreen tree six to eight feet in height shall be planted; each tree planted shall be a coniferous species approved by the City. The City shall not unreasonably withhold its approval of any species suggested by Greenwood. All replaced trees shall be proptrly maintained by Greenwood' s landscape maintenance staff for a minimum of two years from the date of planting. SEA2-15740.1 32303 0007 • 3. Greenwood agrees to plant and maintain an • evergreen hedge at the rear of the proposed mausoleum, as shown on its revised landscape plans. Greenwood .will maintain the hedge at a height approximately equal to the height of the adjacent mausoleum structure or wing walls. DATED this _ day of , 1993 . David Combs General Manager Greenwood Memorial Park STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of KING ) On this _ of , 1993, before me personally appeared , to me personally known to be the of Service Corporation Washington (d/b/a Greenwood Memorial Park) , a Washington corporation, the corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that the seal affixed, if any, is the corporate seal of said corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal the day and year first above written. • [Seal or Stamp] Notary Public in and for the State of • Washington, residing at My appointment expires: SEA2-15740.1 32303 0007 • • • EXHIBIT A • LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PARCEL A: LOTS 3, 4, AND 5 AND THE WEST 10 FEET OF LOT. 6 OF BLOCK 5, SMITHER'S SIXTH ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF RENTON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 26 OF PLATS, PAGE 47, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, EXCEPT. THE NORTH 12.5 FEET OF SAID LOT 3 . PARCEL B: . THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE NORTH 45 FEET, WEST 30 FEET AND SOUTH 15 FEET THEREOF AND EXCEPT j THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE EAST 12 FEET OF THE WEST 42 FEET OF THE SOUTH 300 FEET OF • THE NORTH 330 FEET OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER; SAID PROPERTY BEING PORTIONS OF STREETS AND PLATS AND REPLATS OF GREENWOOD CEMETERY FILED UNDER VOLUME . AND PAGE OF PLATS, 22/35, 22/36, 33/24, 46/96, 47/19, AND 54/58, . RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. • • • il SEA2-15740.1 32303 0007 e' I FREDERICK R STARK ARCHITECT 10246 63 AVE SO SEATTLE WA 98176 (206] 725-3629 May 27, 1993 Ben Stark • P 0 Box 98638 Seattle, Wa 98198 Dear Ben: The purposes of this letter are two: first, to document the bases and the assumptions of the shadow diagrams prepared for your appearance before the Renton Hearing Examiner on April 27, 1993 regarding the negative impacts of the mausoleum proposed by Greenwood Memorial Park, and second to comment on their relationship to the probable phased extension of that construction southward. The diagrams are drawn to scale to show the size and location of the proposed building and walls relative to the north, east and west lines of the northerly end of your property on Northeast' 4th Street in Renton. They are based on dimensions shown on the plans of the mausoleum attached to the City' s Determination of Non-Significance. The length of the shadows as plotted are calculated trigonometrically based upon sun angle data published in Designing and Building a Solar House, Donald Watson, Garden Way Publishing, Charlotte, Vermont, 1977, page 254. The length of the shadows are determined by the height of the building or wall casting the shadow relative to the height of the grade on which the shadow falls. These diagrams assume that the ground plane on which the shadows fall is level, flat and at the elevation 361 feet, approximately equal to the existing grade at the point on your west property line opposite the northeast corner of the proposed mausoleum which would rise 11 .33 feet above this elevation. The proposed niche walls would rise 4. 67 feet above this grade. The assumption of a flat plane at average gradient for the purposes of plotting shadow diagrams is consistent with established practices and appropriate to the level of detail of available information in 'this case. The diagrams depict shadows as they would fall on an indicated date. Diagrams are included at two month intervals from June 21st, Summer Solstice when shadows are shortest, to December 21st, Winter Solstice when they are longest. On each date a series of hourly shadow positions are shown and labeled by time, Pacific Daylight Time for April through October and Standard time for December and February. For times between the positions shown or for dates between those diagramed interpolation is possible. For example, the diagram labeled October 21 (Feb 21 ) can be interpolated to show that by 4:30 PM a shadow will extend across your property from west to east over an area more than 30 feet long north to south. This condition will occur at or before this time and to a greater extent, each day from October 21 through December 21 and on to February 21 , one third of the year. At other times of the year the shadow areas will be later in the day and less in area. The above remarks apply to the effects of "Phase One" of the mausoleum as proposed. Because the project sign on the mausoleum site depicts a repetitive extension of the mausoleum and niche wall structures, apparently extending continuously to the south of the first phase, I offer the following comments regarding the use of the shadow diagrams in assessing the probable effects of such a structure. If one assumes that the future phase or phases produce buildings of the same height and interconnected, as the sign depicts, they would produce similar shadows, except that as the development proceeds southward the gradient of the land flattens and the difference' of the grade on your property and theirs diminishes. This results in greater relative building and wall heights and corresponding longer and earlier shadows on your property. If the building is continuous from north to south the shadows will be continuous. These remarks regarding future phases are general and must remain so until more specific information is available. I hope that this will serve to clarify the bases and appropriate use of these diagrams. If I can be of further assistance don' t hesitate to call. Sincerely, ' (R/1-4°: Fred Star • • • • • ,a2 (p pD I I - SUN �1 { . 1 1.. . (9',ev . ,.. 7-7---- er;OD - 1 i './--- ' - . i i . AUK ,2.1 Peek, 21 • •.,...: ,. . • 1 • 1 ./ . (400 I ; / / ( :00) . ! - • • , • :aa • - e2‘ .• . , • • • • • • r • I / • •• ../ • • • • 061- (Fet , zi) /, roD PST / //, . . . . • i L , �I i 1 / 71 / i J• r . • 2EG21 O 40. Washington State Northwest Region �� Department of Transportation Sid Morrison Secretary of Transportation F?EC IVElp DATE: July 19,1996 0 jilt ?3 1996 C,ryOF EVFLOpM iv TO: Jennifer Toth Henning RoNNiNG City of Renton, Project Manager 200 Mill Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Subject: SR 405 MP 4.19CS 1743 Determination of Nonsignificance- Cedar View Mausoleum Phase II File No. LUA-96-067,ECF cvl / FROM: Robert A. Josephson, PE, Manager of Planning & Local Coordination Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North, MS 122 P. O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review this project, which is located at 350 Monroe Avenue NE. Our response is checked below: X We have reviewed this subject document and have no comments. The project will have no significant impact on the state highway system. The State recommends that a traffic study be prepared to anaylyse the state intersections that are impacted by ten or more of the project's generated peak hour trips and also determine what mitigation measures, if any would be required. If you have any questions, please contact Don Hurter at 440-4664 or Vickie Erickson at 440-4915 of my Developer Services section VEE:vee File Name 0 M 1 my RENTON };>:<:{>:<:: <::>:;{ rr.>:::»:::>::>r ,,,-..t:. .� .:. a ,r}'off t'f vt! ':::�•: •.r,..•,w•.rr._f�,l,�,.��.}.�/:F;:•.,.of:..;:{':{; CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION }{' , : :,} {F - u } • t:::• ::::.>: .. ..r...AFFIDA1lIT OF`SERVICE•.BY MAlLlN(� ,.r . . �•�•x: ,.;,- ::::::::::::::..::::::. ........... ::n:........xrf......................... . i::ii:{•{?L:,�:::::::::v:::::::; .........:..�. :..::.......:. :.::..........: : ..... ..... :..•}'.is{}:'r: `ih fi. ,.• •:i yr• ................................... .............ti.::•::••: :::: :::r.�:::-•n:::::..:::::.::::. ::::::::.......:...:.:..::::�.v:.{t4:rvv :::::n:•:;;r:x:::{{v:.:: '' .. ........:..•.:...:........... ...........: :.. ............{....rv........................................ .. ••$.tr.?n:y?$ rt'f��'•�•'�v$+4 ?}r.H, .{it 3'+6. -..ii:: .......r......n...v.nn......... ................ .. : ................................. •. .................::...:....:.......::w::..•-:::::.:.i'/�...:.{..r ':x•::};{:{}{.:::'F"•..• ... : :.f..•:nr �f-r'=?S{:}.: ......:......::................................ �:Y::r:::::.:.:.:•r:••.:::: •:..:...............................: .•.:.• .:...... ..+•.::...r......r......ry:::::... .v... v::.:n�.�{h ..K�:C:^'.{..f.....rC:: On the 23 day of -1,0k,cL__ , 1996, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing eiLC. d e..Yvv t v wt4S documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing K� l a it PioUtatoln Cvctw A hnOK) --t- cf. Li t\at4__ Lueseil AislAer , ze-0- f Ats an -DzAita 1: 1.1c'i area -, rt' of r\ u,valL rRtscuacr , -1.-- ,..\:)-t- ef --rits\srto7f--taltrv, Swe. —Q.wvtGn„\ C o.f Sca4e_. LvwamksL lv\A‘ar,-1-Y%Lc.. VMaICOWI , hS -\evles 6LI-c dd%h 1v\dt&• v\ —Tv "A:,,c_ a. "Pe0.c..... Th.ac --lbk....Ser (Signature of Sender) GAS _ K 4 ----.11m-fic-- STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that , -, r‘A Nri `__,E ' .4)/4 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: �2 ,.1 l 5�!(o ?�Lt i,-c��� ',`1 CG iZu�-) -nx )c.-v-,-, •Note /stoc in end r theis�tate , aashi gton .,os<- il TrC Notary (Print) !Yl A le, Al ,1) /I uA C h e-Cc vit„� ••, My appointment expires. 6 - i- 5� A froeN.�' 1 Ce d�.><- V I-e. rn a us of .Los plaaseT '�aai lctinber. c\to -O(o i , Cu , eor'-- NOTARY.DOC i ? • , . , .. ,;,. NoncE , . ', . 1 , . ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION I PROJECT NAME: CEDAR VIEW MAUSOLEUM PHASE II PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-96-067,CU,ECF i The applicant seeks■Conditional Use(CU)Permit for the construction of a 1,293 sq S mausoleum al Greenwood Memorial Park.The 94fool by 17-foot single story concrete structure would contain casket i • crypts and niches forums,The mausoleum would be built near the northeast comer of the cemetery site and would be 16 feel in height. The building will feature stucco covered concrete end granite facades, and a concrete roof slab.A cantilever concrete retaining wall having a maximum height of about 3 feel will extend outward from the northwestern comer of the building,and concrete walkways will abut the • ' southern and western sides.The proposal requires Environmental Checklist Review(ECF)and a public hearing for Ike CU Permit. The project site Is located within Aquifer Protection Area(APA)-Zone 2. , } Location:350 Monroe Avenue NE. 1 1 THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED } THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE 1 ENVIRONMENT. i I AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. n APPEALS OF THIS DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING 1 .EXAMINER BY 5:00 PM, I ® YOU MAY COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM ON,DULY 16.1996 OR APPEAL THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM,JULY 16.1996. THE COMMENT AND APPEAL PERIODS WILL RUN CONCURRENTLY. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING I IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL•RENTON,WASHINGTON,ON ' i JULY 23, 1996 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE CU PERMIT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL , DETERMINATION IS APPEALED,THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. n 57 ..7,qm in,An N® L. r r 1 "vim :%a lF�l�i. •'sn Lrr Y iuvsp .1%�j��ItLllll!lll ,r./x_ �i ' �v'v'' T_ �1��{�112- , I i ,1.'; ____„:;::._i�=� < • 11 Viii0.61`2.1.1.",:,taiiii_ •,"i"ir.0 ;;,- 7 R,;• .Glorimiii-,11 -11 AF: �N� r . Kr , r .71115•••TITr■ I, Men tam 1 2'-A ,h FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT . • SERVICES DIVISION AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION I Please Include-the project-NUMBER when calling for,proper•file Identification..' •. I — . • CERTIFICATION • le M Dq ,J,4PAcSOIV . hereby certify that 3 copies-of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on , UNE 22 , 161°l 10 . • Signed: ,SahCQ.� � Z/1!)1'1 G' 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) . ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that i by LTA--Gl.�.cd n? signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntar�r`ac�1� 'q'[VM�ktses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. ; ,;u:' -5-6�9••,''a Dated: 67 f 9(0 C _ < ,,i rA,...° '' :• Notary Publi and fort State ofi�;t� �Ip� .rl t • .�• t`tb, Yr Notary (Prin 4-R6r-- j-- i; I a Y. My appointment expires: �(9 � • ., NOTARY.DOC �: -; -..;. CITY 'OF RENTON: '� `'> Planning/Building/Public-Works Department Jesse'Tanner;Mayor : - Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator June 26, 1996 . V1Iashington State - • • Department of Ecology - Environmental Review Section ' . , PO Box 47703 " : Olympia, WA 98504-7703 • SUBJECT: Environmental.Determinations - Transmitted herewith is'a copy of the Environmental Determination and Environmental Checklist for the following'project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee'on June 25, 1996: ; DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE • = :CEDAR VIEW MAUSOLEUM PHASE II LUA-96=067,CU,ECF,: The:applicant seeks'a Conditional Use (CU) Permit for the construction of:a'1,293 sq ft.mausoleum at :..:,; :.'Greenwood Memorial Park The 90-foot by.17-foot'single story concrete structure would-_contain casket crypts and niches for urns: The mausoleum:would be built:near the northeast corner of the cemetery and•would:be16 'feet.in:height The building will feature stucco.covered:concrete:and granite facades, • ;..'-•';.`' "{`..and.e::Cpncrete'roof:slab:,;A:cantilever,.concrete"retaining.wall`having:a maximum;height of about 3'feet wlll:extend-=outward from_the norrthwestern corner of;the buildin ";and,,concrete,walkwa swill abut,the .+'>'-- '' 9 Y • r;-vsoutheni:and Western'sides:.'The. roposal requires Environmental Checklist Review:(ECF) and a public • hearing.for;the:CU`Permit, ':The.,:project:site is located-within Aquifer Protection Area (APA)'.-. Zone.2: .;. ' '; Location: 350 Monroe.Avenue NE - _ •,._The 15 day comment period with concurrent 14day:appeal period'for this project will end at 5:00 PM on July'16,-1996:.. .:`:Following :.this, the'City;will finalize.,its ,Determination `unless.:comments received require a''_reevaluation::•;Appeal 'procedures' imposed'by the"City':Of Rerlton's Environmental "Review Committee ;are available 'at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building,•Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. A Public,Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner'at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on July 23, 1996 at 9:00 AM to consider the Conditional Use Permit. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. • If you have questions; please call me at (206) 277-6186.. = - For the Environmental view Committee, Project Man. - 'cc::.King County Water:Pollution Control Division, Metro - ' Department of Wildlife Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries . David F:,Dietzman,-Department of Natural Resources . Don Hurter,Department.of Transportation • •`' .Sue Rumery, City of Seattle Duwamish Tribal,Office' Rod,Malcom,,Fisheries,.Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Ordinance "- •Rita Perstac,'Puget Power = AGNCYLTR.DOC 200.Mill Avenue South`- Renton,'Washington 98055 y'== 3 ;: C_ITX .JF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator • • June 26, 1996 • Mr. David M. Combs • • c/o SCI Washington Funeral Services, Inc. dba Greenwood Memorial Park • 350 Monroe Avenue.NE Renton;WA 98056 SUBJECT_: Cedar View Mausoleum Phase II _ :Project No. LUA=96-067,CU,ECF, Dear Mr. Combs:. ;This letter is`writtenon,behalf of the'SEnvironmental,Review Committee.=and-is;id inform you that they_have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above-referenced,project:;:The Committee, on June 25, 1996, 'decided that.,your project will:be issued a Determination of Non-Significance. : :.. ::` f: The City of,.Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined-that it does not have a:probable significant adverse :ampact _on .the environment :An _:environmental -impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW. •43.21C.030(2)(c)._:This decision was made by:the Environmental Review Committee under the authority of Section 4-6- 6, Renton Municipal-Code, after review-of a completed environmental checklist and other information, on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The 15 day comment period with concurrent 14 day appeal period for this project will end at5:00 PM on July 16, 1996. Following this, the City will finalize its Determination unless comments ,received require a reevaluation. Appeal procedures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are .available et the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton,...Washington. 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. - A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton,Washington, on July 23;1996 at 9:00 AM to consider the Conditional Use Permit. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at 277-6186. For the Environmentel Review Committee, Je niferToth Henning Project Manager • DNSLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ShThis paper contains 50%recycled material.25%post consumer . __ __, ., , . ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: CEDAR VIEW MAUSOLEUM PHASE II PROJECT NUMBER: ,LUA-96-067,CU,ECF The applicant seeks a Conditional Use (CU) Permit for the construction of a 1,293 sq ft mausoleum at Greenwood Memorial Park. The 90-foot by 17-foot single story concrete structure would contain casket crypts and niches for urns. The mausoleum would be built near the northeast corner of the cemetery site and would be 16 feet in height. The building will feature stucco covered concrete and granite facades, and a concrete roof slab. A cantilever concrete retaining wall having a maximum height of about 3 feet I will extend outward from the northwestern corner of the building, and concrete walkways will abut the southern and western sides. The proposal requires Environmental Checklist Review(ECF)and a public hearing for the CU Permit. The project site is located within Aquifer Protection Area (APA) - Zone 2. Location: 350 Monroe Avenue NE. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE •ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. I. APPEALS OF THIS DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING - EXAMINER BY 5:00 PM, XXX YOU MAY COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM ON JULY 16, 1996 OR APPEAL THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM, JULY 16, 1996. THE COMMENT AND APPEAL PERIODS WILL RUN CONCURRENTLY. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON JULY 23, 1996 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE CU PERMIT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED,THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. mum:e5 -- :::i11.� :��l t.ru : in ail �1<•.11 �t ufr.11.: t- _ :■-_,0.:3�..� ■ V '�A si rau1nr71:n11C 1 •\YiIIiY11 1■■�I '�����•���Nu{ Ind •.'� S" � I L f • ° �� i 11.11... ► ♦=V% :�.;�p Sim owe 1�Ik ;:n. L IIl1AUI��:���'`i Fai .1 f•�fn:7 ,��iij,1 I 1■•,••'j/►� 11191'.lae. gu in,,,,,,A� \\�•.0:: F. Iil!•iO4 1 /; ■:[. g, fff;:i .•,,i...% • 14 lilt: t:3 ud'au1u1:!► �.\�11: _ ..:!!l' �! a."Il 142/41 �.'".'� i 1- 7••• ► w: `i :IIII 1111r4161111 iiii g 2 111 o.-.;.7 iimfa; luv���,Mn1►� ...•6A'•r� ell Li o r` ■■■ Fi o1 1�' ;,* — ■■IIII■'■■■ ,. I r z�I■- Ili II14 h T elliLcl:.lu.l 3au E th . '41k 07.01;17 r ill jo -...riLl' 3 ST I- . l• ° ,t•If1-I-1 :9-11P. A�' � .3-1 ii L.-mum .• • ��!"'�minf:tiili 1 ...., ; NE 2n1 ST rs�: `larArl.� :• . •I INN! i■t�."�t4 n iv 2 •i j Et T , ♦ 1O• :q■..nv•���1 NO Ulu misleLhin gni I t 1 ■U■t:.C19■Q . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT 235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please inc ,.,..,:,: <: >. :: :<::: lude,the:: ro ot.:,NUMBER 11.0 calls #o ro <..: :iti :_:: .:.:. >..<::::<:. : :.: p;, J>.:...: .... . . ........:..:......:.. .:..ng..:,:::,...,:.,per;:.file<...dentiti,cation:: :>:: < ..::; • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-067,CU,ECF APPLICANT: Mr. David M. Combs/Greenwood Memorial Park PROJECT NAME: Cedar View Mausoleum Phase II DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks a Conditional Use (CU) Permit for the construction of a 1,293 sq ft mausoleum at Greenwood Memorial Park. The 90-foot by 17-foot single story concrete structure would contain casket crypts and niches for urns. The mausoleum would be built near the northeast corner of the cemetery site and would be 16 feet in height. The building will feature stucco covered concrete and granite facades, and a concrete roof slab. A cantilever concrete retaining wall having a maximum height of about 3 feet will extend outward from the northwestern corner of the building, and concrete walkways will abut the southern and western sides. The proposal requires Environmental Checklist Review(ECF) and a public hearing for the CU Permit. The project site is located within Aquifer Protection Area (APA) -Zone 2. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 350 Monroe Avenue NE LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The 1,5 day comment period with concurrent 14 day appeal period for this project will end on July 16, 1996. Following this, the City will finalize its Determination unless comments received require a reevaluation. Appeal procedures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. PUBLICATION DATE: July 01, 1996 DATE OF DECISION: June 25, 1996 l.. )'SIGNATURES: 9l 1/ 6 /2 S/76 Gregg Z)mer a•, = .�Administrator DATE Departnl' rit of Panning/Building/Public Works Sam Chastai , Administrator DATE Community S ice Depa me Lee,N I Ier,Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department DNSSIG.DOC • Cedar View Mausoleum Phase 1_ Advisory Notes Page 2 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-067,CU,ECF APPLICANT: Mr. David M. Combs/Greenwood Memorial Park PROJECT NAME: Cedar View Mausoleum Phase II DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks a Conditional Use (CU) Permit for the construction of a 1,293 sq ft mausoleum at Greenwood Memorial Park. The 90-foot by 17-foot single story concrete structure would contain casket crypts and niches for urns. The mausoleum would be built near the northeast corner of the cemetery site and would be 16 feet in height. The building will feature stucco covered concrete and granite facades, and a concrete roof slab. A cantilever concrete retaining wall having a maximum height of about 3 feet will extend outward from the northwestern corner of the building, and concrete walkways will abut the southern and western sides. The proposal requires Environmental Checklist Review (ECF) and a public hearing for the CU Permit. The project site is located within Aquifer Protection Area (APA) -Zone 2. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 350 Monroe Avenue NE 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. 1. The applicant shall comply with all applicable City, state, federal and/or other jurisdictional regulations, codes and policies governing the project and site. 2. All required utility, drainage and street improvements (if applicable) will require separate submittals prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, according to City of Renton drafting standards. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5%of the first $100,000, 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than$200,000; and 3% of anything over $200,000. One-half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. 3. Construction plans must comply with the City's Drafting Standards. The applicant is advised to obtain a copy of the Drafting Standards from the Public Works Assistance Counter. For further information call: (206) 235-2631. 4. The City's Transportation Impact Fee would not apply to the proposal due to the very low trip generation(less than 1 trip per week). . 5. The preliminary fire flow requirement has been determined to be 1,750 gpm. One fire hydrant would be required. within 150 feet of the structure. A requirement for a second fire hydrant has been waived, since the structure would not have any interior spaces. In addition, the Fire Department has waived the Fire Mitigation Fee for the proposal. ADVNOTES.DOC/ r Cedar View Mausoleum Phase 1V Advisory Notes Page 2 6. Building Permits will require that construction begins within 180-days of issuance. 7. The applicant's Soils Engineer shall call a pre-construction meeting with the City's Building Inspector and the contractor,per the Soils Report. 8. The Soils Engineer shall approve bearing soil prior to placement of concrete in footings and slabs on grade, and retaining walls, with post-inspection letter to the Building Official. 9. No drainage improvements or fees are required since the building would be less than 5,000 square feet in size. 10. No sewer improvements or fees are required. 11. During construction, materials and tools should be secured to avoid theft or vandalism ADVNOTES.DOC/ NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. CEDAR VIEW MAUSOLEUM PHASE II LUA-96-067,CU,ECF The applicant seeks a conditional use permit (CU) for the construction of a 1,293 sq ft mausoleum at Greenwood Memorial Park. The 90-foot by 17-foot single story concrete structure would contain casket crypts and niches for urns. The mausoleum would be built near the northeast corner of the cemetery site and would be 16 feet in height. The building will feature stucco covered concrete and granite facades, and a concrete roof slab. A cantilever concrete retaining wall having a maximum height of about 3 feet will extend outward from the northwestern corner of the building, and concrete walkways will abut the southern and western sides. The proposal requires Environmental Review and a public hearing for the CU permit. The project site is located within Aquifer Protection Area Zone 2. Location: 350 Monroe Ave. NE. The 15 day comment period with concurrent 14 day appeal period for this project will end at 5:00 p.m. on July 16, 1996. Following this, the City will finalize its Determination unless comments received require a reevaluation. Appeal procedures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550'. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on July 23, 1996 at 9:00 AM to consider the CU permit. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Publication Date: JULY 01, 1996 Account No. 51067 dnspub SENT BY: 6-24-96 ; 2:24PM ;AGRA EARTH AND ENVIR 206 277 4455;# 2/ 2 AGRA EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. MEMORANDUM 11335 N.E. 122nd Way, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98034-6918 Phone No. (206) 820-4669 Fax No. (206) 821-3914 TO: Jennifer Henning DATE: 20 June 1996 City of Renton FROM: Jim Brisbine FILE: 6-917-10845-0 RE: Liquefaction Risk Greenwood Mausoleum, Phase Two A Per your request, we have qualitatively evaluated the risk of liquefaction occurring below the project site. Our on-site and near-site subsurface explorations revealed medium-dense to very dense sands and gravels and very stiff silts extending to depths of 34 feet or more below grade. Based on published geologic maps, we infer that these soils probably extend several hundred feet below grade,terminating at bedrock. Groundwater was observed at a depth of about 22 feet. Research has shown that liquefaction typically occurs only within saturated, loose to medium-dense sands with a fairly low silt content. Because such soils are not present beneath the project site, we interpret the risk of liquefaction to be minimal or nonexistent. cc: David Combs/Greenwood Memorial Park T0'd.1d101 -•rTY OF F#ENTO ' JUN 2 0 1996 ucvrivrowchvI stiiVICl=$ 11 l DIVISION Fas. c:T77—qcts3— jeN CEDAR VIEW MAUSOLEUM PHASE It NICHES SINGLE 166 CRYPTS SINGLE 46 DOUBLE 120 T0'd Sb09 TLZ 90Z 3WOH 1tiei3Nfld 2 Ad W3W Q(19 TS:ST 966T-0Z-Nfll STAFF City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE June 25, 1996 Project Name Cedar View Mausoleum-Phase II Applicant Mr. David M. Combs/Greenwood Memorial Park File Number LUA-096-067,CU,ECF Project Manager: Jennifer Toth Henning Project Description The applicant seeks a Conditional Use (CU) Permit for the construction of a 1,293 sq ft mausoleum at Greenwood Memorial Park. The 90-foot by 17-foot single story concrete structure would contain casket crypts and niches for urns. The mausoleum would be built near the northeast corner of the cemetery site and would be 16 feet in height. The building will feature stucco covered concrete and granite facades, and a concrete roof slab. A cantilever concrete retaining wall having a maximum height of about 3 feet will extend outward from the northwestern corner of the building, and concrete walkways will abut the southern and western sides. The proposal requires Environmental Checklist Review(ECF)and a public hearing for the CU Permit. The project site is located within Aquifer Protection Area(APA) -Zone 2. Project Location 350 Monroe Avenue NE Exist. Bldg. Area gsf Proposed New Bldg. Area gsf 1,293 Sq. Ft. Site Area 3,400 Sq. Ft. of the 37.5 Total Building Area gsf 1,293 Sq. Ft. acre site RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommend that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of NonSi ni cance (DNS). �i^?Ilraa� �I�7hji'1001-.1'N:1 tr,9f I1 le :#,En a L urivy xIr qr Liia 00,► Y -is 114�, G ram runny; +::: rrr4q �Il�t�/I�i zacni'u i �I::�% ■.�:o q. �4 a�tr— t'�?inlul1.� v - NE.11. i C:� !ur.'"n Imirovnnre:a�!���9,� !Ili.U uaai'futl3► moo'r� ;1.1.....,` 1.'. "' 44 -'E I,1111'117t1i1 11111171110... s à *1w ! m 1 4th ST Y ''f rktis�IilitLV JAIE th i4%,s f .4/ •1 u"F'{1 i'• I .Vr •.. . - - „ma'. . ,... . t Ati .71 lit„wow, i e,4- I NE 2ro ST � !`\Itru■.a `�. .14�i F Project Location Map ���� ;;• J ERCRP7 DOC �� ,'n _ vitsliS ea p 1� • City of Renton PB/PWDepartment Em nental Review Committee Staff Report Cedar View Mausoleum LUA-96-067, CU,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF June25,1996 Page2of3 B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: X DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 da A eal Period. X Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C MITIGATION MEASURES None. 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. 1. The applicant shall comply with all applicable City, state, federal and/or other jurisdictional regulations, codes and policies governing the project and site. 2. All required utility, drainage and street improvements (if applicable) will require separate submittals prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, according to City of Renton drafting standards. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000, 4%of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000; and 3% of anything over $200,000. One-half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. 3. Construction plans must comply with the City's Drafting Standards. The applicant is advised to obtain a copy of the Drafting Standards from the Public Works Assistance Counter. For further information call: (206)235-2631. 4. The City's Transportation Impact Fee would not apply to the proposal due to the very low trip generation(less than 1 trip per week). . 5. The preliminary fire flow requirement has been determined to be 1,750 gpm. One fire hydrant would be required. within 150 feet of the structure. A requirement for a second fire hydrant has been waived, since the structure would not have any interior spaces. In addition,the Fire Department has waived the Fire Mitigation Fee for the proposal. 6. Building Permits will require that construction begins within 180-days of issuance. 7. The applicant's Soils Engineer shall call a pre-construction meeting with the City's Building Inspector and the contractor,per the Soils Report. 8. The Soils Engineer shall approve bearing soil prior to placement of concrete in footings and slabs on grade, and retaining walls,with post-inspection letter to the Building Official. • ERCRPT.DOC City of Renton PB/PWDepartment Ent mental Review Committee Staff Report Cedar View Mausoleum LUA-96-067, CU,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF June 25,1996 Page3 of 3 9. No drainage improvements or fees are required since the building would be less than 5,000 square feet in size. 10. No sewer improvements or fees are required. 11. During construction,materials and tools should be secured to avoid theft or vandalism. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development? 1. Aesthetics,Light &Air Impacts: The proposed mausoleum result in the construction of a one-story, 16-foot high structure on the east portion of the Greenwood Memorial Cemetery property. Twenty-three new ornamental pyramidal trees and groundcover would be installed along the east facade. Additional ornamental landscaping would be installed on the west side of the structure. The introduction of this new building and landscaping would result in a different view of the subject parcel for properties to the east. However, this is not considered to result in an adverse impact. Nor would the new structure be expected to adversely impact the availability of light and air to the adjacent properties. Mitigation Measures: None required. Nexus: N/A 2. Soils Impacts: The applicant has provided a geotechnical report evaluating the feasibility of the proposal. The proposal was studied by soils engineers and determined to be feasible provided certain recommendations are followed. These include proper preparation of the subgrade and an appropriate foundation design considering the sensitivity of this type of structure to settlement. In addition, the report recommends that earthwork occur during periods of dry weather such as summer or fall, and that a small berm or swale be utilized to control surface water during construction. The recommendations of the geotechnical report would be conditions of building permit approval and do not require separate environmental mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures: None required. Nexus: N/A E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report.. ERCRPT.DOC TO'd 1d101 -ITV OF RENT-' JUN 2 0 1996 uevewrnneivI Str1VICEs DIVISION CEDAR VIEW MAUSOLEUM PHASE IT NICHES SINGLE 168 CRYPTS SINGLE 48 DOUBLE 120 T0'd Sb09 ILZ 90E 3WOH 1ti?13Nf13 8 Ad W3W QP1J TS:ST 966I-0Z-Nflf City o_ ;ton Department of Planning/Building/Pu, ,Vorks ' ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: pcxyt� COMMENTS DUE: DUNE 17, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-067,CU,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 3, 1996 APPLICANT: GREENWOOD MEMORIAL PARK PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNING PROJECT TITLE: CEDAR VIEW MAUSOLEUM-PHASE II WORK ORDER NO: 78101 LOCATION: 350 Monroe Avenue NE ' SITE AREA 3,400 Sq.Ft. BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 1,293 Sq.Ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks a Conditional Use (CU) Permit for the construction of a 1,293 Sq.Ft, mausoleum at Greenwood Memorial Park. The structure would be built near the'Northeast corner of the cemetery site, and would be 16 feet in height. The proposal requires Environmental Review(ECF) and a public hearing. The project site is located within Aquifer Protection Area-Zone 2. 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 • B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS ItZD ite/24j8: Wehave reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in whic we h e xpertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. e- 47/aed le7/ti9 gnat re of Director or Authorize epresentative Date/ DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10193 City c nton Department of Planning/Building/Pc ,,.Norks ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: plea 1cw .. tzet4tr COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 17, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-067,CU,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 3, 1996 APPLICANT: GREENWOOD MEMORIAL PARK PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNING PROJECT TITLE: CEDAR VIEW MAUSOLEUM-PHASE II WORK ORDER NO: 78101 LOCATION: 350 Monroe Avenue NE SITE AREA: 3,400 Sq.Ft. BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 1,293 Sq.Ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: .The applicant seeks a Conditional Use (Cy) Permit for the construction of a 1,2 3 Sq.Ft, mausoleum at Greenwood Memorial Park. The structure would be built near the Northeast corner of the ce to j ite, and would be 16 feet in height. The proposal requires Environmental Review (ECF) and a public hearing. The projettk r,,, site is located within Aquifer Protection Area-Zone 2. • 1 A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS . �Is b y, 1/ISPOo tl 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 B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED(( COMMENTS 1V11- We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. • üatti 616/16 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10t93 City a,. nton Department of Planning/Building/Pu' Norks ;ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: pof.e__ pOFektktAi W\ COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 17, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-067,CU,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 3, 1996 APPLICANT: GREENWOOD MEMORIAL PARK PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNING PROJECT TITLE: CEDAR VIEW MAUSOLEUM-PHASE II WORK ORDER NO: 78101 LOCATION: 350 Monroe Avenue NE SITE AREA: 3,400 Sq.Ft. BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): '1,293 Sq.Ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks a Conditional Use (CU) Permit for the construction of a 1,293 Sq.Ft, mausoleum at Greenwood Memorial Park. The structure would be built near the Northeast corner of the cemetery site, and would be 16 feet in height. The proposal requires Environmental Review(ECF) and a public hearing. The project site is located within Aquifer Protection Area-Zone 2. 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 9p ,21 Preservation �V 0 /'/ (D�` 2 I C i /�e t �. B.. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C.; CODE-RELATED COMMENTS NA We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional i ormation is nee;(• to properly assess this proposal. / n • Signature of ector or Authorized Repr entative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10193 City oi,._ 1ton Department of Planning/Building/Pul _Works ' ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT4VI NA0A . 1ce.6 COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 17, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-067,CU,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 3, 1996 APPLICANT: GREENWOOD MEMORIAL PARK PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNING PROJECT TITLE: CEDAR VIEW MAUSOLEUM-PHASE II WORK ORDER NO: 78101 a'j LOCATION: 350 Monroe Avenue NE ''' °-°'.'?Al SITE AREA: 3,400 Sq.Ft. BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A JUN BUILDING AREA(new expa `ti gross): 1,293 Si.Ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks a Conditional Use (CU) Permit for the construcfibhi of A1,293 Sq.Ft. mausoleum at Greenwood Memorial Park. The structure would be built near the Northeast corner of thy' r]1Dtery site, and would be 16 feet in height. The proposal requires Environmental Review(ECF) and a public hearing. The project site is located within Aquifer Protection Area-Zone 2. 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 le Earth X Housing Alr Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ HlstortdCultural Natural Resources Preservation 56[LS 00UdWs Q.. 1 Yi ADDt -5 [t& PggL i1AL' Pa 5D[t uaDeFFU7 ftSt B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS (I )i / �� if IL[/ RaDIL TH A Ti bS1QDL7[DL l . Q lL.f./ �j W.4(.1) C�L .4[ID [BD 0 Act 50 [55 0 A M /.2. 50[LS U6 i TO mft PRfr(progi Iysbo fla I[11( t&tL1 6DR,OLN 11kf PalbL, A-)D (DbfgJ1Ute. Pa c[c.e5 R6PoRit C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS[` 5O1L5 A It.\ To A PDROU Milk ihd Spit Pb9[DG' TD POthilleir OP CUtOc,R T6 IL) kr1165 & SL465 DA &Mt flit RETAIN Ii16 w ,' it n PST- INSP cf Lela TO, ID[w1W DoPr of b, ' W: h-v= e'ewed this p lication with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas: •1,. I i to f s need d to properly assess this proposal. 6-64 '1 C, gnature of Director or Authorized Representative Date I APP.DOC Rev.10193 City o,rceriton Department of Planning/Building/Pub,iu'Yorks ' ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:"' rv^�.a COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 17, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-067,CU,ECF ` DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 3, 1996 APPLICANT: GREENWOOD MEMORIAL PARK PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH�HENNING PROJECT TITLE: CEDAR VIEW MAUSOLEUM-PHASE II WORK ORDER NO: 78101 •-�^Op 'LOCATION: 350 Monroe Avenue NE `�,9e �"°" OA,o SITE AREA: 3,400 Sq.Ft. BUILDING AREA(gross): NIA`"•.. 799 BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 1,293 Sq.Ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks a Conditional Use (Cy) Permit for the construction of a 1,293 Sq.Ft: mausoleum at Greenwood Memorial Park. The structure would be built near the Northeast corner of the cemetery site, and would be 16 feet in height. The proposal requires Environmental Review(ECF) and a public hearing. The project site is located within Aquifer Protection Area-Zone 2. AL 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/Shorellne Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS D td.0 to ✓ev,.1 low -6 v if1 7 e tic r•ttloy CA- / /244 U ) ) I.w 1 3 7 VCb IdI✓Pd 6- -tGWj pvopoSQ.e. • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS 1V 0 tY AMC fOitet loy $PC Iu1'ea{ I SSU j verb ul✓V 1'4c14/ I • • We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable Impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. &a.* 6,441, Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10193 City o Eton Department of Planning/Building/Pu ,Vorks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Wcae.4.43cleOMMENTS DUE: JUNE 17, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-067,CU,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 3, 1996- APPLICANT: GREENWOOD MEMORIAL PARK PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TO H ENNI G.E OA, ' PROJECT TITLE: CEDAR VIEW MAUSOLEUM-PHASE II WORK ORDER NO: 78101 0 �, � y LOCATION: 350 Monroe Avenue NE sb, `9'� SITE AREA: 3,400 Sq.Ft. BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A �..� BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 1,293 Sq.Ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks a Conditional Use (CU) Permit for the construction of a 1,293 Sq.Ft, mausoleum at Greenwood Memorial Park. The structure would be built near the Northeast corner of the cemetery site, and would be 16 feet in height. The proposal requires Environmental Review(ECF) and a public hearing. The project site is located within Aquifer Protection Area-Zone 2. 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 B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS S i K.c.e b ! ctt 15 1 r s 5 f Gcu vi S D 00 cl LLCM G�v'G I rLUGy/ ✓G/i G1I✓f l -4(4 Yevhot.ej -en I P v)P r7 saa lVa s e.wo) l mia v v im el -f eu Ye y'J. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposaL �� 6//6 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10193 City o vton Department of Planning/Building/Pu Yorks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: fokace COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 17, 1996 APPLICATION NO: LUA-96-067,CU,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 3, 1996 APPLICANT: GREENWOOD MEMORIAL PARK PROJECT MANAGER: JENNIFER TOTH HENNING PROJECT TITLE: CEDAR VIEW MAUSOLEUM-PHASE II WORK ORDER NO: 78101 LOCATION: 350 Monroe Avenue NE SITE AREA: 3,400 Sq.Ft. BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 1,293 Sq.Ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant seeks a Conditional Use (CU) Permit for the construction of a 1,293 Sq.Ft. mausoleum at Greenwood Memorial Park. The structure would be built near the Northeast corner of the cemetery site, and would be 16 feet in height. The proposal requires Environmental Review(ECF) and a public hearing. The project site is located within Aquifer Protection Area-Zone 2. • 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 UghVGlare Plants Recreation Asorellne Use T tes Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation rni Cr i ric ac- o-n puke__ /oce.ta_. - d caynomot sea0lrt1 a I 1 21,1 l GtLhc fiat I i ct lS_ �— l s ctwil c-L- Cor s- uc-i 0r) pilaw, of Ou y WI/I pit) bk1 • B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable Impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. L4uan1e —9(e Signature of Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 tirlitarbinian • DEVELOPMENTZ RV E ` .:V( IIIILIS7E0..FASURROUNDINGliiPRO.PERTYIOWNERSIfi within 30 .feet of the subject site PROJECT NAME: CEDAR VIEW MAUSOLEUM - PHASE II APPLICATION NO: 61(D -O(il GU t=tr" 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 PER ATTACHED RECEIVED 4ry a 11996 !'r DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) • (Continued) NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL ' NUMBER Applicant Certification j P I, DAVID M. COMBS , hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property (Print Name) owners and their addresses were obtained from: ® City of Renton Technical Services Records [] Title Company Records Et King County Assessors Records 1Y Signed 1 G �"--�' Date 4-26-96 (Applicant) ' NOTARY i ATTESTED: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington, residing at Renton on the 26 day of April • 1996 • Signed (Notary Public) rovI ./, r i ii.nov NOTARY PUBLIC-WASHII TnM :::.For:<C'rty of:::len.ton..Use .>:.;.:::::.;::;;;;;;;;;;:.:.;::::::.:::.:::.::::::::::::::A::::: a- I l ati p::i Nere'ma ed:to . riofrces.o e e T:<::.:::. ::: .::.:�.,;: '•... >.e.r:..e:b:�: cert.fy :'t:.:.::.#�. ::.A..::.:..: Pf?. �..:::: . ...:: ::: ::. :a;:.;:.;:. :::::::::::::.::::..................:::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::..::::. ..' ::.:..............................................................................................................:::::: .::......................... .. ..:::..::.:::.::::.:::......:...........:....:................................. . res.l. :: ..t.•:::.;;::.;;:.:;.::.;::.::.::;:;' 1;;;:;;;:.;:.;:.;;:.;;;::<.;:.;:ac:�.;the:::...................:.....tla..>;of..:.;...:�f .. . . ..............a.:.�r:::...::. .:�.., . �.::::::::::::::::. .......... .....................: 6/9/ listprop.doc ,- REV 07/95 2 q, 092305-9042-00 092305-9043-09 FAIRBANKS GENE GA; ITA JA419999 DRISKELL CHARLE 752374 13831 38TH AVENUE TN 7720 WALNUT AVE _ TUKWILA WA 98168 TACOMA WA 98498 w 092305-9044-08 092305-9049-03 ' CLARK ALONA PETELF 510099 LIBERTY INCOME PROP LTD PRT542833 3021 LARSON RD C/O LIBERTY REAL ESTATE GRP WEORPE ID 83553 ONE FINANCIAL CENTER 23RD FLR BOSTON MA 02111 092305-9051-08 092305-9143-08 RTC/IMPERIAL FED SAV ASSOC 531198 ERICKSON JAN E+EILEEN S 479999 C/O NEVANDER MGMT/D HARROS 8151 SE 48TH 17875 VAN KARMEN STE 325 MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 IRVINE CA 92714 092305-9171-03 092305-9172-02 ROY BROWNS AUTO SERVICE DRISKELL CHARLES C 752374' 414 MONROE AVE NE 7720 WALNUT AVE SW RENTON WA 98055 TACOMA WA 98498 092305-9176-08 092305-9177-07 AYERS CECIL H 461729 GREEN RIVER LEASING 512164 201 UNION AVE SE 467 4620 8 ST NW RENTON WA 98059 AUBURN WA 98001 092305-9184-08 092305-9197-03 RENTON HIGHLANDS ASSOC 561124 TEXACO INC-TAX DEPARTMENT. 119999 3408 NE 4TH ST PO BOX 7813 • RENTON WA 98056 UNIVERSAL' CITY CA 91608 • 092305-9216-00 092305-9224-00 HUEBNER ROBERT F 352144 NGUYEN BILL/HAI S PAUL/MAN 391224 1700 JONES AVE NE 450 OLYMPIA AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 - 092305-9231-01 092305-9233-09 • TASCA EDWARD L 201009 FIX ROGER S 634483 3936 PARK AVE N. 16719 SE 149TH ST . ' RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98059 162305-9001-00 162305-9003-08 • STARK BEN G 951718 KING COUNTY 149800 • PO BOX 98638 500A K C ADMIN BLDG SEATTLE WA 98198 500 FOURTH SEATTLE WA . 98104 162305-9021-06 • 162305-9025-02 MASTRO MICHAEL R 099999 DEMO CORP 844559 • 510 RAINIER AVE SO PO BOX 2073 SEATTLE WA 98144 RENTON WA 98056 162305-9059-01• 162305-9060-08 •• SEGALE M A INC R0576 LEISURE ESTATES 561030 PO BOX 88050 BITNEY D W +MILLARD D R • TUKWILA WA 98188 108 FACTORY AVE N 01 RENTON WA 98055 162305-9076-00 162305-9111-07 DANIEL E HOLMS INC 8N0722 ALEXANDER LESTER 1080 • % L.B. WALKER S ASSOCIATES INC 32.09 NE 4TH PO BOX 16290 RENTON WA 98055 HOUSTON TX 77222 162305-9112-06 162305-9123-03 OBERMEIER DENNIS(TRUSTEE) 959999 CITY OF RENTON 912777 144.08 SE MAY VALLEY RD BENNETT W E RENTON WA 98056 200 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 683840-0010-05 722780-0500-00 TRI CAPITAL CORPORATION 440985- STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY G309999 • 100 PINE ST 23RD FLR P 0 BOX 42495 SAN FRANCISCO 'CA 94111 OLYMPIA WA 98504• i r.z-, NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE u4PLICATION RENTON, WASHINGTON A Conditional Use (CU) Permit and Environmental Checklist Review (ECF) Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: CEDAR VIEW MAUSOLEUM PHASE II/LUA-96-067,CU,ECF DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks a Conditional Use (CU) Permit for the construction of a 1,293 Sq.Ft. mausoleum at Greenwood Memorial Park. The structure would be built near the Northeast corner of the cemetery site, and would be 16 feet in height. The proposal requires Environmental Review(ECF) and a public hearing. The project site is located within Aquifer Protection Area -Zone 2. GENERAL LOCATION: 350 Monroe Avenue NE PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review Conditional Use Permit Building Permit The application can be reviewed in the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted anytime prior to Public Hearings, during Public Hearings, or prior to an administrative site plan approval. For further information on the application, or if you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications, by mail, of the City's environmental determinations, appeal periods and/or the public hearing date(s) for this project, please contact the Development Services Division at 235-2550. Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. - - - -- it11111111: ■ p ...uuuml n■ u■ m u�T` -7 atilills'_ - Fes- I„S I ,,,r, �1rir7r�la■ ■■ ■■ y; . nt �nil . c} 1:�: E3 �.' i�! z e. .I _ /s e'. l 1. ear 1M ■�� >C E3111110. r■111 .r > F'■ . ■ r1�■N. car milt. :1% A Iq: . _ -► • H� Fe�— t■■■.nurnwl eluul ri MC: :� • :��a1ap/1 �� = o . .0114. c' Y.4�—.ice : r� SIP."' _1. a. L 11un-ley■■■ I '. z II: vi?Iika ►t►or v t ib' �_1/ . - t. —ice gti�rrriy��i'�■h,. �qI ¢ 111y�.�►`1►\ •�0 ;� �lcul- ammo, o 1110 ■,. IAA ors ,y! . ►i� gm,- ammo, ! INIR .a n . ,♦ I/ IWIll r ram••y.- G3 \ 111L7 !11-74 •, #•�• 4: :110• �,1 111sL'�Sll pia �/Au 7c rA�IrIr1EAf► ��% �.�1�� •:= �� _M 1 I•Jj• ♦•���/I� E■ ' YJ_Il'ISYE53\ �t illz. ■LIi rYy1411 �. .♦ .� ■ ,�• Illlntlli%! 111111111111 IIIIG!•! ►' a 1111�1:1111 1111173Y1111 IIII:Y - ■Ilan .n� MIN 2,1 L♦ h■ ,�:1 10 i71 M°■ .-4:. v .■O �Fa /111111/1 ' ,i J �I1' ■IA �� ■1-Fli r■ - - t-� -,- \■■■_ 1\ •v ki. W.IC�Y� Inv 1■ tm ���i 1= tt■■ ran ■■ ra■ -.,�-�- m .I z MIMIC �L��e R.4„,,Timi.,,..,„ .3 .A? ir17°." �� ■ NE 4th STill iii '• 4til�lilu.Jv .j u th ' r/ r 41. ir --.-IV '-if [...; "01-401:�'w, - NE > ' � II, ,.'"11111■ _ l : MIME NE 2n, ST Simi :11" `tt � 11' ' lull •Ntii Oa meOro i, w lay 40 AN, .- 1 t �Ct�113'■1zip■ gn■■■■•�414 . t .< ,--7___ 14009wino 4,,,s.( Si p!lellit GENMALOT.DOC 1 1 I 0 11!'l'■3:111 - - ---- — Im t-m--t�-i tT • r- N !T1OE PENDING APPLICATION PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: CEDAR VIEW MAUSOLEUM PHASE II/LUA-98.067,CU,ECF I DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks a Conditional Use(CU)Permit for the construction of a 1,293 Sq.Ft. mausoleum at Greenwood Memorial Park. The structure would be built near the Northeast corner of the cemetery site, end would be 16 feel in height. The proposal requires Environmental Review(ECF)and a public hearing. The project site is located within Aquifer Protection Area-Zone 2. GENERAL LOCATION: 350 Monroe Avenue NE PUBLIC APPROVALS: • _Building Permit _Preliminary Plat _Short Plat . XXXX Conditional Use Permit _Rezone _Site Plan Approval XXXX Environmental Review _Shoreline Conditional Use _Other Permit Fill&Grade Permit -Shoreline Substantial _Other • Development Permit The application can be reviewed in the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted any time prior to Public Hearings,during Public Hearings,or prior to an administrative site plan approval.Comments for Substantial Shoreline Permits must be received within thirty(30)days from the last dale of ayoullwishs*Notice of to be made Application" PARTY publication a RECORD and receiveadditional News. For further n notifications Information on penvcironmental determinations,appeal periods and/or the public hearing date(s)for this project,please contact the Development Services Division at 235.2550. r1111B1: --Z_ II c _ ,,,,,,,,,, _ ....i 63 14.11...W n' •� n•r 4�rr�.w\�J1�.a �rrnraur�r..-��`e -.apa in:�!"." ?„ I r_ .�--'a •i� ��,►�W!L'W ri ►0..11= .� -.it/uYe l :fa 11\ .Ire°rrn:Y�+p`. ���a���i�: � ���rnl:iiri runururr nueu=of-,'e'E? ■ •)au iA. ti r4 5 ..r q Rie t:NMI Yi41:511i:Prf:t4:71 r {■�.Y Ia. hi YI-�it t`�• . 1.1 IM ti i - r eI rid: ■ Ir. j�wv C�`� S C�'r.i. °d:.i`r 0.1111711 EIh♦ham,♦' rmdl iy rmiror IIh r j IN al [i A.' ,r71.1:n ra NE fie sT •-: i r 11 I z-1n.ur'.oi „A E{I O�tt_1 NO I I I iii ii•ui.*ii(f I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. • ''II CERTIFICATION • I, Sg.1d 1, Jc..L.kSan , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted/by me in_ 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on Ju.n6 -7, I99(0 Signed: eaJ1ct dWvVy) STATE OF WASHINGTON ) U ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that rc4-rd c,kSo ram. signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free an vol ntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. . Dated: -1 l 5 y (o �� �. `. ` Notary Publi in and for the State of a ingto - ;_�'• �{ -R--, }`.r. I t(o y I- iy/ Q.-v Sc �-'" y r; 1 •fo Notary (Print) V�A. re i I ,v ki4 '� C k.s-� `.o .Ilit r ' , , My appointment expires: t In . Z1 - ri • Y,,, r'r: e, 9q.. `2 VITOTxRr.00c elt. " ••• .. . . h. o'pyC S,• • \J ' fl r—' N..,..„id ___Ia 1, PENDING APPLICATION PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: CEDAR VIEW MAUSOLEUM PHASE II/LUA-96-067,CU,ECF DESCRIPTION: The applicant seeks a Conditional Use(CU)Permit for the construction of a 1,293 Sq.Ft. mausoleum at Greenwood Memorial Park. The structure would be built near the Northeast corner of the cemetery site, and would be 16 feet in height. The proposal•requires Environmental Review(ECF) and a public hearing. The project site is located within Aquifer Protection Area-Zone 2. GENERAL LOCATION: 350 Monroe Avenue NE PUBLIC APPROVALS: Building Permit Preliminary Plat Short Plat XXXX Conditional Use Permit Rezone Site Plan Approval XXXX Environmental Review Shoreline Conditional Use Other Permit Fill&Grade Permit Shoreline Substantial Other - - Development Permit The application can be reviewed in the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted any time prior to Public Hearings, during Public Hearings, or,prior to an administrative site plan approval. Comments for Substantial Shoreline Permits must be received within thirty(30)days from the last date of applicant's"Notice of Application" publication in the Valley Daily News. For further information on the application, or if you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications of the City's environmental determinations, appeal periods and/or the public hearing date(s) for this project, please contact the Development Services Division at 235-2550. aiIIIMIIII:Ss 'a: ntJ1II1:2 ui-NI i t % \� rjr U ♦r. ♦Irf II,Ikt ; ` E cu na opirmivi■■ ■■ r• ■M 9 w ES s = E. Vi % lip�I 'atm n i.mum':2Auglo:1 rm. > �••�y i:i.• \l2 r. lm 7� i/I A E ni rz,..;Cy z IP •ra l,�� Mur•T7i' :: ���-�°m ••►n;rhnri j��:'� i III'�rsi 01►��f 'MI'L I II'C i w• ' mma — t'— lll rs♦r • ♦ LAW ik�� sk ter'+ 4a111/0 ♦prr:err .pp♦4 % ■.0°,,g;1ty 4 w O'� g+ = .u!Rn- ..\�'� I w.�$r ry ■ "T���<• •LJ_III1111\Sri\��1�t Hjlr Y 1u im- ''31='A i�' 1i i♦ ��� 1#! 145'. e. Ar 11!IIIIITI� .-. 1str I� —M�Q9l•�4i.Gfi7 if•�.���•� wy IIiI:II'9111F_3► �03i'71� :C iq- `=: .eai= 10 ,,,, iY es��4q -.61. MEN T, IIIIRTlim imrs 11111 mum % = - O�■` ♦no .rr•.;;Av�4,4 Z��III►� ri z `1 limning 1111171u1111 Mini uh.n.. ♦ �A - do toNI. O .saw pc-as i11111111 Att ♦ ♦. W. ■.ura,��� m .lam I12 ��ati� -NI y171�.�.L7 o *ö4& • ), is=d•r�•►Ali,4'*••,�442' a ,`C iir11iYL' e♦nu 4y:1 NE 4th ST Y ! t i w E `th ♦ 1! !"T ' ' i .. .�. T= r 1 F 't „1 aye ri• _ fy r N = NE 2n. ST m•ussu . 1►t I v •0 ' ■fir•!_ •inai+r 444 . Cr _-_ Nor g, rill . '•\I*.i.t1 [� Z gIIiiI�� 41 ._k4 V� `11 1 1 1 ■I NIElIL1J1•� I1=LJII a 11Cr. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT.NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE<IDENTIFICATION. `''">•' :• ""`,. CITY F RENTON ' Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator June 3, 1996 Mr. David Combs. • . c/o.SCI Washington Funeral Services, Inc.- - . . . dba Greenwood Memorial Park . 350.Monroe Avenue NE - : - - . . Renton, WA 98056 SUBJECT: Cedar View Mausoleum Phase II Project No. LUA-96-067,CU,ECF . Dear Mr. Combs: .. , 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 June 25, 1996. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application for environmental review. , Please contact me, at 277-6186, if you have any questions. Sincerely, : .. iltZAA't\ H-emm_itijs Jennifer Toth Henning . Project Manager . ACCPTLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 C. This paper contains 50%recycled material,25%post consumer MAS•• •TER APPLIC� .TI . ::>::>:<:::><> :::><: • :<>:::<»:::::<;< >::>:;:;<;:;:>::::.....RROJECT<INF:ORMATIO. ;<,:cost:> .:.::..:.:::...:......::.:..: o e Fan one'•`.Te'af`owner? lease:attach`an'addidpnai. Note.?.<:>�(.:there;'is<m;::r t;:.::.;;:.>:.;::;;:.;::.:.:e::;;:;;.;:.;;>::;•;�:P . :...:... .:. .•.;: .;::.;.: notanz,ed;Master<Apphcatiori;f,.or'ea,cFiowner:>:::':'r:','; ::: -:"' <^ EXISTING NAME: SCI WASHINGTON• FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. dba GREENWOOD MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY PROPOSED LAND USES: ADDRESS: 350 Monroe Ave. N.E. CEMETERY CITY: ZIP: Renton 98056 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: TELEPHONE NUMBER: RESIDENTIAL - SINGLE FAMILY �55-1511 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: RESIDENTIAL - SINGLE FAMILY NAME: David M. Combs EXISTING ZONING: `-R-8 ADDRESS: 350 Monroe Ave. N.E. PROPOSED ZONING: CITY: Renton ZIP: 98056 R-8. SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): TELEPHONE NUMBER: 1,293.26 SF 255-1511 J C VA LUE• .... ........................... PRO E T PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: $309,000.00 CEDAR VIEW MAUSOLEUM - PHASE II IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: YES 350 Monroe Ave. N.E. IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OT. E' iAFIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? V KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): YES - APA - Zone 2MAY 3 1 1996 • 162305-9079-0 OEVELOPMEh,T PLANNING CITY OF RENTON .efiif.•necessar. s« > ?> ;::.:..: ;.• •: .::, :•�<:<:<;: <::><;Lf=GAL:>DESCRIP;i d`OF.:pROPERTY (Attach�°separa lee Y):... :.::.. . . . PER ATTACHED • F E ..'.......... ES...i.M...<i.....: : >':`: ii-iI ?.,.R NE >'. :' < :: : > >; :> >« Chec ;alappicatlontYpa ..that a ppI Y__...CifY.>s:taffwi I:'de.te determine : es :. : : — ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: — COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ _ REZONE $ — LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _ SPECIAL PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT $ TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ T.,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ 500a00 _ PRELIMINARY PLAT $ _ SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ _ FINAL PLAT $ _ GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ (NO. CU. YDS: ) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ _ VARIANCE $ (FROM SECTION: 1 _ PRELIMINARY WAIVER $ _ FINAL WETLAND PERMIT $ _ ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ _ BINDING SITE PLAN $ SHORELINE REVIEWS: _ SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ _ CONDITIONAL USE $ _ VARIANCE $ EXEMPTION $No Charge A ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ 00 _ REVISION $ — RSHIP>>>< i.Mi:> :!... > I>><> .` >:<Ii€i>.`'_:.<>i . :ii.:' :> `: I, (Print Name) David M. Combs , declare that I am (please check one)_the owner of the property involved in this application,}_the authorized representative to act for the property owner (please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements end answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in and DAVID M. COMBS, REPRESENTATIVE for the State of Wash. j,.,.,,",.,g -r nrmtnrl (N me of Owner/Representative) , on the 75 day of April 1926. 6 't V . 6,,.��� \,� :..�r.ol TWILA F HARDY (Signature of Owner/Representative) 1�, :•'-�aE S.��� NOTARY PUBLIC-WASHINGTON G�i✓e; N/L Gam-----�1� //�(//f�/ic s"� G bllj��� (.s/ • a -UCH-9S' . •• cr I. a.zicrrature of Notary ...... .:g•::. .. �.. �1et,:� :Sit::•;:O:gg;::>:::P::•;:r>:»:<•::•:e:;•:;;;•::<•>:g%>::•;;:»::•::g::::::::::::::::::.:•n::::.t::g:......:ii ;.><:><.' .!:a:l:,; :>::::<;::::>:::<:>::>;;::::;::; : :::::<:s::>.:<:•:::>: :>:.::::»:.:>:: : , -:b i bm I fed.b • :. �?.. <>> :::::RUMP:::>::>V:::>::>::::::<:�>::<:>:>;:;:: :.:..::.:: ::Cit . F(le.Number.: Al .. E��� .:..:.:.. :..;.:..:.... .. . . ........ .... ...eS ...... ....:.:CPA:•::•:;• ::>:::>:.»:<;::>;»>:: »:::::>::>::>:<�;;:.;;:.::.::::><:<:::::>::>::::::�::. :::.;:.:.;.:. ::..:..::: ::....::::::.�:::..:.�:.:::. .. :.:..:.: :.:::..:: AD:::::.W:.::FP:.0 .....SM<..S.ME. .MHP: .:: . . :F. A:.:: ....::.:.::.:.:;.....::: .:.: ::.: ::: ::::..::::.:.:.:::.:::.::.:..::::.:::... . ::..:; •.....;;:>:::;: .: : •;::.:> : ' <:::. .: : ,:::.;:;;::> ... ..TOTAL'.;:P.OSTAGE::PROVIDE :. ..: .....:. .:..::..:.:.:::::...::.�.,:TO.l�'AL FEES..;:.:$�l ..:::. ..;:.;::.>:.;;;:•;;;:.:::::.::.:•�:::.:.:::;::.:.:;:. .. REVISED 2/95 Greenwood Memorial hank 255-15U Cemetery • Funeral Home ENDOWED CARE CREMATORIUM tr OPERATORS OF • ti AND • RENTON COLUMIiARIUM • f --- MEMORIAL WORKS 350 Monroe Ave. N.L. • Renton, WA 98056 GREENWOOD MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY LEGAL DESCRIPTION TAX LOT 1623059079 THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 16,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE NORTH 45 FEET, WEST 30 FEET AND SOUTH 15 FEET THEREOF AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE EAST 12 FEET OF THE WEST 42 FEET OF THE SOUTH 300 FEET OF THE NORTH 330 FEET OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER; SAID PROPERTY BEING PORTIONS OF STREETS AND PLATS AND REPLATS OF GREENWOOD CEMETERY FILED UNDER VOLUME AND PAGE OF PLATS, 22/35, 22/36, 33/24, 46/96, 47/19 AND 54/58, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AND, TAX LOT 1623059076 THE NORTH 125 FEET OF THE WEST 225 FEET OF THE WEST ONE HALF OF THE NORTH ONE HALF OF THE SOUTH ONE HALF OF THE NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 16,AND THE WEST 225 FEET OF THE SOUTH 23.1 FEET OF THE SOUTH ONE HALF OF THE NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 16, EXCEPT THE WEST 20 FEET; TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. APRIL 26, 1996 CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION RE; FORMAL REQUEST - JUSTIFICATION SCI FUNERAL SERVICES OF WASHINGTON, INC. DBA GREENWOOD MEMORIAL PARK REQUESTS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO BUILD A SMALL MAUSOLEUM ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ITS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 350 MONROE AVE. NE. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: CONSTRUCTION OF THE MAUSOLEUM IS IN KEEPING WITH THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF "RESIDENTIAL/SINGLE FAMILY" AND THE CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF "R-8" . BECAUSE GREENWOOD IS DEDICATED AS A MEMORIAL PARK, A MAUSOLEUM IS CONSISTENT WITH MEMORIAL PARK USAGE. THE MAUSOLEUM IS AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AND WILL FIT IN WELL WITH THE PARK SETTING. MAUSOLEUMS DO NOT REQUIRE EMERGENCY SERVICES FROM EITHER THE CITY OR COUNTY AND HISTORICALLY HAS NEVER CAUSED A HEALTH HAZARD. THE BUILDING IS ALSO WELL WITHIN ALL SETBACK AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS . THE BUILDING WILL BE WELL SCREENED FROM 4TH AVENUE WITH THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING. COMMUNITY NEED: DUE TO THE EXISTING MAUSOLEUMS ALREADY BEING NEAR CAPACITY, THERE IS A NEED TO SUPPLY THE COMMUNITY WITH THE OPTION OF ENTOMBMENT IN A MAUSOLEUM AS A FINAL RESTING PLACE FOR THEIR LOVED ONES. AS WAS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THE MAUSOLEUM IS CONSISTENT WITH MEMORIAL PARK USAGE. ADJACENT PROPERTIES: THE MAUSOLEUM AND WING WALL WOULD HAVE A MINIMAL EFFECT ON THE EASTERLY PROPERTIES VIEW, LIGHT AND FRESH AIR. THE TREES LINING THE BACKSIDE (EASTERN) OF THE BUILDING WILL PROVIDE A PLEASANT VIEW FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES. RECEIVED 0VE® ,\,N4 N 31 1996 DEVELOPMENT P1.�NING • CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION RE: PROJECT NARRATIVE SCI WASHINGTON FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. DBA: GREENWOOD MEMORIAL PARK REQUESTS A "CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT" TO CONSTRUCT A GARDEN MAUSOLEUM AT 350 MONROE AVE NE. THE MAUSOLEUM WILL BE MADE OF STUCCO COVERED CONCRETE AND POLISHED GRANITE. SITE LOCATION AND SIZE THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GREENWOOD MEMORIAL PARK. GREENWOOD IS BORDERED BY MONROE AVENUE NE ON THE WEST, NE 4TH STREET ON THE NORTH, A RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 128TH AVENUE SE ON THE EAST AND NE 2ND STREET ON THE SOUTH. THE PROPOSED MAUSOLEUM WILL BE AT THE INTERSECTION OF NE 4TH STREET AND THE 128TH AVENUE SE RIGHT-OF- WAY,ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY. THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION SITE IS ONLY 3, 400 SQUARE FEET. CURRENT AND PROPOSED USE OF SITE GREENWOOD MEMORIAL PARK IS A FULL-SERVICE 37 . 5 ACRE CEMETERY. SIXTY-FIVE PERCENT (650) OF TH AVAILABLE LAND HAS BEEN DEVELOPED INTO GRAVES, MAUSOLEUM AND A FUNERAL HOME. THE MAJORITY OF THE REMAINING ACREAGE CONSISTS OF 2 FORMER GRAVEL PITS WHICH GREENWOOD IS PRESENTLY FILLING WHICH WILL BE TURNED INTO USABLE CEMETERY LAND IN THE FUTURE. THE ONLY STRIP OF USABLE LAND WHICH IS NOT IN THE GRAVEL PITS IS ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY NEXT TO THE EXISTING MAUSOLEUM. IT IS ALONG THIS EASTERN PORTION, GREENWOOD PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF THE 1, 293 .26 SQUARE FOOT MAUSOLEUM. THIS USE IS CONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUS USAGE SINCE WE CURRENTLY HAVE THREE OTHER EXISTING MAUSOLEUMS, ONE ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER, ONE IN APPROXIMATELY MID CEMETERY AND THE THIRD MAUSOLEUM IN T IJ ST CORNER. A! 31 1996 DEVELOPMENT CITY OF RENTON PLANNING REQUESTED CITY APPROVALS THIS PROJECT WILL REQUIRE THE FOLLOWING PERMITS: -GRADING PERMIT -ELECTRICAL PERMIT -BUILDING PERMIT POTENTIAL VIEW OBSTRUCTION IT IS FELT NO VIEWS WILL BE IMPACTED. HOWEVER, WE CURRENTLY HAVE SCREENING ALONG FOURTH AVENUE. PLANS CALL FOR 23 EACH 6 ' MINIMUM PYRAMIDAL TREES TO BE PLANTED AT THE BACK OF THE MAUSOLEUM ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. PROJECT PARTICULARS PROJECT NAME: CEDAR VIEW MAUSOLEUM - PHASE II BLDG. SQ FT: 1, 293 .26 LOT SQ. FT: 3 , 400 BLDG. HEIGHT: 15 ' 9" (30 ' ALLOWED) BLDG. LENGTH: 88 ' 63 PROPERTY LINE SETBACK: 8 ' 25" (5 ' MIN. REQUIRED) PARKING: AMPLE PARKING AVAILABLE ALONG CEMETERY ROADS ACCESS TO SITE:ACCESS WILL BE THROUGH THREE CEMETERY ENTRANCES THE MONROE AVE. ENTRANCE AND TWO ON FOURTH STREET. LANDSCAPING: TO BE CONSISTENT WITH PHASE I MAUSOLEUM TO PROVIDE AN AESTHETIC SCENE. APRIL 26, 1996 CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION RE: CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION PLAN GREENWOOD MEMORIAL PARK CEDAR VIEW MAUSOLEUM - PHASE II PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION DATES : BEGINNING -- APPROXIMATELY TWO TO THREE YEARS AFTER PERMITS ARE ISSUED ENDING 17 WEEKS LATER HOURS OF OPERATION: 7 : 00 A.M. TO 8 : 00 P.M. (THE EVENING HOURS CAN BE REDUCED TO 4 :30 P.M. IN THE EVENT THERE ARE OBJECTIONS TO NOISE AT LATER HOURS) MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY PROPOSED HAULING ROUTES: THE EXCAVATED DIRT WILL STAY IN THE CEMETERY. THE ONLY VEHICLES ENTERING THE JOB SITE WILL BE CONCRETE TRUCKS AND ONE DELIVERY OF REINFORCING STEEL. THE TRUCKS WILL ENTER THE CEMETERY FROM NE 4TH STREET JUST WEST OF THE SITE. MINIMIZATION OF NOXIOUS CHARACTERISTICS : DUST - THE SITE WILL BE WATERD WITH CEMETERY WATER AS NEEDED. THIS PROJECT WILL CREATE NEGLIGIBLE DUST. TRAFFIC - AGAIN, THIS PROJECT WILL CREATE NO TRAFFIC CONGESTION. MUD - ALL VEHICLES WILL STAY ON PAVED CEMETERY ROADS. NO MUD WILL BE TRACKED ONTO CITY STREETS. NOISE - THE ONLY NOISE GENERATED FROM THE JOB WILL BE FROM A COUPLE OF CIRCULAR SAWS AND THE CONCRETE TRUCKS . BOTH PRODUCE NEGLIGIBLE NOISE - COMPARED TO THE TRAFFIC ON NE 4TH STREET. DEBRIS - THE CONTRACTOR WILL HAVE A DUMPSTER ON SITE FOR ALL HIS REFUSE; THE JOBSITE WILL BE KEPT NEAT. HE MAY PARK A TRAILER ON THE SITE FOR SECURITY PURPOSES . RECEIVED u ( 31 1996 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON • 4- • .::; SIO;; mii ' <> imili '>"»< > ''> >;:::<:<;:;:.;;;::>;:.;;::>::::::.:;.;;;::<:<:<:>.>:::< :;:>::«:>;::>:>:>::>:::«:::DEUELO :MEN7:: ER. LH mENTALE KLIST PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: • The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this.checklist is to provide information to help you and the 'agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of. your • proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write"do not know" or"does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. • USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. RECIVED MA.I 31 1996 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON Environmental Checklist A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: CEDAR VIEW MAUSOLEUM - PHASE II 2. Name of applicant: SCI FUNERAL SERVICES OF WASHINGTON, INC. dba GREENWOOD MEMORIAL PARK 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 350 Monroe Ave. N.E. ,Renton, WA 98056 Contact: David Combs Telephone: 255-1511 • 4. Date checklist prepared: April 25, 1996 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Departments 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Phase II timing asap - Construction will take approx. 3 months 7. - Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Future plan of 2 more duplicate buildings 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. NO _ 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. • Do not know 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. Mausoleum Project: 1,293.26 SF Site: 3,400 • • Environmental Checklist 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 350 Monroe Ave. N.E. Northeast corner of cemetery. Right side of existing mausoleum B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, 'illy, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) 2% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel,-peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Gravelly silty sand d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. 20 C Yards gravelly sand ' f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 50% 3 Environmental Checklist h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Believe non will occur 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If _any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Construction dust minimal due to size of project b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Wet down site on daily basis as needed 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds,.wetlands)? If yes, describe-type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Does not apply 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. • No 5) • Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 4 Environmental Checklist 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground Water: 1) Will.ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? . Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for.example: Domestic sewage;-industrial, containing the.following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system,the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Does not apply c. Water Runoff(including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) .and..method .of.collection :and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. Drains will be installed in roof and sidewalks with water being .diverted into cemetery ground. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters?..If so, generally describe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Not necessary 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs x grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants:water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation • b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Evergreen Trees , Shrubs and grass 5 Environmental Checklist c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Sod and some low flowering plants & trees 5. ANIMALS a. :.Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the.site-or.are known to be on or near the site: (see next page) Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbi •- other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon,trout, herring, shellfish, other • • b. . . .List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or.near the site. None • • c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain No d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: No wild life • 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Does not apply b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Does not apply c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Does not applu 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 6 Environmental Checklist a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Does not apply 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Does not apply b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic,• equipment, operation, other)? None 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example:.traffic,. construction,:operation, .other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. None other than basic construction noise from dawn till dusk 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Noise is not significant in this type of construction. Hammers, skill saws , power tools 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Current site is not used - it is sodded and mowed b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. . Mausoleum d. Will any structures be demolished? If so,what? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R-8 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Rsidential - Single Family • Environmental Checklist g. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Does not apply h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No i. -Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? -0- j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? -0- k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Does not apply I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing.and :projected land uses and plans, if any: Does not apply 9. HOUSING • a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Does not apply b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Does not apply c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Does not apply 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. Height 15'9" Material - Granite and stucco b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None - View from NE 4th street c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None planned - building is aesthetically pleasing 8 Environmental Checklist 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. • No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on.recreation, including•recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Does not apply 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION • a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Does not apply 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. NE 4th St. - existing cemetery entrance 9 Environmental Checklist b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 2 spaces - none removed d. -Will the proposal require any new roads or streets,.or.improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe .(indicate whether-public or private? None e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate -vicinity 'of) :water,•rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f.• How many vehicular trips per day.would be generated by the:completed.project?. If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. About 1 per week. Peak time when occur only during a funeral g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None' 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Does not apply 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: ictricity,.. atural gas(cateerefuse service,telephone, septic system, other. 10 Environmental Checklist b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity - Puget Power • C. SIGNATURE .I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may .withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist .should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: /Q.v /4C. Name Printed: David M. Combs Date: • • 11 Environmental Checklist D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS h.sesheets:shoultloril >b:eused::foracttonsanvolv..�n >dectstons::;on:;:: ol�c�es ;.la s; .gd Cr.. Y : ,::.;: g p , p programs .YOl1`.do not neeif.tbfill out these sheets.for'project;act a:s. ) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. .:When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to.result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. - How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water;:emissions to air;.production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? NONE Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: • 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? NONE Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants,-animals,-fish,:or.marine life•are: . • 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? NONE • Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: • • 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as.parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? NONE Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: • 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? NONE • Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: • 12 Gil e.e.b. -_•'o-J • JTICOR TITLE INSURANCE Policy of Title Insurance SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS HEREOF, TICOR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CAUFORNIA(a Stock Company),a California corporation,herein called the Company,insures,as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A,against loss or damage,not exceeding the amount of insurance stated in Schedule A,and costs,attorneys' fees and expenses which the Company may become obligated to pay hereunder,sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of: 1. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested otherwise than as stated therein; 2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on such title; 3. Lack of a right of access to and from the land; or 4. Unmarketability of such title. This policy shall not be valid or binding until countersigned below by a validating signatory of the Company. • TICOR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA ,``,o nuuIqu,„,t4 ss*``, By President Attest '-J Secretary • tllrnuaIa%l` {p�\ g pp* C @ PT E D MN 3 1 1996 PCountersigned: � DEVELOPMENT CITY OF RENTONNING By Validating Signatory • • • Diskette number: F-66 PMM ALTA - B Number : A-361920 Date : DECEMBER 20, 1986 at 8:00 K.M. Amount : $1,300,000.00 SCHEDULE A 1. Name of insured DANIEL E. HOLHS, INC., A WASHINGTON CORPORATION 2. Title to the estate or interest covered by this policy at the date hereof is vested in: THE NAMED INSURED 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this schedule covered by this policy is: Fee Simple Estate 4. The land referred to in this policy is located in the County of King, State of Washington, and described as follows: PARCEL A: LOTS 3, 4, AND 5 AND THE WEST 10 FEET OF LOT 6 OF BLOCK 5, SMITHER'S SIXTH ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF RENTON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 26 OF PLATS, PAGE 47, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, EXCEPT THE NORTH ' 12.5 FEET OF SAID LOT 3. PARCEL B: THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 23 ' NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE NORTH 45 FEET, WEST 30 FEET AND SOUTH 15 FEET THEREOF AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE EAST 12 1 FEET OF THE WEST 42 FEET OF THE SOUTH 300 FEET OF THE NORTH 330 FEET OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER; SAID PROPERTY BEING PORTIONS OF STREETS AND PLATS AND REPLATS OF ' GREENWOOD CEMETERY FILED UNDER VOLUME AND PAGE OF PLATS, 22/35, 22/36, 33/24, .46/96, 47/19 AND 54/58, RECORDS OF` KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AND THE NORTH 125 FEET OF THE WEST 225 FEET OF THE WEST ONE HALF OF THE NORTH ONE HALF OF THE SOUTH ONE HALF OF THE NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 16, AND THE WEST 225 FEET OF THE SOUTH ',23.1 FEET OF THE SOUTH ONE HALF OF THE NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 16, EXCEPT THE WEST 20 FEET; TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SCHEDULE B Defects, liens, encumbrances and other matters against which the company does not insure: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 1. Assessment of $45,000.00 by/for STREET IMPROVEMENT LOCAL IMPROVEMENT District 326 Assessment ill, filed with Treasurer of the City of RENTON payable in 10 annual installments plus interest at 7.72% per annum from JUNE 25, 1986. The 1ST installment will be delinquent JUNE 25, 1987 if unpaid. AFFECTS PORTION OF T.L. 79, NORTH 1/2 OF NW 1/4 OF NE . 1/4, LESS COUNTY ROADS SEC. 16, T23N. , RG 5 E, FURTHER DESIGNATED AS A PORTION OF PARCEL B AS DESCRIBED HEREIN 2. DEED OF TRUST to secure an indebtedness of the amount herein stated and any other amounts payable under the terms thereof, recorded in the Department of Records and Elections of King County, Washington. Amount : $300,000.00 Dated : NOVEMBER 29, 1984 Recorded : NOVEMBER 30, 1984 Auditor's File No.: 8411301108 Grantor : DANIEL E. HOLMS, INC. , A WASHINGTON CORPORATION, WHICH ACQUIRED TITLE AS TACHELL'S GREENWOOD CEMETERY Trustee : COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA Beneficiary : OLD NATIONAL BANK OF WASHINGTON; A WASHINGTON CORPORATION Address : 2950 SUNSET BLVD. N.E. , RENTON, WA 98056 SAID DEED OF TRUST COVERS A PORTION OF PARCEL B AS DESCRIBED HEREIN 3. DEED OF TRUST to secure an indebtedness of the amount herein stated and any other amounts payable under the terms thereof, recorded in the Department of Records and Elections of King County, Washington. Amount : $467,000.00 Dated : APRIL 1, 1986 Recorded : APRIL 2, 1986 Auditor's File No. : 8604020349 Grantor : DANIEL E. HOLMS, A SINGLE MAN Trustee : TRANSAMERICA TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION Beneficiary : HARVEY EDWARD STOKES, JR. AND LILLA JEANNE STOKES SAID DEED OF TRUST COVERS PARCEL A AS DESCRIBED HEREIN 4. DEED OF TRUST to secure an indebtedness of the amount herein stated and any other amounts payable under the terms thereof, recorded in the • Department of Records and Elections of King County, Washington. Amount : $82,900.00 Dated : APRIL 1 , 1986 Recorded : APRIL 2, 1986 Auditor's File No. : 8604020350 Grantor : DANIEL E. HOLMS, INC. Trustee : TRANSAMERICA TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION Beneficiary : STOKES MORTUARY, INC. SAID DEED OF TRUST COVERS PARCEL A AS DESCRIBED HEREIN 5. ANY VIOLATION OF R.C.W 68.24.030 BY 'THOSE PORTIONS OF GREENWOOD CEMETERY AS PLATTED IN VOLUME 22 PAGE 35 NOT DEDICATED "FOR USE AS CEMETERY PURPOSES ONLY" BY REPLATTING OF PORTION OF SAID TRACTS OR OTHERWISE. 6. RELEASE OF DAMAGES' executed by the party herein named releasing the City/County herein named from all future claims for damage resulting from the act herein described. Dated : DECEMBER 11, 1984 Recorded : JANUARY 3, 1985 Auditor's File No. : 8501030436 Executed by : DANIEL E. HOLMS INDIVIDUAL; DANIEL E. HOLMS, INC. City/County : RENTON Act : PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SIDE SEWER TO CONNECT THESE PREMISES TO THE CITY SEWER MAIN AT LESS THAN MINIMUM GRADE OF 2% AFFECTS THE NORTH 450 FEET OF THE WEST 200 FEET OF TRACT A OF GREENWOOD CEMETERY 7. EXCEPTIONS AND RESERVATIONS contained in deed from the State of Washington whereby said grantor excepts and reserves all oils, gases, coal , ores, minerals, fossils, etc. , and the right of entry for opening, developing and working mines, etc. , provided that no rights shall be exercised until provision has been made for full payment of all damages sustained-by reason of such entry. Auditor's File No. : 1121861 AFFECTS PARCEL B 8. ENCROACHMENTS as disclosed by a record of survey. Recorded : DECEMBER 16, 1985 Book : 47 Page : 219 Auditor's File No. : 8512169016 As follows : AN ENCROACHMENT BY A CHAIN LINK FENCE AND CONCRETE CURBING AFFECTING THE EAST BOUNDARY LINE OF GREENWOOD MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY 9. AN EASEMENT FOR LEFT LANE TURNS AS GRANTED TO THE CITY OF RENTON AS DISCLOSED BY AGREED ORDER ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION . .. AND ESTABLISHING THE SIZE OF THE PARCEL BEING ACQUIRED, AS SET OUT IN KING COUNTY S.C. CAUSE NO. 84-2-05117-5, AFFECTING THE NORTHWEST PORTION OF TRACT A OF PARCEL B AS DESCRIBED HEREIN. • 10. RIGHT-OF-WAY AND/OR EASEMENT, with necessary appurtenances over, through, across and under said premises as follows: • For : PUBLIC UTILITIES A permanent easement Over : OVER•THE NORTHERLY' PORTIONS OF PARCEL B AS DESCRIBED HEREIN Executed by : GREENWOOD MEMORIAL PARK, INC. BY WILLIAM DELZER, PRESIDENT To : CITY OF RENTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dated : APRIL 7, 1981 Recorded : JUNE 1, 1981 ' Auditor's File No. : 8106010651 Together with a temporary construction easement Over : SAID TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT SHALL REMAIN IN FORCE DURING CONSTRUCTION AND UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE UTILITIES AND APPURTENANCES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE BY THE GRANTEE BUT NOT LATER THAN THIRTY DAYS 11. AN EASEMENT with provisions, conditions and covenants as may be set forth therein. For : AN UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION AND/OR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM In favor of : PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION Reflected of record by instrument Recorded : JANUARY 5, 1983 Auditor's File No. : 8301050361 Affects : THE WEST 2 FEET OF A PORTION OF PARCEL B 12. EASEMENTS. OVER ANY OF THE NAMED OR UNNAMED STREETS, ROADS, ALLEYS, WALKS, PATHS, PARKS OR PARKWAYS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF SAID CEMETERY. AFFECTS PARCEL B 13. CONDITIONS, LIMITATIONS, OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS ARISING OR EXISTING BY REASON OF DEDICATION OF A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES AS A CEMETERY. AFFECTS PARCEL B 14. RIGHTS OF SEPULCHER IN BURIAL LOTS IN SAID CEMETERY BY REASON OF SALE, CONVEYANCE OF DESIGNATION OR APPROPRIATION TO ANY PERSON OR FAMILY. AFFECTS PARCEL B 15. 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. • STANDARD EXCEPTIONS: A. Encroachments or questions of location, boundary and area, which an accurate survey may disclose. B. Public or private easements, streets, roads, alleys or highways, unless disclosed of record by recorded plat or conveyance, or decree of a court of record. C. Rights or claims of persons in possession, or claiming to be in pos- session, not disclosed by the public records. D. Material or labor liens, or liens under the Workmen's Compensation Act not disclosed by the public records. E. Water rights or matters relating thereto. F. Any service, installation or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity or garbage removal. G. Exceptions and reservations in United States patents. H. General taxes not now payable; matters relating to special assess- ments and special levies, if any, preceding the same becoming a lien. I. Right of use, control or regulation by the United States of America in the exercise of powers over navigation. J. Any prohibition or limitation on the use, occupancy or improvement of the land resulting from the rights of the public or riparian owners to use any waters which may cover the land. • .. .END OF SCHEDULE B. . . The terms of this policy are modified by the attached endorsement. NONE i , + -• • r•1Of• • 1 L 7'S •S S' C H {111JJQ T.t^ Fy. c' 'Jf< V L- f f N - l••' • • • • • .i: ;_- -'-' 4.,, -1:•Jr.,• ;I r •f.1..•'••r.11.1, T-'.,:•- •'r•.,' - 1.4 ti. •\ • S• . ! .i• .• :'. ^.f�••ra \,ii1. • . _ I•':. • • ... L •JS4�- ~�1712'f.. sl�.•'••Ft' . �1.Vr•'- If •!/l f�•,,•:. ••••i.• •-a ,•.,`' • • • •-••J•••�,'/.�11• . •,.11;rr., �•tC\.rl�n„ •Yr.••'•�•1 j' •t 1••' ►�' ' 'J• , • • ' ' � . 'f _I• is _ —• . • • .^ • 4"� i1• .it •� •• '.1. • .. .4 3,1(g.l - • _• • •:� ;"t• '• .._ t. • •: # : .. ;`t- - '.. n ... . ' =S • • • • • ra• ie•• - • ..•.' • •� •—,, 1 • I ;.. -I .. . • • . ./.. . :... ...: .; .. • • . .. '• •• •' •f1 • ••" V7: ;•7.•' •.1,Ii\ ' t, • • . • • • „ • I „ • , r •. .,: ' '; :• ' ,• . .. ' ..1 ; ' s . . . . ti :,, . .; . • .A 1 . )., ) • • ' • 1 • ..1 6"1:1% • .1 .1:.••::11-;7.r.' :.,4_x?.,-,:„/. ..: . •• ` �• • •'••� JM L'L • • •. •� . . LJ . • •her ...• . . ' I. • ' ..1•1 . •. . f .•• M•T• •...• •- .' -•i +, ,• --f.1k••. ^'�•.- -1"!•'Ifs. 1'• ,• •• • • • • •kc.J 1 •- 1 • ti•.•' ••-•I't • .. ....-.. '. .-,- '•• a. -:k • • • • • •1) ' QI ( NIIV;-1 1L'1 ?D!-LH GOOMN.�A::`:' c,t ':' ► , r' •-1! t l �0- 'afl--C.• 17... l r: .: . � /L , 9 (41 •'A 'r • • (Vik.4. •, .}' ,•M I • \'• y TICOR TITLE ---- MM..I...•. OpE •' M W1f MN,MUHAP CP.4fn9� 4i MT!u lkcad %RPaouc c�%;' m A ' AMR ACCO OINO MAIL TOO :• •. •• hots k ''• ! o s '� 1011 Vvyltta A.e011r `i Declaim mit t6 01071 a colit at rIl A 4 B091521,9 • C c L s.cc•.,r4,s.0o --- -- fr'—w.- - u— — „ - - r...LII Statutory Warcanty Deed ti +eOeroiAT(FOiNl ngcLortos Orleovood Niaoriil Park! Ind., by its sole directorf and Na True .e In 4StYLdatioe and bq it/ Pole etoakholdor Daniel 2. Units, inc., tV 1x ta4le gkothalw e1 /ooplotion of distribution of assets pursuant to dilleolutien of Creator co:75 w tweet NN.e«.ry+s I fit eauI Dieiei t. Sobel la, i e4 Wlntlri 6,4414 net to."'Vila I'd N ek Ciusq 1( iiae Outgo of . The Ise tk 123 rut or tha wool 223 Cast 4t tbs i vest tide hale of the oortb one bait of the south + one hail of the uarthoas0 ens uarter et ;hi northeast one quartos, of Ioatio 16, and %be welt 223 feet of • the south 2.3.1 feel of the south one halt of the na:tavest eve quarter o the aorthsget one quarter of section 16, iJ(CL1 V eatt: C:Leali Township 23 north, Mande s Litt, .MS., list County, Washington. 7 I i 1 LY utrgiii RHLatO?,AN cxpou,l.a lu cloud iltli I.rmRrtsl e,a, u.c t,4 M w preen o(cn • u,/k,c«gsnutntaMkrrn+dem•.sImo 13th "rN Deeesbsr, 1906 •.. .w ..__ ..._._.....Y. d1tZI1f5f00D.ZlLH9ALti.ZAR1C. IItL..__._ _--• x a 4/ _ .�=�dl ... tit 1 ts1 or-Trustee n cuidation , bAdit . ROLH3, IdC, tole stockholder erg a4- --L— re, ea 1-4 • - .. ::, •I-sfe"rt-":lr+te...!t:'e-t=r.- : .►_ .... ..,,.,r.._..-«n.-....---•..._...—r.--•...-...-..n_►x:-f.-v- I I • I 7l?Jdd 1V180W314 d00MN33Z19 SbO9 la 90E Q : cl 90-9C Yf I ***************************A************************************* City of Renton WA Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R9602663 Amount : 2, 508 . 96 05/31/96 09 :50 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: #02616418 GREENW Init : LN Project # : LUA96-067 Type: LUA Land Use Actions Parcel No: 162305-9079 Site Address : 350 MONROE AV NE Total Fees : 2, 508 . 96 This Payment 2, 508 . 96 Total ALL Pmts : 2, 508 . 96 Balance: . 00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 .345 . 81. 00 . 0006 Conditional Use Fees 2, 000 . 00 000 .345 . 81. 00 . 0007 Environmental Review 500 . 00 000 . 05 . 519 . 90 .42 . 1 Postage 8 . 96 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT GREENWOOD MAUSOLEUM, PHASE TWO GREENWOOD MEMORIAL PARK 350 MONROE AVENUE NE RENTON, WASHINGTON ^ •, -`1 •`' _ Submitted To: Greenwood Memorial Park 350 Monroe Avenue NE Fkenton, Washington 98056 Submitted By: • AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. 11335 NE 122nd Way, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98034-6918 r.:3140) April 1996 A 110 6-917-10845-0 1,11.0G ço 014AI- ipeAlec‘-vv AG R A Earth & Environmental AG R A AGRA Earth& Earth & Environmental Environmental, Inc. 11335 NE 122nd Way Suite 100 Kirkland,Washington 18 April 1996 U.S.A. 98034-6918 6-9 1 7-1 0845-0 Tel (206) 820-4669 Fax(206) 821-3914 • Greenwood Memorial Park 350 Monroe Avenue NE Renton, Washington 98056 Attention: Mr. David Combs Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Greenwood Mausoleum, Phase Two Greenwood Memorial Park • 350 Monroe Avenue NE Renton, Washington Dear David: At your request, AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. (AEE) is pleased to submit this report describing our geotechnical engineering evaluation for the proposed Greenwood Mausoleum, Phase Two project. The purpose of our evaluation was to derive conclusions and recommendations concerning foundation, floors, retaining walls, drainage systems, and construction considerations. As outlined in our proposal letter dated 28 February 1996, our scope of work comprised, a site exploration, laboratory testing, a data review, geotechnical analyses, and report preparation. We received your written authorization for our study on 8 March 1996. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Greenwood Memorial Park and their agents, for specific application to this project in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. AEE has previously conducted geotechnical evaluations of several other areas within Greenwood Memorial Park. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions or desire further information, please do not hesitate to call. Respectfully submitted, AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. __-- . /�/ - z; J•. es M. Brisbine, P.E. enior Project Engineer . Engineering& Environmental Services TABLE OF CONTENTS 6-917-10845-0 ; ' 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 2.0 EXPLORATORY METHODS 1 2.1 Test Pit Procedures 2 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3 3.1 Surface Conditions 3 3.2 Soil Conditions 3 3.3 Groundwater Conditions 4 3.4 Seismic Conditions 4 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 4.1 Site Preparation 6 4.2 Spread Footings 7 4.3 Slab-On-Grade Floors 8 4.4 Cantilever Concrete Walls 9 i 4.5 Drainage Systems 10 _ 4.6 Structural Fill 11 4.7 Construction Monitoring 13 5.0 CLOSURE 14 Figure 1 — Location Map Figure 2 — Site & Exploration Plan Test Pit Logs TP-1 through TP-4 Grain Size Distribution Graph --I • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT 6-917-10845-0 GREENWOOD MAUSOLEUM, PHASE TWO GREENWOOD MEMORIAL PARK 350 MONROE AVENUE NE RENTON, WASHINGTON 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is situated near the northeastern corner of the Greenwood Memorial Park cemetery, which is located in the Highlands area of Renton, Washington, as shown on the enclosed Location Map (Figure 1). This site measures approximately 30 feet by 90 feet overall and is bounded by an existing mausoleum on the north, by a vacant lawn on the south, by an access road on the west, and by a fence on the east. The enclosed Site & Exploration Plan (Figure 2) illustrates the project site and adjacent existing features. Development plans call for constructing a new mausoleum on the project site. According to layout drawings prepared by Cornforth Associates (dated January 1996),this mausoleum will comprise a 90-foot-by-17-foot, single-story, concrete structure with stone facades, slab-on- grade concrete floors, and a concrete roof slab. A cantilever concrete retaining wall having a maximum height of about 3 feet will extend outward from the northwestern corner of the building, and concrete walkways will abut the southern and western sides. Figure 2 depicts the proposed building, retaining wall,and walkways. We anticipate that the building walls and columns will impose fairly low foundation loads. It should be emphasized that the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on our understanding of the currently proposed utilization of the project site, as derived from layout drawings and verbal information supplied to us. Consequently, if any changes are made in the currently proposed project, we may need to modify our conclusions and recommendations contained herein to reflect those changes. 2.0 EXPLORATORY METHODS We explored surface and subsurface conditions at the project site during March 1996. Our exploration and testing program comprised the following elements: • A visual surface reconnaissance of the site; - • Four test pits (designated TP-1 through TP-4) advanced at strategic locations across the site; • A review of the log of one boring previously advanced near the site by AEE; • Three grain size analyses performed on selected soil samples obtained from strategic locations beneath the site; • A review of published geologic maps and seismologic literature. Greenwood Memorial Park 6-917-10845-0 18 April 1996 Page 2 Table 1, below, summarizes the approximate functional locations and termination depths of our subsurface explorations, and Figure 2 depicts their approximate relative locations. The following text section describes our procedures used for test pit explorations. TABLE 1 APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS AND DEPTHS OF EXPLORATIONS Exploration Functional Location Termination Depth (feet) TP-1 Northeastern corner of proposed building footprint 6 TP-2 Northwestern corner of proposed building footprint 6 TP-3 Middle of proposed building footprint 6 'TP-4 Southern end of proposed building footprint 6 The specific number, locations, and depths of our explorations were selected in relation to the existing and proposed site features, under the constraints of surface access, underground utility conflicts, and budget considerations. We estimated the location of each exploration by measuring from existing features and scaling these measurements onto a layout plan supplied to us. Consequently, the data listed in Table 1 and the locations depicted on Figure 2 should be considered accurate only to the degree permitted by our data sources and implied by our measuring methods. { It should be emphasized that the explorations performed for this evaluation reveal subsurface conditions only at discrete locations across the project site and that actual conditions could vary between these exploration locations. Furthermore, the nature and extent of any such variations would not become evident until additional explorations are performed or until construction activities have begun. If significant variations are observed at that time, we may need to modify our conclusions and recommendations contained in this report to reflect the actual site conditions. 2.1 Test Pit Procedures Our exploratory test pits were excavated with a rubber-tired backhoe operated by an employee of Greenwood Memorial Park. A geologist from our firm continuously observed the test pit excavations, logged the subsurface conditions, and obtained representative soil samples. All samples were stored in watertight containers and later transported to our laboratory for further visual examination and testing. After we logged each test pit, the hoe operator backfilled it with excavated soils and tamped the surface. Greenwood Memorial Park 6-917-10845-0 18 April 1996 Page 3 The enclosed test pit logs indicate the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each test pit, based primarily on our field classifications and supported by our subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational or undulating, our logs indicate the average contact depth. We estimated the relative density and consistency of the in-situ soils by means of the excavation characteristics and the stability of the test pit sidewalls. Our logs also indicate the approximate depths of any sidewall caving or groundwater seepage observed in the test pits, as well as all sample numbers and sampling locations. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS The following sections of text present our observations, measurements, findings, and interpretations regarding surface,soil,groundwater,and seismic conditions at the project site. Descriptive logs of our subsurface explorations and graphic results of our laboratory tests are enclosed with this report. 3.1 Surface Conditions The project site is located in an upland region characterized by gently rolling or hummocky terrain, moderately dense commercial and residential development, and moderately sparse native vegetation. A grassy lawn presently covers all of the site, except for a small area of concrete slab near the northwestern corner. Surface grades are fairly flat and level, with a gentle slope downward toward the southwest. 3.2 Soil Conditions Our exploratory test pits disclosed fairly uniform soil conditions beneath the project site. All four test pits penetrated surficial layers of wood chips or sod and topsoil ranging from about 1 % feet thick at the northern end of the proposed building footprint to about Y2 foot thick at the middle and southern end. These highly organic layers are underlain by 1 Y2 to 31/2 feet of slightly organic, loose to medium-dense, silty sands with some gravel. At depths ranging from about 2 to 4 feet below existing grades, all four test pits revealed non-organic, medium-dense, gravelly sands with some silt. This latter deposit extends beyond the test pit termination depths of 6 feet, and our deeper exploratory boring previously advanced near the project site revealed that medium-dense to very dense sands and gravels and very stiff silts extend to depths of 34 feet or more below the cemetery. Table 2, below, summarizes the approximate thicknesses and depths of near-surface soil deposits encountered in our on-site test pits. Our laboratory tests revealed that all of the near-surface soil layers have moderately high fines (silt and clay) contents, ranging from about 11 to 18 percent. Moisture contents were measured to be about 18 percent in the topsoil layer, 14 percent in the slightly organic layer, and 6 percent in the lower, non-organic layer. Table 3, below, summarizes our engineering test results for representative samples of near-surface soils encountered beneath the project site. - Greenwood Memorial Park 6-917-10845-0 18 April 1996 Page 4 TABLE 2 APPROXIMATE THICKNESSES AND DEPTHS OF NEAR-SURFACE SOIL LAYERS ENCOUNTERED IN EXPLORATIONS Exploration• Thickness of Thickness Thickness of Depth of Wood Chips of Sod and Slightly Organic, Non-Organic, and Topsoil Topsoil Loose to Medium- Medium-Dense, (feet) (feet) Dense, Silty Sand Gravelly Sand (feet) (feet) TP-1 1 %2 0 1 '/2 3 TP-2 0 1 1 % 2'/2 TP-3 0 %2 1 '/2 2 TP-4 0 %2 3%2 4 TABLE 3 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS FOR NEAR-SURFACE SOILS Soil Type Moisture Gravel Sand Silt/Clay Content Content Content Content (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) Topsoil 18 25 57 18 Slightly Organic, Silty Sand 14 8 78 14 Non-Organic, Gravelly Sand 6 29 60 11 3.3 Groundwater Conditions At the time of digging (March 1996), none of our on-site test pits encountered groundwater within their termination depths of about 6 feet. Our deeper exploratory boring, which was advanced near the project site during November 1989, revealed groundwater at a depth of about 22 feet. However, it should be realized that groundwater levels can fluctuate in response to the season, precipitation patterns, construction activities, and site utilization. 3.4 Seismic Conditions The 50-year earthquake map included with the 1988 NEHRP manual, Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, indicates that a seismic acceleration coefficient of approximately 0.28 is appropriate for the project site. According to Figure 16-2 of the 1994 Uniform Building Code, the site lies within seismic risk zone 3. Based on our analysis of subsurface explorations and our review of published ' I Greenwood Memorial Park 6-917-10845-0 18 April 1996 Page 5 geologic maps, we interpret the on-site soil conditions to correspond to a seismic soil profile type S-2, as defined by Table 16-J of the 1994 Uniform Building Code. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Development plans call for constructing a concrete mausoleum with associated cantilever concrete retaining walls and concrete walkways on the project site. Our general geotechnical conclusions and recommendations are as follows: • Feasibility: Based on our surface reconnaissance and subsurface explorations, the proposed mausoleum appears feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Proper subgrade preparation and foundation design will be critical, considering the settlement-sensitive type of structure that is planned. • Foundation Options: In our opinion, conventional spread footings can be used to support the proposed mausoleum building and retaining walls. However,due to the presence of slightly organic, loose to medium-dense soils underlying the site, we recommend that a shallow overexcavation and replacement with structural fill be performed below all footings to provide adequate bearing capacity and to minimize post-construction settlements. • Floor Options: In our opinion, a soil-supported slab-on-grade floor can be used within the mausoleum if a portion of the upper, slightly organic soils is overexcavated and replaced with structural fill. Alternatively, a structurally supported (joist or post-tensioned) floor could be used without an overexcavation and replacement. • Seismic Considerations: Based on our literature review and subsurface interpretations, we recommend that all new site structures be designed in accordance with any and all appropriate requirements dictated by the following seismic parameters: Design Parameter Value NEHRP Acceleration Coefficient 0.28 UBC Risk Zone 3 UBC Soil Profile Type S-2 • On-Site Soils: Our visual soil classifications and laboratory testing indicate that most of the on-site soils are highly moisture-sensitive and susceptible to disturbance when wet. In order to maximize the potential for reusing on-site soils as structural fill, earthwork should be scheduled for periods of dry weather, such as usually occur during the summer and fall. Greenwood Memorial Park 6-917-10845-0 18 April 1996 Page 6 • Groundwater Considerations: Based on our on-site test pits and our previous near-site boring, we do not expect that groundwater will be encountered in the footing overexcavations or in any other shallow excavations. However, localized zones of perched water could potentially form in the near-surface soils after periods of heavy rainfall. • Weather Considerations: Due to the moisture-sensitive nature of the on-site soils, the contractor should install appropriate temporary drainage systems to keep water out of the construction areas during periods of wet weather. In addition, the contractor should minimize traffic over any wet subgrades. The following text sections of this report present our specific geotechnical conclusions and recommendations regarding site preparation,footings,slab-on-grade floors,cantilever concrete retaining walls, drainage systems, structural fill, and construction monitoring. 4.1 Site Preparation Preparation of the project site should involve temporary drainage,clearing,stripping,subgrade overexcavation, subgrade compaction, and soil replacement. The paragraphs below discuss our comments and recommendations concerning site preparation. Temporary Drainage: We recommend that initial site preparation involve intercepting and diverting any potential surface or near-surface water within the construction zone. Because the selection of an appropriate dewatering system will depend on the water quantity, season, weather conditions, construction sequence, and contractor's methods, final decisions regarding drainage systems are best made in the field at the time of construction. Nonetheless, we anticipate that a small berm or swale along the uphill sides of the work area will adequately control surface water. To minimize near-surface water flow, any drain pipes or irrigation pipes near the work area should be rerouted. Clearing and Stripping: After surface and near-surface water sources have been controlled, the construction areas should be cleared and stripped of all trees, bushes, wood chips, sod, topsoil, debris, asphalt, and concrete. Our explorations indicate that an average of about 12 inches of wood chips, sod, and/or topsoil will be encountered across the site, but thickness variations and locally deeper zones should be expected. Furthermore, it should be noted that if the stripping operation proceeds during wet weather, a generally greater stripping depth might be necessary to remove disturbed moisture-sensitive soils; therefore, stripping is best performed during a period of dry weather. Subgrade Overexcavations: In order to provide adequate bearing conditions for spread footings and slab-on-grade floors, we recommend that the upper portion of existing soils below all footings and floors be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill. Specifically, ' t Greenwood Memorial Park 6-9 1 7-1 0845-0 18 April 1996 Page 7 we recommend the following minimum overexcavation depths below the design bottom-of- footing and bottom-of-floor levels: Overexcavation Type Minimum Depth Building Footing 18 inches Retaining Wall Footing 18 inches Slab-On-Grade Floor 12 inches Walkway 6 inches Lateral Overexcavations: Because foundation stresses are transferred outward as well as downward into the bearing soils, all footing overexcavations should extend horizontally outward from the edge of each footing a distance equal to the overexcavation depth. For example, an overexcavation that extends 18 inches below the footing base should also extend 18 inches outward from the footing edges. Subgrade Compaction: Exposed overexcavation subgrades for footings, floors, walkways, or similar structures should be compacted to a firm, unyielding state before the fill materials are placed. Any soft or pumping zones within a subgrade should be scarified and recompacted or be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill. Soil Replacement: After the overexcavation subgrades have been adequately compacted,the overexcavated soils should be replaced with clean,well-graded sand and gravel, crushed rock, controlled density fill (CDF), or other suitable structural fill material. All fill soils should be placed in accordance with our recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section of this report and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density (based on ASTM:D-1557). 4_2 Spread Footings In our opinion, conventional spread footings will provide adequate support for the proposed building and retaining wall if the subgrades are prepared as described in the Site Preparation section of this report. The following comments and recommendations are presented for purposes of footing design and construction. Bearing Subgrades: All footing subgrades should consist of firm, unyielding, structural fill materials. Under no circumstances should footings be cast atop loose, soft, or frozen soil, slough, debris, existing uncontrolled fill, or surfaces covered by standing water. We recommend that the condition of all subgrades be verified by an AEE representative before any fill or concrete is placed. i j Greenwood Memorial Park 6-917-10845-0 18 April 1996 Page 8 Bearing Pressures: Footings that bear on properly prepared subgrades can be designed according to the following maximum allowable soil bearing pressures for static loadings and transient (short-term wind or seismic) loadings: Loading Condition Allowable Bearing Pressure Static 2,500•psf Transient 3,350 psf Footing Depths and Widths: For frost protection, exterior footings should penetrate at least 18 inches below adjacent outside grade,whereas interior footings need extend only 12 inches below the surrounding slab surface level. To minimize post-construction settlements, continuous (wall) and isolated (column) footings should be at least 18 and 24 inches wide, respectively. Footing Settlements: We estimate that the total post-construction settlements of properly sized footings bearing on properly prepared subgrades may approach 34 inch. Differential settlements may approach one-half of the total settlement over horizontal distances on the order of 50 feet. 4.3 Slab-On-Grade Floors Assuming that the building footprint is prepared as described in the Site Preparation section of this report, a soil-supported slab-on-grade floor can be used in the proposed mausoleum. Alternatively, a structurally supported (post-tensioned) floor can be used, with the floor slab cast on a soil subgrade. We offer the following comments and recommendations concerning these two types of slab-on-grade floors. Moisture Protection: To minimize moisture infiltration into the building, we recommend that the upper 6 inches of soil directly beneath all slab-on-grade floors be composed of the following layers (top to bottom): • Curing Course — A 2-inch-thick layer of clean sand to allow proper curing of the concrete slab and to protect the vapor barrier; • Vapor Barrier — A layer of plastic sheeting (such as Visqueen or Moistop) to prevent the upward migration of ground moisture vapors; • Capillary Break — A 4-inch-thick layer of pea gravel or washed-rock to retard the upward wicking of groundwater. Vertical Deflections: Soil-supported slab-on-grade floors can deflect downward when vertical loads are applied, due to elastic compression of the subgrade. In our opinion, a subgrade Greenwood Memorial Park 6-917-10845-0 18 April 1996 Page 9 reaction modulus of 200 pounds per cubic inch can be used to estimate such deflections. For structurally supported slab-on-grade floors, on the other hand,this subgrade reaction modulus should be neglected, due to the potential for the subgrade to gradually settle away from the floor. 4.4 Cantilever Concrete Walls We understand that a cantilever concrete retaining wall will be used at the northwestern corner of the proposed mausoleum. In our opinion, conventional spread footings will adequately support this wall if the subgrades are prepared as described in the Site Preparation section of this report. We offer the following design recommendations and comments. Wall Design Values: Design values for cantilever concrete walls can be classified as active pressures, surcharge pressures, seismic pressures, and resisting forces. We offer the following specific values for design purposes: • Active Pressures: Cantilever retaining walls should be designed to withstand an appropriate active lateral earth pressure, which acts over the entire back of the wall and varies with the backslope inclination. Assuming a level backslope, we recommend using an active pressure (given as an equivalent fluid unit weight) of 35 pcf for the retaining wall. • Surcharge Pressures: Lateral earth pressures acting on a retaining wall should be increased to account for any surcharge loadings from traffic, construction equipment, material stockpiles, or structures. • Seismic Pressures: Lateral earth pressures acting on a retaining wall should include seismic loadings, which are applied in the same manner as the active pressure. For a design acceleration coefficient of 0.28 and a wall height of "H" feet, we recommend that these seismic loadings be modeled as a uniform horizontal pressure of 4H psf. • Resisting Forces: Active pressures,surcharge pressures, and seismic pressures are resisted by a combination of passive lateral earth pressure, base friction, and subgrade bearing capacity. Passive pressure acts over the embedded front of the wall (neglecting the upper 1 foot) and varies with the foreslope inclination, whereas base friction and bearing capacity act along the bottom of the footing. Assuming a level foreslope at the wall location, we recommend the following design values: Greenwood Memorial Park 6-917-10845-0 18 April 1996 Page 10 Design Parameter Allowable • Value Passive Pressure (static) 250 pcf Passive Pressure (transient) 330 pcf Base Friction Coefficient 0.4 Bearing Capacity (static) 2500 psf Bearing Capacity (transient) 3350 psf Footing Depths: For frost and erosion protection, all footings should bear at least 18 inches below the adjacent ground surface. However, greater depths might be necessary to develop adequate passive resistance in certain cases. Wall Drains: The above-recommended active earth pressures assume that no hydrostatic pressure develops behind the retaining wall. To preclude hydrostatic pressure development, we recommend that a drain pipe be installed behind the heel of the wall footing and that a curtain drain be placed behind the entire wall. This curtain drain should consist of pea gravel, washed rock, or a mixture of these materials, extending outward a minimum of 2 feet from the wall and extending from the footing drain upward to within about 6 inches of the ground surface. Alternatively, prefabricated drainage mats (such as Miradrain 9000) may be used as a substitute for the granular curtain drain. Backfill Soil and Compaction: All retaining wall backfill placed behind the curtain drain should consist of clean, free-draining, granular material. Because soil compactors place significant transient surcharges on retaining wall backfill, we recommend that only small, hand-operated compaction equipment be used within 3 feet of a completed wall. Also, all backfill should be compacted to approximately 90 percent of the maximum dry density (based on ASTM:D-1557); a greater degree of compaction closely behind the wall would increase the lateral earth pressure, whereas a lesser degree of compaction might lead to excessive post- ' construction settlements. Grading and Capping: To retard the infiltration of surface water into the backfill soils, the backfill surface should be adequately sloped to drain away from the wall. We also recommend that the backfill surface directly behind the wall be capped with asphalt, concrete, or 1 foot of low-permeability (silty) soils. 4_5 Drainage Systems In our opinion, the mausoleum building should be provided with permanent drainage systems to minimize the risk of groundwater infiltration. We offer the following recommendations and comments for drainage design and construction purposes. Greenwood Memorial Park 6-917-10845-0 18 April 1996 Page 1 1 Perimeter Drains: We recommend that the building be encircled with a perimeter drain system to collect seepage water. This drain should consist of a perforated pipe within an envelope of pea gravel or washed rock, extending at least 6 inches on all sides of the pipe, and the gravel envelope should be wrapped with filter fabric to reduce the migration of fines from the surrounding soils. The drain invert should be installed no more than 8 inches above the base of the perimeter footings. Runoff Water: Roof-runoff and surface-runoff water should not discharge into the perimeter drain system. Instead, these sources should discharge into separate tightline pipes and be routed away from the building to a municipal storm drain or other appropriate location. Grading and Capping: Final site grades should slope downward away from the building so that runoff water will flow by gravity to suitable collection points, rather than ponding near the building. Ideally, the area surrounding the building would be capped with concrete or asphalt to preclude surface-water infiltration. 4.6 Structural Fill "Structural fill" refers to all materials placed under foundations, retaining walls, slab-on-grade floors, sidewalks, pavements, and other structures. We offer the following comments, conclusions, and recommendations concerning structural fill. Materials: Typical structural fill materials include well-graded sand and gravel ("gravel borrow" or "pit-run"), clean sand, pea gravel, washed rock, crushed rock, quarry snails, controlled-density fill (CDF), lean-mix concrete, and various soil mixtures of silt, sand, and gravel. Recycled asphalt, concrete, and glass, which are derived from pulverizing parent materials, are also potentially useful as structural fill in certain applications. Soils used for structural fill should not contain individual particles greater than about 6 inches in diameter and should be free of organics, debris, and other deleterious materials. On-Site Soils: Because only minor cuts are planned for the project, we do not expect that large quantities of on-site soils will be generated during earthwork activities. Nonetheless, our evaluation of these on-site soils for potential use as structural fill can be summarized as follows: • Organic-Rich Soils: The sod, topsoil, and wood chips mantling the site are not suitable for use as structural fill under any circumstances, due to their high organic content. Consequently, these materials can be used only for non- structural purposes, such as in landscaping areas. • Slightly Organic Silty Sands: The slightly organic,silty sands observed beneath the topsoil do not appear suitable for structural fill use due to their unfavorable Greenwood Memorial Park 6-917-10845-0 18 April 1996 Page 12 combination of organic content and moderately high moisture content. As such, these soils should be restricted to non-structural fill use. • Non-Organic Gravelly Sands: The non-organic, gravelly sands underlying the slightly organic,silty.sands appear marginally suitable for reuse as structural fill at their present moisture contents. However, these soils will be difficult or impossible to reuse during wet weather, due to their moderately high silt contents. By scheduling fill placement for periods of dry weather,the potential for reusing these soils will be maximized. Fill Placement: Generally, pea gravel, washed rock, quarry spalls, CDF, and lean-mix concrete do not require special placement and compaction procedures. In contrast, pit-run, clean sand, crushed rock, soil mixtures, and recycled materials should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, and each lift should be thoroughly compacted with a mechanical compactor. Compaction Criteria: Using the Modified Proctor test (ASTM:D-1557) as a standard, we recommend that structural fill used for various on-site applications be compacted to the following minimum densities: Minimum Fill Application Compaction Footing subgrade 90 percent Slab-on-grade floor subgrade 90 percent Footing backfill 90 percent Retaining wall backfill 90 percent Concrete walkway subgrade 90 percent Subgrade Verification and Compaction Testing: Regardless of material or location, all structural fill should be placed over firm, unyielding subgrades prepared in accordance with the Site Preparation section of this report. The condition of all native subgrades should be verified by an AEE representative before any fill is placed. Also, fill soil compaction should be verified by means of in-place density tests performed during fill placement so that the adequacy of soil compaction efforts may be evaluated as earthwork progresses. Moisture Considerations: The suitability of soils used for structural fill depends primarily on the grain-size distribution and moisture content of the soils when they are placed. 'As the "fines" content (that soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 200 Sieve) increases, soils become more sensitive to small changes in moisture content. Soils containing more than about 5 percent fines (by weight) cannot be consistently compacted to a firm, unyielding condition 4 Greenwood Memorial Park 6-917-10845-0 18 April 1996 Page 13 when the moisture content is more than 2 percentage points above optimum. The use of "clean" granular soil is recommended for fill placement during wet-weather site work. Clean soils are defined as granular soils that have a fines content of 5 percent or less (by weight) based on the soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 4 Sieve. 4_7 Construction Monitoring Because the future performance and integrity of the structural elements will depend largely on proper site preparation, drainage, fill placement, and construction procedures, monitoring and testing by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. Consequently, we recommend that AEE be retained to provide the following post-report services: • Review all construction plans and specifications to verify that our design criteria presented in this report have been properly integrated into the design; • Prepare a letter summarizing our review comments (if required by the City of Renton); • Attend a pre-construction conference with the design team and contractor to discuss important geotechnically related construction issues; • Observe all exposed subgrades after completion of stripping and overexcavation to confirm that suitable soil conditions have been reached and to determine appropriate subgrade compaction methods; • Monitor the placement of all structural fill and test the compaction of structural fill soils to verify their conformance with the construction specifications; • Probe all completed subgrades for footings and slab-on-grade floors before concrete is poured, in order to verify their bearing capacity; • Observe the installation of all perimeter drains, wall drains, and capillary break layers to verify their conformance with the construction plans; • Inspect all reinforcing steel and test all concrete used for foundations, floors, walls, columns, and other structural elements, in order to verify their conformance with the construction plans and specifications; • Prepare a post-construction letter summarizing our field observations, inspections, and test results (if required by the City of Renton). Greenwood Memorial Park 6-917-10845-0 18 April 1996 Page 14 We would be happy to submit a proposal for providing the construction monitoring, testing, and inspection services itemized above. Such a proposal is best prepared after the project plans and specifications have been approved for construction. 5.0 CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the explorations that we performed for this study. Therefore, if variations in the subsurface conditions are observed at a later time, we may need to modify this report to reflect those changes. AEE is available to provide geotechnical consultation, monitoring, soils and concrete testing, steel inspection, and other services throughout construction. • We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have any questions regarding this report or any aspects of the project, please feel free to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, • AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. • lei 0, y Peter . Sak Staff Geologist F.` J.mes M. Bn Ifi`e, P.E. Senior Project Engineer �`:y.:-„ `' E;PIP'=:+ • _ PBS/JMB/caj .4 V __ 7 A •, rT. r•. 11 'cW7rffit •6 - `V t N LH — PL W A, it -, - !• b� 6M xz_ _- I* X1NOs, Kik :' 9y.TIE 7 > .4 ENPIA 6TH <' iT I W I I -- I Pi N r w I. < I H SE I25TH ST W . 1 o+• yy 5c q - a R AY NE Z. IC 5 ST I . y ` I /y'st NE is . e r 9 Sl Qk �S �ip : TM a SE I'126 rH Q a ' - 8 3f Z I I w H MO5(YlNImSdR TEWa•LE,® yt' ''> NE ■� aou E L Z NI s�' a •• III\ 4TH . I ST I SE 128TH ST " §`"o I vow T I �, r �4 0 I w NI I • I I m S I L. .GRE • < � ! SE�129TH �I W R I. NE 3RD PL I I ST- I ^� j 8 AIK ant) I - -P_SE_< 131ST ' ST_ ' • >al <' NE 3 l NE_ 34W ST ^SITE - '" SE ___ 11 2ND < ST 1 __j ERE), .E��' • I }.• I tF �g R W CTN NF' Jsr ,_3'S1 15 xl ��3Ro sr i ~� �OfAYr LEISURE ," <J`r :a W SE~ • ^r r0 N .I ^ A SE 1ST 135TH o I se I " si•v16 7W ► / SE LTx 136TH ST SE ND I - 4 6E � � �� SE J61Nlo II1W ,,,rn � -� 4. RENTUN g>g E.. , �1,, LPLel _ �A�� INia 4000 erx wW N r iror. ; rpWvi pl1Y y o$E 4 J tF i179TX PLSE^9`l RDSE STH S: A'- I tr r�ry a • l�o�`'' ��, •1-S`4 �F SF� 3z r—- —- -7 'SE 140TH SI a N i �aR' � ._.. .,J� sr�,�v , �� . . r 1415T � � �� �icon+PL �1 a9 sF�r + SE a RPj- !1I ���+ r , • \ t f Sr L- -- I 142ND ST 315E U2N0 Si MAPLEWOZIO.'`�� .1 si . I Se ciC" 0€....74• o v. SE I- DL21O" x J. i ROADSIDE .. t:` ' I I tiQ' : v SE u3RD PARK \..F` \ sr :;, IWPLav!E 1 I q.� 1441. - ST PL N i q �'� ':' �- I �� �5�.�. �' .n 7. S SE 11 I , [E ell" PL " ' - -— ‘ 7-'.-,..e.A ...r R, -. . _ .169 ;• t '-s ocFoAR , MAPLEW00D GOLF 0r •.E 7: ' I .. ^ e sE^ t R R re* re :A;. 4/ .;: . .\ fa firs' • ¢ 64 •21 `,S i5E tea/ F p,." "••••.i ...P.4 I I,-i•t \ y` ti 4 ��s \`1T, �/ �> NIQN i r 2 ... �iw Q+' W S�'d C 4. ' tX. 5 \ I AMPLE 1,'- I, . w' ' S7 51 s r.. r • V A MN ,�cA d�ry , a• �•F'. 4, 4r4., rF s7 sr �` I it .Pi', RD i 1 '!1+?'} 7Y F/ 5T SE' 157TH ST ' S ):lFiANY'^ ,SC J k SE ,791M 7• - - —I �fy''`- Ir r'`• ' : Ss.srg _PI 7".a ,:5 . J ."gE 7 >. N sr-Js, 4- .,. P d • ry 0 sirM ' "<rYMgP yy A' sE n I SF\\\/}}}^``P� 7N /I'Y +F • Sf 4'A �r sf < < Pf\_. A t07M pJSE' �JS�� `.�' ."., ? i56TH 5� ,+ SF , R 4... •eq, eCT' a sK .. �.1S' • SE PL 4.- y Z , ,,,•,, -- S ,f �., 11 `04 `4`%5'` G n ,,?' E 7 '$4' 7'+p1 se �-• [A,I-- (F�' J��I/lJ E.JC�� I O� I�SE ZlST ST fSF�60THy �_ ST " � ++'• �¢1 _S ,,, Q.+. J591x� �•51 I ! IT 1 \W00 `SE-II�11 ''st •• _ - _ ••fpfJ .,, > r se-� 24r, r 5L.`�SE 159TH P�N I .'.^—ST < �' 2 160 57 v 111 r I I h ,^ ly _,SE !]N Simi Nit., 6�9 SE x 161 T r ST SE l6o)x Dl o I5.9�rn PL ' _< lSE 159 sEy ! 62ND< < ST sE`'.s, �`�� _ ? ' i 11400 { SEi:S 51,,K'.•."•� y, g�'" SE 161ST PI.i SE 160rx E 1::7:::000641frs41 SE! :161K " r. ..ST^ ..� e :2:: ur r„ ViSE 163RD ST^ 1 2AI .e. 5T NN • p."'i. ! '•< sN�7 O /'T E'� _ : Yf'164TH + 7�I 6 oSt.0 ti ,.. sE.,1.2N0 PL ••„�11110oSE 164TH J ST ^ I'< ,6�•••1 . k ' r °7 •' < sI� SE 165TN 42r✓6rb lI70SS65TH Si �� 16srx s $E 164TH $TS ,� r v.3R ;' �'<^TOAD 9'tf sr Wvi ST 6-',..1a>< '11 IP.., Zvi sT4� �•$ NSE I66iH Si F�`" gti 16�TH S I I < SEE 166TH PL Q'z ' a'."�, ,<„ SE 167TH ST o..'a 4 I f :S,_=". eQ ys 165M a s ..<.. r DJNRL ESA �n I ,::,�;•.. ,. 9`• sr : -t�5�` \ F 671H 1 �F i. I LINDBERGH NS/m sE 1g6TH PL .•.(.,s �i 0 4 I _„SE 1671q ST � 1- '`, ;i:•. P7 `yt'1' s SE - _: ` s�p, 168TH "T _ H ST PLu I ^ G I 2 7 .- .��'.... • r6jl ^ '< 1 IL f f r I • H rn �' > G SE 169T ST 4 I I x W •,sr,* - ':� GQ i 4r..se .�' " SE 169TH l� Bp > n < 7 t35r n >r ST -`. /,I, < G8 169 pi. `e s' .• J•r .9 n G_•. �4 > ' SE 170TH <. '< > > �i < i�..d r '� 8 p r _ ST -_ —_ --`�-----•1j3.\ _N o ,r>' SE'17�TH -ST— H P ^- --'J°�y` LIB P''b� v PL, '1 .1,.:+.- 4 y, F- ` . '1 ^ z SE", SE,SE 171fT w i?:• SE A. •ri^ 1,6100 0„ 1 SSM < F- r-( . ^' N o •n t I vs norm r 1 :'I r 1�<•XI _+� SE I70fN 70 } SE 72ND ST,Ti I c ▪ N .`v,t7t5 PL > SE IIISL NM ... a.:",,L.. leg - ?'-t ST u ^" SE 172N0 ST t'I^'< 12200 17 12 DA ¢ 5T PLC DL It 5E'c. si • Ai r r l?y t7 a s, i 5 ct t9n.i: - �i SE '� I 52> x :ggg( SE 17151.,r d.T S PLY t;�1 LN .r . *, ' T W.O. 6-917-10845 GREENWOOD MAUSOLEUM PHASE it AG RA DESIGN PBS RENTON, WASHINGTON t Earth & Environmental DRAWN DMW LOCATION MAP 11335 NE 122nd Way, Suite 100 DATE APR 1996 w Kirkland,Washington, U.S.A. 98034-6918 SCALE N T_S FIGURE 1 X X X X EXISTING FENCE X rX X -X X 1 L _ _ ___ PROPOSED PVC DRAIN LINE /l TP-1 PROPOSED MAUSOLEUM F.F. EL. 354.00 EXISTING MAUSOLEUM TP-4 TP-2 TP-3 EXISTING CONCRETE PROPOSED CONCRETE WALKWAY WALKWAY PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA - PROPOSED RETAINING WALL LEGEND Tr -4 TEST PIT NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION 0 8 16 - SCALE IN FEET • WO. 6-917-10845 GREENWOOD MAUSOLEUM PHASE II e DESIGN PBS RENTON, WASHINGTON � AGRA Earth &Environmental DRAWN DMW SITE & EXPLORATION PLAN 11335 NE 122nd Way,Suite 100 DATE APR 199.6_ DRAWING BASED ON PLAN BY CORNFORTH ASSOCIATES, DATED JANUARY 1996. Kirkland,Washington, U.S.A.98034-6918 (1 SCALE NOTED FIGURE 2 TEST PIT LOGS 6-917-10845A Depth (feet) Material Description Sample No. Test Pit TP-1 Location: Landscaping area Approximate ground surface elevation: Unknown • 0.0 - 0.5 Wood chips. S-1 0.5 - 1.5 Topsoil. S-2 1.5 - 3.0 Moist, loose to medium dense, brown, silty SAND with some 'S-3 gravel and trace fine roots. 3.0 - 6.0 Moist, medium dense, gray, gravelly SAND with some silt. S-4 Test pit terminated at approximately 6.0 feet No caving observed No seepage observed Test Pit TP-2 Location: Lawn area Approximate ground surface elevation: Unknown 0.0 - 1.0 Sod over Topsoil. S-1 1.0 - 2.5 Damp, medium dense, brown, silty SAND with some gravel and S-2 trace organics (decreasing with depth); thin charcoal lens at 2 feet. 2.5 - 6.0 Damp, medium dense, gray, gravelly SAND with some silt. S-3 Test pit terminated at approximately 6.0 feet No caving observed No seepage observed ' I 6-9 1 7-1 0845A Test Pit Logs, Page 2 Death jfeet) Material Description ,Sample No. Test Pit TP-3 Location: Lawn area Approximate ground surface elevation: Unknown 0.0 - 0.5 Sod over Topsoil. S-1 0.5 - 2.0 Damp, loose-medium dense, brown, silty SAND with some S-2 gravel and trace organics. • 2.0 - 5.5 Damp, medium dense, gray SAND with some silt. S-3 5.5 - 6.0 Moist, medium dense, gray, gravelly SAND with some silt. S-4 Test pit terminated at approximately 6.0 feet No caving observed No seepage observed Test Pit TP-4 Location: Lawn area Approximate ground surface elevation: Unknown 0.0 - 0.5 Sod over Topsoil. S-1 0.5 - 4.0 Moist, medium dense, brown, silty SAND with some gravel and S-2 some organics (decreasing with depth). 4.0 - 6.0 Moist, medium dense, gray mottled, gravelly SAND with some .S-3 silt. Test pit terminated at approximately 6.0 feet No caving observed No seepage observed Date excavated: 15 March 1996 Logged by: PBS GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36' 12" 6 -)1c ' 3" 11/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200 100 r I - X-•- ,,, J 1 1. I I _ , _ , . ' \\,...‘ .* s-''N's1L- _ ,x A. 2 ` 70 - -.., .-, , m _re \I., ` W50 , Z ` I—Z40 ,. ti` j LL ii .. U — It, CC \`, 0 1000.00 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 0.00 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine ' Silt Clay 1 BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE CRANED Exploration Sample Depth Moisture Fines Soil Description ! • •—F• TP-1 S-4 3.1-5.8' 6% 11% Gravelly SAND,some silt r-•-•-•-• TP-3 S-1 0.0-0.7' 18% 18% Silty Gravelly SAND M- - - --A TP-4 S-2 0.7-3.9' 14% 14% Silty SAND,some gravel A-AAAA Project: Greenwood Mausoleum II ' Work Order 6-917-108950 OAGRA Earth & Environmental Date: 3-18-96 11335 NE 122nd Way Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98034-6918