Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272708 !TPOB IS SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 !DATA FOR CURVES INCLUDES DIRECTION OF CURVE,RADIUS,AND ARC LENGTH N37d00'42W 4.90 N55d28'15 W 77.73 N52d24'OOW 186.51 OEM N54d03'57W 286.58 N35d i l'09W 148.78 N23d44'21 W 85.39 c le VA RIGHT 75.78 78.20 N50d08'30E 114.42 N5Id45'16E 72.30 N59d39'1 1 E 96.54 U LEFT 114.57 91.68 V N13d48'14E 114.90 LEFT 294.26 188.78 N23d47'30W 102.20 N28d32'10 W 64.18 N20d5 l'33 W 61.80 N87d26'45 W 54.49 S20d51'33E 86.81 S28d32'1 OE 65.46 S23d47'30E 99.40 RIGHT 244.26 156.70 S67d02'48W S13d48'14W 114.90 RIGHT 64.57 51.67 S59d39'1 1 W 99.99 S51 d45'16 W 76.45 S50d08'30W 120.75 �� LEFT 125.78 137.10 S51dI7'I6E S23d44'2 I E 90.41 S35d11'09E 162.11 S54d03 57E 294.16 S52d24'OOE 187.12 S55d28'15E 5.72 � �� Z' S87d 18'57E 91.82 - 2 6J-A clgv3 TRANSMITTAL TO CITY CLERK BONDS, LETTERS OF CREDIT, ASSIGNMENT OF FUNDS, ETC. 1. TYPE OF INSTRUMENT: Bond Letter of Credit _ Assignment of Funds/Contractor Set-Aside Assignment of Savings Other, Describe 2. APPLICANT: C�/� ` 0e; 3. PURPOSE: (Describe) 4. ACCOUNT NO.: D 6 93 3 5 5. FILE NAME AND NUMBER: (If applicable) 6. AMOUNT: 7. EXPIRATION DATE: a I CJ 8. REQUIRED BY: ��i��► (Department/Board) 9. STAFF CONTACT/PHONE #: a4'r WboJ h f ti S 57 0 10. NOTIFY STAFF BY: (List date 30 days prior, six weeks prior to expiration, etc.) °qA Y oV� City of Renton Finance and Information Services ANT° Memorandum Date: January 16, 1998 To: Marilyn Kamcheff From: Carol L. Hensley CPS C�* Subject: Letter of Credit-Hunter Douglas Real Property, Inc. I received an irrevocable letter of credit from Bank of America(copy attached). I am not sure where within Building to send this. If you are not the individual, could you please forward it to the person responsible for it? I need a "Transmittal of Financial Instrument" filled out for this. It is an on-line form that can be found at H:\Finance\Forms\Cityfrms\transmit.dot. The document is saved as a template,but is set up as a form. Instructions are at provided on the form. Please call if there are any questions. When the form is filled out and printed, please forward to me. Or, if you would rather, fill the form out, and send to me via e-mail. I will print and file. Thanks Marilyn. S'Gc�c_ ' r R - L�1 lit,c �1-A,w,c Cc I Bank of America 1 � GLOBAL PAYMENT TRADE OPERATIONS NBR 22621 333 SOUTH BEAUDRY AVENUE, 19TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 ATTN: STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT DEPT. DATE: JANUARY 13, 1998 IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT NUMBER: 3008339 BENEFICIARY: APPLICANT: FINANCE DIRECTOR HUNTER DOUGLAS REAL PROPERTY, INC. CITY OF RENTON 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 WE (THE "BANK") HEREBY ESTABLISH, AT THE REQUEST AND FOR THE ACCOUNT OF HUNTER DOUGLAS REAL PROPERTY, INC. (THE "OWNER") , IN YOUR FAVOR THIS IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LEER OF CREDIT NUMBER 3008339, IN THE AMOUNT OF FIFTY THOUSAND AND N0/100 (U.S. DOLLARS $50,000.00) . WE ARE ADVISED THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER OF CREDIT IS TO INSURE THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE COMPLETED FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS HUNTER DOUGLAS MANUFACTURING FACILITY (THE "PROJECT") , BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER B970022. THIS LETTER OF CREDIT SHALL BE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY AND SHALL EXPIRE ON THE EARLIER OF: 1. OUR CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON JANUARY 1, 1999. 2. THE DATE ON WHICH THERE SHALL BE A DRAWING OF THE FULL FACE AMOUNT OF THIS LETTER OF CREDIT. 3. THE DATE ON WHICH THE WE RECEIVE YOUR STATEMENT CERTIFYING THAT THE OWNER HAS DELIVERED TO YOU A SUBSTITUTION OF ALTERNATE LETTER OF CREDIT, IN A FORM AND DRAWN ON A PRINCIPAL INSTITUTION ACCEPTABLE TO YOU. IT IS A CONDITION OF THIS LETTER OF CREDIT THAT IT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE AUTOMATICALLY EXTENDED WITHOUT AMENDMENT FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE EXPIRY DATE HEREOF, OR ANY FUTURE EXPIRATION DATE, UNLESS AT LEAST THIRTY (30) DAYS PRIOR TO ANY EXPIRATION DATE, WE NOTIFY YOU BY REGISTERED MAIL OR OVERNIGHT COURIER AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS, THAT WE ELECT NOT TO CONSIDER THIS LETTER OF CREDIT RENEWED FOR ANY SUCH ADDITIONAL PERIOD. WE HEREBY IRREVOCABLE AUTHORIZE YOU TO DRAW ON US BY DELIVERING TO US IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS HEREOF, YOUR SIGHT DRAFT OR DRAFTS DRAWN ON US, WITH EACH SUCH DRAFT ACCOMPANIED BY YOUR SIGNED AND DATED STATEMENT CERTIFYING THAT HUNTER DOUGLAS REAL PROPERTY, INC. IS IN DEFAULT OF IMPROVEMENT UNDER THE HUNTER DOUGLAS MANUFACTURING FACILITY (THE "PROJECT") , BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER BY70022, IN AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING THE AMOUNT SHOWN ABOVE. MORE THAN ONE DRAFT MAY BE PRESENTED SO LONG AS THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SUCH DRAFTS PRESENTED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH DOES NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE HEREUNDER. EACH DRAFT AND CERTIFICATE PRESENTED HEREUNDER MUST BE DATED THE DATE OF PRESENTATION TO THE BANK. ANY DRAW-DOWN PRESENTED PRIOR TO 10:00 A.M. WHICH IS IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THIS LETTER OF CREDIT WILL BE HONORED BY OUR PAYMENT TO YOU OF THE DRAFT AMOUNT BY WIRE TRANSFER OF IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR THE ATTENTION OF THE PERSON SPECIFIED BY YOU IN SUCH DRAFT, NO LATER THAN 1:00 P.M. ON THE BUSINESS DAY COINCIDENT WITH THE DATE OF PRESENTATION OF SUCH DRAFT. ANY SIGHT DRAFT SO PRESENTED AFTER 10:00 A.M. PAYMENT WILL BE REMITTED ON THE BUSINESS DAY NEXT SUCCEEDING THE DATE OF PRESENTATION OF SUCH DRAFT. CONTINUE TO PAGE 2 Bank of America NT&SA Trade Operations Center 5655 333 South Beaudry Avenue,19th Flr..Los Angeles.CA 90017 C?necaa aaue CABLE ADDRESS:Telex MCI 67652 BANKAMER SFO•SWIFT ADDRESS BOFALIS6S CORR 1041A 10-95 i ff) Bank of America PAGE 2 CONTINUED LC NO. 3008339 ANY PRESENTATION UNDER THIS LETTER OF CREDIT MUST BE MADE AS HEREIN SPECIFIED TO OUR OFFICE. THIS LETTER OF CREDIT IS SUBJECT TO THE UNIFORM CUSTOMS AND PRACTICE FOR DOCUMENTARY CREDITS (1993 REVISION) OF THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, PUBLICATION NO. 500 (THE "UNIFORM CUSTOMS") , AND TO MATTERS NOT GOVERNED BY THE UNIFORM CUSTOMS, BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (THE "UCC") OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE UNIFORM CUSTOMS AND THE UCC, THE UNIFORM CUSTOMS SHALL CONTROL. ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 41 OF THE UNIFORM CUSTOMS NOTWITHSTANDING, THIS LETTER OF CREDIT IS INTENDED TO REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT UNTIL IT EXPIRE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TERMS. BANK OF AMERICA NT & SA ti /1 XrITc PIPM AUTHO ED IGNATURE rol"w^"• illeir� AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE Bank of America NTBSA Trade Operations Center 5655 333 South Beaudry Avenue.19th Fir..Los Angeles,CA 90017 0 RI—I.d aace, CABLE ADDRESS:Telex MCI 67652 BANKAMER SFO•SWIFT ADDRESS BOFAUS6S COF7R-1041A 10-95 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 13, 1997 TO: Leslie Betlach FROM: Ron Straka ICJ STAFF CONTACT: Scott Woodbury v SUBJECT: Fund 316 Expenditure Related to the Hunter Douglas Development Attached is a copy of a June 9, 1997, Finance Committee report that authorized the expenditure of $22,000 from the 316 fund. We had recommended in the attached agenda bill package that the $22,000 by paid from the General Fund to offset a portion of the costs of the City would incur if the Council authorized entering into an agreement with Hunter Douglas. A copy of the approved agreement is attached to the agenda bill package. Under the agreement the City would pay Hunter Douglas for modifying their bridge improvement plans to accommodated our future channel widening project. Hunter Douglas would also grant the City an easement for the channel widening which would also allow public use of the pedestrian trail to be installed as part of the Hunter Douglas development. The General Fund expenditure proposal was referred to the Finance Committee which agreed to authorize $22,000 from the General Fund, but decided that the expenditure should be linked to the pedestrian trail improvements to be installed under the Hunter Douglas development. The Municipal Facilities Capital Improvement Fund (316 fund) was selected because it is the capital improvement program account that commonly funds public trail improvements. While the $22,000 was to be expensed from the 316 fund, it is our understanding that the revenue for the expenditure would be provided from the General Fund unallocated fund balance as stated in the Finance Committee report, not from existing revenue within the 316 fund. Therefore, we feel that a $22,000 increase in revenue should be forthcoming to the 316 fund, but we suggest that you follow up with the Finance Department to confirm when this will be accomplished. attachments CITY OF RENTON "LL Planning/Building/Public Works Department 7 e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator August 4, 1997 Allen Tosch Hunter Douglas, Inc. 7015 S 212th ST Kent, WA 98032 SUBJECT: AGREEMENT AND EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE CHANNEL AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL Dear Mr. Tosch: Enclosed is a copy of the Agreement and Easement for Drainage Channel and Pedestrian Trail for your property in Renton at 2000 Raymond Avenue SW. The document has been filed with the county records office under recording number 9706230814. Regarding Section 11 of the agreement, it was our intent that you would have the option to either construct the trail at your cost or reimburse the City for its cost to construct the trail under a public works contract. To ensure we have this option, we will setup the bid package for the channel widening project so that the cost of the trail can be easily determined. Bidders will also be made aware that the work could be deleted from the contract scope. Once the bid price to complete the work under the City contract is known, we will coordinate with you to confirm whether or not you wish the City to construct the trail. If you have any questions, please contact me at(425)277-5547. Sincerely, 3��- l/J• Scott Woodbury, P.E., roject Manager Surface Water Utility H:DOCS:97-671:S W:ps Enclosures CC: Ron Straka Jack Nelson,Drainage District No. 1 Rod DenHerder,Natural Resources Conservation Service 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 >�This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY OF RENTON CITY CLERK'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM JUL 2 81991 CITY OF RENTON DATE: July 28, 1997 Engineering petit., TO: Scott Woodbury FROM: Michele Neumann x2581 SUBJECT: Hunter Douglas Easement and Agreement; Rec#9706230814 The attached document has been recorded with King County, and is being returned to you. Please forward copies to parties of interest. Thank you. Enclosures: (1) WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Office of the City Clerk Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South rCEIVED Renton, WA 98055N 11 1997 KING COUNTY RECORDER AGREEMENT AND EASEMENT Project:East Side Green River FOR DRAINAGE CHANNEL AND Watershed Project PEDESTRIAN TRAIL Work Order#65230 ® PID: 24230490115 Grantor:Hunter Douelas,Inc STR: Sec 24,T23N.R4E (� Street Intersection: 19th Street and 0 Ravmond Avenue THIS INSTRUMENT, made this 1014 day of TitNE 1997; by and between Hunter Douglas, Inc., hereinafter called "Hunter Douglas," and the CITY OF RENTON, a Municipal Corporation of King County, Washington, hereinafter called "City." WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas is the owner of certain real property located in the City legally described as Lot 1 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-95-064 (King County Recording No. 9508039005)and which lies adjacent to and west of Springbrook Creek. l WHEREAS, the City is proposing to widen Springbrook Creek along the Hunter Douglas property as identified in the East Side Green River Watershed Project Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (City File LUA-95-205,ECF) so as to increase the capacity of the creek to convey flows and thereby reduce upstream flooding problems. WHEREAS, an easement is required from Hunter Douglas over the east 50 feet of its property along Springbrook Creek in order for the City to accomplish the widening project. 0 WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas is proposing to develop its property in accordance with the Raymond Avenue Center West proposal (City File No. LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF). W WHEREAS, the development proposal includes construction of a private bridge over Springbrook Creek as its primary access, construction of a paved pedestrian trail within a dedicated trail easement allowing public access along the entire length of the Hunter Douglas ]C OQ S H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement TtAI Page 1 of 10 r PROPERTY SERVICES CU 10 G h 07 property along Springbrook Creek, and requires filling within the 100-year floodplain as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas does not have sufficient area on its property to excavate a volume of material equal to the volume of floodplain storage that will be filled by the development, except within the east 50 feet of its property. WHEREAS, the City has offered to construct the required compensatory floodplain storage for the Hunter Douglas development as part of its channel widening project in exchange for the granting of a drainage channel easement over the east 50 feet of the Hunter Douglas property. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas desires that the center of its bridge over Springbrook Creek be offset 9 feet west of the centerline of the property along the creek owned by Drainage District No. 1 adjacent to and east of the Hunter Douglas property. WHEREAS, hydraulic analysis conducted by Hunter Douglas shows that the planned widened Orr channel section will need to be centered within the span of the bridge at its shifted location so P 4 as to minimize head losses through the structure. on C WHEREAS, the City may need to construct a retaining wall to support the pedestrian trail on the west bank of the creek when the channel widening project is constructed and shifting the bridge opening closer to the pedestrian trail will result in a need for higher retaining walls C supporting the trail in the vicinity of the bridge. WHEREAS, the original design for the Hunter Douglas bridge abutments and wingwalls must be modified so as to allow for future excavation of a widened channel under the bridge. WHEREAS, modifying the bridge design to accommodate the planned channel widening significantly increases the cost of the bridge. WHEREAS,' installing the bridge to accommodate the planned channel widening when the bridge is originally constructed is less expensive and disruptive than making modifications to the bridge after it has already been built and is operational. WHEREAS, the City desires that the Hunter Douglas defer construction of the pedestrian trail until after the channel widening is completed so as to avoid the need for temporary closures of a newly constructed trail and to avoid potential damages to the new trail that could result in unnecessary restoration costs and construction delays. ' WHEREAS, the Hunter Douglas property is currently "land locked" with no developed access to the public right-of-way. H:DOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 2 of 10 WHEREAS, the Hunter Douglas development proposes and approval is based upon being able to construct the bridge over Springbrook Creek as primary access to the Hunter Douglas property. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas must complete installation of the bridge within an extremely tight construction schedule before its temporary construction access easement through Boeing property to the west of the Hunter Douglas property expires. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of ten dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of the performance of the covenants, terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, Hunter Douglas hereby grants, bargains, sells, conveys, and warrants unto the City, its successors and assigns, a permanent non-exclusive easement over, under, through, across and upon that portion of the Hunter Douglas land described in Exhibit A(the easement area). 1. The City shall have the right to use the easement area for installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, removing, repairing, and replacing a drainage channel, pedestrian trail, and related appurtenances and shall have right of ingress and egress thereto for the 'a' foregoing purposes without prior institution of any suit or proceedings of law. Following the initial construction of its facilities, the City may from time to time construct such Q� additional facilities as it may require. 0 M 2. Except for repair and restoration of damage to the bridge or any of its components, which shall be completed by the City immediately following the occurance which caused such damage, the City shall, upon completion of any work by the City or its agents within the property covered by the easement, restore the surface of the easement, and any improvements disturbed or destroyed during execution of the work, to the condition they were in immediately prior to commencement of the work or entry by the City or its agents. All restoration shall be performed as soon as reasonably possible following completion of any work and shall be coordinated in advance with Hunter Douglas so as to cause the minimum amount of disruption to the use of and operation of the Hunter Douglas property of which the easement area is a part. 3. Hunter Douglas shall retain the right to use the easement as long as such use does not interfere with the easement rights granted to the City. Upon providing as much advance notice to the City as possible, Hunter Douglas may use the trail and easement for the purpose of reconstructing, maintaining, and repairing its storm water management facilities, bridge, and related appurtenances. Any improvements disturbed or destroyed during execution of the work must be restored to the condition they were in immediately prior to commencement of the work and use of the trail and easement by Hunter Douglas. All restoration shall be performed as soon as reasonably possible following completion of any work. Hunter Douglas shall perform its work so as to cause the minimum amount of H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 3 of 10 disruption to the use of and operation of the trail and easement and shall provide temporary alternative routes for trail users when possible. Temporary trail closures shall be kept to a minimum. Notice of temporary trail closures shall be posted at least two days in advance in a minimum of two conspicuous locations along the trail as directed by the City. Emergency closures shall be posted immediately. Hunter Douglas shall not, however, have the right to: a. Erect or maintain any buildings, utilities, structures, and related appurtenances within the easement, except the following: • Hunter Douglas may install a vehicular bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances as needed to provide access and utility service across the creek for the Hunter Douglas property. The design and construction of the bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances proposed by Hunter Douglas within the easement area shall be in accordance with the attached plan SPR-3, subject to other governmental agency permit and code requirements and the conditions set forth in this agreement. • Hunter Douglas may install storm water outfall culverts to the creek across the easement. Culvert design and construction are subject to City and other 41 governmental agency permit and code requirements. • Hunter Douglas has agreed to install a pedestrian trail and related appurtenances ® along the entire length of its property along Springbrook Creek. The pedestrian M trail design and construction are subject to City and other governmental agency �j permit and code requirements. The City agrees that the pedestrian trail and related CD appurtenances required to be installed by Hunter Douglas, or which are deferred pursuant to Section 11 of this Agreement, shall be substantially similar and with the same general standards for construction and materials as those required of property owners adjacent to the Hunter Douglas property. b. Develop, landscape, or beautify the easement area in any way which is inconsistent with landscaping plans developed by the City as part of its channel widening project or which would unreasonably increase the costs to the City of restoring the easement area and any private improvements therein. 4. Hunter Douglas agrees to design and install bridge abutments and wingwalls which allow for future excavation of a widened channel at the bridge crossing. The design of the abutments shall based on a future ground elevation at the face of the abutments of 11.7 feet (NAVD 1988 Datum) and 2 feet of cover above the bottom of the abutments. The design of the wingwalls shall be based on a future excavated grade of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical extending upslope from the future ground elevation of`11.7 feet at the face of the . abutments. H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 4 of 10 5. The City agrees to reduce the following Hunter Douglas development/mitigation fees by up to a total amount of one-hundred and thirty-six thousand four-hundred and eighty-seven dollars($136,487). • Surface Water, Wastewater, and Water Utility system development charges. • Transportation mitigation fee. The total amount by which the fees will be reduced shall be determined by computing the actual cost to design and install the bridge wingwalls and abutments in accordance with item 4 above and subtracting the cost Hunter Douglas would have incurred to design and install the abutments and wingwalls to fit existing channel grades. The final cost determination shall be based upon a detailed cost report prepared by Hunter Douglas. At a minimum the detailed cost report shall include the following information: a. A detailed cost breakdown of the actual design and installation cost for the bridge as constructed under the terms of this agreement, including a separate breakdown for the abutments and wingwalls. b. A detailed cost breakdown of the design and installation cost for the bridge had the abutments and wingwalls not been constructed to accommodate the future widening project in same format and level of detail as the cost breakdown for item 5a above. �r Actual design cost shall be used. Construction costs shall be estimated using the same unit prices for the bridge as actually constructed for similar items of work. c. The cost report shall list the quantity installed and the unit price for each item of work Mused in computing the total cost. The report is also to include all pertinent supporting documentation, such as material invoices, labor charges, equipment charges, approved (D bid proposals, and approved change orders. Costs shall include Washington State 0 sales tax as applicable. The City shall provide Hunter Douglas with any comments on the detailed cost report within fifteen (15) days after receipt thereof. The parties shall work diligently together to resolve any differences in conclusions as to the amount of credit to which Hunter Douglas shall be entitled. Payment of the full amount of the development/mitigation fees listed above minus that portion to be offset by the City as set forth in this agreement shall be made at or prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Any costs exceeding the maximum allowable reduction in development/mitigation fees ($136,487) shall be the responsibility of Hunter Douglas. 6. Hunter Douglas retains full responsibility for the installation, operation, maintenance, and repair of the entire bridge structure, including that portion installed to accommodate the future channel widening project, and shall hold the City harmless for any liability arising therefrom. In the event the City damages the bridge structure or any portion or component thereof, however, the City shall have full responsibility for the repairs or restoration of the bridge or any portion thereof performed by the City pursuant to Section 2 of this H:DOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 5 of 10 Agreement, and shall indemnify, defend and hold Hunter Douglas harmless from and against any claims, damages, actions, costs and fees (including attorney's fees) arising from such damage and repair and restoration. 7. Hunter Douglas agrees to keep available for inspection, by the City, for a period of six months after Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the Hunter Douglas project, the cost records and accounts pertaining to this agreement and all items related to, or bearing upon, these records. 8. Hunter Douglas agrees to release the City from any liability resulting from failure to complete construction of the bridge within the time limits established by any permit or easement granted the Hunter Douglas project. 9. Hunter Douglas agrees to pay any additional costs associated with the need for deeper retaining walls along the pedestrian trail in the vicinity of the bridge resulting from shifting the bridge 9 feet to the west. It is estimated that the wall height would increase 3 feet at the bridge and have no impact beyond 100 feet either side of the bridge. The resultant impact of the bridge offset and the need to install the widened channel section centered in the R' bridge opening and therefore closer to the pedestrian trail is then estimated at 300 square feet of additional wall area. The City agrees to be responsible for maintenance and repair O of the completed retaining wall. C'7 10. The City agrees to provide and construct any compensatory storage volume required for O filling in the 100-year FEMA floodplain caused by the Hunter Douglas proposal. 11. The City and Hunter Douglas agree to defer construction of the pedestrian trail until no later than September 1998, unless an extension of the deferral is agreed to by both parties. The deferral shall be in accordance with Section 4-34-12 of the Renton City Code as if the requirements were set forth fully within this agreement, except that the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department shall perform all functions attributed to the Board of Public Works and the amount of the security shall be reduced from 150% to 120% of the estimated cost of the pedestrian trail and related appurtenances. The cost used to determine the amount of the security shall include the additional costs associated with the need for deeper retaining walls along the trail as set forth in item 6 above. At its option, the City may install the pedestrian trail as part of the channel widening project currently scheduled for the summer of 1998, in which case Hunter Douglas would reimburse the City for its share of the actual costs to install the trail and related appurtenances. The agreement and easement shall run with the land described herein, and shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors in interest and assigns. Hunter Douglas covenants that H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 6 of 10 they are the lawful owners of the above properties and that they have a good and lawful right to execute this agreement. Si gnat s of unt ou las: `/ '� �{�u/ /Zc 7 r o /•Me I-- C and STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/s tAhey was/vve autho ized to execute the instrument and ackn rl dged it as the IJLu R¢ (.(,(h of p to be tlw f eg luntary act of such rty/parties for the uses and purposes mentione i the instrument. NOT �vn Notary Public in and for the St e PYOU of Washington residing at Nota rint My appointment expires: Approve to Legal For CI F RENTO'�J' LD BY: BY �— dLawrence J. Warren, J se Tanner ~ City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: `►►►►►►►►1�!!utnaurrrrr ii V� Marilyn J. Peters City Clerk SEAL *_ ear ti : Z T D SEP� �nu►inninuu�``u H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 7 of 10 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Easement Area: The east 50 feet of Lot 1 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-95-064 (King County Recording No. 9508039005) in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M.,in King County,Washington,more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 1 and the true point of beginning; thence along the east line of said Lot 1 the following courses: N 37000'42" W 4.90 feet; thence N 55°28'15"W 77.73 feet; thence N 52°24'00"W 186.51feet; thence N 54°03'57"W 286.58 feet; thence N 35°11'09"W 148.78 feet; thence N 23°44'21"W 85.39 feet to a curve concave to the east having a radius of 75.78 feet; thence northerly along said curve through a central angle of 59°07'34" an arc distance of 78.20 feet; thence leaving said curve on a non-tangent bearing N 50°08'30" E 114.42 feet; thence N 51°45'16" E 72.30 feet; thence N 59°39'11" E 96.54 feet to a curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 114.57 feet; thence northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 45°50'57" an arc distance of 91.68 feet; thence N 13°48'14"E 114.90 feet to a curve concave to the west having a radius of 294.26 feet; thence northerly along said curve through a central angle of 36°45'26" an arc distance of 188.78 feet; thence leaving said curve on a non-tangent bearing N 23°47'30"W 102.20 feet; thence N 28°32'10"W 64.18 feet- thence N 20°51'33"W 61.80 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence leaving said east line of said Lot 1 N 87026'45"W along the north line of said Lot 154.49 feet; thence leaving said north line S 20°51'33"E 86.81 feet; thence S 28°32'10"E 65.46 feet; thence S 23°47'30" E 99.40 feet to a point on a curve concave to the west, said curve being non-tangent to the preceding course and having a radius of 244.26 feet,the center of which bears S 67°02'48"W; thence southerly along said curve through a central angle of 36°45'26" an arc distance of 156.70 feet; thence S 13°48'14"W 114.90 feet to a curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 64.57 feet; thence southwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 45°50'57" an arc distance of 51.67 feet; thence S 59"39'11" W 99.99 feet; thence S 51°45'16"W 75.45 feet; thence S 50°08'30" W 120.75 feet to a point on a curve concave to the east, said curve being non-tangent to the preceding course and having a radius of 125.78 feet,the center of which bears S 51017'16"E; thence southerly along said curve through a central angle of 62027'05"an arc distance of 137.10 feet; thence S 23°44'21"E 90.41 feet; thence S 35°11'09"E 162.11 feet; thence S 54°03'57"E 294.16 feet; thence S 52°24'00"E 187.12 feet; thence S 55028'15"E 5.72 feet to the south line of said Lot 1; thence S 87'18'57"E along said south line 91.82 feet to the true point of beginning. Contains 88,153 square feet of land,more or less. H:DOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement INITIAL Page 8 of 10 a PROPERTY SERVICES EXHIBIT A CONTINUED MAP EXHIBIT 10 26 9 F 8 27 7 See Line and Curve Tables on Following Sheet 6 Legal Descriptions and Exhibits Prepared By: 28 Scott Woodbury, P.E. 12/18/96 O 5 c� 29 O 4 30 0 1"=100' 100 ( IN FEET ) 3 31 2 32 33 1 H:DOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Southeast Corner of Lot 1 Page 9 of 10 EXHIBIT A CONTINUED MAP EXHIBIT Northeast Corner of Lot 1 17 18 16 Line Table 15 ID# Bearing Dist.(ft) I N 37°00'42"W 4.90 19 2 N 55°28'15"W 77.73 3 N 52°24'00"W 186.51 14 4 N 54°03'57"W 286.58 5 N 35*11'09"W 148.78 20 6 N 23°44'21"W 85.39 8 N 50°08'30"E 114.42 9 N 51'45'16"E 72.30 Curve Table Tim 10 N 59'39'11"E 96.54 12 N 13°48'14"E 114.90 ID# Radius(ft) Central Angle Arc Length Q 14 N 23°47'30"W 102.20 7 75.78 59°07'34" 78.20 21 13 (� 15 N 28°32'10"W 64.18 11 114.57 45°50'57" 91.68 16 N 20°51'33"W 61.80 13 294.26 36°45'26" 188.78 17 N 87°26'45"W 54.49 21 244.26 36°45'26" 156.70 18 S 20°51'33"E 86.81 23 64.57 45°50'57" 51.67 19 S 28°32'10"E 65.46 27 125.78 62°27'05" 137.10 20 S 23°47'30"E 99.40 22 S 13°48'14"W 114.90 24 S 59'39'11"W 99.99 22 25 S 51'45'16"W 76.45 12 26 S 50°08'30"W 120.75 28 S 23°44'21"E 90.41 29 S 35'11'09"E 162.11 23 30 S 54°03'57"E 294.16 31 S 52°24'00"E 187.12 24 11 32 S 55°28'15"E 5.72 33 S 87°18'57"E 91.82 25 10 0 1"=100' too '9 26 9 ( IN FEET ) y� 8 H:DOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 10 of 10 � •. GENERAL NOTES � 1 J?F��+a `\ I '' i\t-- �rII' I Ill WIIRI M.eM1vrbP Lill R R ISOOIIC[tiM1 K i M,�:.:t fj I 1\ 1 � ; I I .- RWIr[wrt Of K t,aR V.19K10a R.NK.i er 1' I IauRIp1I1CR�IIrOMe S•{tYKaIUN IP OIG P62.� I' PrY� ._ �;i:,•.clt�� , r'ti`. .I �r� I i 1 1 I I ( er[peJ [.asjg{e��e{tQ0��$to<[tt•1 d R,stttt n.x,v,[Nu n[ssu[n w I I ' - •y.,µ���.ri � � ia•IItl.l llri RIPIOJIIO•aH..rll•r es p,lYM.I IrO b. 9706230814 Ili'; ,� .I i III •sont•tn..[ 1 li , 1 I I ' o•Vu[e UC=r.RNION!•)f,a,os R[SPrR IWI r{ K Ruw ra.rung.trrc sn Rc � r r I ,i i� i ° I 1 � •T v[o utN..,101eei qM1 IrR,:nw R INIIr rlltfr[ '<. r •r r l l ; ' � II JII o,,,, IOIa Ktw f¢ nnll I.otn.llaM. I 1 ckl� (I,trRC I I I J ? 0 n Nfu[0,,,I .•/R.te Hato ' I I i l 1 I r � Y'I I � I I ( I r � � nl RKRI.IIP IIo etIRCN[f•4 RouRO rP Ik I II I I' 1 RIRe aq..IP E.P. ,M,` •Y"i 1 I f 1 r 1 ^ t7�- ���' ;' ! i / I 1• III; � _. � • � . p ELAN CRAPMC SCALE 1 I�Ix' i i�isi �.PnF Is:�o' qIL•LL[e•rnrl OP 10lufole Mrw , r . , I '• I. I_D'� 1 Orr O)IfN� };" y 1 ...L.. i G I � .--4J : — t11.nc M,l� I 1 I L -� r_I.._—L •I� ' ..)fir_ _. 1. wut .[� r I- j ! F NATION TYPICAL SECTION GRAPHIC SCALE CRARgC SCALE --- ,.mll �-_— lI----_-IFI--- -- ----—--- &rii�t�na,isnj-,- Infra a q[e ',,~ « u�.�w .o o•.r.. awra CENTER WEST TRrBROOK CREEK BRIDGE RAYMOND 1 -w-. o SITE PLAN REVIEW S1i THE CITY OF RENTON _ I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS FOURTH FLOOR `- 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189E FAX: 235-2541 To: Joe Eberhardt Company: KPFF Phone: 622-5822 Post-it®Fax Note 7671 Date Z A&es► Fax: 622-8130 To/ From 0/ erg � Co./Dept. f Co. From: Scott Woodbury Phone# Phone# Phone: 425-277-5547 Fax# C _ ®� Fax# Fax: 425-235-2541 7 Date: 6/24/97 Pages incl this cover page: 1 Subject: Hunter Douglas bridge (Revised from 6/23/97 fax) I have reviewed the configuration of the revised wingwall design for the Hunter Douglas bridge and have the following comments. I also understand that the sidewalk location has been changed to the south side of the bridge. Sheet S1, Elevation 1. The elevation of the proposed grade at the face of the abutments is 11.7 feet, not 12.67. 2. The elevation of the proposed grade at the end of the east wingwalls is 18.5 feet, not 19.3. Other Comments 3. The pedestrian railing should be continuous across the bridge and wingwalls along the south side of the bridge where the sidewalk will be located. I believe the original plans overlooked the need for pedestrian railing on the wingwalls next to where the sidewalk will go. The drawings should note that the northwest wingwall will need a pedestrian railing in the future because it is adjacent to the future pedestrian trail. The plans should also note that the future retaining walls along the pedestrian trail will need pedestrian railings. The northeast wingwall will not need a pedestrian railing since there will be no pedestrian traffic adjacent to it. 4. The steel guardrail on the east side of the bridge should connect to the bridge traffic barrier using Connection F of City Standard Detail CO22. cc: Jennifer Henning Jay Conklin Gary Olheim Ron Straka THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS FOURTH FLOOR 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: 235-2541 To: Joe Eberhardt Company: KPFF Phone: 622-5822 Fax: 622-8130 From: Scott Woodbury Phone: 425-277-5547 Fax: 425-235-2541 Date: 6/23/97 Pages incl this cover page: 1 Subject: Hunter Douglas bridge I have reviewed the configuration of th revised wingwall design for the Hunter Douglas bridge and have the following comments. also understand that the sidewalk location has been changed to the south side of the brid Sheet S1, Elevation 1. The elevation of the proposed rade at the face of the abutments is 11.7 feet, not 12.67. 2. The elevation of the propos grade at the end of the east wingwalls is 18.5 feet, not 19.3. Other Comments 3. The pedestrian railing s ould be continuous across the bridge and wingwalls along the south side of the bridg where the sidewalk will be located and on the northwest wingwall because it is adjacent to the future pedestrian trail. The northeast wingwall should have pedestrian railing to be uniform with the other wingwalls. I believe the original plans overlooked the need for pedestrian railing on the wingwalls as well as the bridge. 4. The steel guardrail on the east side of the bridge should connect to the bridge traffic barrier using Connection F of City Standard Detail CO22. cc: Jennifer Henning Jay Conklin Gary Olheim Ron Straka CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 19, 1997 TO: Paula Henderson FROM: Scott Woodbury SUBJECT: Hunter Douglas Agreement Attached are copies of the following documents: • Agenda bill package dated May 19, 1997 • Agreement and Easement for Drainage Channel and Pedestrian Trail with Hunter Douglas dated June 10, 1997 (in the process of being recorded with the County) • Utilities Committee Report dated June 2, 1997 regarding the Hunter Douglas Easement and Agreement • Finance Committee Report dated June 9, 1997 regarding the Hunter Douglas Easement and Agreement We appreciated your help at the Finance Committee meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at X-5547. WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Office of the City Clerk Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 AGREEMENT AND EASEMENT Project.East Side Green River FOR DRAINAGE CHANNEL AND watershed Project PEDESTRIAN TRAIL work Order 9 65230 PID: 24230490115 Grantor:Hunter Douglas,Inc STR: Sec 24,T23N.ME Street Intersection: 19th Street and Raymond Avenue THIS INSTRUMENT, made this 10k day of TUNE 1997; by and between Hunter Douglas, Inc., hereinafter called "Hunter Douglas," and the CITY OF RENTON, a Municipal Corporation of King County, Washington,hereinafter called "City." WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas is the owner of certain real property located in the City legally described as Lot 1 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-95-064 (King County Recording No. 9508039005)and which lies adjacent to and west of Springbrook Creek. WHEREAS, the City is proposing to widen Springbrook Creek along the Hunter Douglas property as identified in the East Side Green River Watershed Project Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (City File LUA-95-205,ECF) so as to increase the capacity of the creek to convey flows and thereby reduce upstream flooding problems. WHEREAS, an easement is required from Hunter Douglas over the east 50 feet of its property along Springbrook Creek in order for the City to accomplish the widening project. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas is proposing to develop its property in accordance with the Raymond Avenue Center West proposal(City File No. LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF). WHEREAS, the development proposal includes construction of a private bridge over Springbrook Creek as its primary access, construction of a paved pedestrian trail within a dedicated trail easement allowing public access along the entire length of the Hunter Douglas H:DOCS:97410:S W:ps Agreement and Easement TtAI Page I of 10 PROPERTY SERVICES property along Springbrook Creek, and requires filling within the 100-year floodplain as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas does not have sufficient area on its property to excavate a volume of material equal to the volume of floodplain storage that will be filled by the development, except within the east 50 feet of its property. WHEREAS, the City has offered to construct the required compensatory floodplain storage for the Hunter Douglas development as part of its channel widening project in exchange for the granting of a drainage channel easement over the east 50 feet of the Hunter Douglas property. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas desires that the center of its bridge over Springbrook Creek be offset 9 feet west of the centerline of the property along the creek owned by Drainage District No. 1 adjacent to and east of the Hunter Douglas property. WHEREAS, hydraulic analysis conducted by Hunter Douglas shows that the planned widened channel section will need to be centered within the span of the bridge at its shifted location so as to minimize head losses through the structure. WHEREAS, the City may need to construct a retaining wall to support the pedestrian trail on the west bank of the creek when the channel widening project is constructed and shifting the bridge opening closer to the pedestrian trail will result in a need for higher retaining walls supporting the trail in the vicinity of the bridge. WHEREAS, the original design for the Hunter Douglas bridge abutments and wingwalls must be modified so as to allow for future excavation of a widened channel under the bridge. WHEREAS, modifying the bridge design to accommodate the planned channel widening significantly increases the cost of the bridge. WHEREAS, installing the bridge to accommodate the planned channel widening when the bridge is originally constructed is less expensive and disruptive than making modifications to the bridge after it has already been built and is operational. WHEREAS, the City desires that the Hunter Douglas defer construction of the pedestrian trail until after the channel widening is completed so as to avoid the need for temporary closures of a newly constructed trail and to avoid potential damages to the new trail that could result in unnecessary restoration costs and construction delays. WHEREAS, the Hunter Douglas property is currently"land locked" with no developed access to the public right-of-way. H:DOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement _ Page 2 of 10 WHEREAS, the Hunter Douglas development proposes and approval is based upon being able to construct the bridge over Springbrook Creek as primary access to the Hunter Douglas property. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas must complete installation of the bridge within an extremely tight construction schedule before its temporary construction access easement through Boeing property to the west of the Hunter Douglas property expires. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of ten dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of the performance of the covenants, terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, Hunter Douglas hereby grants, bargains, sells, conveys, and warrants unto the City, its successors and assigns, a permanent non-exclusive easement over, under, through, across and upon that portion of the Hunter Douglas land described in Exhibit A(the easement area). 1. The City shall have the right to use the easement area for installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, removing, repairing, and replacing a drainage channel, pedestrian trail, and related appurtenances and shall have right of ingress and egress thereto for the foregoing purposes without prior institution of any suit or proceedings of law. Following the initial construction of its facilities, the City may from time to time construct such additional facilities as it may require. 2. Except for repair and restoration of damage to the bridge or any of its components, which shall be completed by the City immediately following the occurance which caused such damage, the City shall, upon completion of any work by the City or its agents within the property covered by the easement, restore the surface of the easement, and any improvements disturbed or destroyed during execution of the work, to the condition they were in immediately prior to commencement of the work or entry by the City or its agents. All restoration shall be performed as soon as reasonably possible following completion of any work and shall be coordinated in advance with Hunter Douglas so as to cause the minimum amount of disruption to the use of and operation of the Hunter Douglas property of which the easement area is a part. 3. Hunter Douglas shall retain the right to use the easement as long as such use does not interfere with the easement rights granted to the City. Upon providing as much advance notice to the City as possible, Hunter Douglas may use the trail and easement for the purpose of reconstructing, maintaining, and repairing its storm water management facilities, bridge, and related appurtenances. Any improvements disturbed or destroyed during execution of the work must be restored to the condition they were in immediately prior to commencement of the work and use of the trail and easement by Hunter Douglas. All restoration shall be performed as soon as reasonably possible following completion of any work. Hunter Douglas shall perform its work so as to cause the minimum amount of H:DOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 3 of 10 disruption to the use of and operation of the trail and easement and shall provide temporary alternative routes for trail users when possible. Temporary trail closures shall be kept to a minimum. Notice of temporary trail closures shall be posted at least two days in advance in a minimum of two conspicuous locations along the trail as directed by the City. Emergency closures shall be posted immediately. Hunter Douglas shall not, however, have the right to: a. Erect or maintain any buildings, utilities, structures, and related appurtenances within the easement, except the following: • Hunter Douglas may install a vehicular bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances as needed to provide access and utility service across the creek for the Hunter Douglas property. The design and construction of the bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances proposed by Hunter Douglas within the easement area shall be in accordance with the attached plan SPR-3, subject to other governmental agency permit and code requirements and the conditions set forth in this agreement. • Hunter Douglas may install storm water outfall culverts to the creek across the easement. Culvert design and construction are subject to City and other governmental agency permit and code requirements. • Hunter Douglas has agreed to install a pedestrian trail and related appurtenances along the entire length of its property along Springbrook Creek. The pedestrian trail design and construction are subject to City and other governmental agency permit and code requirements. The City agrees that the pedestrian trail and related appurtenances required to be installed by Hunter Douglas, or which are deferred pursuant to Section 11 of this Agreement, shall be substantially similar and with the same general standards for construction and materials as those required of property owners adjacent to the Hunter Douglas property. b. Develop, landscape, or beautify the easement area in any way which is inconsistent with landscaping plans developed by the City as part of its channel widening project or which would unreasonably increase the costs to the City of restoring the easement area and any private improvements therein. 4. Hunter Douglas agrees to design and install bridge abutments and wingwalls which allow for future excavation of a widened channel at the bridge crossing. The design of the abutments shall based on a future ground elevation at the face of the abutments of 11.7 feet (NAVD 1988 Datum) and 2 feet of cover above the bottom of the abutments. The design of the wingwalls shall be based on a future excavated grade of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical extending upslope from the future ground elevation of 11.7 feet at the face of the abutments. H:DOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 4 of 10 5. The City agrees to reduce the following Hunter Douglas development/mitigation fees by up to a total amount of one-hundred and thirty-six thousand four-hundred and eighty-seven dollars($136,487). • Surface Water, Wastewater,and Water Utility system development charges. • Transportation mitigation fee. The total amount by which the fees will be reduced shall be determined by computing the actual cost to design and install the bridge wingwalls and abutments in accordance with item 4 above and subtracting the cost Hunter Douglas would have incurred to design and install the abutments and wingwalls to fit existing channel grades. The final cost determination shall be based upon a detailed cost report prepared by Hunter Douglas. At a minimum the detailed cost report shall include the following information: a. A detailed cost breakdown of the actual design and installation cost for the bridge as constructed under the terms of this agreement, including a separate breakdown for the abutments and wingwalls. b. A detailed cost breakdown of the design and installation cost for the bridge had the abutments and wingwalls not been constructed to accommodate the future widening project in same format and level of detail as the cost breakdown for item 5a above. Actual design cost shall be used. Construction costs shall be estimated using the same unit prices for the bridge as actually constructed for similar items of work. c. The cost report shall list the quantity installed and the unit price for each item of work used in computing the total cost. The report is also to include all pertinent supporting documentation, such as material invoices, labor charges, equipment charges, approved bid proposals, and approved change orders. Costs shall include Washington State sales tax as applicable. The City shall provide Hunter Douglas with any comments on the detailed cost report within fifteen (15) days after receipt thereof. The parties shall work diligently together to resolve any differences in conclusions as to the amount of credit to which Hunter Douglas shall be entitled. Payment of the full amount of the development/mitigation fees listed above minus that portion to be offset by the City as set forth in this agreement shall be made at or prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Any costs exceeding the maximum allowable reduction in development/mitigation fees ($136,487) shall be the responsibility of Hunter Douglas. 6. Hunter Douglas retains full responsibility for the installation, operation, maintenance, and repair of the entire bridge structure, including that portion installed to accommodate the future channel widening project, and shall hold the City harmless for any liability arising therefrom. In the event the City damages the bridge structure or any portion or component thereof, however, the City shall have full responsibility for the repairs or restoration of the bridge or any portion thereof performed by the City pursuant to Section 2 of this H:DOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 5 of 10 Agreement, and shall indemnify, defend and hold Hunter Douglas harmless from and against any claims, damages, actions, costs and fees (including attorney's fees) arising from such damage and repair and restoration. 7. Hunter Douglas agrees to keep available for inspection, by the City, for a period of six months after Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the Hunter Douglas project, the cost records and accounts pertaining to this agreement and all items related to, or bearing upon, these records. 8. Hunter Douglas agrees to release the City from any liability resulting from failure to complete construction of the bridge within the time limits established by any permit or easement granted the Hunter Douglas project. 9. Hunter Douglas agrees to pay any additional costs associated with the need for deeper retaining walls along the pedestrian trail in the vicinity of the bridge resulting from shifting the bridge 9 feet to the west. It is estimated that the wall height would increase 3 feet at the bridge and have no impact beyond 100 feet either side of the bridge. The resultant impact of the bridge offset and the need to install the widened channel section centered in the bridge opening and therefore closer to the pedestrian trail is then estimated at 300 square feet of additional wall area. The City agrees to be responsible for maintenance and repair of the completed retaining wall. 10. The City agrees to provide and construct any compensatory storage volume required for filling in the 100-year FEMA floodplain caused by the Hunter Douglas proposal. 11. The City and Hunter Douglas agree to defer construction of the pedestrian trail until no later than September 1998, unless an extension of the deferral is agreed to by both parties. The deferral shall be in accordance with Section 4-34-12 of the Renton City Code as if the requirements were set forth fully within this agreement, except that the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department shall perform all functions attributed to the Board of Public Works and the amount of the security shall be reduced from 150% to 120% of the estimated cost of the pedestrian trail and related appurtenances. The cost used to determine the amount of the security shall include the additional costs associated with the need for deeper retaining walls along the trail as set forth in item 6 above. At its option, the City may install the pedestrian trail as part of the channel widening project currently scheduled for the summer of 1998, in which case Hunter Douglas would reimburse the City for its share of the actual costs to install the trail and related appurtenances. The agreement and easement shall run with the land described herein, and shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors in interest and assigns. Hunter Douglas covenants that H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 6 of 10 they are the lawful owners of the above properties and that they have a good and lawful right to execute this agreement. Sienat4s of un / and STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that uu ► �OS G signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/skeAhcy washvetts'autho ized to execute the instrument and ackn cl dged it as the ticu Ra Cyhtko Uj'& of ° t S. be teae�. luntary act of such rty/parties for the uses and purposes mentione the instrument. Notary Public in and for the St pee PUBLIC'` ��p of Washington residing at Notary(print): LI U D A-C a/ C T-AD o,WAS%\ My appointment expires: 5'19 I z ne0 Approve to Legal Fo CI F RENTO BY: BY _4'� Lawrence J. Warren, J se Tanner City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: `��� of R EN f � y TO %,�� B Marilyn J. Peters City Clerk -_ SEAL 1 C6 b~�J ED m«nlmntaa�"� H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 7 of 10 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Easement Area: The east 50 feet of Lot 1 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-95-064 (King County Recording No. 9508039005) in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 24, Township 23 North,Range 4 East,W.M., in King County,Washington,more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 1 and the true point of beginning; thence along the east line of said Lot 1 the following courses: N 37°00'42"W 4.90 feet; thence N 55°28'15"W 77.73feet; thence N 52°24'00"W 186.51 feet; thence N 54°03'57"W 286.58 feet; thence N 35°11'09"W 148.78feet; thence N 23°44'21"W 85.39 feet to a curve concave to the east having a radius of 75.78 feet; thence northerly along said curve through a central angle of 59°07'34"an arc distance of 78.20 feet; thence leaving said curve on a non-tangent bearing N 50°08'30" E 114.42 feet; thence N 51°45'16"E 72.30 feet; thence N 59'39'11"E 96.54 feet to a curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 114.57 feet; thence northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 45°50'57" an arc distance of 91.68 feet; thence N 13°48'14"E 114.90 feet to a curve concave to the west having a radius of 294.26 feet; thence northerly along said curve through a central angle of 36°45'26"an arc distance of 188.78 feet; thence leaving said curve on a non-tangent bearing N 23°47'30"W 102.20 feet; thence N 28°32'10"W 64.18feet; thence N 20°51'33"W 61.80 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence leaving said east line of said Lot 1 N 87°26'45" W along the north line of said Lot 154.49 feet; thence leaving said north line S 20°51'33"E 86.81 feet; thence S 28°32'10"E 65.46 feet; thence S 23°47'30"E 99.40 feet to a point on a curve concave to the west, said curve being non-tangent to the preceding course and having a radius of 244.26 feet,the center of which bears S 67°02'48"W; thence southerly along said curve through a central angle of 36°45'26" an arc distance of 156.70 feet; thence S 13°48'14"W 114.90 feet to a curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 64.57 feet; thence southwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 45°50'57" an arc distance of 51.67 feet; thence S 59'39'11"W 99.99 feet; thence S 51°45'16"W 75.45 feet; thence S 50°08'30" W 120.75 feet to a point on a curve concave to the east, said curve being non-tangent to the preceding course and having a radius of 125.78 feet,the center of which bears S 51°17'16"E; thence southerly along said curve through a central angle of 62°27'05"an arc distance of 137.10 feet; thence S 23°44'21"E 90.41 feet; thence S 35°11'09"E 162.11 feet; thence S 54°03'57"E 294.16 feet; thence S 52°24'00" E 187.12 feet; thence S 55°28'15"E 5.72 feet to the south line of said Lot 1; thence S 87'18'57" E along said south line 91.82 feet to the true point of beginning. Contains 88,153 square feet of land,more or less. H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement INITInt. Page 8 of 10 - PROPERTY SERVICES EXHIBIT A CONTINUED MAP EXHIBIT 10 26 O 9 F 8 27 7 See Line and Curve Tables on Following Sheet 6 Legal Descriptions and Exhibits Prepared By: 28 Scott Woodbury, P.E. 12/18/96 5 29 4 30 0 1'=100' 100 ( IN FEET ) 3 31 2 32 33 H:DOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Southeast Corner of Lot 1 Page 9 of 10 EXHIBIT A CONTINUED MAP EXHIBIT Northeast Corner of Lot 1 17 18 16 Line Table 15 ID# Bearing Dist.(ft) 1 N 37°00'42"W 4.90 19 2 N 55°28'15"W 77.73 3 N 52°24'00"W 186.51 14 4 N 54°03'57"W 286.58 5 N 35°I1'09"W 148.78 20 6 N 23°44'21"W 85.39 8 N 50°08'30"E 114.42 9 N 51*45'16"E 72.30 Curve Table 10 N 59°39'11"E 96.54 12 N 13°48'14"E 114.90 ID N Radius(ft) Central Angle Arc Length 14 N 23°47'30"W 10220 7 75.78 59°07'34" 78.20 13 15 N 28°32'10"W 64.18 11 114.57 45°50'57" 91.68 21 16 N 20°5 P33"W 61.80 13 294.26 36°45'26" 188.78 17 N 87°26'45"W 54.49 21 244.26 36°45'26" 156.70 18 S 20°51'33"E 86.81 23 64.57 45°50'57" [:::�1.6719 S 28°32'10"E 65.46 27 125.78 62=27'05" 37.10 20 S 23'47'30"E 99.40 22 S 13°48'14"W 114.90 24 S 59°39'11"W 99.99 22 12 25 S 51°45'16"W 76.45 26 S 50°08'30"W 120.75 28 S 23°44'21"E 90.41 29 S 35*1 P09"E 162.11 23 30 S 54°03'57"E 294.16 31 S 52°24'00"E 187.12 24 11 32 S 55°28'15"E 5.72 33 S 87°18'57"E 91.82 25 10 0 1"=100' 100 .9 26 C 9 ( IN FEET ) y� 8 H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 10 of 10 IF� �i,�-�ytriR� 1 ' \ ,•, 1i 1 , It i\\�`'� '1'l r r GENERAL NOTES f M1i:.:ifj1 , ''' , II I I I \``.•• /,!, KR.[K"fIR K tf.K R..fK.q Rlw KN R /'�.i1.y1 .i •. •. , '{ 1 1 I I , nwlNtlwg7'flreW/rf/R.IW fa wW fARC wt I.K1 IY��i � Fr t113•, r i 1 1 1 I I I RwhnJ ���g rDOKll.1 w ro,out.1.0 to,fwfii M"'K.1.+ 1 t �..•^.:1�177 j f� lt..�•al.ln�w10.lP MItl.wrwtl.IMK/,1wM..wp, I�I�1 'I I I Ill Irt•1.InnK ! II I 1 1 I >" r.1fK/}rPVKIfKR4lwRnlww.lf w.•c lw,b .fL[.A K R1P fP.lNK w'w•c fw.ci I.J 1 I i I1 -.R+._-�IRIW�KKMfOa-Kn .T_ JJJ���, •�-�J� ow. o.sKWifR i ; _..-__ _ ' I I' l ncR^ MSf I.Yow.• RNI •.' .1 n aifutt f,. •..w.st.r.Kttl I tl wwal..w,ro /f,rival.l(tul. } 1 I f r rat Ik I i ea u.ctic II I I' 1 wuu w.,..w apf✓(.a- ,.�/ I its I I '� a 12o"! CRAPMC SCALE i.!R• 1`�a` wro nt•uRrn Km n r.ou luw e. a.•IT. I _I i 1 IPwK I r° . wlfR 4+t. h.�.` _..._ ...• fir ur r r i�r +$ uiw•iith%1_. ..... . _.1.. ...._.3.. 1. ."..er.r Rlwe 1 i ELEVATION TYPICAL SECTION i f CRA MC SCALE dIAPIRC SCALE AIO.NDlw C E=TER' WEST �.SPR-3. SITE PLN REVIEW m7}7_74 nZrMEK BRIDGE . .... -A7�lRflr .....r ... Nwla!-!w`l •..uArI..M. __........ _...• ..._ _._..._.... APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date FINANCE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT June 9, 1997 Hunter Douglas Easement and Agreement (Referred May 19, 1997) The Finance Committee concurs with the Administration's recommendation to approve an ordinance appropriating $22,000 from the General Fund unallocated fund balance to the Capital Improvement Fund (fund 316) for the purpose of financing public improvements, including a trail and easement, related to the Hunter Douglas development. King Parker, Chair andy Corman, Vice Chair Bob Edwards, Member H:DOCS:97412:SW:ps CC: Victoria Runkle Gregg Zimmerman Ron Olsen Ron Straka Scott Woodbury FINANCE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT June 9, 1997 Hunter Douglas Easement and Agreement (Referred May 19, 1997) The Finance Committee concurs with the P u1 m u 11"-c—W-orks-Dent recommendation to *keH i ing+''e tfon DO44e4he-Sur€aee-Wa �i4it '�-Ca vementbudget ffam the approve an ordinance u .sfer-�f-$2�; y pita}-�mpTa ' e nding-fund balancr.1997o_ front f„4we monies to be allocated in th, 1998 Gen ral.Fund ann.t a1_hu et,,._.. A r \ u f th ansfer is �e' �,Ille �oeateVaove2�forcution o � ost to 'n u ed uC1 a enouglas b Coun�l�on � Jun 2"1997. C1 x �J !,r.1c�y_,-�.,�, i' W?0//C C"19d -4 ' 6G1�f�/!Lt' 1 i..• -)�.�- Ire King Parker, Chair fj'o-+ r;'� I% �rUrr^rrii� ' J hair 14",)`;`- OJ'76-4 Wanda britto C&A-a aft O n r.-f (77 C CC CJ 7� �I l� 1�:J1 /0 n C,j Ljo zi l' A Executive Secretary • 277-4474 = ' l 06 05i9 10:52 FAX 206 235 2541 REN-FON P B/PIV 10p1i041 r THE CITY OF RENTON — DEPARTMENT OF PLANNINGIBUILbINCIPUBLIC WORKS FOURTH FLOOR I 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH I RENTON,WASHINGTON 9805 5-2 1 89 FAX: 235-2541 i I To: Allen Tosch Company: Hunter Douglas Phone: 872-4109 X-3032 Fix: 872-0336 7JU EJVED From: Scott Woodbury Sri 1997Phone: 425-277-5547 Fax: 425-235-2541 Date: 6/5197 Pages iincl this cover page: 1 Subject: Comments to Pedestrian Trail Cost We have reviewed the cost proposal from Donovan Brothers for the pedestrian trail, Following is a revised cast estimate with our changes noted: Excavation Donovan Revised 1. Strip 6" and place on site $1 133.00 $1,133.00 2. Cut to fill +/- 1300 CY $2,266.00 S12,360.00 3. Fine grade $2 28J 00 $2,289 00 Retaining Walls $5,688.00 $15,782.00 Excavate approx. 30 CY $825.00 S825.00 2, Place 300 SF retaining wall $6,160.00 $12,000,00 3. Backfill approx. 30 CY $825.00 $825.00 Paving S7,810.00 $13,650.00 1, Fine grade 2. Soil sterilization 3. Crushed rock 4. Place 2"CL-B asphalt $25,146.00 $31,000.00 Total for above $38,644.00 $60,432.00 WSST 0 8.6% $3,323,00 $3,197,00 Total $41,967.00 $65,629.00 With a 20%Increase, the amount of the security needed in accordance with the agreement is$78,755 cc. Leslie Betlaeh 06;04:-97 11:49 FAX 206 235 2541 RENTON P B/PW 001%001 AN 0 4 `1997 k; -rHE CM of RFNTON DEPARTMENT GF 1 PLANNING,/BIUtRLD1NG-PUBLIC WORKS FOURTH FL.© I 200 M1L1 kVEN WASHINGTOON 98055-2189 9XNrON, FAX: 235-2541 To: T� n oscComp=Yl phone: 109 X-3032 Fax: 336 Fro woodb phone: 425-277-5 7 Fax, 425-235.2541 Date, 6/4/97 pages incl this cover page: 1 Subject. Hunter Douglas Age cement Item 11 of the agreement should reference £ect+on 4-�-12 provided As 1 rr►entioned ko Of the you on the pf,one, a on receipt of your acknowledgment in the Sace p with a Renton City code. not Section 4-32-12. Up f 9 of the agreement replace page 5 o e an .submit the agreement to the Mayor for signature. below (faxed to me at the above numb8r}, I will limp Y oorracted peg Acknowledged alien Tosch Thanks. If you have any questions, please cal4 me at 277-5547. q � (41 WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: AGREEMENT AND EASEMENT Project:East Side Green River Office of the City Clerk Renton Municipal Building FOR DRAINAGE CHANNEL AND Watershed Project 200 Mill Avenue South PEDESTRIAN TRAIL Work Order#65230 Renton,WA 98055 PID: 24230490115 Grantor:Hunter Douglas.Inc STR: Sec 24,T23N.R4E Street Intersection: 19th Street and Raymond Avenue THIS INSTRUMENT, made this day of 1997; by and between Hunter Douglas, Inc., hereinafter called "Hunter Douglas," and the CITY OF RENTON, a Municipal Corporation of King County, Washington, hereinafter called "City." WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas is the owner of certain real property located in the City legally described as Lot 1 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-95-064 (King County Recording No. 9508039005)and which lies adjacent to and west of Springbrook Creek. WHEREAS, the City is proposing to widen Spri brook Creek along the Hunter Douglas property as identified in the East Side Green River Wate ed Project Plan and Environmental Impact Statement(City File LUA-95-205,ECF) so a to ' ase the capacity of the creek to convey flows and thereby reduce upstream flooding problem . WHEREAS, an easement is required fro ter Douglas over the east 50 feet of its property along Springbrook Creek in order for th i to accomplish the widening project. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas is prop ig to develop its property in accordance with the Raymond Avenue Center West proposal(City ile No. LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF). WHEREAS, the development sal includes construction of a private bridge over Springbrook Creek as its primary access, onstruction of a paved pedestrian trail within a dedicated trail easement allowing public a e along the entire length of the Hunter Douglas property along Springbrook Creek, and r ui es filling within the 100-year floodplain as defined by the Federal Emergency Managem i t Ag cy(FEMA). WHEREAS, Hunter Dougl does not have sufficient area on its property to excavate a volume of material equal to the volu e of floodplain storage that will be filled by the development, except within the east 50 feet of its property. WHEREAS, the City has offered to construct the required compensatory floodplain storage for the Hunter Douglas development as part of its channel widening project in exchange for the granting of a drainage channel easement over the east 50 feet of the Hunter Douglas property. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas desires that the center of its bridge over Springbrook Creek be offset 9 feet west of the centerline of the property along the creek owned by Drainage District No. 1 adjacent to and east of the Hunter Douglas property. H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement INtTINI. Page 1 of 9 PROPERTY SERVICES WHEREAS, hydraulic analysis conducted by Hunter Douglas shows that the planned widened channel section will need to be centered within the span of the bridge at its shifted location so as to minimize head losses through the structure. WHEREAS, the-City may need to construct a retaining wall to support the pedestrian trail on the west bank of the creek when the channel widening project is constructed and shifting the bridge opening closer to the pedestrian trail will result in a need for higher retaining walls supporting the trail in the vicinity of the bridge. WHEREAS, the original design for the Hunter Douglas bridge abutments and wingwalls must be modified so as to allow for future excavation of a widened channel under the bridge. WHEREAS, modifying the bridge design to accommodate the planned channel widening significantly increases the cost of the bridge. WHEREAS, installing the bridge to accommodate the planned channel widening when the bridge is originally constructed is less expensive and disruptive than making modifications to the bridge after it has already been built and is operational. WHEREAS, the City desires that the Hunter Douglas defer construction of the pedestrian trail until after the channel widening is completed so as to avoid the need for temporary closures of a newly constructed trail and to avoid potential damages to the new trail that could result in unnecessary restoration costs and construction delays. WHEREAS, the Hunter Douglas property is currently "land locked" with no developed access to the public right-of-way. WHEREAS, the Hunter Douglas development proposes and approval is based upon being able to construct the bridge over Springbrook Creek as primary access to the Hunter Douglas property. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas must complete installation of the bridge within an extremely tight construction schedule before its temporary construction access easement through Boeing property to the west of the Hunter Douglas property expires. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of ten dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of the performance of the covenants, terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, Hunter Douglas hereby grants, bargains, sells, conveys, and warrants unto the City, its successors and assigns, a permanent non-exclusive easement over, under, through, across and upon that portion of the Hunter Douglas land described in Exhibit A(the easement area). 1. The City shall have the right to use the easement area for installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, removing, repairing, and replacing a drainage channel, pedestrian trail, and related appurtenances and shall have right of ingress and egress thereto for the foregoing purposes without prior institution of any suit or proceedings of law. Following the initial H:DCCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 2 of 9 construction of its facilities,the City may from time to time construct such additional facilities as it may require. 2. Except for repair and restoration of damage to the bridge or any of its components, which shall be completed by the City immediately following the occurance which caused such damage, the City shall, upon completion of any work by the City or its agents within the property covered by the easement, restore the surface of the easement, and any improvements disturbed or destroyed during execution of the work, to the condition they were in immediately prior to commencement of the work or entry by the City or its agents. All restoration shall be performed as soon as reasonably possible following completion of any work and shall be coordinated in advance with Hunter Douglas so as to cause the minimum amount of disruption to the use of and operation of the Hunter Douglas property of which the easement area is a part. 3. Hunter Douglas shall retain the right to use the easement as long as such use does not interfere with the easement rights granted to the City. Upon providing as much advance notice to the City as possible, Hunter Douglas may use the trail and easement for the purpose of reconstructing, maintaining, and repairing its storm water management facilities, bridge, and related appurtenances. Any improvements disturbed or destroyed during execution of the work must be restored to the condition they were in immediately prior to commencement of the work and use of the trail and easement by Hunter Douglas. All restoration shall be performed as soon as reasonably possible following completion of any work. Hunter Douglas shall perform its work so as to cause the minimum amount of disruption to the use of and operation of the trail and easement and shall provide temporary alternative routes for trail users when possible. Temporary trail closures shall be kept to a minimum. Notice of temporary trail closures shall be posted at least two days in advance in a minimum of two conspicuous locations along the trail as directed by the City. Emergency closures shall be posted immediately. Hunter Douglas shall not, however, have the right to: a. Erect or maintain any buildings, utilities, structures, and related appurtenances within the easement, except the following: • Hunter Douglas may install a vehicular bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances as needed to provide access and utility service across the creek for the Hunter Douglas property. The design and construction of the bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances proposed by Hunter Douglas within the easement area shall be in accordance with the attached plan SPR-3, subject to other governmental agency permit and code requirements and the conditions set forth in this agreement. • Hunter Douglas may install storm water outfall culverts to the creek across the easement. Culvert design and construction are subject to City and other governmental agency permit and code requirements. • Hunter Douglas has agreed to install a pedestrian trail and related appurtenances along the entire length of its property along Springbrook Creek. The pedestrian trail design and construction are subject to City and other governmental agency permit and code H:DOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 3 of 9 requirements. The City agrees that the pedestrian trail and related appurtenances required to be installed by Hunter Douglas, or which are deferred pursuant to Section 11 of this Agreement, shall be substantially similar and with the same general standards for construction and materials as those required of property owners adjacent to the Hunter Douglas property. b. Develop, landscape, or beautify the easement area in any way which is inconsistent with landscaping plans developed by the City as part of its channel widening project or which would unreasonably increase the costs to the City of restoring the easement area and any private improvements therein. 4. Hunter Douglas agrees to design and install bridge abutments and wingwalls which allow for future excavation of a widened channel at the bridge crossing. The design of the abutments shall based on a future ground elevation at the face of the abutments of 11.7 feet(NAVD 1988 Datum) and 2 feet of cover above the bottom of the abutments. The design of the wingwalls shall be based on a future excavated grade of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical extending upslope from the future ground elevation of 11.7 feet at the face of the abutments. 5. The City agrees to reduce the following Hunter Douglas development/mitigation fees by up to a total amount of one-hundred and thirty-six thousand four-hundred and eighty-seven dollars ($136,487). • Surface Water, Wastewater, and Water Utility system development charges. • Transportation mitigation fee. The total amount by which the fees will be reduced shall be determined by computing the actual cost to design and install the bridge wingwalls and abutments in accordance with item 4 above and subtracting the cost Hunter Douglas would have incurred to design and install the abutments and wingwalls to fit existing channel grades. The final cost determination shall be based upon a detailed cost report prepared by Hunter Douglas. At a minimum the detailed cost report shall include the following information: a. A detailed cost breakdown of the actual design and installation cost for the bridge as constructed under the terms of this agreement, including a separate breakdown for the abutments and wingwalls. b. A detailed cost breakdown of the design and installation cost for the bridge had the abutments and wingwalls not been constructed to accommodate the future widening project in same format and level of detail as the cost breakdown for item 5a above. Actual design cost shall be used. Construction costs shall be estimated using the same unit prices for the bridge as actually constructed for similar items of work. c. The cost report shall list the quantity installed and the unit price for each item of work used in computing the total cost. The report is also to include all pertinent supporting documentation, such as material invoices, labor charges, equipment charges, approved bid proposals, and approved change orders. Costs shall include Washington State sales tax as applicable. The City shall provide Hunter Douglas with any comments on the detailed cost report within fifteen(15)days after receipt thereof. The parties shall work diligently together to resolve any H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 4 of 9 differences in conclusions as to the amount of credit to which Hunter Douglas shall be entitled. Payment of the full amount of the development/mitigation fees listed above minus that portion to be offset by the City as set forth in this agreement shall be made at or prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Any costs exceeding the maximum allowable reduction in development/mitigation fees($136,487)shall be the responsibility of Hunter Douglas. 6. Hunter Douglas retains full responsibility for the installation, operation, maintenance, and repair of the entire bridge structure, including that portion installed to accommodate the future channel widening project, and shall hold the City harmless for any liability arising therefrom. In the event the City damages the bridge structure or any portion or component thereof, however, the City shall have full responsibility for the repairs or restoration of the bridge or any portion thereof performed by the City pursuant to Section 2 of this Agreement, and shall indemnify, defend and hold Hunter Douglas harmless from and against any claims, damages, actions, costs and fees (including attorney's fees) arising from such damage and repair and restoration. 7. Hunter Douglas agrees to keep available for inspection, by the City, for a period of six months after Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the Hunter Douglas project, the cost records and accounts pertaining to this agreement and all items related to, or bearing upon,these records. 8. Hunter Douglas agrees to release the City from any liability resulting from failure to complete construction of the bridge within the time limits established by any permit or easement granted the Hunter Douglas project. 9. Hunter Douglas agrees to pay any additional costs associated with the need for deeper retaining walls along the pedestrian trail in the vicinity of the bridge resulting from shifting the bridge 9 feet to the west. It is estimated that the wall height would increase 3 feet at the bridge and have no impact beyond 100 feet either side of the bridge. The resultant impact of the bridge offset and the need to install the widened channel section centered in the bridge opening and therefore closer to the pedestrian trail is then estimated at 300 square feet of additional wall area. The City agrees to be responsible for maintenance and repair of the completed retaining wall. 10. The City agrees to provide and construct any compensatory storage volume required for filling in the 100-year FEMA floodplain caused by the Hunter Douglas proposal. 11. The City and Hunter Douglas agree to defer construction of the pedestrian trail until no later than September 1998, unless an extension of the deferral is agreed to by both parties. The deferral shall be in accordance with Section 4-34-12 of the Renton City Code as if the requirements were set forth fully within this agreement, except that the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department shall perform all functions attributed to the Board of Public Works and the amount of the security shall be reduced from 150% to 120% of the estimated cost of the pedestrian trail and related appurtenances. The cost used to H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 5 of 9 determine the amount of the security shall include the additional costs associated with the need for deeper retaining walls along the trail as set forth in item 6 above. At its option, the City may install the pedestrian trail as part of the channel widening project currently scheduled for the summer of 1998, in which case Hunter Douglas would reimburse the City for its share of the actual costs to install the trail and related appurtenances. The agreement and easement shall run with the land described herein, and shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors in interest and assigns. Hunter Douglas covenants that they are the lawful owners of the above properties and that they have a good and lawful right to execute this agreement. Sianatures of Hunter Douglas: / v /V and , and STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING )I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that AU,- signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she/the was/were aut orized to exe ute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Jjq:l Iw�s L � i.. F �° �" of ��✓� �h lay to be the free and voluntary act of such party/parties for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated Notary Public in and for the S to 'of Washington res' ng at 1 Notary(print): My appointment expires: Approved as to Legal Form: CITY OF RENTON BY: BY Lawrence J. Warren, Jesse Tanner City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: BY Marilyn J. Petersen City Clerk H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 6 of 9 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Easement Area: The east 50 feet of Lot 1 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-95-064 (King County Recording No. 9508039005) in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 1 and the true point of beginning; thence along the east line of said Lot 1 the following courses: N 37000'42" W 4.90 feet; thence N 55°28'15"W 77.73 feet; thence N 52°24'00"W 186.51feet; thence N 54003'57" W 286.58 feet; thence N 35°11'09" W 148.78 feet; thence N 23°44'21" W 85.39 feet to a curve concave to the east having a radius of 75.78 feet; thence northerly along said curve through a central angle of 59°07'34" an arc distance of 78.20 feet; thence leaving said curve on a non-tangent bearing N 50008'30" E 114.42 feet; thence N 51045'16" E 72.30 feet; thence N 59'39'11" E 96.54 feet to a curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 114.57 feet; thence northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 45°50'57" an arc distance of 91.68 feet; thence N 13°48'14" E 114.90 feet to a curve concave to the west having a radius of 294.26 feet; thence northerly along said curve through a central angle of 36°45'26" an arc distance of 188.78 feet; thence leaving said curve on a non-tangent bearing N 23°47'30"W 102.20 feet; thence N 28°32'10"W 64.18 feet; thence N 20°51'33"W 61.80 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence leaving said east line of said Lot 1 N 87°26'45" W along the north line of said Lot 154.49 feet; thence leaving said north line S 20°51'33" E 86.81 feet; thence S 28°32'10" E 65.46 feet; thence S 23°47'30" E 99.40 feet to a point on a curve concave to the west, said curve being non-tangent to the preceding course and having a radius of 244.26 feet,the center of which bears S 67002'48"W; thence southerly along said curve through a central angle of 36°45'26" an arc distance of 156.70 feet; thence S 13°48'14" W 114.90 feet to a curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 64.57 feet; thence southwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 45°50'57" an arc distance of 51.67 feet; thence S 59'39'11"W 99.99 feet; thence S 51°45'16" W 75.45 feet; thence S 50°08'30" W 120.75 feet to a point on a curve concave to the east, said curve being non-tangent to the preceding course and having a radius of 125.78 feet,the center of which bears S 510 17'16" E; thence southerly along said curve through a central angle of 62027'05" an arc distance of 137.10 feet; thence S 23°44'21" E 90.41 feet; thence S 35'11'09" E 162.11 feet; thence S 54°03'57" E 294.16 feet; thence S 52°24'00" E 187.12 feet; thence S 55°28'15" E 5.72 feet to the south line of said Lot 1; thence S 87°18'57" E along said south line 91.82 feet to the true point of beginning. Contains 88,153 square feet of land, more or less. H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement rNjTIA Page 7 of 9 a-� PROPERTY SERVICES EXHIBIT A CONTINUED MAP EXHIBIT 10 26 9 F 8 See Line and Curve Tables on Following Sheet 27 7 Legal Descriptions and Exhibits Prepared By: Scott Woodbury, P.E. 12/18/96 6 28 5 29 4 30 0 1"=100' 100 ( IN FEET ) 3 31 2 32 3� Southeast Corner of Lot 1 H:DOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 8 of 9 EXHIBIT A CONTINUED MAP EXHIBIT Northeast Corner of Lot 1 Line Table 17 ID# Bearing Dist.(ft) 18 16 1 N 37°00'42"W 4.90 2 N 55°28'15"W 77.73 15 3 N 52°24'00"W 186.51 4 N W03'57"W 286.58 19 5 N 35*11'09"W 148.78 6 N 23°44'21"W 85.39 14 8 N 50°08'30"E 114.42 9 N 51*45'16"E 72.30 20 10 N 59*39'11"E 96.54 12 N 13°48'14"E 114.90 14 N 23°47'30"W 102.20 15 N 28°32'10"W 64.18 16 N 20°51'33"W 61.80 Curve Table 17 N 87°26'45"W 54.49 13 18 S 20°51'33"E 86.81 ID# Radius(ft) Central Angle Arc Length 21 19 S 28°32'10"E 65.46 7 75.78 59°07'34" 78.20 20 S 23°47'30"E 99.40 11 114.57 45°50'57" 91.68 22 S 13°48'14"W 114.90 13 294.26 36°45'26" 188.78 24 S 59'39'11"W 99.99 21 244.26 36°45'26" 156.70 25 S 51°45'16"W 76.45 23 64.57 45°50'57" 51.67 26 S 50°08'30"W 120.75 27 125.78 62°27'05" 137.10 28 S 23°44'21"E 90.41 22 29 S 35°11'09"E 162.11 12 30 S 54°03'57"E 294.16 31 S 52°24'00"E 187.12 32 S 55°28'15"E 5.72 23 33 S 87°18'57"E 91.82 24 11 25 10 0 1"=100' 100 '9 26 O 9 ( IN FEET ) y� 8 H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 9 of 9 GENERAL NOTES K.I ..a (-K"IS 1W TK STATE OT.0"IOK K—T t a I Y "Ite"I P Yj.) QLQ tqAO C�Mt[ MICF.11t A1'"M.f.MMVM— K4 tov V TOO,is K-w Im TO*�10 KM-44 t� WK,;2'a,TV L".M%-( X 3 WMGE Emtm 0�M. Em,4�w iz ,V'k J ELM J !1A r. WIT:E111—-1.TO wrou OLTLAT 40 w TO ts'-VK 3' 1.33' r FLEVATION GRAPHIC SCALE TYPICAL SECTION GRAPHIC SCALE OI RAY IEST RENT(M,WAMGTOH MOND CENTER WEST W SPR-3 SITE PLAN REVIEW Rzxro fQ.: SFMNU BKOOK CREEK THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKSy FOURTH FLOOR ,. 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: 235-2541 To: Allen Tosch + Le ,� o� Gc�cL Company: Hunter Douglas Phone: 872-4109 X-3032 Fax: 872-0336 From: Scott Woodbury Phone: 425-277-5547 Fax: 425-235-2541 Date: 6/5/97 Pages incl this cover page: 1 Subject: Comments to Pedestrian Trail Cost We have reviewed the cost proposal from Donovan Brothers for the pedestrian trail. Following is a revised cost estimate with our changes noted: Excavation Donovan Revised 1. Strip 6" and place on site $1,133.00 $1,133.00 2. Cut to fill +/- 1300 CY $2,266.00 104i $12,360.00 3. Fine grade $2,289.00 $2,289.00 $5,688.00 $15,782.00 Retaining Walls 1. Excavate approx. 30 CY $825.00 $825.00 2. Place 300 SF retaining wall $6,160.00 $12,000.00 a 3. Backfill approx. 30 CY $825.00 $825.00 $7,810.00 $13,650.00 Paving 1. Fine grade 2. Soil sterilization 3. Crushed rock 4. Place 2" CL-B asphalt $25,146.00 $31,000.00 Total for above $38,644.00 $60,432.00 WSST @a 8.6% $3,323.00 $5,197.00 Total $41,967.00 $65,629.00 With a 20% increase, the amount of the security needed in accordance with the agreement is $78,755. cc: Leslie Betlach 6./y�97 CONTRACT CHECKLIST STAFF NAME & EXTENSION NUMBER: ��� �o� X—51y7 DIVISION/DEPARTMENT: rg A() CONTRACT NUMBER: TASK ORDER NUMBER(if applicable): CLIAU1LkG-GR: PURPOSE OF CONTRACT: i 1. LEGAL REVIEW: (Attach letter from city attorney.) S� ()A �/-0 7 %J 5/2 0-7 s 2. RISK MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR INSURANCE: (Attach letter.) N/A 3. RESPONSE TO LEGAL OR RISK MGMT CONCERNS: (Explain in writing how concerns have been met.) A/Al 4. INSURANCE CERTIFICATE AND/OR POLICY: (Attach original.) A)/AS 5. CITY BUSINESS LICENSE NUMBER: (Call Finance Dept.) MIA 6. ATTACHED CONTRACTS ARE SIGNED BY CONTRACTOR: (If not, provide explanation.) *5 . 7. FISCAL IMPACT: A. AMOUNT BUDGETED (LINE ITEM) (See s.b)* F/7.n B. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: VN � 8. COUNCIL APPROVAL REQUIRED (Prepare Agenda Bill.): ye-g- A. CONTRACT OR TASK ORDER IS $50,000 OR OVER: (Refer to Council committee for initial contract approval; place subsequent task orders on Council agenda for concurrence.) B. *FUND TRANSFER REQUIRED IF CONTRACT EXPENDITURE EXCEEDS AMOUNT BUDGETED. (Refer to Council committee.) C. SOLE SOURCE CONTRACTS. (Refer to Council committee.) 9. DATE OF COUNCIL APPROVAL: �/2 C/1-7 10. RESOLUTION NUMBER (if applicable): /v I 11. KEY WORDS FOR CIQQTY CLERK'S INDEX: A. ltn} B. �-�� Sa!� Grr,�, burr- �,�1 psiQ C. C, c:\WinWoravo,ms\chkbst 09/02/93 THE CITY OF RENTON �. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS FOURTH FLOOR 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: 235-2541 To: Jack Nelson Company: DD#1 Phone: 854-7200 Fax: 854-8960 From: Scott Woodbury Phone: 425-277-5547 Fax: 425-235-2541 Date: 6/4/97 Pages incl this cover page: 12 Subject: Hunter Douglas Agreement Attached is a copy of the City's Agreement and Easement for Drainage Channel and Pedestrian Trail with Hunter Douglas. Also attached is the Renton Council Utilities Committee Report authorizing the Mayor to sign the agreement. The attached agreement copy is not yet signed by the Mayor, but all of the necessary approvals for the Mayor to sign have been obtained. I hope to have a fully signed agreement by Friday, June 6, at the latest and will forward a copy to you. As far as the City is concerned you should be able issue the District's easement for the bridge. Thanks. If you have any questions, please call me at 277-5547. cc: Allen Tosch, Hunter Douglas(cover only) THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF ° PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS a� FOURTH FLOOR 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 r FAX: 235-2541 j ,. To: Allen Tosch Company: Phone: 872-4109 X-3032 Fax: 872-0336 From: Scott Woodbury Phone: 425-277-5547 Fax: 425-235-2541 Date: 6/4/97 Pages incl this cover page: 1 Subject: Hunter Douglas Agreement As I mentioned to you on the phone, Item 11 of the agreement should reference Section 4-34-12 of the Renton City Code, not Section 4-32-12. Upon receipt of your acknowledgment in the space provided below (faxed to me at the above number), I will simply replace page 5 of 9 of the agreement with a corrected page and submit the agreement to the Mayor for signature. Acknowledged Allen Tosch Thanks. If you have any questions, please call me at 277-5547. THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF _-_ PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS FOURTH _ FLOOR 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH = RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: 235-2541 Company: Phone: Fax: From: Company: Phone: Fax: Date: 661157 Pages including this cover page: 2— Comments: �cr5-k 'woo AASC s )YA4vAA-� a�me-4) Seale nn � �� u,cw xis CeSe R kiegA✓ -A, �•vA k- �(ol j/3 ail�!' z �ZD r�l 'S 4fhF �oz.c 3-z.a 2I 57 54 Ff 2457 Y3 7 7;0� f'nwt ��� 3o'ta s*ti �+'+,•s�-t� ,Y q rl�S� ' l�l 'w�d.�z (4 it'C c�� fee- ram,( Y6�9y, i�•�'I�7' ro-, coos �k54 t r �` /si 7eL _ I I Gao 34.E�A 2-6- 6Orc P4�� ' I -7sS ; 1 j I , i APPROVE-:D BY CITY COUNCIL Date UTILITIES COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT June 2, 1997 Hunter Douglas Easement and Agreement (Referred May 19, 1997) The Utilities Committee concurs with the Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommendation to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Agreement and Easement for Drainage Channel and Pedestrian Trail with Hunter Douglas. The maximum amount due Hunter Douglas under the terms of the agreement is $136,487. The Utilities Committee concurs with the Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommendation to offset this cost by reducing the Hunter Douglas project's mitigation/development fees that will become due for the development proposal (City File No. LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF) up to the maximum amount allowed under the agreement of$136,487. The Utilities Committee also concurs with the Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommendation to transfer to the Water Utility, Wastewater Utility, and Transportation Systems Division the full amount of the mitigation/development fees offset under the agreement from the Surface Water Utility's Capital Improvement Program budget for the East Side Green River Watershed Project account. The portion of the approved 1997 adjusted budget($427,588)that is not expended on the 1997 programmed improvements will be used for reimbursement or the reimbursement payment will be included in the 1998 project budget request. Cam_ Dan Clawson, Chair Toni Nelson, Vice Chair S H:DOCS:97-411:SW:ps CC: Gregg Zimmerman Ron Olsen Ron Straka Scott Woodbury ^1N Donovan May 30, 1997 Brothers COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 1801 West Valley Highway North,Suite 101 Mr. Allen Tosch P.O.Box 818,Auburn,WA 98071-0818 Hunter Douglas, Inc. 206/939-7777,FAX:206/939-7994 7015 S. 212th Kent, WA 98032-2396 Following is a breakdown of the costs associated with the approximately 1,900 LF of trail as per drawing C3 &4 and typical trail sections per 1 &2/C4 (see attached): Excavation 1. Strip 6" and place on site $1,133.00 2. Cut to fill +/-1,030 CY $2,266.00 3. Fine grade +/-10 over 27,750 SF $2,289.00 $ 5,688.00 Retaining Walls 1. Excavate approximately 30 CY $ 825.00 2. Place 300 SF of concrete retaining wall 6" thick on 200 LF of 16"x8" footing $6,160.00 3. Backfill approximately 30 CY 825.00 $ 7,810.00 Paving 1. Fine grade 2. Soil sterilization 3. Place approximately 3,020 SY 4" crushed (incl. 4' shoulder) 4. Place 2" CL-B asphalt $25,146.00 Total for above $38,644.00 W.S.S.T. @ 8.6% 3,323.00 TOTAL: $41,967.00 This proposal valid through September,1998. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, �. i G. Olmeimi P�,fioject Manager �' GO:cs T • CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 2, 1997 TO: Victoria Runkle FROM: Gregg Zimmerman SUBJECT: GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE FOR THE PROPOSED HUNTER DOUGLAS AGREEMENT As I had communicated to you previously in the attached memo, the Finance Committee will be asked at the next committee meeting scheduled for June 9th to approve a$22,000 General Fund contribution toward the proposed Agreement and Easement for Drainage Channel and Pedestrian Trail with Hunter Douglas. The General Fund contribution is supported by the Mayor's office because of the recognized economic benefit afforded the City as a result of Hunter Douglas continuing with their development proposal. Since the committee meeting is only one week away, I want to confirm that the draft committee report, provided to you earlier for your review, is acceptable. At your convenience, please contact me at X-6211 to discuss the committee report. Thanks. H:DOCS:97-478:SW CC: Jay Covington Sue Carlson Ron Olsen CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: May 14, 1997 TO: Victoria Runkle FROM: Gregg Zimmerman STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka(X-5548) Scott Woodbury(X-5547) SUBJECT: GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE FOR THE PROPOSED HUNTER DOUGLAS AGREEMENT Attached is an agenda bill package requesting City Council approval of a proposed Agreement and Easement for Drainage Channel and Pedestrian Trail with Hunter Douglas, Inc. The request also includes a recommendation that Council authorize a contribution of $22,000 from the General Fund toward the cost of the agreement. The recommendation for General Fund participation is a result of the agreement negotiation process with Hunter Douglas which involved Surface Water Utility(SWU)staff and the Mayor's office. As explained in the attached issue paper, Hunter Douglas was initially advised by SWU staff that the cost of accommodating the City's planned Springbrook Creek widening project was Hunter Douglas responsibility. However, Hunter Douglas indicated to the City that it would abandon its development proposal if they were required to fund the additional cost to accommodate the channel widening. The Economic Development office became involved, and after additional negotiation Renton agreed to reimburse Hunter Douglas for the additional cost of accommodating the future widened channel with the recommendation that $22,000 of the cost be funded by the General Fund. The balance of the cost of the agreement would be the responsibility of the Surface Water Utility. The $22,000 is approximately the difference between the estimated cost of lowering the abutments of the proposed Hunter Douglas bridge across Springbrook Creek to accommodate the future widened channel and the total amount of the Surface Water Utility system development charge. I The Mayor's office supports the General Fund contribution because of the recognized economic benefit afforded the City as a result of Hunter Douglas continuing with their development proposal. The Finance Committee will be asked to approve the General Fund contribution at the next committee meeting scheduled for June 9th. Also attached is a draft Finance Committee report for your review and concurrence. If you have any questions, please contact me at X-6211. H:DOCS:97-419:SW:ps CC: Jay Covington Sue Carlson Ron Olsen w P/e4se CONCUR:REAIC DATE �� 1 NAME Ii:ITIA,! FINANCE COMMMEE I CONBI=E REPORT June 9, 1997 Hunter Douglas Easement and Agreement (Referred May 19, 1997) The Finance Committee concurs with the Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommendation to approve an ordinance authorizing the transfer of$22,000 to the Surface Water Utility's Capital Improvement budget from the City's General Fund ending fund balance for 1997 or from future monies to be allocated in the 1998 General Fund annual budget. The purpose of the transfer is to reimburse the Surface Water Utility for a portion of the cost to be incurred under the City's agreement with Hunter Douglas which was approved for execution by the Council on June 2, 1997. King Parker, Chair rX. Randy Corman;Vice Chair 1 " Bob Edwards,Member H:DOCS:97-412:SW:ps CC: Victoria Runkle Gregg Zimmerman Ron Olsen Ron Straka Scott Woodbury CITY OF RENTON ( DATE PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS NAME MEMORANDUM Ste— Su �i2/s DATE: June 2, 1997 j TO: Victoria Runkle FROM: Gregg Zimmerman �- SUBJECT: GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE FOR THE PROPOSED HUNTER DOUGLAS AGREEMENT As I had communicated to you previously in the attached memo, the Finance Committee will be asked at the next committee meeting scheduled for June 9th to approve a $22,000 General Fund contribution toward the proposed Agreement and Easement for Drainage Channel and Pedestrian Trail with Hunter Douglas. The General Fund contribution is supported by the Mayor's office because of the recognized economic benefit afforded the City as a result of Hunter Douglas continuing with their development proposal. Since the committee meeting is only one week away, I want0d'te-eheek with-yeo-to confirm that the draft committee report,which I had provided to you earlier for your review, is acceptable. At your convenience, please contact me at X-6211 to discuss the committee report. H:DOCS:97478:SW A, CC: Jay Covington Sue Carlson Ron Olsen 40 CITY OF RENTON Office of the City Attorney Jesse Tanner,Mayor Lawrence J.Warren MEMORANDUM � 5 To: Ron Straka From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney MAY 2 811997 Staff Contact: Scott Woodbury CITY OF REN T ON Date: May 27, 1997 Engineering kept. Subject: Proposed Changes to Agreement and Easement with Hunter Douglas I have reviewed the above-referenced document and the same is approved as to legal form. Lawrence J. Warren LJW:as. cc: Jay Covington A8:131.78. Post Office Box 626 - 100 S. 2nd Street- Renton, Washington 98057 - (206)255-8678 ., CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department �ra> Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator May 28, 1997 Allen Tosch Hunter Douglas, Inc. 7015 S 212th ST Kent, WA 98032 SUBJECT: AGREEMENT AND EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE CHANNEL AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL Dear Mr. Tosch: Enclosed are two originals of the Agreement and Easement for Drainage Channel and Pedestrian Trail for signature by Hunter Douglas. Please return signed original agreements as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please contact me at(425)277-5547. Sincerely, Scott Woodbury, P.E., Pr ect Manager Surface Water Utility H:DOCS:97-455:S W:ps Enclosures CC: Ron Straka Clint Morgan 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 MThis nan—rnntnins Sn%-rvrl—i malarial 90%nnst ennsumar WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: AGREEMENT AND EASEMENT Project:East Side Green River Office of the City Clerk Renton Municipal Building FOR DRAINAGE CHANNEL AND Watershed Project 200 Mill Avenue South PEDESTRIAN TRAIL Work Order#65230 Renton,WA 98055 PID: 24230490115 Grantor:Hunter Douglas.Inc STR: Sec 24,T23N,R4E Street Intersection: 19th Street and Raymond Avenue THIS INSTRUMENT, made this day of 1997; by and between Hunter Douglas, Inc., hereinafter called "Hunter Douglas," and the CITY OF RENTON, a Municipal Corporation of King County, Washington, hereinafter called "City." WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas is the owner of certain real property located in the City legally described as Lot 1 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-95-064 (King County Recording No. 9508039005)and which lies adjacent to and west of Springbrook Creek. WHEREAS,the City is proposing to widen Springbrook Creek along the Hunter Douglas property as identified in the East Side Green River Watershed Project Plan and Environmental Impact Statement(City File LUA-95-205,ECF) so as to increase the capacity of the creek to convey flows and thereby reduce upstream flooding problems. WHEREAS, an easement is required from Hunter Douglas over the east 50 feet of its property along Springbrook Creek in order for the City to accomplish the widening project. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas is proposing to develop its property in accordance with the Raymond Avenue Center West proposal(City File No. LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF). WHEREAS, the development proposal includes construction of a private bridge over Springbrook Creek as its primary access, construction of a paved pedestrian trail within a dedicated trail easement allowing public access along the entire length of the Hunter Douglas property along Springbrook Creek, and requires filling within the 100-year floodplain as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas does not have sufficient area on its property to excavate a volume of material equal to the volume of floodplain storage that will be filled by the development, except within the east 50 feet of its property. WHEREAS,the City has offered to construct the required compensatory floodplain storage for the Hunter Douglas development as part of its channel widening project in exchange for the granting of a drainage channel easement over the east 50 feet of the Hunter Douglas property. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas desires that the center of its bridge over Springbrook Creek be offset 9 feet west of the centerline of the property along the creek owned by Drainage District No. 1 adjacent to and east of the Hunter Douglas property. H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement INITIAL. Page I of 9 PROPERTY SERVICES WHEREAS, hydraulic analysis conducted by Hunter Douglas shows that the planned widened channel section will need to be centered within the span of the bridge at its shifted location so as to minimize head losses through the structure. WHEREAS, the City may need to construct a retaining wall to support the pedestrian trail on the west bank of the creek when the channel widening project is constructed and shifting the bridge opening closer to the pedestrian trail will result in a need for higher retaining walls supporting the trail in the vicinity of the bridge. WHEREAS, the original design for the Hunter Douglas bridge abutments and wingwalls must be modified so as to allow for future excavation of a widened channel under the bridge. WHEREAS, modifying the bridge design to accommodate the planned channel widening significantly increases the cost of the bridge. WHEREAS, installing the bridge to accommodate the planned channel widening when the bridge is originally constructed is less expensive and disruptive than making modifications to the bridge after it has already been built and is operational. WHEREAS, the City desires that the Hunter Douglas defer construction of the pedestrian trail until after the channel widening is completed so as to avoid the need for temporary closures of a newly constructed trail and to avoid potential damages to the new trail that could result in unnecessary restoration costs and construction delays. WHEREAS, the Hunter Douglas property is currently "land locked" with no developed access to the public right-of-way. WHEREAS, the Hunter Douglas development proposes and approval is based upon being able to construct the bridge over Springbrook Creek as primary access to the Hunter Douglas property. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas must complete installation of the bridge within an extremely tight construction schedule before its temporary construction access easement through Boeing property to the west of the Hunter Douglas property expires. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of ten dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of the performance of the covenants, terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, Hunter Douglas hereby grants, bargains, sells, conveys, and warrants unto the City, its successors and assigns, a permanent non-exclusive easement over, under, through, across and upon that portion of the Hunter Douglas land described in Exhibit A(the easement area). 1. The City shall have the right to use the easement area for installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, removing, repairing, and replacing a drainage channel, pedestrian trail, and related appurtenances and shall have right of ingress and egress thereto for the foregoing purposes without prior institution of any suit or proceedings of law. Following the initial H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 2 of 9 construction of its facilities, the City may from time to time construct such additional facilities as it may require. 2. Except for repair and restoration of damage to the bridge or any of its components, which shall be completed by the City immediately following the occurance which caused such damage, the City shall, upon completion of any work by the City or its agents within the property covered by the easement, restore the surface of the easement, and any improvements disturbed or destroyed during execution of the work, to the condition they were in immediately prior to commencement of the work or entry by the City or its agents. All restoration shall be performed as soon as reasonably possible following completion of any work and shall be coordinated in advance with Hunter Douglas so as to cause the minimum amount of disruption to the use of and operation of the Hunter Douglas property of which the easement area is a part. 3. Hunter Douglas shall retain the right to use the easement as long as such use does not interfere with the easement rights granted to the City. Upon providing as much advance notice to the City as possible, Hunter Douglas may use the trail and easement for the purpose of reconstructing, maintaining, and repairing its storm water management facilities, bridge, and related appurtenances. Any improvements disturbed or destroyed during execution of the work must be restored to the condition they were in immediately prior to commencement of the work and use of the trail and easement by Hunter Douglas. All restoration shall be performed as soon as reasonably possible following completion of any work. Hunter Douglas shall perform its work so as to cause the minimum amount of disruption to the use of and operation of the trail and easement and shall provide temporary alternative routes for trail users when possible. Temporary trail closures shall be kept to a minimum. Notice of temporary trail closures shall be posted at least two days in advance in a minimum of two conspicuous locations along the trail as directed by the City. Emergency closures shall be posted immediately. Hunter Douglas shall not, however, have the right to: a. Erect or maintain any buildings, utilities, structures, and related appurtenances within the easement, except the following: • Hunter Douglas may install a vehicular bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances as needed to provide access and utility service across the creek for the Hunter Douglas property. The design and construction of the bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances proposed by Hunter Douglas within the easement area shall be in accordance with the attached plan SPR-3, subject to other governmental agency permit and code requirements and the conditions set forth in this agreement. • Hunter Douglas may install storm water outfall culverts to the creek across the easement. Culvert design and construction are subject to City and other governmental agency permit and code requirements. • Hunter Douglas has agreed to install a pedestrian trail and related appurtenances along the entire length of its property along Springbrook Creek. The pedestrian trail design and construction are subject to City and other governmental agency permit and code H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 3 of 9 5 requirements. The City agrees that the pedestrian trail and related appurtenances required to be installed by Hunter Douglas, or which are deferred pursuant to Section 11 of this Agreement, shall be substantially similar and with the same general standards for construction and materials as those required of property owners adjacent to the Hunter Douglas property. b. Develop, landscape, or beautify the easement area in any way which is inconsistent with landscaping plans developed by the City as part of its channel widening project or which would unreasonably increase the costs to the City of restoring the easement area and any private improvements therein. 4. Hunter Douglas agrees to design and install bridge abutments and wingwalls which allow for future excavation of a widened channel at the bridge crossing. The design of the abutments shall based on a future ground elevation at the face of the abutments of 11.7 feet(NAVD 1988 Datum) and 2 feet of cover above the bottom of the abutments. The design of the wingwalls shall be based on a future excavated grade of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical extending upslope from the future ground elevation of 11.7 feet at the face of the abutments. 5. The City agrees to reduce the following Hunter Douglas development/mitigation fees by up to a total amount of one-hundred and thirty-six thousand four-hundred and eighty-seven dollars ($136,487). • Surface Water, Wastewater, and Water Utility system development charges. • Transportation mitigation fee. The total amount by which the fees will be reduced shall be determined by computing the actual cost to design and install the bridge wingwalls and abutments in accordance with item 4 above and subtracting the cost Hunter Douglas would have incurred to design and install the abutments and wingwalls to fit existing channel grades. The final cost determination shall be based upon a detailed cost report prepared by Hunter Douglas. At a minimum the detailed cost report shall include the following information: a. A detailed cost breakdown of the actual design and installation cost for the bridge as constructed under the terms of this agreement, including a separate breakdown for the abutments and wingwalls. b. A detailed cost breakdown of the design and installation cost for the bridge had the abutments and wingwalls not been constructed to accommodate the future widening project in same format and level of detail as the cost breakdown for item 5a above. Actual design cost shall be used. Construction costs shall be estimated using the same unit prices for the bridge as actually constructed for similar items of work. c. The cost report shall list the quantity installed and the unit price for each item of work used in computing the total cost. The report is also to include all pertinent supporting documentation, such as material invoices, labor charges, equipment charges, approved bid proposals, and approved change orders. Costs shall include Washington State sales tax as applicable. The City shall provide Hunter Douglas with any comments on the detailed cost report within fifteen(15)days after receipt thereof. The parties shall work diligently together to resolve any H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 4 of 9 differences in conclusions as to the amount of credit to which Hunter Douglas shall be entitled. Payment of the full amount of the development/mitigation fees listed above minus that portion to be offset by the City as set forth in this agreement shall be made at or prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Any costs exceeding the maximum allowable reduction in development/mitigation fees($136,487) shall be the responsibility of Hunter Douglas. 6. Hunter Douglas retains full responsibility for the installation, operation, maintenance, and repair of the entire bridge structure, including that portion installed to accommodate the future channel widening project, and shall hold the City harmless for any liability arising therefrom. In the event the City damages the bridge structure or any portion or component thereof, however, the City shall have full responsibility for the repairs or restoration of the bridge or any portion thereof performed by the City pursuant to Section 2 of this Agreement, and shall indemnify, defend and hold Hunter Douglas harmless from and against any claims, damages, actions, costs and fees (including attorney's fees) arising from such damage and repair and restoration. 7. Hunter Douglas agrees to keep available for inspection, by the City, for a period of six months after Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the Hunter Douglas project, the cost records and accounts pertaining to this agreement and all items related to,or bearing upon,these records. 8. Hunter Douglas agrees to release the City from any liability resulting from failure to complete construction of the bridge within the time limits established by any permit or easement granted the Hunter Douglas project. 9. Hunter Douglas agrees to pay any additional costs associated with the need for deeper retaining walls along the pedestrian trail in the vicinity of the bridge resulting from shifting the bridge 9 feet to the west. It is estimated that the wall height would increase 3 feet at the bridge and have no impact beyond 100 feet either side of the bridge. The resultant impact of the bridge offset and the need to install the widened channel section centered in the bridge opening and therefore closer to the pedestrian trail is then estimated at 300 square feet of additional wall area. The City agrees to be responsible for maintenance and repair of the completed retaining wall. 10. The City agrees to provide and construct any compensatory storage volume required for filling in the 100-year FEMA floodplain caused by the Hunter Douglas proposal. 11. The City and Hunter Douglas agree to defer construction of the pedestrian trail until no later than September 1998, unless an extension of the deferral is agreed to by both parties. The deferral shall be in accordance with Section 4-32-12 of the Renton City Code as if the requirements were set forth fully within this agreement, except that the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department shall perform all functions attributed to the Board of Public Works and the amount of the security shall be reduced from 150% to 120% of the estimated cost of the pedestrian trail and related appurtenances. The cost used to H:DCCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 5 of 9 determine the amount of the security shall include the additional costs associated with the need for deeper retaining walls along the trail as set forth in item 6 above. At its option, the City may install the pedestrian trail as part of the channel widening project currently scheduled for the summer of 1998, in which case Hunter Douglas would reimburse the City for its share of the actual costs to install the trail and related appurtenances. The agreement and easement shall run with the land described herein, and shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors in interest and assigns. Hunter Douglas covenants that they are the lawful owners of the above properties and that they have a good and lawful right to execute this agreement. Signatures of Hunter Douglas: and ; and ; STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she/they was/were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of to be the free and voluntary act of such party/parties for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated Notary Public in and for the State of Washington residing at Notary(print): My appointment expires: Approved as to Legal Form: CITY OF RENTON BY: BY Lawrence J. Warren, Jesse Tanner City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: BY Marilyn J. Petersen City Clerk H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 6 of 9 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Easement Area: The east 50 feet of Lot 1 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-95-064 (King County Recording No. 9508039005) in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington,more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 1 and the true point of beginning; thence along the east line of said Lot 1 the following courses: N 37000'42" W 4.90 feet; thence N 55°28'15" W 77.73 feet; thence N 52°24'00" W 186.51 feet; thence N 54°03'57" W 286.58 feet; thence N 35°11'09" W 148.78 feet; thence N 23°44'21" W 85.39 feet to a curve concave to the east having a radius of 75.78 feet; thence northerly along said curve through a central angle of 59°07'34" an arc distance of 78.20 feet; thence leaving said curve on a non-tangent bearing N 50°08'30" E 114.42 feet; thence N 51°45'16" E 72.30 feet; thence N 59'39'11" E 96.54 feet to a curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 114.57 feet; thence northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 45°50'57" an arc distance of 91.68 feet; thence N 13048'14" E 114.90 feet to a curve concave to the west having a radius of 294.26 feet; thence northerly along said curve through a central angle of 36°45'26" an arc distance of 188.78 feet; thence leaving said curve on a non-tangent bearing N 23047'30"W 102.20 feet; thence N 28°32'10" W 64.18 feet; thence N 20°51'33"W 61.80 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence leaving said east line of said Lot 1 N 87°26'45" W along the north line of said Lot 154.49 feet; thence leaving said north line S 20°51'33" E 86.81 feet; thence S 28°32'10"E 65.46 feet; thence S 23°47'30" E 99.40 feet to a point on a curve concave to the west, said curve being non-tangent to the preceding course and having a radius of 244.26 feet, the center of which bears S 67°02'48"W; thence southerly along said curve through a central angle of 36°45'26" an arc distance of 156.70 feet; thence S 13°48'14"W 114.90 feet to a curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 64.57 feet; thence southwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 45°50'57" an arc distance of 51.67 feet; thence S 59°39'11"W 99.99 feet; thence S 51'45'16"W 75.45 feet; thence S 50°08'30" W 120.75 feet to a point on a curve concave to the east, said curve being non-tangent to the preceding course and having a radius of 125.78 feet, the center of which bears S 51°17'16" E; thence southerly along said curve through a central angle of 62°27'05" an arc distance of 137.10 feet; thence S 23°44'21" E 90.41 feet; thence S 35'11'09" E 162.11 feet; thence S 54°03'57" E 294.16 feet; thence S 52°24'00" E 187.12 feet; thence S 55°28'15" E 5.72 feet to the south line of said Lot 1; thence S 87°18'57"E along said south line 91.82 feet to the true point of beginning. Contains 88,153 square feet of land, more or less. H:DOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement rNITIkL Page 7 of 9 PROPERTY SERVICES r EXHIBIT A CONTINUED MAP EXHIBIT 10 26 O 9 F 8 See Line and Curve Tables on Following Sheet 27 7 Legal Descriptions and Exhibits Prepared By: Scott Woodbury, P.E. 12/18/96 6 28 5 29 4 30 0 1'=100• 100 ( IN FEET ) 3 31 2 32 33 Southeast Corner of Lot 1 H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 8 of 9 EXHIBIT A CONTINUED MAP EXHIBIT Northeast Corner of Lot 1 Line Table 17 ID# Bearing Dist.(ft) 18 16 1 N 37°00'42"W 4.90 2 N 55*28'15"W 77.73 15 3 N 52°24'00"W 186.51 4 N 54°03'57"W 286.58 19 5 N 35°1l'09"W 148.78 6 N 23°44'21"W 85.39 14 8 N 50°08'30"E 114.42 9 N 51*4516"E 72.30 20 10 N 599911"E 96.54 12 N 13°48'14"E 114.90 14 N 23°47'30"W 102.20 15 N 28°32'10"W 64.18 16 N 20o51'33"W 61.80 Curve Table 17 N 87°26'45"W 54.49 13 18 S 20*51'33"E 86.81 ID tt Radius(ft) Central Angle Arc Length 21 19 S 28°32'10"E 65.46 7 75.78 59°07'34" 78.20 20 S 23°47'30"E 99.40 11 114.57 45°50'57" 91.68 22 S 13°48'14"W 114.90 13 294.26 36°45'26" 188.78 24 S 59'39'11"W 99.99 21 244.26 36°45'26" 156.70 25 S 51'45'16"W 76.45 23 64.57 45°50'57" 51.67 26 S 50°08'30"W 120.75 27 125.78 62°27'05" 137.10 28 S 23°44'21"E 90.41 22 29 S 35°11'09"E 162.11 12 30 S 54°03'57"E 294.16 31 S 52°24'00"E 187.12 32 S 55°28'15"E 5.72 23 33 S 87°18'57"E 91.82 24 11 25 10 0 1"=100' 100 '9 26 9 ( IN FEET ) y� 8 H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 9 of 9 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR INFORMATION OR CONCURRENCE DATE: May 22, 1997 TO: Larry Warren FROM: Ron Straka (X-5548) CONTACT PERSON: Scott Woodbury (X-5547) SUBJECT: Agreement and Easement with Hunter Douglas Revisions Requested by Hunter Douglas In your memo dated May 6, you approved as to legal form the April 30 draft of the Agreement and Easement with Hunter Douglas. However, Abbie Birmingham of Buck & Gordon has submitted a few proposed changes to the agreement on May 19 in behalf of Hunter Douglas. Please review the proposed changes to the agreement and return any comments you may have by May 28, if possible. The changes are shown in bold or strikethrough font. Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please contact me at X-5548 or Scott Woodbury at X-5547. Attachment Post-it'Fax Note 7671 Date e To #of •, 2LIw� L—i`'t cA rr From - Pages Co./Dept �{ Lill Co. Phone# Fax# Phone# Fax# WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Draft(5/22/97) Project:East Side Green River Office of the City Clerk AGREEMENT AND EASEMENT Watershed Project Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South FOR DRAINAGE CHANNEL AND Work Order#65230 Renton,WA 98055 PEDESTRIAN TRAIL PID: 24230490115 Grantor:Hunter Douglas,Inc Changes from the previous 4/30/97 draft STR: Sec 24,T23N.R4E are in bold or strikethrough font Street Intersection: 19th Street and Raymond Avenue THIS INSTRUMENT, made this day of 1997; by and between Hunter Douglas, Inc., hereinafter called "Hunter Douglas," and the CITY OF RENTON, a Municipal Corporation of King County,Washington,hereinafter called "City." WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas is the owner of certain real property located in the City legally described as Lot 1 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-95-064 (King County Recording No. 9508039005)and which lies adjacent to and west of Springbrook Creek. WHEREAS,the City is proposing to widen Springbrook Creek along the Hunter Douglas property as identified in the East Side Green River Watershed Project Plan and Environmental Impact Statement(City File LUA-95-205,ECF) so as to increase the capacity of the creek to convey flows and thereby reduce upstream flooding problems. WHEREAS, an easement is required from Hunter Douglas over the east 50 feet of its property along Springbrook Creek in order for the City to accomplish the widening project. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas is proposing to develop its property in accordance with the Raymond Avenue Center West proposal(City File No. LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF). WHEREAS,the development proposal includes construction of a private bridge over Springbrook Creek as its primary access, construction of a paved pedestrian trail within a dedicated trail easement allowing public access along the entire length of the Hunter Douglas property along Springbrook Creek, and requires filling within the 100-year floodplain as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas does not have sufficient area on its property to excavate a volume of material equal to the volume of floodplain storage that will be filled by the development, except within the east 50 feet of its property. WHEREAS,the City has offered to construct the required compensatory floodplain storage for the Hunter Douglas development as part of its channel widening project in exchange for the granting of a drainage channel easement over the east 50 feet of the Hunter Douglas property. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas desires that the center of its bridge over Springbrook Creek be offset 9 feet west of the centerline of the property along the creek owned by Drainage District No. I adjacent to and east of the Hunter Douglas property. H:DOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement INITIAL Page 1 of 9 PROPERTY SERVICES WHEREAS, hydraulic analysis conducted by Hunter Douglas shows that the planned widened channel section will need to be centered within the span of the bridge at its shifted location so as to minimize head losses through the structure. WHEREAS, the City may need to construct a retaining wall to support the pedestrian trail on the west bank of the creek when the channel widening project is constructed and shifting the bridge opening closer to the pedestrian trail will result in a need for higher retaining walls supporting the trail in the vicinity of the bridge. WHEREAS, the original design for the Hunter Douglas bridge abutments and wingwalls must be modified so as to allow for future excavation of a widened channel under the bridge. WHEREAS, modifying the bridge design to accommodate the planned channel widening significantly increases the cost of the bridge. WHEREAS, installing the bridge to accommodate the planned channel widening when the bridge is originally constructed is less expensive and disruptive than making modifications to the bridge after it has already been built and is operational. WHEREAS, the City desires that the Hunter Douglas defer construction of the pedestrian trail until after the channel widening is completed so as to avoid the need for temporary closures of a newly constructed trail and to avoid potential damages to the new trail that could result in unnecessary restoration costs and construction delays. WHEREAS, the Hunter Douglas property is currently "land locked" with no developed access to the public right-of-way. WHEREAS, the Hunter Douglas development proposes and approval is based upon being able to construct the bridge over Springbrook Creek as primary access to the Hunter Douglas property. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas must complete installation of the bridge within an extremely tight construction schedule before its temporary construction access easement through Boeing property to the west of the Hunter Douglas property expires. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of ten dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of the performance of the covenants, terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, Hunter Douglas hereby grants, bargains, sells, conveys, and warrants unto the City, its successors and assigns, an permanent non-exclusive easement over, under, through, across and upon that portion of the Hunter Douglas land described in Exhibit A(the easement area). 1. The City shall have the right to use the easement area for installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, removing, repairing, and replacing a drainage channel, pedestrian trail, and related appurtenances and shall have right of ingress and egress thereto for the foregoing purposes without prior institution of any suit or proceedings of law. Following the initial H:DOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 2 of 9 construction of its facilities,the City may from time to time construct such additional facilities as it may require. 2. Except for repair and restoration of damage to the bridge or any of its components, which shall be completed by the City immediately following the occurance which caused such damage,the City shall, upon completion of any work by the City or its agents within the property covered by the easement, restore the surface of the easement, and any mate improvements disturbed or destroyed during execution of the work,to the condition they were in immediately prior to commencement of the work or entry by the City or its agents. All restoration shall be performed as soon as reasonably possible following completion of any work and shall be coordinated in advance with Hunter Douglas so as to cause the minimum amount of disruption to the use of and operation of the Hunter Douglas property of which the easement area is a part. 3. Hunter Douglas shall retain the right to use the easement as long as such use does not interfere with the easement rights granted to the City. Upon providing as much advance notice to the City as possible, Hunter Douglas may use the trail and easement for the purpose of reconstructing, maintaining, and repairing its storm water management facilities, bridge, and related appurtenances. Any improvements disturbed or destroyed during execution of the work must be restored to the condition they were in immediately prior to commencement of the work and use of the trail and easement by Hunter Douglas. All restoration shall be performed as soon as reasonably possible following completion of any work. Hunter Douglas shall perform its work so as to cause the minimum amount of disruption to the use of and operation of the trail and easement and shall provide temporary alternative routes for trail users when possible. Temporary trail closures shall be kept to a minimum. Notice of temporary trail closures shall be posted at least two days in advance in a minimum of two conspicuous locations along the trail as directed by the City. Emergency closures shall be posted immediately. Hunter Douglas shall not,however,have the right to: a. Erect or maintain any buildings, utilities, structures, and related appurtenances within the easement, except the following: • Hunter Douglas may install a vehicular bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances as needed to provide access and utility service across the creek for the Hunter Douglas property. The design and construction of the bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances proposed by Hunter Douglas within the easement area shall be in accordance with the attached plan SPR-3, subject to other governmental agency permit and code requirements and the conditions set forth in this agreement. • Hunter Douglas may install storm water outfall culverts to the creek across the easement. Culvert design and construction are subject to City and other governmental agency permit and code requirements. • Hunter Douglas has agreed to install a pedestrian trail and related appurtenances along the entire length of its property along Springbrook Creek. The pedestrian trail design and construction are subject to City and other governmental agency permit and code H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 3 of 9 requirements. The City agrees that the pedestrian trail and related appurtenances required to be installed by Hunter Douglas, or which are deferred pursuant to Section 11 of this Agreement, shall be substantially similar and with the same general standards for construction and materials as those required of property owners adjacent to the Hunter Douglas property. b. Develop, landscape, or beautify the easement area in any way which is inconsistent with landscaping plans developed by the City as part of its channel widening project or which would unreasonably increase the costs to the City of restoring the easement area and any private improvements therein. 4. Hunter Douglas agrees to design and install bridge abutments and wingwalls which allow for future excavation of a widened channel at the bridge crossing. The design of the abutments shall based on a future ground elevation at the face of the abutments of 11.7 feet(NAVD 1988 Datum) and 2 feet of cover above the bottom of the abutments. The design of the wingwalls shall be based on a future excavated grade of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical extending upslope from the future ground elevation of 11.7 feet at the face of the abutments. 5. The City agrees to reduce the following Hunter Douglas development/mitigation fees by up to a total amount of one-hundred and thirty-six thousand four-hundred and eighty-seven dollars ($136,487). • Surface Water, Wastewater, and Water Utility system development charges. • Transportation mitigation fee. The total amount by which the fees will be reduced shall be determined by computing the actual cost to design and install the bridge wingwalls and abutments in accordance with item 4 above and subtracting the cost Hunter Douglas would have incurred to design and install the abutments and wingwalls to fit existing channel grades. The final cost determination shall be made by `he C4ty based upon a detailed cost report prepared by Hunter Douglas. At a minimum the detailed cost report shall include the following information: a. A detailed cost breakdown of the actual design and installation cost for the bridge as constructed under the terms of this agreement, including a separate breakdown for the abutments and wingwalls. b. A detailed cost breakdown of the design and installation cost for the bridge had the abutments and wingwalls not been constructed to accommodate the future widening project in same format and level of detail as the cost breakdown for item 5a above. Actual design cost shall be used. Construction costs shall be estimated using the same unit prices for the bridge as actually constructed for similar items of work. c. The cost report shall list the quantity installed and the unit price for each item of work used in computing the total cost. The report is also to include all pertinent supporting documentation, such as material invoices, labor charges, equipment charges, approved bid proposals, and approved change orders. Costs shall include Washington State sales tax as applicable. The City shall provide Hunter Douglas with any comments on the detailed cost report within fifteen (15) days after receipt thereof. The parties shall work diligently together H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 4 of 9 to resolve any differences in conclusions as to the amount of credit to which Hunter Douglas shall be entitled. Payment of the full amount of the development/mitigation fees listed above minus that portion to be offset by the City as set forth in this agreement shall be made at or prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Any costs exceeding the maximum allowable reduction in development/mitigation fees ($136,487) shall be the responsibility of Hunter Douglas. 6. Hunter Douglas retains full responsibility for the installation, operation, maintenance, and repair of the entire bridge structure, including that portion installed to accommodate the future channel widening project, and shall hold the City harmless for any liability arising therefrom. This shall not release the City ffem its obligation tE) eamplete any r-estef!ation required as-a result of any f..tuye. erk by the Git.,E)F its agent . of f f4h in item 2 above. In the event the City damages the bridge structure or any portion or component thereof, however, the City shall have full responsibility for the repairs or restoration of the bridge or any portion thereof performed by the City pursuant to Section 2 of this Agreement,and shall indemnify, defend and hold Hunter Douglas harmless from and against any claims, damages,actions,costs and fees(including attorney's fees)arising from such damage and repair and restoration. 7. Hunter Douglas agrees to keep available for inspection, by the City, for a period of six months after Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the Hunter Douglas project, the cost records and accounts pertaining to this agreement and all items related to, or bearing upon,these records. 8. Hunter Douglas agrees to release the City from any liability resulting from failure to complete construction of the bridge within the time limits established by any permit or easement granted the Hunter Douglas project. 9. Hunter Douglas agrees to pay any additional costs associated with the need for deeper retaining walls along the pedestrian trail in the vicinity of the bridge resulting from shifting the bridge 9 feet to the west. It is estimated that the wall height would increase 3 feet at the bridge and have no impact beyond 100 feet either side of the bridge. The resultant impact of the bridge offset and the need to install the widened channel section centered in the bridge opening and therefore closer to the pedestrian trail is then estimated at 300 square feet of additional wall area. The City agrees to be responsible for maintenance and repair of the completed retaining wall. 10. The City agrees to provide and construct any compensatory storage volume required for filling in the 100-year FEMA floodplain caused by the Hunter Douglas proposal. 11. The City and Hunter Douglas agree to defer construction of the pedestrian trail until no later than September 1998, unless an extension of the deferral is agreed to by both parties. The deferral shall be in accordance with Section 4-32-12 of the Renton City Code as if the requirements were set forth fully within this agreement, except that the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department shall perform all functions attributed to the H:DOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 5 of 9 Board of Public Works and the amount of the security shall be reduced from 150% to 120% of the estimated cost of the pedestrian trail and related appurtenances. The cost used to determine the amount of the security shall include the additional costs associated with the need for deeper retaining walls along the trail as set forth in item 6 above. At its option, the City may install the pedestrian trail as part of the channel widening project currently scheduled for the summer of 1998, in which case Hunter Douglas would reimburse the City for its share of the actual costs to install the trail and related appurtenances. The agreement and easement shall run with the land described herein, and shall be binding upon the parties,their heirs, successors in interest and assigns. Hunter Douglas covenants that they are the lawful owners of the above properties and that they have a good and lawful right to execute this agreement. Signatures of Hunter Douglas: and ; and ; STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she/they was/were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of to be the free and voluntary act of such party/parties for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated Notary Public in and for the State of Washington residing at Notary(print): My appointment expires: Approved as to Legal Form: CITY OF RENTON BY: BY Lawrence J. Warren, Jesse Tanner City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: BY Marilyn J. Petersen City Clerk H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 6 of 9 THE CITY OF RENTON 1i DEPARTMENT OF < kgk PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS FOURTH FLOOR 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH a' RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: 235-2541 t To: Mark Miller Company: Phone: 455-1724 Fax: 455-5076 From: Scott Woodbury Phone: 425-277-5547 Fax: 425-235-2541 Date: 5/20/97 Pages incl this cover page: 7 Subject: Hunter Douglas Agreement The Utilities Committee has approved the Hunter Douglas agreement and will recommend that the full Council approve the agreement at the June 2 Council meeting. Prior to the June 2 meeting we need to finalize the agreement. Abbie Birmingham of Buck& Gordon has submitted a few proposed changes to the agreement on May 19 in behalf of Hunter Douglas. The changes requested have been made and are shown in bold or strikethrough font. Before we send the agreement to the City Attorney for review of the final document, I have some concerns with the requested revision to Section 6 of the agreement. As revised it seems that if the City damages the bridge, not matter how slightly, it could be interpreted that Hunter Douglas is relieved of any responsibility for the entire bridge. I would like to propose the following language for Section 6: 6. Hunter Douglas retains full responsibility for the installation, operation, maintenance, and repair of the entire bridge structure, including that portion installed to accommodate the future channel widening project, and shall hold the City harmless for any liability arising therefrom. This Shall net release the C=4 , f em its obligation to eamplete an), Fester-atien required as a result 4 an), future wer-k by the Git�, or its agent as set foFth in item 2 above. In the event the City damages the bridge structure or any portion or component thereof, however, the City shall have full responsibility for the repairs or restoration of the bridge or any portion thereof performed by the City pursuant to Section 2 of this Agreement, and shall indemnify, defend and hold Hunter Douglas harmless from and against any claims, damages, actions, costs and fees (including attorney's fees)arising from such damage and repair and restoration. Please review the attached agreement and the proposed language for Section 6 above with Hunter Douglas and let me know as soon as possible whether the agreement is acceptable to forward to the City Attorney as the proposed final version. Thanks. If you have any questions, please call me at 277-5547. WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Draft(5/20/97) Project:East Side Green River Office of the City Clerk Renton Municipal Building AGREEMENT AND EASEMENT Watershed Project 200 Mill Avenue South FOR DRAINAGE CHANNEL AND Work Order#65230 Renton,WA 98055 PEDESTRIAN TRAIL PID: 24230490115 Grantor:Hunter Douglas.Inc Changes from the previous 4/30/97 draft STR: Sec 24,T23N.R4E are in bold or strikethrough font Street Intersection: 19th Street and Raymond Avenue THIS INSTRUMENT, made this day of 1997; by and between Hunter Douglas, Inc., hereinafter called "Hunter Douglas," and the CITY OF RENTON, a Municipal Corporation of King County, Washington,hereinafter called "City." WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas is the owner of certain real property located in the City legally described as Lot 1 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-95-064 (King County Recording No. 9508039005)and which lies adjacent to and west of Springbrook Creek. WHEREAS,the City is proposing to widen Springbrook Creek along the Hunter Douglas property as identified in the East Side Green River Watershed Project Plan and Environmental Impact Statement(City File LUA-95-205,ECF) so as to increase the capacity of the creek to convey flows and thereby reduce upstream flooding problems. WHEREAS, an easement is required from Hunter Douglas over the east 50 feet of its property along Springbrook Creek in order for the City to accomplish the widening project. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas is proposing to develop its property in accordance with the Raymond Avenue Center West proposal(City File No. LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF). WHEREAS, the development proposal includes construction of a private bridge over Springbrook Creek as its primary access, construction of a paved pedestrian trail within a dedicated trail easement allowing public access along the entire length of the Hunter Douglas property along Springbrook Creek, and requires filling within the 100-year floodplain as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas does not have sufficient area on its property to excavate a volume of material equal to the volume of floodplain storage that will be filled by the development, except within the east 50 feet of its property. WHEREAS,the City has offered to construct the required compensatory floodplain storage for the Hunter Douglas development as part of its channel widening project in exchange for the granting of a drainage channel easement over the east 50 feet of the Hunter Douglas property. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas desires that the center of its bridge over Springbrook Creek be offset 9 feet west of the centerline of the property along the creek owned by Drainage District No. I adjacent to and east of the Hunter Douglas property. H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement MTLAL Page 1 of 9 PROPERTY SERVICES WHEREAS, hydraulic analysis conducted by Hunter Douglas shows that the planned widened channel section will need to be centered within the span of the bridge at its shifted location so as to minimize head losses through the structure. WHEREAS, the City may need to construct a retaining wall to support the pedestrian trail on the west bank of the creek when the channel widening project is constructed and shifting the bridge opening closer to the pedestrian trail will result in a need for higher retaining walls supporting the trail in the vicinity of the bridge. WHEREAS, the original design for the Hunter Douglas bridge abutments and wingwalls must be modified so as to allow for future excavation of a widened channel under the bridge. WHEREAS, modifying the bridge design to accommodate the planned channel widening significantly increases the cost of the bridge. WHEREAS, installing the bridge to accommodate the planned channel widening when the bridge is originally constructed is less expensive and disruptive than making modifications to the bridge after it has already been built and is operational. WHEREAS, the City desires that the Hunter Douglas defer construction of the pedestrian trail until after the channel widening is completed so as to avoid the need for temporary closures of a newly constructed trail and to avoid potential damages to the new trail that could result in unnecessary restoration costs and construction delays. WHEREAS, the Hunter Douglas property is currently "land locked" with no developed access to the public right-of-way. WHEREAS, the Hunter Douglas development proposes and approval is based upon being able to construct the bridge over Springbrook Creek as primary access to the Hunter Douglas property. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas must complete installation of the bridge within an extremely tight construction schedule before its temporary construction access easement through Boeing property to the west of the Hunter Douglas property expires. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of ten dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of the performance of the covenants, terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, Hunter Douglas hereby grants, bargains, sells, conveys, and warrants unto the City, its successors and assigns, an permanent non-exclusive easement over, under, through, across and upon that portion of the Hunter Douglas land described in Exhibit A(the easement area). 1. The City shall have the right to use the easement area for installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, removing, repairing, and replacing a drainage channel, pedestrian trail, and related appurtenances and shall have right of ingress and egress thereto for the foregoing purposes without prior institution of any suit or proceedings of law. Following the initial H:DOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 2 of 9 construction of its facilities,the City may from time to time construct such additional facilities as it may require. 2. Except for repair and restoration of damage to the bridge or any of its components, which shall be completed by the City immediately following the occurance which caused such damage,the City shall, upon completion of any work by the City or its agents within the property covered by the easement, restore the surface of the easement, and any pr-ivate improvements disturbed or destroyed during execution of the work,to the condition they were in immediately prior to commencement of the work or entry by the City or its agents. All restoration shall be performed as soon as reasonably possible following completion of any work and shall be coordinated in advance with Hunter Douglas so as to cause the minimum amount of disruption to the use of and operation of the Hunter Douglas property of which the easement area is a part. 3. Hunter Douglas shall retain the right to use the easement as long as such use does not interfere with the easement rights granted to the City. Upon providing as much advance notice to the City as possible, Hunter Douglas may use the trail and easement for the purpose of reconstructing, maintaining, and repairing its storm water management facilities, bridge, and related appurtenances. Any improvements disturbed or destroyed during execution of the work must be restored to the condition they were in immediately prior to commencement of the work and use of the trail and easement by Hunter Douglas. All restoration shall be performed as soon as reasonably possible following completion of any work. Hunter Douglas shall perform its work so as to cause the minimum amount of disruption to the use of and operation of the trail and easement and shall provide temporary alternative routes for trail users when possible. Temporary trail closures shall be kept to a minimum. Notice of temporary trail closures shall be posted at least two days in advance in a minimum of two conspicuous locations along the trail as directed by the City. Emergency closures shall be posted immediately. Hunter Douglas shall not,however, have the right to: a. Erect or maintain any buildings, utilities, structures, and related appurtenances within the easement, except the following: • Hunter Douglas may install a vehicular bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances as needed to provide access and utility service across the creek for the Hunter Douglas property. The design and construction of the bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances proposed by Hunter Douglas within the easement area shall be in accordance with the attached plan SPR-3, subject to other governmental agency permit and code requirements and the conditions set forth in this agreement. • Hunter Douglas may install storm water outfall culverts to the creek across the easement. Culvert design and construction are subject to City and other governmental agency permit and code requirements. • Hunter Douglas has agreed to install a pedestrian trail and related appurtenances along the entire length of its property along Springbrook Creek. The pedestrian trail design and construction are subject to City and other governmental agency permit and code H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 3 of 9 requirements. The City agrees that the pedestrian trail and related appurtenances required to be installed by Hunter Douglas, or which are deferred pursuant to Section 11 of this Agreement, shall be substantially similar and with the same general standards for construction and materials as those required of property owners adjacent to the Hunter Douglas property. b. Develop, landscape, or beautify the easement area in any way which is inconsistent with landscaping plans developed by the City as part of its channel widening project or which would unreasonably increase the costs to the City of restoring the easement area and any private improvements therein. 4. Hunter Douglas agrees to design and install bridge abutments and wingwalls which allow for future excavation of a widened channel at the bridge crossing. The design of the abutments shall based on a future ground elevation at the face of the abutments of 11.7 feet(NAVD 1988 Datum) and 2 feet of cover above the bottom of the abutments. The design of the wingwalls shall be based on a future excavated grade of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical extending upslope from the future ground elevation of 11.7 feet at the face of the abutments. 5. The City agrees to reduce the following Hunter Douglas development/mitigation fees by up to a total amount of one-hundred and thirty-six thousand four-hundred and eighty-seven dollars ($136,487). • Surface Water, Wastewater,and Water Utility system development charges. • Transportation mitigation fee. The total amount by which the fees will be reduced shall be determined by computing the actual cost to design and install the bridge wingwalls and abutments in accordance with item 4 above and subtracting the cost Hunter Douglas would have incurred to design and install the abutments and wingwalls to fit existing channel grades. The final cost determination shall be made by the C4ty based upon a detailed cost report prepared by Hunter Douglas. At a minimum the detailed cost report shall include the following information: a. A detailed cost breakdown of the actual design and installation cost for the bridge as constructed under the terms of this agreement, including a separate breakdown for the abutments and wingwalls. b. A detailed cost breakdown of the design and installation cost for the bridge had the abutments and wingwalls not been constructed to accommodate the future widening project in same format and level of detail as the cost breakdown for item 5a above. Actual design cost shall be used. Construction costs shall be estimated using the same unit prices for the bridge as actually constructed for similar items of work. c. The cost report shall list the quantity installed and the unit price for each item of work used in computing the total cost. The report is also to include all pertinent supporting documentation, such as material invoices, labor charges, equipment charges, approved bid proposals, and approved change orders. Costs shall include Washington State sales tax as applicable. The City shall provide Hunter Douglas with any comments on the detailed cost report within fifteen (15) days after receipt thereof. The parties shall work diligently together H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 4 of 9 to resolve any differences in conclusions as to the amount of credit to which Hunter Douglas shall be entitled. Payment of the full amount of the development/mitigation fees listed above minus that portion to be offset by the City as set forth in this agreement shall be made at or prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Any costs exceeding the maximum allowable reduction in development/mitigation fees($136,487) shall be the responsibility of Hunter Douglas. 6. Except in the event the City damages the bridge structure or any portion or component thereof and repair and restores the damaged portion, Hunter Douglas retains full responsibility for the installation, operation, maintenance, and repair of the entire bridge structure, including that portion installed to accommodate the future channel widening project, and shall hold the City harmless for any liability arising therefrom. This shall net release the the Gityor- its agent as set f f4h in item 2 above. The City shall have full responsibility for the repairs or restoration of the bridge or any portion thereof performed by the City pursuant to Section 2 of this Agreement, and shall indemnify, defend and hold Hunter Douglas harmless from and against any claims, damages, actions, costs and fees (including attorney's fees) arising from such damage and repair and restoration. 7. Hunter Douglas agrees to keep available for inspection, by the City, for a period of six months after Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the Hunter Douglas project, the cost records and accounts pertaining to this agreement and all items related to, or bearing upon,these records. 8. Hunter Douglas agrees to release the City from any liability resulting from failure to complete construction of the bridge within the time limits established by any permit or easement granted the Hunter Douglas project. 9. Hunter Douglas agrees to pay any additional costs associated with the need for deeper retaining walls along the pedestrian trail in the vicinity of the bridge resulting from shifting the bridge 9 feet to the west. It is estimated that the wall height would increase 3 feet at the bridge and have no impact beyond 100 feet either side of the bridge. The resultant impact of the bridge offset and the need to install the widened channel section centered in the bridge opening and therefore closer to the pedestrian trail is then estimated at 300 square feet of additional wall area. The City agrees to be responsible for maintenance and repair of the completed retaining wall. 10. The City agrees to provide and construct any compensatory storage volume required for filling in the 100-year FEMA floodplain caused by the Hunter Douglas proposal. 11. The City and Hunter Douglas agree to defer construction of the pedestrian trail until no later than September 1998, unless an extension of the deferral is agreed to by both parties. The deferral shall be in accordance with Section 4-32-12 of the Renton City Code as if the requirements were set forth fully within this agreement, except that the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department shall perform all functions attributed to the H:DOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 5 of 9 Board of Public Works and the amount of the security shall be reduced from 150% to 120% of the estimated cost of the pedestrian trail and related appurtenances. The cost used to determine the amount of the security shall include the additional costs associated with the need for deeper retaining walls along the trail as set forth in item 6 above. At its option, the City may install the pedestrian trail as part of the channel widening project currently scheduled for the summer of 1998, in which case Hunter Douglas would reimburse the City for its share of the actual costs to install the trail and related appurtenances. The agreement and easement shall run with the land described herein, and shall be binding upon the parties,their heirs, successors in interest and assigns. Hunter Douglas covenants that they are the lawful owners of the above properties and that they have a good and lawful right to execute this agreement. Signatures of Hunter Douglas: and ; and ; STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she/they was/were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of to be the free and voluntary act of such party/parties for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated Notary Public in and for the State of Washington residing at Notary(print): My appointment expires: Approved as to Legal Form: CITY OF RENTON BY: BY Lawrence J. Warren, Jesse Tanner City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: BY Marilyn J. Petersen City Clerk H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 6 of 9 Sent by: BUCK &- GORDON 206 626 6075; 05/20/97 9:47AM;Jeffax #6; Page 1 /4 BUCK & 902 WAT£RFRON7 PLACt loll 'WESThKN AVZNLJE LJ S"TTLE,W ASHINv ION 98104-109 i GORDON (206) 382-9540 • FACSIMILE(106) 626.0675 ATTORNEYS AT LAW .a%LWN U. BIRMINGHAM Ault'L KCT'TERLITZ WILL"M H.BLOCK.P S KF.ITN E.MOXON. SAMUEL W PLAUCI IF. PL7@] L. ROCK mi:NT C:4RSON CHRlS L.JrROOS KITTERIL?Gr OLDHAM JAY P DERR realeia K wn,,=,< JOEL N.GORDON BRADLEY I,S l.lLJEQUIST,MCA' FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET THIS FACSIMILE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OFTHE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL, PRIVILEGED INFORI.4AT10N, IF THE READER OF THIS COVER PAGE IS NOT THE ADDRESSEE. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION,DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS FACSIMILE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED IF YOU RECEIVE THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE CALL IMMEDIATELY AT 206392.9540 AND RETURN THIS FACSIMILE TO BUCK&GORDON AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS BY MAIL. THANK YOU. TO: Scott Woodbury FAX ;F: 235.2541 Chris Outlaw 201-237-5749 FROM: Abbie Birmingham DATE: May 20, 1997 RE: Agreement Berween City of Renton and Hunter Douglas We are transmitting the following: Memo with comments on form of proposed Agreement Comments: Call with any questions or comments NUMBER OF PAGES: A- (including this page) Hard copy: ❑ to follow 0 retained If you did not receive all copies, or if any are not legible, 0ease cal'. Chris at (206) 382-9540. Sent by: BUCK &- GORDON 206 626 6075; 05/20/97 9:47AM;JetFjX #6; Page 2/4 MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Woodbury Chris Outlaw FROM: Abbie Birmingham DATE: May 20, 1997 RE: Agreement and Eascment Between City of Redmond and Hunter Douglas The purpose of this Memorandum is to propose specific alternate language regarding those issues discussed between Scott and Abbie. 1 . Section 2 - At the beginning of the first sentence, please insert: the following: Except for repair and restoration of damage to the bridge or any of its components, which shall be completed by the City immediately following the occurrence which caused such damage, . . . 2 . Section 3 . After the last "bullet" paragraph at the bottom of page 3 , please add the following: The City agrees that the pedestrian trail and related appurtenances required to be installed by Hunter Douglas , or Y:\WPIHDNW\M05197A.P-0B 5/20/97 Sent by: BUCK &- GORDON 206 626 6075; 05/20/97 9:48AM;,JetFax #6; Page 3/4 which are deferred pursuant to Section 11 of this Agreement, shall be substantially similar and with the same general standards for construction and materials as those required of property owners adjacent to the Hunter Douglas property. 3 . Section 5 . The change suggested to this paragraph, deleting the words "made by the City' , is acceptable . In addition, we should provide a timeframe for City comments, and the following should be inserted before the last paragraph on page 4 . The City shall provide Hunter Douglas with any comments on the detailed cost report within fifteen (15) days after receipt thereof . The parties shall work diligently together to resolve any differences in conclusions as to the amount of credit to which Hunter Douglas shall be entitled. 4 . Section 6 . (a) Insert the following at the beginning of this Section: Except in the event the City damages the bridge structure or any portion or component thereof and repairs and restores the damaged portion. . . (b) Delete the second sentence of Section 6, and substitute the following: The City shall have full responsibility for the repairs or restoration of the bridge or any portion thereof performed by the City pursuant to Section 2 of this Agreement, and Y:\W?\HD9011,M051VIA.ADS 2 S/20/97 Sent by: BUCK &- GORDON 206 626 6075; 05/20/97 9:48AM,Je(FaX #6; Page 4/4 shall indemnify, defend and hold Hunter Douglas harmless from and against any claims, damages, actions, costs and fees (including attorneys ' fees) arising from such damage and repair and restoration. Please call if you have any questions or wish to discuss this any further . Your assistance and cooperation are very much appreciated. XDbM\M05197A.AD& Yc\W2\HDS]W\M0I-157A.ADB 3 5/2D/97 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL , Al #: Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Utility Systems Division/Surface Water Utility May 19, 1997 Staff Contact...... Ron Olsen, Ron Straka Agenda Status Scott Woodbury(x-5547) Consent.............. X Subject: Public Hearing... Hunter Douglas Agreement and Easement for Correspondence.. Drainage Channel and Pedestrian Trail Ordinance............. Resolution............ Old Business........ Exhibits: New Business....... Issue Paper Study Sessions....... Draft Agreement and Easement Information......... Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Utilities Committee of May 20 (Agreement/Utility Expenditure) I egal Dept......... X Refer to Finance Committee of June 9 (General Fund Expenditure) Finance Dept...... Risk Management Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $136,487 Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted.......... $0 Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget $0 City Share Total Project.. $136,487 Summary of Action: Hunter Douglas is developing the north portion of a 14.2 acre property at 2000 Raymond Avenue SW under the Raymond Avenue Center West proposal (City File No. LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF). The eastern boundary of the development site lies along a reach of Springbrook Creek. The development proposal includes a private bridge crossing of the creek as the only non-emergency access to the site. The City intends to widen the creek at some future time along the Hunter Douglas site as identified in the Surface Water Utility's East Side Green River Watershed Project (ESGRWP). Depending upon available funding from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the ESGRWP's federal grant sponsor, the widening could be accomplished as early as 1998. Right-of-way must be acquired from the Hunter Douglas site and the proposed bridge properly designed and installed if the future widening project is to be constructed as planned. The 2.0 acre easement needed for widening the channel must be secured by the City in order to be eligible for potential future federal grant assistance from the Natural Resources Conservation Service. To reimburse Hunter Douglas for the easement and for installing the bridge to accommodate the future widening, it is recommended that the City agree to offset up to $136,487 of the Hunter Douglas project's mitigation/development fees that will become due for the development proposal. It is further recommended that the General Fund reimburse $22,000 of the fees offset under the agreement with the balance of the fees being reimbursed by the Surface Water Utility. The easement also allows public use of the pedestrian trail that will be constructed across the Hunter Douglas property along the creek. Details regarding the compensation and other terms and conditions for the easement are included in the attached Agreement and Easement and the accompanying issue paper. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement and Easement with Hunter Douglas. Authorize the expenditure of $22,000 from the General Fund and up to $114,487 from the Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement Program budget for the East Side Green River Watershed Project to reimburse the maximum amount due Hunter Douglas under the agreement. H:DOCS:97-409:SW:ps CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: May 12, 1997 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, President Members of the City Council VIA: Mayor Jesse Tanner FROM: Gregg Zimmerman (� STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka(X-5548) Scott Woodbury(X-5547) SUBJECT: HUNTER DOUGLAS AGREEMENT AND EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE CHANNEL AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL ISSUE: Authorize execution of an Agreement and Easement for Drainage Channel and Pedestrian Trail with Hunter Douglas, Inc. Authorize the expenditure of $22,000 from the General Fund and up to $114,487 from the Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement Program budget to reimburse the maximum amount due Hunter Douglas under the agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement and Easement for Drainage Channel and Pedestrian Trail with Hunter Douglas, Inc. Authorize the expenditure of $22,000 from the General Fund and up to $114,487 from the Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement Program budget for the East Side Green River Watershed Project (ESGRWP) account to reimburse the maximum amount due Hunter Douglas under the agreement. The approved 1997 adjusted budget for the ESGRWP account is $427,588. BACKGROUND: Hunter Douglas is developing the north portion of a 14.2 acre property at 2000 Raymond Avenue SW under the Raymond Avenue Center West proposal (City File No. LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF). The eastern boundary of the development site lies along a reach of Springbrook Creek (see attached Figure 1). The development proposal includes a private bridge crossing of the creek as the only non-emergency access to the site. The City intends to widen the creek at some future time along the Hunter Douglas site as identified in the Surface Water Utility's East Side Green River Watershed Project (ESGRWP). Depending upon available funding, the widening could be accomplished as early as 1998. Right-of-way must be acquired from the Hunter Douglas site and the proposed bridge properly designed and installed if the future widening project is to be constructed as planned. r Kathy Keolker=Wheeler,President and Members of the City Council ` Hunter Douglas Agreement/Easement for Drainage Channel and Pedestrian Trail Page 2 The construction cost to widen the channel from SW 16th Street to SW 23rd Street, which includes the portion along the Hunter Douglas site, is estimated to be up to $2,000,000. In the past, channel improvements along Springbrook Creek have been largely funded by the ESGRWP's federal sponsor, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). The most recent channel widening project on Springbrook Creek from SW 16th Street to SW Grady Way was accepted by the Council on March 3, 1997, at total cost of just over $720,000. Approximately $520,000 of this cost is funded by NRCS. NRCS may fund up to 100% of the construction cost for widening the channel from SW 16th Street to SW 23rd Street. However, any property rights needed for widening the channel must be secured by the City in order to be eligible for potential future federal grant assistance from NRCS. NRCS will be requesting funding through its federal small watershed program for the SW 16th Street to SW 23rd Street reach for fiscal year 1998. Acquiring the Hunter Douglas easement will demonstrate the City's commitment to continuing its productive relationship with the NRCS. Including the recent construction cited above, this relationship has resulted in the construction of over 12 million dollars of improvements by NRCS (adjusted to today's dollars), including the Black River Pump Station which protects the Springbrook Creek Valley from high Green River flows. In order to construct their private bridge across the creek, Hunter Douglas must obtain an easement over the 40-foot property centered along the creek that is owned by King County Drainage District No. 1 (DD#1). Surface Water Utility staff were working with DD#1 to require that Hunter Douglas comply with the following conditions in order to obtain the easement from DD#1: • require Hunter Douglas grant the City (or DD#1) the necessary right-of-way for the future channel widening project • require Hunter Douglas to install the bridge so that it accommodated the future widening. In return, the Surface Water Utility would construct the Hunter Douglas project's compensatory storage required for filling the FEMA 100-year floodplain when the channel widening project is constructed. However, Hunter Douglas indicated to the City that it would abandon its development proposal if the project would be responsible for the additional cost to construct the bridge to accommodate the future channel. If Hunter Douglas abandoned their development proposal, then the City would likely have to resort to condemnation to obtain the easement, potentially jeopardizing the schedule for the channel widening and losing a prospective employer and economic revenue source for the City. Therefore, it is recommended that the City reimburse Hunter Douglas for the 2.0 acre easement and for installing bridge to accommodate the future widening by offsetting up to $136,487 of the Hunter Douglas project's mitigation/development fees that will become due for the development proposal as follows: • offset $33,434.47 of the total amount of$33,434.47 that will become due for the Surface Water Utility system development charge; • offset up to $37,310.90 of the total amount of$37,310.90 that will become due for the Water Utility system development charge; • offset up to $25,754.43 of the total amount of $25,754.43 that will become due for the Wastewater Utility system development charge; and • offset up to $39,987.20 of the total amount of $45,525.00 that will become due for the Transportation System Division mitigation fee. Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,President and Members of the City Council Hunter Douglas Agreement/Easement for Drainage Channel and Pedestrian Trail Page 3 The $136,487 cost estimate for modifying the bridge to accommodate the future channel widening was based on the attached April 17, 1997, letter to Mark Miller Consultants from Donovan Brothers. The modifications to the Hunter Douglas bridge that are required to accommodate the future channel widening project include the lowering of the bridge abutments to the future channel depth and changes to the bridge wingwalls. These structural changes to the bridge cause an increase in the bridge design and construction cost of $136,487. The total amount by which the fees will be reduced will be based on actual costs not to exceed the maximum amount of$136,487. It is further recommended that $22,000 of the Water, Wastewater, and Transportation mitigation/development fees to be offset under the agreement by reimbursed be the City's General Fund. The balance of the fees would be reimbursed by the Surface Water Utility's Capital Improvement Program. This would be accomplished by transferring $22,000 to the Surface Water Utility's Capital Improvement Program from the City's General Fund ending fund balance for 1997 or from future moneys to be allocated in the 1998 General Fund annual budget. The Surface Water Utility would then be responsible for reimbursing the full amount of the Water Utility, Wastewater Utility, and Transportation Systems Division mitigation/development fees offset under the agreement from the Surface Water Utility's Capital Improvement Program budget for the ESGRWP. The approved Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement Budget for the ESGRWP account is $427,588. However, a majority of the budget is already programmed to be spent on the design and construction of other improvements identified in the ESGRWP. The unspent portion of the project budget at the end of this year will be used to reimburse the Water Utility, Wastewater Utility, and the Transportation Division. Otherwise, the Surface Water Utility will be including the reimbursement payment in the 1998 project budget request. The approach described above allows clear separation of the budget review authorities of the Finance Committee (General Fund) and Utilities Committee (Utility budget) and allows the agreement to go before the Utilities Committee on May 20 prior to the Finance Committee meeting of June 9. The$22,000 General Fund contribution is recommended because of the economic benefit afforded the City as a result of Hunter Douglas continuing with their development proposal. As discussed on page 2, Hunter Douglas would continue with their development only on the condition that the City absorb the cost of constructing the bridge to accommodate the future widened channel. The $22,000 is approximately the difference between the estimated cost of lowering the bridge abutments to accommodate the future widened channel and the total amount of the Surface Water Utility system development charge. Details regarding the methods for determining the actual amount to be offset and other terms and conditions for the easement are included in the attached Agreement and Easement for Drainage Channel. The easement also allows public use of the pedestrian trail that will be constructed across the Hunter Douglas property along the creek. The City also agrees to provide and construct the compensatory storage volume required for filling in the 100-year FEMA floodplain caused by the Hunter Douglas project. Separate from this proposed easement acquisition, an additional acquisition is also needed from the Boeing Company to secure all of the property rights necessary for the future 16th Street to 23rd Street channel widening project. Negotiations with the Boeing Company are pending. H:DOCS:97408:SW:ps CC: Ron Olsen Victoria Runkle Paula Henderson Am ier Ila /as fro CH slnv,x t kd d tt RIVE F q I s« n ®® d t F A IA Ms A dp ww I LLIN R � s ITM s< r St Z7• A t 1 S1 CHA a S7 Z7ri R vv1 S1 = R � zr zx, ` • M � s 1a.e x -M A P lraeA c ' S J6" nu be i M � < 1 S IhC�$1 6 cSC 1 s ILA I Z City Of RG00n, SurfSCe Weter Utility o 1•=2000• z000 FIGURE 1 LEGEND: C IN FEET > PROJECT AREA MAP ---- cicy Limits 4 EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PROJECT flt'K-1 I—d I I hU I e;n rn UUNUVHN UKU I t1C.Ka r hA 14U. cuo oZ)o 1004 U(- Donowt1il\ Brothers COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 1801,West Valley Highway North,Suite 101 P.O.Box 818,Auburn,WA 98071-0818 April 17, 1997 206/939-7777,FAX:206/939-7994 Mark Miller Consultants Mark Miller 10801 Main Street, #100 Bellevue, WA 98004 Dear Mark: As you know, we recently received the final proposed bridge modification drawings for the Hunter-Douglas, Inc.project These drawings reflect the deepened abutments along with the extended wing walls and associated pilings,pile caps,grade beams,etc. Following is a breakdown of the added costs for this work: Lower the abutments $41,438.00 Design&engineering fees $10,325.00 W.S-S.T. 3,564.00 $55,327.00 Addition of wing walls $66,031.00 Design&engineering fees $ 9,450.00 W.S.S.T. 5,679.00 $81,160.00 TOTAL: $136,487,00 As you would expect, we can only offer this pricing if the work outlined can be accomplished with the bridge construction itself. If this work is done at a later date, out of the sequence of current construction,we would need to re-estimate the work required and the costs would undoubtedly increase substantially. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Olmei ior.Project Man er GO:cs 04/17/97 THU 12:21 (TX/RX NO 77141 191002 f emu✓ WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Draft(4/30/97) Project:East Side Green River Office of the City Clerk Renton Municipal Building AGREEMENT AND EASEMENT Watershed Project 200 Mill Avenue South FOR DRAINAGE CHANNEL AND Work Order#65230 Renton,WA 98055 PEDESTRIAN TRAIL P[D: 24230490115 Grantor:Hunter Douelas.Inc Changes from the previous draft STR: Sec 24.T23N.R4E are in bold Street Intersection: 19th Street and Raymond Avenue THIS INSTRUMENT, made this day of 1997; by and between Hunter Douglas, Inc., hereinafter called "Hunter Douglas," and the CITY OF RENTON, a Municipal Corporation of King County, Washington, hereinafter called "City." WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas is the owner of certain real property located in the City legally described as Lot 1 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-95-064 (King County Recording No. 9508039005)and which lies adjacent to and west of Springbrook Creek. WHEREAS,the City is proposing to widen Springbrook Creek along the Hunter Douglas property as identified in the East Side Green River Watershed Project Plan and Environmental Impact Statement(City File LUA-95-205,ECF) so as to increase the capacity of the creek to convey flows and thereby reduce upstream flooding problems. WHEREAS, an easement is required from Hunter Douglas over the east 50 feet of its property along Springbrook Creek in order for the City to accomplish the widening project. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas is proposing to develop its property in accordance with the Raymond Avenue Center West proposal (City File No. LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF). WHEREAS, the development proposal includes construction of a private bridge over Springbrook Creek as its primary access, construction of a paved pedestrian trail within a dedicated trail easement allowing public access along the entire length of the Hunter Douglas property along Springbrook Creek, and requires filling within the 100-year floodplain as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas does not have sufficient area on its property to excavate a volume of material equal to the volume of floodplain storage that will be filled by the development, except within the east 50 feet of its property. WHEREAS,the City has offered to construct the required compensatory floodplain storage for.the Hunter Douglas development as part of its channel widening project in exchange for the granting of a drainage channel easement over the east 50 feet of the Hunter Douglas property. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas desires that the center of its bridge over Springbrook Creek be offset 9 feet west of the centerline of the property along the creek owned by Drainage District No. 1 adjacent to and east of the Hunter Douglas property. H:DOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement INITIAL. Page 1 of 9 PROPERTY SERVICES WHEREAS, hydraulic analysis conducted by Hunter Douglas shows that the planned widened channel section will need to be centered within the span of the bridge at its shifted location so as to minimize head losses through the structure. WHEREAS, the City may need to construct a retaining wall to support the pedestrian trail on the west bank of the creek when the channel widening project is constructed and shifting the bridge opening closer to the pedestrian trail will result in a need for higher retaining walls supporting the trail in the vicinity of the bridge. WHEREAS, the original design for the Hunter Douglas bridge abutments and wingwalls must be modified so as to allow for future excavation of a widened channel under the bridge. WHEREAS, modifying the bridge design to accommodate the planned channel widening significantly increases the cost of the bridge. WHEREAS, installing the bridge to accommodate the planned channel widening when the bridge is originally constructed is less expensive and disruptive than making modifications to the bridge after it has already been built and is operational. WHEREAS, the City desires that the Hunter Douglas defer construction of the pedestrian trail until after the channel widening is completed so as to avoid the need for temporary closures of a newly constructed trail and to avoid potential damages to the new trail that could result in unnecessary restoration costs and construction delays. WHEREAS, the Hunter Douglas property is currently "land locked" with no developed access to the public right-of-way. WHEREAS, the Hunter Douglas development proposes and approval is based upon being able to construct the bridge over Springbrook Creek as primary access to the Hunter Douglas property. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas must complete installation of the bridge within an extremely tight construction schedule before its temporary construction access easement through Boeing property to the west of the Hunter Douglas property expires. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of ten dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of the performance of the covenants, terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, Hunter Douglas hereby f4vo ,^ grants, bargains, sells, conveys, and warrants unto the City, its successors and assigns, aj� /70--e.'`Lf"� easement over, under, through, across and upon that portion of the Hunter Douglas land described in Exhibit A(the easement area). 1. The City shall have the right to use the easement area for installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, removing, repairing, and replacing a drainage channel, pedestrian trail, and related appurtenances and shall have right of ingress and egress thereto for the foregoing purposes without prior institution of any suit or proceedings of law. Following the initial H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 2 of 9 construction of its facilities, the City may from time to time construct such additional facilities as it may require. 2. The City shall, upon completion of any work by the City or its agents within the property covered by the easement, restore the surface of the easement, and any p ' e improvements disturbed or destroyed during execution of the work, to the condition they were in immediately prior to commencement of the work or entry by the City or its agents. All restoration shall be performed as soon as reasonably possible following completion of anye�'`'fe work and shall be coordinated in advance with Hunter Douglas so as to cause the minimum 4'� 4 amount of disruption to the use of and operation of the Hunter Douglas property of which the ✓/�Re easement area is a part. 3. Hunter Douglas shall retain the right to use the easement as long as such use does not interfere with the easement rights granted to the City. Upon providing as much advance notice to the City as possible, Hunter Douglas may use the trail and easement for the purpose of reconstructing, maintaining, and repairing its storm water management facilities, bridge, and related appurtenances. Any improvements disturbed or destroyed during execution of the work must be restored to the condition they were in immediately prior to commencement of the work and use of the trail and easement by Hunter Douglas. All restoration shall be performed as soon as reasonably possible following completion of any work. Hunter Douglas shall perform its work so as to cause the minimum amount of disruption to the use of and operation of the trail and easement and shall provide temporary alternative routes for trail users when possible. Temporary trail closures shall be kept to a minimum. Notice of temporary trail closures shall be posted at least two days in advance in a minimum of two conspicuous locations along the trail as directed by the City. Emergency closures shall be posted immediately. Hunter Douglas shall not, however, have the right to: a. Erect or maintain any buildings, utilities, structures, and related appurtenances within the easement, except the following: • Hunter Douglas may install a vehicular bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances as needed to provide access and utility service across the creek for the Hunter Douglas property. The design and construction of the bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances proposed by Hunter Douglas within the easement area shall be in accordance with the attached plan SPR-3, subject to other governmental agency permit and code requirements and the conditions set forth in this agreement. • Hunter Douglas may install storm water outfall culverts to the creek across the easement. Culvert design and construction are subject to City and other governmental agency permit and code requirements. • Hunter Douglas has agreed to install a pedestrian trail and related appurtenances along the entire length of its property along Springbrook Creek. The pedestrian trail design and construction are subject to City and other governmental agency permit and code requirements. I ��(\ / t I rn.,,r `k-el 9 Rail,,'�C,i t H:DOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 3 of 9 b. Develop, landscape, or beautify the easement area in any way which is inconsistent with landscaping plans developed by the City as part of its channel widening project or which would unreasonably increase the costs to the City of restoring the easement area and any private improvements therein. 4. Hunter Douglas agrees to design and install bridge abutments and wingwalls which allow for future excavation of a widened channel at the bridge crossing. The design of the abutments shall based on a future ground elevation at the face of the abutments of 11.7 feet (NAVD 1988 Datum) and 2 feet of cover above the bottom of the abutments. The design of the wingwalls shall be based on a future excavated grade of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical extending upslope from the future ground elevation of 11.7 feet at the face of the abutments. 5. The City agrees to reduce the following Hunter Douglas develop men t/mitigation fees by up to a total amount of one-hundred and thirty-six thousand four-hundred and eighty- seven dollars ($136,487). • Surface Water, Wastewater,and Water Utility system development charges. • Transportation mitigation fee. The total amount by which the fees will be reduced shall be determined by computing the actual cost to design and install the bridge wingwalls and abutments in accordance with item 4 above and subtracting the cost Hunter Douglas would have incurred to design and install the abutments and wingwalls to fit existing channel grades. The final cost °o M determination shall be made by the City based upon a detailed cost report prepared by ,�t5�i� `� Hunter Douglas. At a minimum the detailed cost report shall include the following-t& information: a. A detailed cost breakdown of the actual design and installation cost for the bridge as / constructed under the terms of this agreement, including a separate breakdown for the abutments and wingwalls. ^y�e b. A detailed cost breakdown of the design and installation cost for the bridge had the abutments and wingwalls not been constructed to accommodate the future widening project in same format and level of detail as the cost breakdown for item 5a above. -fo dis®Nle Actual design cost shall be used. Construction costs shall be estimated using the re-rC44Jl,,' same unit prices for the bridge as actually constructed for similar items of work' �inA c. The cost report shall list the quantity installed and the unit price for each item o work used in computing the total cost. The report is also to include all pertinent supporting documentation, such as material invoices, labor charges, equipment charges, approved bid proposals, and approved change orders. Costs shall include Washington State sales tax as applicable. Payment of the full amount of the development/mitigation fees listed above minus that portion to be offset by the City as set forth in this agreement shall be made at or prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Any costs exceeding the maximum allowable reduction in development/mitigation fees ($136,487) shall be the responsibility of Hunter Douglas. H:DOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 4 of9 6. Hunter Douglas retains full responsibility for the installation, operation, maintenance, and repair of the entire bridge structure, including that portion installed to accommodate the future channel widening project, and shall hold the City harmless for any liability arising therefrom. This shall not release the City from its obligation to complete any restoration required as a result of any future work by the City or its agent as set forth in item 2 above. 7. Hunter Douglas agrees to kee� available for inspection, by the City, for a period of six months after Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the Hunter Douglas project, the cost records and accounts pertaining to this agreement and all items related to, or bearing upon,these records. 8. Hunter Douglas agrees to release the City from any liability resulting from failure to complete construction of the bridge within the time limits established by any permit or easement granted the Hunter Douglas project. 9. Hunter Douglas agrees to pay any additional costs associated with the need for deeper retaining walls along the pedestrian trail in the vicinity of the bridge resulting from shifting the bridge 9 feet to the west. It is estimated that the wall height would increase 3 feet at the bridge and have no impact beyond 100 feet either side of the bridge. The resultant impact of the bridge offset and the need to install the widened channel section centered in the bridge opening and therefore closer to the pedestrian trail is then estimated at 300 square feet of additional wall area. The City agrees to be responsible for maintenance and repair of the completed retaining wall. 10. The City agrees to provide and construct any compensatory storage volume required for filling in the 100-year FEMA floodplain caused by the Hunter Douglas proposal. 11. The City and Hunter Douglas agree to defer construction of the pedestrian trail until no later than September 1998, unless an extension of the deferral is agreed to by both parties. The deferral shall be in accordance with Section 4-32-12 of the Renton City Code as if the requirements were set forth fully within this agreement, except that the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department shall perform all functions attributed to the Board of Public Works and the amount of the security shall be reduced from 150% to 120% of the estimated cost of the pedestrian trail and related appurtenances. The cost used to determine the amount of the security shall include the additional costs associated with the need for deeper retaining walls along the trail as set forth in item 6 above. At its option, the City may install the pedestrian trail as part of the channel widening project currently scheduled for the summer of 1998, in which case Hunter Douglas would reimburse the City for its share of the actual costs to install the trail and related appurtenances. H:DOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 5 of 9 y The agreement and easement shall run with the land described herein, and shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors in interest and assigns. Hunter Douglas covenants that they are the lawful owners of the above properties and that they have a good and lawful right to execute this agreement. Signatures of Hunter Douglas: and and STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she/they was/were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of to be the free and voluntary act of such party/parties for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated Notary Public in and for the State of Washington residing at Notary(print): My appointment expires: Approved as to Legal Form: CITY OF RENTON BY: BY Lawrence J. Warren, Jesse Tanner City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: BY Marilyn J. Petersen City Clerk H:DOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 6 of 9 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Easement Area: The east 50 feet of Lot 1 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-95-064 (King County Recording No. 9508039005) in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington,more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 1 and the true point of beginning; thence along the east line of said Lot 1 the following courses: N 37000'42" W 4.90 feet; thence N 55°28'15" W 77.73 feet; thence N 52024'00" W 186.51 feet; thence N 54°03'57" W 286.58 feet; thence N 35'11'09" W 148.78 feet; thence N 23°44'21" W 85.39 feet to a curve concave to the east having a radius of 75.78 feet; thence northerly along said curve through a central angle of 59°07'34" an arc distance of 78.20 feet; thence leaving said curve on a non-tangent bearing N 50°08'30" E 114.42 feet; thence N 51°45'16" E 72.30 feet; thence N 59'39'11" E 96.54 feet to a curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 114.57 feet; thence northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 45°50'57" an arc distance of 91.68 feet; thence N 13°48'14" E 114.90 feet to a curve concave to the west having a radius of 294.26 feet; thence northerly along said curve through a central angle of 36°45'26" an arc distance of 188.78 feet; thence leaving said curve on a non-tangent bearing N 23°47'30" W 102.20 feet; thence N 28°32'10" W 64.18feet; thence N 20°51'33" W 61.80 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence leaving said east line of said Lot 1 N 87°26'45"W along the north line of said Lot 154.49 feet; thence leaving said north line S 20°51'33" E 86.81 feet; thence S 28°32'10" E 65.46 feet; thence S 23°47'30" E 99.40 feet to a point on a curve concave to the west, said curve being non-tangent to the preceding course and having a radius of 244.26 feet, the center of which bears S 67°02'48" W; thence southerly along said curve through a central angle of 36°45'26" an arc distance of 156.70 feet; thence S 13°48'14" W 114.90 feet to a curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 64.57 feet; thence southwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 45°50'57" an arc distance of 51.67 feet; thence S 59'39'11" W 99.99 feet; thence S 51°45'16" W 75.45 feet; thence S 50°08'30" W 120.75 feet to a point on a curve concave to the east, said curve being non-tangent to the preceding course and having a radius of 125.78 feet,the center of which bears S 51°17'16" E; thence southerly along said curve through a central angle of 62°27'05" an arc distance of 137.10 feet; thence S 23°44'21" E 90.41 feet; thence S 35°11'09" E 162.11 feet; thence S 54°03'57" E 294.16 feet; thence S 52°24'00" E 187.12 feet; thence S 55°28'15" E 5.72 feet to the south line of said Lot 1; thence S 87'18'57" E along said south line 91.82 feet to the true point of beginning. Contains 88,153 square feet of land, more or less. KDOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement ttmTlu Page 7 of 9 PROPERTY SERVICES EXHIBIT A CONTINUED MAP EXHIBIT 10 26 9 F 8 27 7 See Line and Curve Tables on Following Sheet Legal Descriptions and Exhibits Prepared By: 6 Scott Woodbury, P.E. 12/18/96 28 5 29 4 30 0 1"=100' 100 ( IN FEET ) 3 31 2 32 3� Southeast Corner of Lot 1 RDOCS:97-410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 8 of 9 � S , EXHIBIT A CONTINUED MAP EXHIBIT Northeast Corner of Lot 1 Line Table 17 18 16 ID it Bearing Dist.(ft) 1 N 37°00'42"W 4.90 15 2 N 55'28'15"W 77.73 3 N 52°24'00"W 186.51 19 4 N 54°03'57"W 286.58 5 N 35°11'09"W 148.78 14 6 N 23°44'21"W 85.39 8 N 50°08'30"E 114.42 9 N 51'45'16"E 72.30 20 10 N 59'39'11"E 96.54 12 N 13°48'14"E 114.90 14 N 23°47'30"W 102.20 15 N 28°32'10"W 64.18 16 N 20°51'33"W 61.80 Curve Table 13 17 N 87°26'45"W 54.49 21 18 S 20°51'33"E 86.81 ID# Radius(ft) Central Angle Arc Length 19 S 28°32'10"E 65.46 7 75.78 59°07'34" 7820 20 S 23°47'30"E 99.40 11 114.57 45°50'57" 91.68 22 S 13°48'14"W 114.90 13 294.26 36°45'26" 188.78 24 S 59'39'11"W 99.99 21 244.26 36°45'26" 156.70 25 S 51'45'16"W 76.45 23 64.57 45°50'57" 51.67 26 S 50°08'30"W 120.75 27 125.78 62°27'05" 137.10 22 28 S 23°44'21"E 90.41 12 29 S 35'11'09"E 162.11 30 S 54°03'57"E 294.16 31 S 52°24'00"E 187.12 23 32 S 55°28'15"E 5.72 33 S 87°18'57"E 91.82 24 11 10 o t'=too' ,� .9 25 26 9 ( IN FEET ) 8 H:DOCS:97410:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 9 of 9 1 I t + '\ \ �' 1 I r'• GENERAL NOTES �al i `y `"i �'� ` � \ \C Ii 1•It` I 'r,Y•\\T\ .. �%11':t. L ALL uAlGlµ AM•ORRNµyrIP Swll BE M ACCDIOAK{WITH iK REWIRCKNIS Or IK STATE Of•A"Nom DCPMh[Nt or tRANSPORIATION'S*STAIOARD SKCIrICArI"rOR ROAD,SRIOGE AND 0.YxORAtC(iTP.) I NMCIPµ COMIM,CIIOIf,DATED 1991 AM ApLrq(RIS. IL I i I"-,Dr. r•...h I I / 0 0.RB(IrP.) 2.OCSICK aAO IQ($CONCRETE At ISO Pa,STEEL At 490 PQ,EARTH PRCSSWC At AN • ; -SIOCWAIR STRIPING I l [GUNµ[. fLt1ID-EIGHT a 76 Pa,ASPHµ1 AT IM NY,EARTH At a0 Pa. I ( I r' f Ax ASAUCD 9iCRDSO9CD DEAO EOM a 55 PWOS RR SOOTHE root tS ,r. ASSLWD IN IRE DESIGN fOR A rU1URE REARING SmAa, I I 1 I i •i. 1 S IAAA EA HIO oS20-4CLMIDDING MTH NMI;2 rEEt a EARTH PRESSURE .A KL I I THE"IDRAIAIC PCRrORHANa OF IK BRIM HAS ecEN NOattD WITH"[RISIM I I OWftl AM ArIER COCPEETIGN OF THE EASY SIDE GREEN RIVER WAICRSKD SAME. I + I r I PRO.ICCt.(NORTHWEST KMRAIAIC CONUTANti K.At"I 20.0") A{SIPPING i I �I j ! 1 I It IS ASSD IHAf THEN rUR CAST SIC(GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PR02CI I I I I i I I I21 3 r 1 i OC WILL PROVIDE ARIpkING,REKaIAITCH 00 KIAINING SIAl,C11RCS AS REOJARED •'I j IRE I I I I RrNOV((IISTIK ELAM AS N- BY EACAVAIION At rK DR=SIRUCI{NE. fOG t I I( 1 II I KCDU AND NAI(N CAISI FRAI( - W V fi-- C-'-u .''1 7�^5.y I r I 11 j2• ( I I ) ; 1.—0—v Kc �A . I I j I II ,I I w it, I l ;I iyr f sH$ lji GRAPHICSC ELAN ALE LE R: ir,.•rt u'J e[I NOTE:ELEVATIONS PIPER TO MAV0e6 OAfW r l I I ` CITY OF RENTON r 4 Iyl i� i �d i ELw d —41 KFR SAM A -- »' eT ( I N'lAx t STRIPING µ•LANE Y E IRAJr'C'AAR". I�^ a I I.. .. � .. i /• • ,r 2'ASPHALT OVEAAT ` t: ul GRADE i 1 t 0 10H ( u' z3T ).7Y. L _2.71'-_- r auan • _ j ti ' - i IAPOJLB Ict ANO 1 IS ITP) .6. v iIi <TH I ' ELEVATION TYPICAL SECTION GRAPHIC SCALE » w �_1 a GRAPHIC SCALE „ A (NrQI) �GI'i IM••tt (Hatt) `` w•P n I3I��K �. IOj ;N RUNT BY DATE AEI: F RAYMOND CENTER REST SHED No, I '� 2a Bnv96 AS NOICD • W i +C.WtVv fr Woa RENTp/,WA911NCTON SITE PLAN REVIEW SP - " I I _—_ -- __-- _-- ---__----_.-- GlCRI0�1 _ __._. '� tVl ar,1 A.e'ur.`wlu!UO-- — yty B TJ 9A JW NO.. R.,�*`L"L,A� WjIN�WYWy1p1 DO VI C` O CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: May 14, 1997 TO: Victoria Runkle FROM: Gregg Zimmerman �. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka(X-5548) Scott Woodbury(X-5547) SUBJECT: GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE FOR THE PROPOSED HUNTER DOUGLAS AGREEMENT Attached is an agenda bill package requesting City Council approval of a proposed Agreement and Easement for Drainage Channel and Pedestrian Trail with Hunter Douglas, Inc. The request also includes a recommendation that Council authorize a contribution of $22,000 from the General Fund toward the cost of the agreement. The recommendation for General Fund participation is a result of the agreement negotiation process with Hunter Douglas which involved Surface Water Utility(SWU)staff and the Mayor's office. As explained in the attached issue paper, Hunter Douglas was initially advised by SWU staff that the cost of accommodating the City's planned Springbrook Creek widening project was Hunter Douglas responsibility. However, Hunter Douglas indicated to the City that it would abandon its development proposal if they were required to fund the additional cost to accommodate the channel widening. The Economic Development office became involved, and after additional negotiation Renton agreed to reimburse Hunter Douglas for the additional cost of accommodating the future widened channel with the recommendation that $22,000 of the cost be funded by the General Fund. The balance of the cost of the agreement would be the responsibility of the Surface Water Utility. The $22,000 is approximately the difference between the estimated cost of lowering the abutments of the proposed Hunter Douglas bridge across Springbrook Creek to accommodate the future widened channel and the total amount of the Surface Water Utility system development charge. The Mayor's office supports the General Fund contribution because of the recognized economic benefit afforded the City as a result of Hunter Douglas continuing with their development proposal. The Finance Committee will be asked to approve the General Fund contribution at the next committee meeting scheduled for June 9th. Also attached is a draft Finance Committee report for your review and concurrence. If you have any questions,please contact me at X-6211. H:DOCS:97-419:SW:ps CC: Jay Covington Sue Carlson Ron Olsen Pleti1 � � N Se r...®•_117n/n •f cY_�j r�5� �, ' C0NCUF''RU, . DATE NAME fail.<•I_Y, FINANCE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT - i —----- June 9, 1997 Hunter Douglas Easement and Agreement (Referred May 19, 1997) The Finance Committee concurs with the Planning/Building/Public Works Department recommendation to approve an ordinance authorizing the transfer of$22,000 to the Surface Water Utility's Capital Improvement budget from the City's General Fund ending fund balance for 1997 or from future monies to be allocated in the 1998 General Fund annual budget. The purpose of the transfer is to reimburse the Surface Water Utility for a portion of the cost to be incurred under the City's agreement with Hunter Douglas which was approved for execution by the Council on June 2, 1997. King Parker, Chair Randy Corman, Vice Chair Bob Edwards, Member H:D0CS:97-412:SW:ps CC: Victoria Runkle Gregg Zimmerman Ron Olsen Ron Straka Scott Woodbury CONCUR .._-_„ ' �7e-P �/� REIdCE J CITY OF RENTON DATE 00 E *7IINITIADATI- ./04er PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM 7 DATE: May 13, 1997 TO: Victoria Runkle �— FROM: Gregg Zimmerman e-110! STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka(X-5548) 'r Scott Woodbury(X-5547) SUBJECT: GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE FOR THE PROPOSED HUNTER DOUGLAS AGREEMENT Attached is an agenda bill package requesting City Council approval of a proposed Agreement and Easement for Drainage Channel and Pedestrian Trail with Hunter Douglas, Inc. The request also includes a recommendation that Council authorize a contribution of$22,000 from the General Fund toward the cost of the agreement. The recommendation for General Fund participation is a result of the agreement negotiation process with Hunter Douglas which involved Surface Water Utility (SWU) staff and the Mayor's office. As explained in the attached issue paper, Hunter Douglas was initially advised by SWU staff that the cost of accommodating the City's planned Springbrook Creek widening project was Hunter Douglas responsibility. However, Hunter Douglas indicated to the City that it would abandon its development proposal if they were required to fund the additional cost to accommodate the channel widening. —Snm' ' reimburse Hunter Douglas for the additional cost of accommodating the future widened channel with a recommendation that $22,000 of the cost be funded by the General Fund. The balance of the cost of a agreement would be the responsibility of the Surface Water Utility. The $22,000 is approximately th difference between the estimated cost of lowering the abutments of the proposed Hunter Douglas bridge cross Springbrook Creek to accommodate the future widened channel and the total amount of the Su ace Water Utility system development charge. The Mayor's office supports the General Fund contribution because of the recognized econo benefit afforded the City as a result of Hunter Douglas continuing with their development proposal. i ' strop otiati ' to a sompremiso with The Finance Committee will be asked to approve the General Fund contribution at the next committee meeting scheduled for June 9th. Also attached is a draft Finance Committee report for your review and concurrence. If you have any questions, please contact me at X-6211. , H:DOCS:9Jay Covington �/_ CC: Jay Covington SLY L J/A`�� Sue Carlson �,_a �� 9,��/ _ r� ,$ /�_ _ � ����s i�� Ron Olsen '^"'v"( cl,/ '/'� THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS FOURTH FLOOR ' 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 a ' FAX: 235-2541 ' as To: Mark Miller Company: Phone: 455-1724 Fax: 455-5076 From: Scott Woodbury Phone: 425-277-5547 Fax: 425-235-2541 Date: 5/14/97 Pages incl this cover page: 1 The 4/30 draft of the Hunter Douglas agreement will be distributed to Council members tomorrow at noon. If Hunter Douglas has any comments and wishes to keep the agreement approval process (and construction permit issuance) from being delayed it is important that they complete their review immediately. Thanks. If you have any questions, please call me at 277-5547. r CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Al #: Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: Dept/Div/Board.. Utility Systems Division/Surface Water Utility May 19, 1997 Staff contact...... Ron Olsen, Ron Straka Agenda Status Scott Woodbury(x-5547) Consent.............. X Subject: Public Hearing... Hunter Douglas Agreement and Easement for correspondence.. C©N C U R R E N C Drainage Channel and Pedestrian Trail Ordinance............. 6171 1-7 Resolution............ BATE __TT__ Old Business........ NA Nis 1 w _ rw Exhibits: New Business....... ! .._w s — � -►. Issue Paper Study Sessions...... j�_ Draft Agreement and Easement Information......... Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Utilities Committee of May 20 (Agreement/Utility Expenditure) Legal Dept......... X Refer to Finance Committee of June 9 (General Fund Expenditure) Finance Dept...... Risk Management Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... $136,487 Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted.......... $0 Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget $0 City Share Total Project.. $136,487 Summary of Action: Hunter Douglas is developing the north portion of a 14.2 acre property at 2000 Raymond Avenue SW under the Raymond Avenue Center West proposal (City File No. LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF). The eastern boundary of the development site lies along a reach of Springbrook Creek. The development proposal includes a private bridge crossing of the creek as the only non-emergency access to the site. The City intends to widen the creek at some future time along the Hunter Douglas site as identified in the Surface Water Utility's East Side Green River Watershed Project (ESGRWP). Depending upon available funding from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the ESGRWP's federal grant sponsor, the widening could be accomplished as early as 1998. Right-of-way must be acquired from the Hunter Douglas site and the proposed bridge properly designed and installed if the future widening project is to be constructed as planned. The 2.0 acre easement needed for widening the channel must be secured by the City in order to be eligible for potential future federal grant assistance from the Natural Resources Conservation Service. To reimburse Hunter Douglas for the easement and for installing the bridge to accommodate the future widening, it is recommended that the City agree to offset up to $136,487 of the Hunter Douglas project's mitigation/&V�lopment fees that will become due for the development proposal. It is further recommended that the General Fund reimburse $22,000 of the fees offset under the agreement with the balance of the fees being reimbursed;by t`IIL--Surface Water Utility. The easement also allows public use of the pedestrian trail that will be constructed across the Hunter Douglas property along the creek. Details regarding the compensation and other terms and conditions for the easement are included in the attached Agreement and Easement and the accompanying issue paper. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement and Easement with Hunter Douglas. Authorize the expenditure of $22,000 from the General Fund and up to $114,487 from the Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement Program budget for the East Side Green River Watershed Project to reimburse the maximum amount due Hunter Douglas under the agreement. H:DOCS:97-409:SW:ps 4 J �/p� A b . P kVO* s i a-cGfj U:� i Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,President and Members of the City Council Hunter Douglas Agreement/Easement for Drainage Channel and Pedestrian Trail Page 3 The $136,487 cost estimate for modifying the bridge to accommodate the future channel widening was based on the attached April 17, 1997, letter to Mark Miller Consultants from Donovan Brothers. The modifications to the Hunter Douglas bridge that are required to accommodate the future channel widening project include the lowering of the bridge abutments to the future channel depth and changes to the bridge wingwalls. These structural changes to the bridge cause an increase in the bridge design and construction cost of $136,487. The total amount by which the fees will be reduced will be based on actual costs not to exceed the maximum amount of$136,487. It is further recommended that $22,000 of the Water, Wastewater, and Transportation mitigation/development fees to be offset under the agreement by reimbursed be the City's General Fund. The balance of the fees would be reimbursed by the Surface Water Utility's Capital Improvement Program. This would be accomplished by transferring $22,000 to the Surface Water Utility's Capital Improvement Program from the City's General Fund ending fund balance for 1997 or from future moneys to be allocated in the 1998 General Fund annual budget. The Surface Water Utility would then be responsible for reimbursing the full amount of the Water Utility, Wastewater Utility, and Transportation Systems Division mitigation/development fees offset under the agreement from the Surface Water Utility's Capital Improvement Program budget for the ESGRWP. The approved Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement Budget for the ESGRWP account is $427,588. However, a majority of the budget is already programmed to be spent on the design and construction of other improvements identified in the ESGRWP. The unspent portion of the project budget at the end of this year will be used to reimburse the Water Utility, Wastewater Utility, and the Transportation Division. Otherwise,the Surface Water Utility will be including the reimbursement payment in the 1998 project budget request. This approach allows clear separation of the budget review authorities of the Finance Committee (General Fund) and Utilities Committee (Utility budget) and allows the agreement to go before the Utilities Committee on May 20 prior to the Finance Committee meeting of June 9. Details regarding the methods for determining the actual amount to be offset and other terms and conditions for the easement are included in the attached Agreement and Easement for Drainage Channel. The easement also allows public use of the pedestrian trail that will be constructed across the Hunter Douglas property along the creek. The City also agrees to provide and construct the compensatory storage volume required for filling in the 100-year FEMA floodplain caused by the Hunter Douglas project. Separate from this proposed easement acquisition, an additional acquisition is also needed from the Boeing Company to secure all of the property rights necessary for the future 16th Street to 23rd Street channel widening project. Negotiations with the Boeing Company are pending. H:DOCS:97-408:SW:ps CC: Ron Olsen, J THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF � ' PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS FOURTH FLOOR 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH MIN RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: 235-2541 r To: Mark Miller Company: Phone: 455-1724 Fax: 455-5076 From: Scott Woodbury Phone: 425-277-5547 Fax: 425-235-2541 Date: 5/8/97 Pages incl this cover page: 1 The City Attorney has already approved the Hunter Douglas agreement as to legal form. One minor change is needed to Item 11 the agreement. The section of the Renton code referenced in Item 11 should read "Section 4-34-12" not "Section 4-32-12". The agreement is currently being routed through the administrative review process. The administrative review could be completed as early as tomorrow. It is important for Hunter Douglas to complete their review as soon as possible. Thanks. If you have any questions, please call me at 277-5547. CITY OF RENTON Office of the City Attorney Jesse Tanner,Mayor Lawrence J.Warren MEMORANDUM To: Scott Woodbury From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date: May 6, 1997 Subject: Draft Agreement and Easement for Drainage Channel and Pedestrian Trail - Hunter Douglas I have reviewed the above-referenced document and the same is approved as to legal form. /awrence J. Warren LJW:as. cc: Jay Covington A8:131.50. Post Office Box 626 - 100 S. 2nd Street- Renton, Washington 98057 - (206)255-8678 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR INFORMATION OR CONCURRENCE DATE: May 5, 1997 TO: Larry Warren FROM: Scott Woodbury (X-5547);L� CONTACT PERSON: SUBJECT: Agreement and Easement with Hunter Douglas Please review the attached draft Agreement and Easement with Hunter Douglas as to legal form and return any comments you may have by May 12 if possible. We are seeking to obtain an easement over the east 50 feet of the Hunter Douglas property which lies adjacent to Springbrook Creek in the valley between SW 19th Street and SW 23rd Street. The Hunter Douglas easement will give us yet another major piece of the right-of-way needed to allow future widening of the creek from SW 16th Street to SW 23rd Street as proposed in the City's East Side Green River Watershed Project. As you know, we recently acquired right-of- way for our future Springbrook Creek widening project along the east side of the creek from Opus Northwest and the Benaroya Company (former Group Health site). We are beginning negotiations with Boeing for right-of-way along the Boeing CSTC site north of the Hunter Douglas property. If you have any questions, please contact me at X-5547. Thank you for your assistance. Attachment Sean S. Woodbury From: Leslie Betlach To: Ronald J. Straka Cc: Sam Chastain; Sue A. Carlson; Clinton E. Morgan; Jennefer Toth Henning; Neil R. Watts; Sean S. Woodbury Subject: Rev. Draft Esmt . Agreement for Drainage Channel & Ped. Trail Date: Monday, May 05, 1997 1 :18PM Priority: High Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Revised Draft Easement Agreement for the Drainage Channel and Pedestrian Trail along Springbrook Creek, and specifically the Hunter Douglas property. The document as written addresses our concerns regarding the pedestrian trail and is acceptable to Parks. The only clarification needed (which is not appropriate for this document) is that Surface Water will be the administering department for construction of the trail. (Similar to the portion between Grady Way and SW 16th). Upon completion, Parks will provide the litter removal. If you have any questions, please call me at x-5549. Page 1 ;; CITY OF RENTON •� Planning/Building/Public Works Department ' R J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator Post-it®Fax Note 7671 Date�� 7 paoof I. To C ^1 Fron5�, Lt�v�flg'�.li1 Co./Dept. Co. 7 Phone# Phone# Fax# Fax# April 30, 1997 Mark Miller Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. 10801 Main Street, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT: REVISED DRAFT EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR DRAINAGE CHANNEL AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL Dear Mr. Miller: In follow up to our recent discussions regarding the Hunter Douglas bridge, attached is a revised draft Easement Agreement for Drainage Channel and Pedestrian Trail for your review dated April 30, 1997. Please provide any comments you may have by May 7, 1997, so that we may proceed with processing of the easement for the approval of the City Council. We will be routing the document for review by the City Attorney and the administration concurrent with your review to expedite processing of the easement. If you have any questions, please contact me at (206)277-5548 or Scott Woodbury at (206)277- 5547. Sincerely, Ronald J. St a,P.E.,Engineering Supervisor Surface Water Utility U:65230:97-002a:SW attachments cc: Leslie Betlach Jennifer Toth-Henning Sue Carlson Neil Watts Scott Woodbury 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 MThic nanor nnnminc In-/rnr•vr-Icri..—rooi ono/.,.,or­c��...er WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Draft(4/30/97) Project:East Side Green River Office of the City Clerk Renton Municipal Building AGREEMENT AND EASEMENT Watershed Project 200 Mill Avenue South FOR DRAINAGE CHANNEL AND Work Order#65230 Renton,WA 98055 PEDESTRIAN TRAIL PID: 24230490115 Grantor:Hunter Douglas,Inc STR: Sec 24,T23N.R4E Changes from the previous draft Street Intersection: 19th Street and. are in bold Raymond Avenue THIS INSTRUMENT, made this day of 1997; by and between Hunter Douglas, Inc., hereinafter called "Hunter Douglas," and the CITY OF RENTON, a Municipal Corporation of King County, Washington, hereinafter called "City." WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas is the owner of certain real property located in the City legally described as Lot 1 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-95-064 (King County Recording No. 9508039005) and which lies adjacent to and west of Springbrook Creek. WHEREAS, the City is proposing to widen Springbrook Creek along the Hunter Douglas property as identified in the East Side Green River Watershed Project Plan and Environmental Impact Statement(City File LUA-95-205,ECF) so as to increase the capacity of the creek to convey flows and thereby reduce upstream flooding problems. WHEREAS, an easement is required from Hunter Douglas over the east 50 feet of its property along Springbrook Creek in order for the City to accomplish the widening project. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas is proposing to develop its property in accordance with the Raymond Avenue Center West proposal (City File No. LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF). WHEREAS, the development proposal includes construction of a private bridge over Springbrook Creek as its primary access, construction of a paved pedestrian trail within a dedicated trail easement allowing public access along the entire length of the Hunter Douglas property along Springbrook Creek, and requires filling within the 100-year floodplain as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas does not have sufficient area on its property to excavate a volume of material equal to the volume of floodplain storage that will be filled by the development, except within the east 50 feet of its property. WHEREAS, the City has offered to construct the required compensatory floodplain storage for the Hunter Douglas development as part of its channel widening project in exchange for the granting of a drainage channel easement over the east 50 feet of the Hunter Douglas property. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas desires that the center of its bridge over Springbrook Creek be offset 9 feet west of the centerline of the property along the creek owned by Drainage District No. 1 adjacent to and east of the Hunter Douglas property. H:DOCS:workI Ib:SW:ps Agreement and Easement INITIAL Page 1 of 9 PROPERTY SERVICES WHEREAS, hydraulic analysis conducted by Hunter Douglas shows that the planned widened channel section will need to be centered within the span of the bridge at its shifted location so as to minimize head losses through the structure. WHEREAS, the City may need to construct a retaining wall to support the pedestrian trail on the west bank of the creek when the channel widening project is constructed and shifting the bridge opening closer to the pedestrian trail will result in a need for higher retaining walls supporting the trail in the vicinity of the bridge. WHEREAS, the original design for the Hunter Douglas bridge abutments and wingwalls must be modified so as to allow for future excavation of a widened channel under the bridge. WHEREAS, modifying the bridge design to accommodate the planned channel widening significantly increases the cost of the bridge. WHEREAS, installing the bridge to accommodate the planned channel widening when the bridge is originally constructed is less expensive and disruptive than making modifications to the bridge after it has already been built and is operational. WHEREAS, the City desires that the Hunter Douglas defer construction of the pedestrian trail until after the channel widening is completed so as to avoid the need for temporary closures of a newly constructed trail and to avoid potential damages to the new trail that could result in unnecessary restoration costs and construction delays. WHEREAS, the Hunter Douglas property is currently "land locked" with no developed access to the public right-of-way. WHEREAS, the Hunter Douglas development proposes and approval is based upon being able to construct the bridge over Springbrook Creek as primary access to the Hunter Douglas property. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas must complete installation of the bridge within an extremely tight construction schedule before its temporary construction access easement through Boeing property to the west of the Hunter Douglas property expires. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of ten dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of the performance of the covenants, terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, Hunter Douglas hereby grants, bargains, sells, conveys, and warrants unto the City, its successors and assigns, an easement over, under, through, across and upon that portion of the Hunter Douglas land described in Exhibit A(the easement area). 1. The City shall have the right to use the easement area for installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, removing, repairing, and replacing a drainage channel, pedestrian trail, and related appurtenances and shall have right of ingress and egress thereto for the foregoing H:DOCS:workl Ib:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 2 of 9 purposes without prior institution of any suit or proceedings of law. Following the initial construction of its facilities, the City may from time to time construct such additional facilities as it may require. 2. The City shall, upon completion of any work by the City or its agents within the property covered by the easement, restore the surface of the easement, and any private improvements disturbed or destroyed during execution of the work, to the condition they were in immediately prior to commencement of the work or entry by the City or its agents. All restoration shall be performed as soon as reasonably possible following completion of any work and shall be coordinated in advance with Hunter Douglas so as to cause the minimum amount of disruption to the use of and operation of the Hunter Douglas property of which the easement area is a part. 3. Hunter Douglas shall retain the right to use the easement as long as such use does not interfere with the easement rights granted to the City. Upon providing as much advance notice to the City as possible, Hunter Douglas may use the trail and easement for the purpose of reconstructing, maintaining, and repairing its storm water management facilities, bridge, and related appurtenances. Any improvements disturbed or destroyed during execution of the work must be restored to the condition they were in immediately prior to commencement of the work and use of the trail and easement by Hunter Douglas. All restoration shall be performed as soon as reasonably possible following completion of any work. Hunter Douglas shall perform its work so as to cause the minimum amount of disruption to the use of and operation of the trail and easement and shall provide temporary alternative routes for trail users when possible. Temporary trail closures shall be kept to a minimum. Notice of temporary trail closures shall be posted at least two days in advance in a minimum of two conspicuous locations along the trail as directed by the City. Emergency closures shall be posted immediately. Hunter Douglas shall not, however, have the right to: a. Erect or maintain any buildings, utilities, structures, and related appurtenances within the easement, except the following: • Hunter Douglas may install a vehicular bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances as needed to provide access and utility service across the creek for the Hunter Douglas property. The design and construction of the bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances proposed by Hunter Douglas within the easement area shall be in accordance with the attached plan SPR-3, subject to other governmental agency permit and code requirements and the conditions set forth in this agreement. • Hunter Douglas may install storm water outfall culverts to the creek across the easement. Culvert design and construction are subject to City and other governmental agency permit and code requirements. • Hunter Douglas has agreed to install a pedestrian trail and related appurtenances along the entire length of its property along Springbrook Creek. The pedestrian trail design and construction are subject to City and other governmental agency permit and code requirements. H:DOCS:workl Ib:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 3 of 9 b. Develop, landscape, or beautify the easement area in any way which is inconsistent with landscaping plans developed by the City as part of its channel widening project or which would unreasonably increase the costs to the City of restoring the easement area and any private improvements therein. 4. Hunter Douglas agrees to design and install bridge abutments and wingwalls which allow for future excavation of a widened channel at the bridge crossing. The design of the abutments shall based on a future ground elevation at the face of the abutments of 11.7 feet (NAVD 1988 Datum) and 2 feet of cover above the bottom of the abutments. The design of the wingwalls shall be based on a future excavated grade of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical extending upslope from the future ground elevation of 11.7 feet at the face of the abutments. 5. The City agrees to reduce the following Hunter Douglas development/mitigation fees by up to a total amount of one-hundred and thirty-six thousand four-hundred and eighty- seven dollars ($136,487). • Surface Water,Wastewater,and Water Utility system development charges. • Transportation mitigation fee. The total amount by which the fees will be reduced shall be determined by computing the actual cost to design and install the bridge wingwalls and abutments in accordance with item 4 above and subtracting the cost Hunter Douglas would have incurred to design and install the abutments and wingwalls to fit existing channel grades. The final cost determination shall be made by the City based upon a detailed cost report prepared by Hunter Douglas. At a minimum the detailed cost report shall include the following information: a. A detailed cost breakdown of the actual design and installation cost for the bridge as constructed under the terms of this agreement, including a separate breakdown for the abutments and wingwalls. b. A detailed cost breakdown of the design and installation cost for the bridge had the abutments and wingwalls not been constructed to accommodate the future widening project in same format and level of detail as the cost breakdown for item 5a above. Actual design cost shall be used. Construction costs shall be estimated using the same unit prices for the bridge as actually constructed for similar items of work. c. The cost report shall list the quantity installed and the unit price for each item of work used in computing the total cost. The report is also to include all pertinent supporting documentation, such as material invoices, labor charges, equipment charges, approved bid proposals, and approved change orders. Costs shall include Washington State sales tax as applicable. Payment of the full amount of the development/mitigation fees listed above minus that portion to be offset by the City as set forth in this agreement shall be made at or prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Any costs exceeding the maximum allowable reduction in development/mitigation fees ($136,487) shall be the responsibility of Hunter Douglas. KDOCS:work I I b:S W:ps Agreement and Easement Page 4 of 9 6. Hunter Douglas retains full responsibility for the installation, operation, maintenance, and repair of the entire bridge structure, including that portion installed to accommodate the future channel widening project, and shall hold the City harmless for any liability arising therefrom. This shall not release the City from its obligation to complete any restoration required as a result of any future work by the City or its agent as set forth in item 2 above. 7. Hunter Douglas agrees to keep available for inspection, by the City, for a period of six months after Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the Hunter Douglas project, the cost records and accounts pertaining to this agreement and all items related to, or bearing upon,these records. 8. Hunter Douglas agrees to release the City from any liability resulting from failure to complete construction of the bridge within the time limits established by any permit or easement granted the Hunter Douglas project. 9. Hunter Douglas agrees to pay any additional costs associated with the need for deeper retaining walls along the pedestrian trail in the vicinity of the bridge resulting from shifting the bridge 9 feet to the west. It is estimated that the wall height would increase 3 feet at the bridge and have no impact beyond 100 feet either side of the bridge. The resultant impact of the bridge offset and the need to install the widened channel section centered in the bridge opening and therefore closer to the pedestrian trail is then estimated at 300 square feet of additional wall area. The City agrees to be responsible for maintenance and repair of the completed retaining wall. 10. The City agrees to provide and construct any compensatory storage volume required for filling in the 100-year FEMA floodplain caused by the Hunter Douglas proposal. 11. The City and Hunter Douglas agree to defer constn of the pedestrian trail until no later ;/ferral than September 1998, unless an extension of the is agreed to by both parties. The deferral shall be in accordance with Section 4-y--12 of the Renton City Code as if the requirements were set forth fully within this agreement, except that the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department shall perform all functions attributed to the Board of Public Works and the amount of the security shall be reduced from 150% to 120% of the estimated cost of the pedestrian trail and related appurtenances. The cost used to determine the amount of the security shall include the additional costs associated with the need for deeper retaining walls along the trail as set forth in item 6 above. At its option, the City may install the pedestrian trail as part of the channel widening project currently scheduled for the summer of 1998, in which case Hunter Douglas would reimburse the City for its share of the actual costs to install the trail and related appurtenances. H:DOCS:workl lb:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 5 of 9 The agreement and easement shall run with the land described herein, and shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors in interest and assigns. Hunter Douglas covenants that they are the lawful owners of the above properties and that they have a good and lawful right to execute this agreement. Signatures of Hunter Douglas: and ; and ; STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she/they was/were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of to be the free and voluntary act of such party/parties for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated Notary Public in and for the State of Washington residing at Notary(print): My appointment expires: Approved as to Legal Form: CITY OF RENTON BY: BY Lawrence J. Warren, Jesse Tanner City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: BY Marilyn J. Petersen City Clerk H:DOCS:workl Ib:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 6 of 9 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Easement Area: The east 50 feet of Lot 1 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-95-064 (King County Recording No. 9508039005) in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 1 and the true point of beginning; thence along the east line of said Lot I the following courses: N 37000'42" W 4.90 feet; thence N 55°28'15" W 77.73 feet; thence N 52024'00" W 186.51 feet; thence N 54°03'57" W 286.58 feet; thence N 35011'09" W 148.78 feet; thence N 23°44'21" W 85.39 feet to a curve concave to the east having a radius of 75.78 feet; thence northerly along said curve through a central angle of 59°07'34" an arc distance of 78.20 feet; thence leaving said curve on a non-tangent bearing N 50°08'30" E 114.42 feet; thence N 51°45'16" E 72.30 feet; thence N 59039'11" E 96.54 feet to a curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 114.57 feet; thence northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 45°50'57" an arc distance of 91.68 feet; thence N 13048'14" E 114.90 feet to a curve concave to the west having a radius of 294.26 feet; thence northerly along said curve through a central angle of 36°45'26" an arc distance of 188.78 feet; thence leaving said curve on a non-tangent bearing N 23°47'30" W 102.20 feet; thence N 28032'10" W 64.18 feet; thence N 20°51'33" W 61.80 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence leaving said east line of said Lot 1 N 87°26'45" W along the north line of said Lot 154.49 feet; thence leaving said north line S 20°51'33" E 86.81 feet; thence S 28°32'10"E 65.46 feet; thence S 23°47'30" E 99.40 feet to a point on a curve concave to the west, said curve being non-tangent to the preceding course and having a radius of 244.26 feet, the center of which bears S 67002'48" W; thence southerly along said curve through a central angle of 36°45'26" an arc distance of 156.70 feet; thence S 13°48'14" W 114.90 feet to a curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 64.57 feet; thence southwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 45°50'57" an arc distance of 51.67 feet; thence S 59°39'11" W 99.99 feet; thence S 51°45'16" W 75.45 feet; thence S 50°08'30" W 120.75 feet to a point on a curve concave to the east, said curve being non-tangent to the preceding course and having a radius of 125.78 feet, the center of which bears S 51'17,16" E; thence southerly along said curve through a central angle of 62°27'05" an arc distance of 137.10 feet; thence S 23°44'21" E 90.41 feet; thence S 35°11'09" E 162.11 feet; thence S 54°03'57" E 294.16 feet; thence S 52°24'00" E 187.12 feet; thence S 55°28'15" E 5.72 feet to the south line of said Lot 1; thence S 8718'57" E along said south line 91.82 feet to the true point of beginning. Contains 88,153 square feet of land, more or less. H:DOCS:workl lb:SW:ps Agreement and Easement INITIAL Page 7 of 9 PROPERTY SERVICES EXHIBIT A CONTINUED MAP EXHIBIT 10 26 9 / g See Line and Curve Tables on Following Sheet 271 7 Legal Descriptions and Exhibits Prepared By: l Scott Woodbury, P.E. 12/18/96 28 \ \ 5 29\\ 4 30 a 1"=100' ioo \ ( IV FEET } 31 2 32 .—... 3 Southeast Corner of Lot 1--" H:DOCS:workl lb:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 8 of 9 EXHIBIT A CONTINUED MAP EXHIBIT Northeast Corner of Lot 1 -� Line Table \16 1\ \ ID# Bearing Dist.(ft) 1 N 37°00'42"W 4.90 \� \\15 2 N 55'28'15"W 77.73 \ \� 3 N 52°24'00"W 186.51 1g � \ 4 N 54°03'57"W 286.58 5 N35°Il'09"W 148.78 �\ \14 6 N 23°44'21"W 85.39 8 N 50°08'30"E 114.42 20\ \� 9 N 51°45'16"E 72.30 �\ 10 N 59°39'11"E 96.54 t 12 N 13°48'14"E 114.90 14 N 23°47'30"W 102.20 1 15 N 28°32'10"W 64.18 16 N 20o51'33"W 61.80 Curve Table 1 13 17 N 87°26'45"W 54.49 211 18 S 20°51'33"E 86.81 ID# Radius(ft) Central Angle Are Length 19 S 28°32'10"E 65.46 7 75.78 59°07'34" 78.20 20 S 23°47'30"E 99.40 11 114.57 45°50'57" 91.68 22 S 13°48'14"W 114.90 13 294.26 36°45'26" 188.78 f j 1 I 24 S 59°39'1 l"W 99.99 21 244.26 36°45'26" 156.70 � 25 S 51'45'16"W 76.45 23 64.57 45°50'57" 51.67 / 26 S 50°08'30"W 120.75 27 125.78 62°27'05" 137.10 28 S 23°44'21"E 90.41 22/ 1/t 12 29 S 35°I1'09"E 162.11 30 S 54°03'57"E 294.16 JJ 31 S 52°24'00"E 187.12 23 j / 32 S 55°28'15'E 5.72 / / 33 S 8718'57"E 91.82 24 "// 11 f \� 25 j" 10 26,/ \\�� �9 1"=100' IN FEET ) � H:DOCS:work I l b:S W:ps Agreement and Easement Page 9 of 9 I� GENERAL NOTES I.ALL MATERIAL Me WORKMANSHIP SHKI BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THECAI of t\ •\ \ �, I, i I I, I I 1 (\ REOUIREIENTS OF THE STATE OF WASIINGTON.DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR ATIOWS'STANDARD,SPECIFICATIONS ROAD.!` \ 1 '•i I 1 ( I j W+IC I /CONSTRI1C110N'. Tro9tN0 ADYENDI[ BRIDGE AND GMARDRALL(ITT, ..._.I I 1 I I 7 , 2f'y . CURB ITYPJ 2.o[slaE 1 I AD LOW,CONCRETE AT DO PCF.STEEL AT 490 PCF.EARTH PRESSURE At AN i lY!Y� I 1 EOUIVKENI FLUID WEIGHT OF Je PCF.ASNULT AT 60 PCF.EARTH AT 120 PCF. SIOEwKR STRIPING AN ASSUMED SUPERIMPOSED DEAD LOAD OF]S PDIRas PER sOUARE Fat Is 11 i ' P ASSUMED IN THE DESIGN FOR A FUTURE WEARING sUFACE. l�vE LOAD.MSNTO x520-1/LOADING WITH IWACT;2 FEET OF EARTH PRESSURE I�1 I II i I I I I I III j I ' i I I I IO s1MULA E LIVE LOAD sMCNA%x. J C PERFOINAIICE OF TME BRRIGE x'5 BEEN YOOEI J iIOH OF TIE CAST SIDE D 2D,N%) III i t i ! 1 I i i IT IS ASSUMED IN VER WATERSNEO PROXCI 141 I I I I I l i t siRpiNO i t I 11 I I i I I I i ' I I I II wttl REVEDETATIOH AID STRUCTIAES AS REQUIRED ! II I I z I ' w B ON AT ERIDU STRUCTURE. I i ` I 'j I I ! I ) I I REMOVE ExISTR10 tL118 AS; I— FT ,l I I IN• Fat II II I NEEDED AND MATOI EAIST GRACE Ie ltl U ' I ' la a •ii( f�WA Ili 7"j?�A �.' � �( I I �• 'I III I �3 � i I x I '�s. ;•, I ' , Cc � ICI=, .. ..;. j � .. ) � ;;I'•:�. .._ ��. .'• a tvit GRAPHIC I F W M rI 11=. �I Iwrat) •„r I:eN.F n I, NOTE:ELEVATIONS REFER TO NAV%B DATUM el 40 ' __ _ _ _.—.__ _._ --_.._ -.._ 4 I CITY RENTON TS j I... 1 1 I 1 TDO YRRTORAFE Sil I i EL.K 1 ]s' NR i (siRIPOC U•LAW4-LAW—fir WKRWAT7.J]• IRKFIC BARRIER __ �� I p... 7_J] wl -2'ASPMALI OVEREAT ...... ........_ .....��. 1 O i. b _.I •. ..... ..___.. _..__. ._J ! _. .._'_� f...'- --- _. ..._. .. ... ._I.. .]]' �. 7!]' -STANDARD Ir DECAID wax !•I !0___...L. .._._ I ._.L_. ._._I_._'CFI tRGRADE —._.... ____L`.___._ ._.____ ( i_—_—_L 60 TON IlCS TYP._ .___�____.. .—__0_J 7.JY 29`J . _ EEIB TEE ICI I j~ ELEVATION TYPICAL SECTION I GRAPHIC SCALE GRAPHIC SCALE �_I W S W A IO IJ W 10 ' I I I ! (unit) (urMt) 1 I; IM.W,4 IASA.f IL Y' h. DRAWII BY DATE SCALE: ? r<o RAYMOND CENTER WESTO"D' P; Ell ; Ea enu% a`,.S AS N0 RENTON.WASHINGTON _w OEICNED BMOO � COBWfAq Fparoera I FT+ eL+] SITE PLAN REVIEW SPR-3 CNECREO-6Y — LY)I TNlyd AVpuA Who TOO WV a 2]9A UOU NO.: tipMMr2t..� Seanft W.W' vN,,OOOI SPRING Q I-'. • %327.10 — CFNFT7AT DEAN ANTI F.►.F.V6TItIN I I I �' APPAOYED BT ` &M&V2 5&V Fa.(708r 62?B W w Xn fioSA y/2'S b�7 4/d 4vjw iv,�. Ash G�P i*eel t&5 . Pkll 69�'k l SPRINGBROOK CREEK BRIDGE ADDITIONS Lower Abutment-5' in depth Deepen piling 10 ea. $ 3,000.00 Additional Excavation East side 125 CY @ $30.00/cy $ 3,750.00 West side 108 CY @ $30.00/cy $ 3,240.00 Additional backfill East side 125 CY @$30.00/cy $ 3,750.00 West side 108 CY @$30.00/cy $ 3,240.00 Additional concrete-in-place-48 CY $19,200.00 SUBTOTAL: $36,180.00 Overhead-6% 2170.00 SUBTOTAL: $38,350.00 Fee-9% 3,452.00 TOTAL: $41,802.00 Extend and Lower Wing Walls East Side: Lower wall from elevation 18.0 to 10.7 Raise wall from elevation 24.07 to 28.0 Extend wall 4 LF- occurs on two sides New wall total equals 32LF West Side: Lower wall from elevation 18.0 to 10.7 Raise wall from elevation 24.07 to 28.0 Extend wall 15 LF -occurs on two sides New wall total equals 54 LF Survey/Layout $ 2,600.00 Additional Excavation East side 150 CY @$30.00/cy $ 4,500.00 West side 237 CY @ $30.00/cy $ 7,110.00 Additional Backfill East side 150 CY @$30.00/cy $ 4,500.00 West side 237 CY @$30.00/cy $ 7,110.00 Additional piling-2 ea. $ 3,850.00 Additional grade beam-1 ea. $ 2,400.00 Additional piling cap-2 ea. $ 1,064.00 Additional concrete-in-place Wing walls-48 CY $19,200.00 Additional sack/patch 5,000.00 SUBTOTAL: $57,334.00 Overhead-6% 3,440.00 SUBTOTAL: $60,774.00 Fee-9% 5,469.00 TOTAL: $66,243.00 NOV-21-1113 03:59 FROM JOHN E NELSON ATTY TO 2352541 P.01 FAX TRANSMISSION FROM THE LAW OFFICE OF: JOHN E. "JACK" NELSON, ATTORNEY 601 WEST GOWE STREET KENT, WA 98032-5745 PHONE: (206-) 854-7200 •Please Note:As of 4fZ7Q7 the pew Area Code will FAX (2061 854-8960 be 2S3. R must be used for long distance end non-long distance cans from other area codes. DATE: 22 April, 1997 TO FAX: Deliver to: Scot LL3 3> e LLQY Of: FLNI ocJ �t--R�iJ i rJLr t �LDG� r (�1.��j. CX7t�l�s From: (Sender) Jack Nelson Total Pages: Z , including this Cover Page. ''This Fax Cover Sheet and accompanying pages, if any, are confidential attorney work product. As such, they are privileged, and anyone to whom these items may be delivered in error (anyone other than the person to whom they are directed) is directed to return them to the originating party (sender) without examining or reading them. Thank you. If you do not receive all pages, please contact the sender. COMMENTS: `z'> L j=-W tc rL Tim 1n•�h�L� 1^.�. L 2 ono Nnu-�)1-1 1 1.i nd:AR FRnm TnHN F NFI ,;nN ATTY Tn P.15P5d1 P.R;) 4 U Ir• U JPleasc Noto. As / - vr 4 2�197 our new Area MTORNEYAT Low• Code will be 253. It must hp ucvd for long 601 WEST GOWE distance and non-long distance calls fiun KENT, WASHINGTON 98032.5745 other area codes. (206) 854-7200 - Fax (206) 854 8960 22 April. 1997 Mark Miller Mark Miller Consultants ,�- 10801 Main Street- Suite 101 Bellevue, WA 98004 Advance Copy Via Fax. 206-455-5076 Re- wainage District No. One Application # 96-5 Winmar Bridge - Hunter Douglas Dear Mark: As Mark Veldee has probably explained to you by now, at its last meeting the Drainage District approved the issuanco of an casement to Hunter DouglaG for the bridge across Springbrook Creek at your Raymond Center West. In discussing the matter with Mark, he did not feel that any temporary construction easement would be necessary. However, there are several items to clear up so that the easement can he issued. The approval was conditioned upon these requirements, and I list them here: .1. A surveyed legal description for the actual easement crossing area. 2. An accurate legal description for the parcel owned by the applicant (property to the west of the easement) to which the easement will attach. For discussion, I refer to this as the Hunter Douglas property. 3. Satisfactory proof of ownership of the Hunter Douglas property, usually in the form of a title commitment (very recent before the day of oxocution). Proof must include information about any lienholders, other easement holders, etc. For discussion herein, I refer to the owner as Hunter Douglas or applicant. 4. Proof of an executed easement agreement between the City of Renton and Hunter Douglas, fulfilling the condition in Scott Woodbury's letter of March rNOU-21-1113 04:00 FROM JOHN E NELSON ATTY TO 2352541 P.03 22 April, 1997 Mark Miller Mark Miller Consultants Page 2 of 2 13, 1997. This was in the last major paragraph of that letter, a copy of which was sent to you. 5. An easement form for the easement between the District and Hunter Douglas, satisfactory to the District. I will be preparing this document_ 6. Joinder in the District / Hunter Douglas easement by any parties having an interest in the Hunter Douglas property. Could you provide me the first four items as soon as they are avallmtva. In the case of the title commitment, please forward the most current for yotl pave so that I can begin examining the ownership."" Fc.� Thank you for your kind attention. If you have questions, please give r4. ,. Yo s ery truly, Ja elson JEN:ab cc: Mark Veidee - KPFF - via fax Scott Woodbury - City of Renton - via fax DD#1 - Commissioners Doug Conyers - Barghausen Consulting Engineers TnT01 P FA7 MarkMill6r CONSULTANTS INC. DEVELOPMENT ■ LAND USE ■ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT April 18, 1997 Ronald J. Straka ? 1 19997 City of Renton ��R 200 Mill Ave. S., 4th Floor Renton, WA 98055 RE: Hunter Douglas Project Dear Ron: As a follow up to your draft easement letter dated February 25, 1997, as well as our conference call on April 17 with Hunter Douglas, I am providing the following information for your review and approval at this time. Enclosed is a schematic design of the existing channel section and wing walls as well as a schematic design of the proposed channel widening and the corresponding enlarged wing walls. Also enclosed for your review is a cost estimate from our contractor, Donovan Brothers, for the costs related to this additional work. As outlined in your draft easement language of February 25, 1997, please advise whether or not the City of Renton desires Hunter Douglas to proceed with redesign and construction of the expanded wing wall concept. Very truly yours, MARK MILLER CONSULTANTS, INC. Mark Miller MM:pp Enclosures cc: Scott Woodbury (w/ encls.) Susan Carlson Allen Tosch Darrell Donovan 10801 Main Street, Suite 100 ■ Bellevue,Washington 98004 ■ 206/455-1724 ■ FAX 206/455-5076 APR-17-97 THU 12:25 PM DONOVAN BROTHERS FAX NO. 206 939 7994 P 02/02 B03110vaLlio Brothers COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 1801 West Valley Highway North,Suite 101 P.O.Box 818,Auburn,WA 98071-0618 April 17, 1997 206/939-7777,FAX:206/939-7994 Mark Miller Consultants Mark Miller 10801 Main Street, #100 Bellevue, WA 98004 Dear Mark: As you know,we recently received the final proposed bridge modification drawings for the Hunter-Douglas, Inc_project. These drawings reflect the deepened abutments along with the extended wing walls and associated pilings,pile caps,grade beams,etc. Following is a breakdown of the added costs for this work: Lower the abutments $41,438.00 Design&engineering fees $10,325.00 W.S.S.T. 3,564.00 $55,327.00 Addition of wing walls $66,031.00 Design&engineering fees $ 9,450.00 W.S.S.T. 5,679.00 $81,160.00 TOTAL: $136,487,00 As you would expect,we can only offer this pricing if the work outlined can be accomplished with the bridge construction itself. Lf this work is done at a later date,out of the sequence of current construction,we would need to re-estimate the work required and the costs would undoubtedly increase substantially. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, /f Olmei nior Project Man er GO:cs 04/17/97 TAU 12:21 [TX/RX NO 77141 1� 002 W P, 1 PVI STA 2+80.72 PVI STA 1+63.38 PVI EL = 24.31 PVI EL = 23.66 30' V.C. 11.52 78' 25' V.C. 5' _l 40 L; ' — -' • '- rn T_ N +I m I I- CO-- ►o I � `y � ,'Q � w • CITY OF1 RENTON �, • ± o ± r ± r- Qom; I ¢ � U_ � I � I Q N N N o N oo o I 100 YR TORAGE o I N N N N N ii o ii N EL - 16 . n n u 30 > ITS > � d Q -� T AFFIC-BARRIER I i I I ¢ -J--- - —>--' i > �_ �w I �w min w I- I � w � w a- w 2 ! i 0 , 7�Zr _ GUARDRAIL, CONCRETE CONCRETE I j � � } ��-�J �� i ' ! � �. � � - - - RETAININP I I , , ! ► l i I J I I ! RETAINING e y 10 WALL WALL A -- ---�-� ----- '-I -- � -- 1�'- I --- --- -- - - - PROPOSE� GRADE - i EX' .GRADE • , _ 0 I I I ELEVATION GRAPHI(� SCALE 10 0 5 10 20 40 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch - 10 ft. 1 . WINGWALLS AND BRIDGE WITH EXISTING CHANNEL SECTION t PVI STA 2+80.72 4.affokE � D�k-k Ww PVI STA 1+63.38 PVI EL = 24.31 cHAA),VELPVI EL = 23.66 30' V.C. 11.52' 789 25' V.C. 5' ~ LiJ40 W ~ W CD 4 u, C�4 � � w CITY OF R NTON W ± o ± ►�' ± Lo Lo 0- 1 100 YR T RAGE 0. I Q ,� < N Q _' N " CV 0 + 00 O � � I ~ N � N F- N 30 I I o V), I I , ¢ N a EL = 16 V) cn v� U ii II U it j � w aw V) w T AFFIC-BAR m -W s- m w 1% 20 0 17N �S' ��, 1 , GUARDRAIL; CONCRETE ! j N RETE RETAINING I ! I ! RETAININ 10 WALL WALL -- - — PROPOSED GRADE EX GRADE C ELEVATION GRAPHIC SCALE 10 0 5 10 20 40 ( IN FEET ) 2. WINGWALLS AND BRIDGE 1 inch = 10 ft. WITH PROPOSED CHANNEL WIDENING Jennefer Toth Henning From: Leslie Betlach To: Sam Chastain Cc: Jennefer Toth Henning Subject: Springbrook Trail - Hunter Douglas Building Date: Monday, April 21, 1997 3:52PM As a folllow-up to our recent meeting with the Boeing Corporation, I contacted Mark Miller, the consultant for the Hunter-Douglas building regarding the Springbrook Trail. At this point the trail has been designed with an alignment that curves around the parking area on the north boundary line and also stops at the north property line. If the existing Boeing Trail were extended approximately 5' to the south (according to Mark Miller) it would connect to the Hunter Douglas portion. As you are aware however, this alignment is not user friendly and the trail user would probably use the path of least resistance and create a new footpath. Mark Miller was unclear as to who would extend the Boeing portion 5' to the south, but he assured me that it would not be him. In addition, Hunter Douglas has been requqested by the City's Planning/building/ Public Works Department to not construct the trail this year but to instead to put up a bond for the future construction of the trail. The reason for this is because the Surface water Utility will likely be widening the P-1 Channel (not yet confirmed due to funding reqirements) and the trail would have to be removed and replaced if Hunter Douglas constructed it as part of the years construction project. The money would be set aside for consruction aat a later date and as I understand it administered by the surface Water Utility as part of their project. We have a situation where if modifications are to be done to the location of the trail within Boeing's property, the City will likely be responsible for negotiating the easement and as outlined in our previous meeting with Boeing be responsible for the survery work, easement, construction of the new trail, demolition of the old trail and revegetation. We have time to accomplish this task, especially since the portion of the trail on the Hunter Douglas property will not be constructed this year (and so this aligmmnet can change also). One "minor" detail however is funding for the realignment , etc. through the Boeing Property. Perhaps mitigation dollars that Parks has accumulated. I will follow up and let's discuss. Thanks, Leslie Page 1 ti CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: April 18, 1997 TO: Scott Woodbury FROM: Clinton Morgan SUBJECT: Hunter Douglas,Inc./Warehouse Project The attached drawings and revisions are in response to our previous comments. The bridge drawings are now included. The items marked in yellow on your attached comments does not appear to be address. The next item of inquiry is the Code Alteration/Modification. It's my understanding they should be instructed to request thi#in writing. I can send Kpff a sample Code Alteration / Modification from Act III Theater. It also seems we will need an approved cost estimate for the trail and a security device in place to construct the trail after you have the channel widening completed. Let me know if you have a channel widening agreement as of now or do we need to request a proposed written document? Please indicate if you have any additional concerns or if these items are satisfied we can approve their mylars. Thank you 97cm056 cc: HAWWODOTNEMOMOI1 bh 1 CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 3, 1997 TO: Clint Morgan FROM: Scott Woodbur}�Ul SUBJECT: COMMENTS TO THE HUNTER DOUGLAS PROJECT Storm Drainage Report Page 13. I do not agree that the pre- and post-developed conditions for the area affected by the bridge will remain unchanged. Also, it cannot be separated from the rest of the site and be exempted from detention or water quality just because it is less than 5,000 square feet without compensating for the bypass. The report should also note that the drainage will flow into the Opus site detention/wetpond. Also, from discussions with KPFF, it was my understanding that the report would show that the Opus pond can accept the bridge drainage since the Opus pond was sized using Ecology criteria, which is more stringent than required by Renton. Essentially this could be done by showing the ratio of additional runoff to the Opus pond in terms of rate and/or volume and comparing the results to the ratio of pond volume/release rate per Ecology criteria to that per Renton requirements. Through comparison of the ratios it could then be concluded that the Opus pond can accept the additional runoff and still exceed Renton's requirements. The report should also attached the legal instrument from Opus that allows the discharge through the Opus site. Page 21. I am not aware of the project having been given a code alteration modification for the biofiltration swale requirement. Such a modification is contingent on the report showing that the volume of storage and surface area provided are greater than what is required by at least a factor of 2. To that end, the volume calculation should use only 1/3 of the 2-year precipitation for the site in computing the required volume per the 1990 KCSWDM (0.67 inches). Also, the calculations need to include information on the ratio of surface area required (1% of impervious area)to the area provided. Project Plans The berm between the detention/wetponds and the adjacent ditch and creek should be designed/checked by a geotechnical engineer per page 4.4.4-3 of the King County Surface Water Design Manual for stability and seepage/soil piping concerns. The slope on the ditch side is nearly 2H:1 V and the soils report for the project indicates the presence of permeable sands. If the pond outlet were to become plugged, the static water level in the pond could be as high as 17.0 feet per the filter detail on sheet C7. The ditch bottom elevation is at about 8 feet. Thus, nearly 9-feet of head pressure could be exerted on the berm. For the 100-year event, the design water level in the ponds (17.0 feet) would be more 6 feet higher than the adjacent water level in the creek, according to modeling of the creek by R.W. Beck for the City. + Comments to Hunter Douglas Project Page 2 Specific comments to the plans follow: Cl. Note 3 should state that other surveys used the NGVD 29 datum, not NGVD 27. Also, the conversion according to my understanding in 3.58 feet, not 3.57. 0. If CB#12 is installed east of the trail it should be located within the 3 foot gravel shoulder to be provided along the east edge of the asphalt trail so that it will not be in conflict with the future channel widening project. A note would need to be added to the drawing in this regard in addition to providing coordinates for the structure. However, based on review of the invert and rim elevations shown on the plan, it appears that an 18" culvert cannot not be used in such a shallow CB and the rim of the CB is about 2 feet below the design water surface elevation of the pond. Although the plans call for a locking lid, the rim should be elevated above the design water surface elevation. Raising the rim will preclude the ability to locate the CB in the 3-foot gravel shoulder for the trail and result in the CB sticking about 2 feet above the ground for all to see, and possibly even more once the channel is widened. I have a suggested solution as shown in the attached drawing. It results in some of the pipe being exposed where it crosses the existing ditch, but I feel this would be less of a visual impact than having an exposed structure next to the trail. Based on the elevation of the 18" culvert, the ditch crossing could be accomplished without any excavation or fill in the wetland. Also, the pipe would also pass above and west of the existing 36"culvert and therefore not obstruct its inlet. Finally, there is a slight reduction in the length of 18" culvert required to connect the ponds and a Type 1-L CB should still work. Also, rather than needing to travel the length of the trail from the bridge to get to the ponds for maintenance, a graveled maintenance access road and curb cut should be constructed as shown on the attached plan. This will minimize the length of trail that must be used to access the ponds. An access control gate should be installed at the curb to limited access to authorized vehicles only. C3. The proposed elevation for the trail and the catch point where the toe of the slope for the pedestrian trail meets existing grade needs to be clearly defined. Based on recent discussions with KPFF, these and other details on the pedestrian trail design will be shown on the next plan submittal. C3. A comment must be added to the datum note to clarify that the elevations shown on the Opus site are not on the same datum as the Hunter Douglas site. Please note what datum was used for the Opus site and add the equation needed to convert the elevations to NAVD88. C3. I request that the following note be added to the drawing because of concerns that excess preload material, if any, will be wasted on-site, raising grades above that shown on the plans such as has occurred on other sites (i.e. Opus). Any increase in grade along the channel may affect the City's ability to widen the channel in the future and affect the pedestrian trail design. "The location and elevation of improvements shown on the plans along the east edge of the site, in the vicinity of the pedestrian trail, and at the bridge crossing are not to be revised during construction without prior review and written approval of a revised plan by the City." C3. A riprap overflow spillway must be constructed down the slope below each pond's emergency overflow to protect the slope from erosion in the event of an overflow. Comments to Hunter Douglas Project Page 3 C4. The location of the center of the bridge opening with respect to the property lines needs to be shown on the drawings. The center of the bridge opening is to be shifted no more than 9 feet west of the centerline of the Drainage District No. 1 property. C4. The bottom elevation of the abutments (pile caps) need to be lowered to elevation 9.7 feet. This elevation needs to be clearly shown on the plans. A leader needs to be drawn from the water surface to the note regarding the elevation of the water(storage elevation of 16.9 feet). C9. The depth of the rip rap is not shown in the emergency overflow spillway detail. U:1997:97-016:S W cc: Neil Watts IIIIIIIIIIIIII � IIII�III�/III� I • i WN Its Ally i � .�'� ►err .aw 41 MCI lot ; Iffir-ACK in ;; CITY OF RENTON ..It Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator. March 13, 1997 John E.Nelson,Attorney at Law Drainage District No. 1 601 West Gowe Kent, WA 98032-5745 SUBJECT: HUNTER DOUGLAS PROPOSED BRIDGE CROSSING OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 1 Dear Mr.Nelson: We recently received a copy of your letter to Mark Veldee of KPFF Consulting Engineers dated February 14, 1997. Since we have received your letter, we have reached verbal agreement with Hunter Douglas regarding the issues raised in your letter, as well as some other issues related to the proposed bridge crossing, and the City's plans to widen the channel. The general tenants of the verbal agreement are as follows: • Hunter Douglas will grant the City an easement over the east 50 feet of their property along Springbrook Creek for future construction of a widened channel. The easement will also allow for use of a pedestrian trail within the easement area. Hunter Douglas has agreed to construct a trail along the creek as part of its proposed development. • Hunter Douglas will extend the depth of the bridge abutment pile caps so as to allow for future excavation of a widened channel. The bottom of the pile caps shall be installed no higher than elevation 9.7 feet (NAVD 1998 Datum). To reimburse Hunter Douglas for the additional cost extending the depth of the abutments, the City will offset up to 100% of its Surface Water Utility system development charge that may become due for the Hunter Douglas development proposal. • Hunter Douglas will proceed with design of the bridge assuming that the wingwalls for the bridge will be installed only to the depths necessary to fit existing grades. The City will work with the engineers for the Hunter Douglas development to explore the cost and schedule implications of constructing the wingwalls so as to allow for the future channel widening. Hunter Douglas will install the wingwalls to accommodate the future channel upon the request of the City, provided the City reimburses Hunter Douglas for the additional cost and the installation can be completed within time schedule constraints. • The center of the proposed bridge over Springbrook Creek will be offset 9 feet west of the centerline of the property along the creek owned by Drainage District No. 1. Hunter Douglas will pay any additional costs associated with the need for deeper retaining walls along the pedestrian trail in the vicinity of the bridge resulting from shifting the bridge 9 feet to the west. It is estimated that the wall height would increase 3 feet at the bridge and have no impact beyond 100 feet either side of the bridge. The resultant impact of the bridge offset and the need to install the widened channel section centered in the bridge opening and 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 John E.Nelson,Drainage District No. 1 Hunter Douglas Bridge Crossing Page 2 therefore closer to the pedestrian trail is then estimated at 300 square feet of additional wall area. • The City will provide and construct any compensatory storage volume required for filling in the 100-year FEMA floodplain caused by the Hunter Douglas proposal. • The City and Hunter Douglas agree to defer construction of the pedestrian trail and related appurtenances (retaining walls) until after the channel widening is completed to avoid causing damage to a newly constructed trail. We trust that this letter addresses the concerns outlined in your February 14, 1997, to Mark Veldee. The tenants of our verbal agreement with Hunter Douglas will be formalized in a written easement agreement, which will require the approval of our City Council. We will provide the District with a copy of the draft easement agreement once it has been written. It is our intent to process the easement agreement for Council approval as soon as possible. Finally, subject to formalization of the easement agreement with Hunter Douglas, we support the Drainage District granting the easement over District property that has been requested to allow installation of the bridge. If you have any questions, please contact me at(206)277-5547. Sincerely, Scott Woodbury, P.E., roject Manager Surface Water Utility H:DOCS:97-234:SW:ps CC: Ron Straka Jennifer Toth-Henning Neil Watts Sue Carlson Mark Miller,R112 Engineering ;y CITY OF RENTON ..LL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator 3/2-07.7 rRANSMITTAL MEMO # of v , L y� FROM � 'VI/�IZlC M u-t,-t March 13, 1997 COMPANY 1 PHONE# John E.Nelson,Attorney at Law - /' Drainage District No. 1 .nn4 FAX# 601 West Gowe Kent, WA 98032-5745 SUBJECT: HUNTER DOUGLAS PROPOSED BRIDGE CROSSING OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 1 Dear Mr.Nelson: We recently received a copy of your letter to Mark Veldee of KPFF Consulting Engineers dated February 14, 1997. Since we have received your letter, we have reached verbal agreement with Hunter Douglas regarding the issues raised in your letter, as well as some other issues related to the proposed bridge crossing, and the City's plans to widen the channel. The general tenants of the verbal agreement are as follows: • Hunter Douglas will grant the City an easement over the east 50 feet of their property along Springbrook Creek for future construction of a widened channel. The easement will also allow for use of a pedestrian trail within the easement area. Hunter Douglas has agreed to construct a trail along the creek as.part of its proposed development. • Hunter Douglas will extend the depth of the bridge abutment pile caps so as to allow for future excavation of a widened channel. The bottom of the pile caps shall be installed no higher than elevation 9.7 feet (NAVD 1998 Datum). To reimburse Hunter Douglas for the additional cost extending the depth of the abutments, the City will offset up to 100% of its Surface Water Utility system development charge that may become due for the Hunter Douglas development proposal. • Hunter Douglas will proceed with design of the bridge assuming that the wingwalls for the bridge will be installed only to the depths necessary to fit existing grades. The City will work with the engineers for the Hunter Douglas development to explore the cost and schedule implications of constructing the wingwalls so as to allow for the future channel widening. Hunter Douglas will install the wingwalls to accommodate the future channel upon the request of the City, provided the City reimburses Hunter Douglas for the additional cost and the installation can be completed within time schedule constraints. • The center of the proposed bridge over Springbrook Creek will be offset 9 feet west of the centerline of the property along the creek owned by Drainage District No. 1. Hunter Douglas will pay any additional costs associated with the need for deeper retaining walls along the pedestrian trail in the vicinity of the bridge resulting from shifting the bridge 9 feet to the west. It is estimated that the wall height would increase 3 feet at the bridge and have no impact beyond 100 feet either side of the bridge. The resultant impact of the bridge offset and the need to install the widened channel section centered in the bridge opening and 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 CITY OF RENTON !!LL`1 ` Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator March 4,1997 Mark Miller Project Consultant 10801 Main St., Suite 100 Bellevue,WA 98004 Dear Mr. Miller: SUBJECT: Hunter Douglas,Inc. Project I am forwarding additional comments regarding storm drainage for the above-subject site. These comments, in memo form, with attached sketch, are from Scott Woodbury, Utility Systems Civil Engineer. Please consider this memo along with our project review comments for your permit application dated February 28, 1997. Should any questions arise you may address them to Scott Woodbury direct at phone number (206) 277-5547. If you have any general question you may contact me at(206) 277-6216. Sincerely, 1V) w�' � Clinton E. Morgan Development Service 97ctn034 e..'go9 Enclossure 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 MThis paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer s i CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: March 3, 1997 TO: Clint Morgan FROM: Scott WoodburKkk SUBJECT: COMMENTS TO THE HUNTER DOUGLAS PROJECT Storm Drainage Report Page 13. I do not agree that the pre- and post-developed conditions for the area affected by the bridge will remain unchanged. Also, it cannot be separated from the rest of the site and be exempted from detention or water quality just because it is less than 5,000 square feet without compensating for the bypass. The report should also note that the drainage will flow into the Opus site detention/wetpond. Also, from discussions with KPFF, it was my understanding that the report would show that the Opus pond can accept the bridge drainage since the Opus pond was sized using Ecology criteria, which is more stringent than required by Renton. Essentially this could be done by showing the ratio of additional runoff to the Opus pond in terms of rate and/or volume and comparing the results to the ratio of pond volume/release rate per Ecology criteria to that per Renton requirements. Through comparison of the ratios it could then be concluded that the Opus pond can accept the additional runoff and still exceed Renton's requirements. The report should also attached the legal instrument from Opus that allows the discharge through the Opus site. Page 21. I am not aware of the project having been given a code alteration modification for the biofiltration swale requirement. Such a modification is contingent on the report showing that the volume of storage and surface area provided are greater than what is required by at least a factor of 2. To that end, the volume calculation should use only 1/3 of the 2-year precipitation for the site in computing the required volume per the 1990 KCSWDM (0.67 inches). Also, the calculations need to include information on the ratio of surface area required(1% of impervious area)to the area provided. Project Plans The berm between the detention/wetponds and the adjacent ditch and creek should be designed/checked by a geotechnical engineer per page 4.4.4-3 of the King County Surface Water Design Manual for stability and seepage/soil piping concerns. The slope on the ditch side is nearly 2H:1 V and the soils report for the project indicates the presence of permeable sands. If the pond outlet were to become plugged, the static water level in the pond could be as high as 17.0 feet per the filter detail on sheet C7. The ditch bottom elevation is at about 8 feet. Thus, nearly 9-feet of head pressure could be exerted on the berm. For the 100-year event, the design water level in the ponds (17.0 feet) would be more 6 feet higher than the adjacent water level in the creek, according to modeling of the creek by R.W. Beck for the City. Comments to Hunter Douglas Project Page 2 Specific comments to the plans follow: Cl. Note 3 should state that other surveys used the NGVD 29 datum, not NGVD 27. Also, the conversion according to my understanding in 3.58 feet, not 3.57. C3. If CB#12 is installed east of the trail it should be located within the 3 foot gravel shoulder to be provided along the east edge of the asphalt trail so that it will not be in conflict with the future channel widening project. A note would need to be added to the drawing in this regard in addition to providing coordinates for the structure. However, based on review of the invert and rim elevations shown on the plan, it appears that an 18" culvert cannot not be used in such a shallow CB and the rim of the CB is about 2 feet below the design water surface elevation of the pond. Although the plans call for a locking lid, the rim should be elevated above the design water surface elevation. Raising the rim will preclude the ability to locate the CB in the 3-foot gravel shoulder for the trail and result in the CB sticking about 2 feet above the ground for all to see, and possibly even more once the channel is widened. I have a suggested solution as shown in the attached drawing. It results in some of the pipe being exposed where it crosses the existing ditch, but I feel this would be less of a visual impact than having an exposed structure next to the trail. Based on the elevation of the 18" culvert, the ditch crossing could be accomplished without any excavation or fill in the wetland. Also, the pipe would also pass above and west of the existing 36"culvert and therefore not obstruct its inlet. Finally, there is a slight reduction in the length of 18" culvert required to connect the ponds and a Type 1-L CB should still work. Also, rather than needing to travel the length of the trail from the bridge to get to the ponds for maintenance, a graveled maintenance access road and curb cut should be constructed as shown on the attached plan. This will minimize the length of trail that must be used to access the ponds. An access control gate should be installed at the curb to limited access to authorized vehicles only. C3. The proposed elevation for the trail and the catch point where the toe of the slope for the pedestrian trail meets existing grade needs to be clearly defined. Based on recent discussions with KPFF,these and other details on the pedestrian trail design will be shown on the next plan submittal. C3. A comment must be added to the datum note to clarify that the elevations shown on the Opus site are not on the same datum as the Hunter Douglas site. Please note what datum was used for the Opus site and add the equation needed to convert the elevations to NAVD88. C3. I request that the following note be added to the drawing because of concerns that excess preload material, if any, will be wasted on-site, raising grades above that shown on the plans such as has occurred on other sites (i.e. Opus). Any increase in grade along the channel may affect the City's ability to widen the channel in the future and affect the pedestrian trail design. "The location and elevation of improvements shown on the plans along the east edge of the site, in the vicinity of the pedestrian trail, and at the bridge crossing are not to be revised during construction without prior review and written approval of a revised plan by the City." C3. A riprap overflow spillway must be constructed down the slope below each pond's emergency overflow to protect the slope from erosion in the event of an overflow. t Comments to Hunter Douglas Project Page 3 C4. The location of the center of the bridge opening with respect to the property lines needs to be shown on the drawings. The center of the bridge opening is to be shifted no more than 9 feet west of the centerline of the Drainage District No. 1 property. C4. The bottom elevation of the abutments (pile caps) need to be lowered to elevation 9.7 feet. This elevation needs to be clearly shown on the plans. A leader needs to be drawn from the water surface to the note regarding the elevation of the water(storage elevation of 16.9 feet). C9. The depth of the rip rap is not shown in the emergency overflow spillway detail. U:1997:97-016:SW cc: Neil Watts i CITY OF RENTON TOLL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator February 25, 1997 Mark Miller Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. 10801 Main Street, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT: DRAFT EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR DRAINAGE CHANNEL AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL Dear Mr. Miller: In follow up to our meeting of February 18, 1997, attached is a draft Easement Agreement for Drainage Channel and Pedestrian Trail for your review. Please provide any comments you may have as soon as possible so that we may proceed with processing of the easement for the approval of the City Council. We look forward to your reply. If you have any questions, please contact me at (206)277-5548 or Scott Woodbury at(206)277-5547. Sincerely, Ronald J. Straka,P.E.,Engineering Supervisor Surface Water Utility U:65230:97-002:S W attachments cc: Leslie Betlach Jennifer Toth-Henning Sue Carlson Neil Watts Scott Woodbury 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLICWO RKS FOURTH FLOOR - - 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH = RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: 235-2541 To: C �rc>.E � rcyt Company: Phone: Fax: ' 77— From: 5Sc x- 6Aj4 c Company: Phone: Fax: Date:?-412X- i7 Pages including this cover page: •Z Comments: L4��C f' 6i /�ihc,L v F 'rot, 4 voG C/,�srhr3vY w7n7 T f�4� (l�� idvNr-U SkA,41 o:Uu,. 4� new tp u^'f1JVo(41 lij )i£ �7�1/� ✓ .A l.L. . %'144 Ne,S THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF = PLANNING UILDING U L IN B P B i WORKS - -/ C FOURTH FLOOR 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH =- RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: 235-2541 = --- To: LEsc i-f e,-qr�,/Ac& Company: Phone: Fax: 27"l- 1�5 23 From: Company: Phone: Fax: Date: 1/1-'5 /17 Pages including this cover page: Comments: CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 24, 1997 TO: Leslie Betlach FROM: Ron Straka i STAFF CONTACT: Scott Woodbury(X-5547) SUBJECT: HUNTER DOUGLAS AGREEMENT AND EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE CHANNEL AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL The changes you requested in the draft easement agreement with Hunter Douglas have been made, as you will find in the attached revised draft. Also, you asked for a committment from us that the Parks Department will not be asked to pay for the cost of constructing a retaining wall along the pedestrian trail, if a wall is necessary to accommodate the widened channel. You indicated that this was a condition of your going along with the deferral of the trail construction as outlined in the easement agreement. Per your request, I confirm that that the Parks Department will not be asked to pay for the installation of the retaining walls along the trail that may be required when the channel is widened in the future. However, we expect your full cooperation in ensuring that the trail is designed so as to minimize the need for walls. I trust this addresses your concerns. If you have any questions or need more information, please call me at X-5548. U:1997:97-014:SW cc: Ron Olsen WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Project:East Side Green River Office of the City Clerk Renton Municipal Building AGREEMENT AND EASEMENT Watershed Project 200 Mill Avenue South FOR DRAINAGE CHANNEL AND Work Order#_65230 Renton,WA 98055 PEDESTRIAN TRAIL PID: 24230490115 Grantor:Hunter Douglas,Inc STR: Sec 24,T23N.R4E Street Intersection: 19th Street and Raymond Avenue THIS INSTRUMENT, made this day of 1997; by and between Hunter Douglas, Inc., hereinafter called "Hunter Douglas," and the CITY OF RENTON, a Municipal Corporation of King County, Washington,hereinafter called "City." WHEREAS,Hunter Douglas is the owner of certain real property located in the City legally described as Lot 1 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-95-064 (King County Recording No. 9508039005) and which lies adjacent to and west of Springbrook Creek. WHEREAS,the City is proposing to widen Springbrook Creek along the Hunter Douglas property as identified in the East Side Green River Watershed Project Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (City File LUA-95-205,ECF) so as to increase the capacity of the creek to convey flows and thereby reduce upstream flooding problems. WHEREAS, an easement is required from Hunter Douglas over the east 50 feet of its property along Springbrook Creek in order for the City to accomplish the widening project. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas is proposing to develop its property in accordance with the Raymond Avenue Center West proposal(City File No. LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF). WHEREAS, the development proposal includes construction of a private bridge over Springbrook Creek as its primary access, construction of a paved pedestrian trail Ithin a dedicated trail easement allowing public acce along the entire length of the Hunter Douglas property along Springbrook Creek, and requires filling within the 100-year floodplain as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas does not have sufficient area on its property to excavate a volume of material equal to the volume of floodplain storage that will be filled by the development, except within the east 50 feet of its property. WHEREAS, the City has offered to construct the required compensatory floodplain storage for the Hunter Douglas development as part of its channel widening project in exchange for the granting of a drainage channel easement over the east 50 feet of the Hunter Douglas property. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas desires that the center of its bridge over Springbrook Creek be offset 9 feet west of the centerline of the property along the creek owned by Drainage District No. 1 adjacent to and east of the Hunter Douglas property. WHEREAS, hydraulic analysis conducted by Hunter Douglas shows that the planned widened channel section will need to be centered within the span of the bridge at its shifted location so as to minimize head losses through the structure. WHEREAS, the City may need to construct a retaining wall to support the pedestrian trail on the west bank of the creek when the channel widening project is constructed and shifting the bridge opening closer to the pedestrian trail will result in a need for higher retaining walls supporting the trail in the vicinity of the bridge. H:DOCS:workl Ib:SW:ps Agreement and Easement INITIAL Sheet 1 of 7 PROPERTY SERVICES WHEREAS, the City desires that the Hunter Douglas bridge abutments and wingwalls be constructed so as to allow for future excavation of a widened channel, which will increase the overall cost of the bridge substantially above what would be necessary were the bridge constructed to fit only the existing grades. WHEREAS, the City desires that the Hunter Douglas defer construction of the pedestrian trail until after the channel widening is completed so as to avoid the need for temporary closures of a newly constructed trail and to avoid potential damages to the new trail that could result in unnecessary restoration costs and construction delays. WHEREAS, the Hunter Douglas property is currently "land locked" with no developed access to the public right-of- way. WHEREAS, the Raymond Avenue Center West development proposes and approval is based upon being able to construct the bridge over Springbrook Creek as primary access to the Hunter Douglas property. WHEREAS, Hunter Douglas must complete installation of the bridge within an extremely tight construction schedule before its temporary construction access easement through Boeing property to the west of the Hunter Douglas property expires. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of ten dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of the performance of the covenants, terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, Hunter Douglas hereby grants, bargains, sells,conveys, and warrants unto the City, its successors and assigns, an easement over, under, through, across and upon that portion of the Hunter Douglas land described in Exhibit A(the easement area). 1. The City shall have the right to use the easement area for installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, removing, repairing, and replacing a drainage channel, pedestrian trail, and related appurtenances and shall have right of ingress and egress thereto for the foregoing purposes without prior institution of any suit or proceedings of law. Following the initial construction of its facilities, the City may from time to time construct such additional facilities as it may require. 2. The City shall, upon completion of any work by the City or its agents within the property covered by the easement, restore the surface of the easement, and any private improvements disturbed or destroyed during execution of the work, as nearly as practicable to the condition they were in immediately before commencement of the work or entry by the City or its agents. All restoration shall be performed as soon as reasonably possible following completion of any work and shall be coordinated in advance with Hunter Douglas so as to cause the minimum amount of disruption to the use of and operation of the Hunter Douglas property of which the easement area is a part. A h1\fit D� 3. Hunter Douglas shall retain th right to use f the easement as Ion as such use does not interfere with the easement rights granted the City. Upon providing as much advance notice to the City as possible, Hunter ouglas may use the trail d easement for the purpose of reconstructing, maintaining, and repairing its storm water management facilities, provided any improvements disturbed or destroyed during execution of the work are restored as nearly as practicable to the condition they were in immediately before commencement of the work or use of the trail and easement by Hunter Douglas. All restoration shall be performed as soon as reasonably possible following completion of any work. Hunter Douglas shall perform its work so as to cause the minimum amount of disruption to the use of and operation of the trail and easement and shall provide temporary alternative routes for trail users when possible. Temporary trail closures shall be kept to a minimum. Except in the event of an emergency, notice of temporary trail closures shall be posted at least two days in advance in a minimum of two conspicuous locations along the trail as directed by the City. H:DOCS:workllb:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 2 of 7 Hunter Douglas shall not,however, have the right to: a. Erect or maintain any buildings, utilities, structures, and related appurtenances within the easement, except the following: • Hunter Douglas may install a vehicular bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances as needed to provide access and utility service across the creek for the Hunter Douglas property. The design and construction of the bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances proposed by Hunter Douglas within the easement area shall be in accordance with the attached plan SPR-3, subject to other governmental agency permit and code requirements and the conditions set forth in this agreement. • Hunter Douglas may install storm water outfall culverts to the creek across the easement. Culvert design and construction are subject to City and other governmental agency permit and code requirements. • Hunter Douglas has agreed to install a pedestrian trail and related appurtenances along the entire length of its property along Springbrook Creek. The pedestrian trail design and construction are subject to City and other governmental agency permit and code requirements. b. Develop, landscape, or beautify the easement area in any way which is inconsistent with landscaping plans developed by the City as part of its channel widening project or which would unreasonably increase the costs to the City of restoring the easement area and any private improvements therein. 4. Hunter Douglas agrees to extend the depth of the bridge abutment pile caps so as to allow for future excavation of a widened channel. The bottom of the pile caps shall be installed no higher than elevation 9.7 feet (NAVD 1998 Datum). To reimburse Hunter Douglas for the additional cost extending the depth of the abutments, the City agrees to offset up to 100% of its Surface Water Utility system development charge that may become due for the Raymond Center West development proposal. 5. With regard to the bridge wingwalls, it is anticipated that it would be less expensive for the City to reimburse Hunter Douglas for the cost of extending the wingwalls as part of the original construction of the bridge, rather than removing and reinstalling deeper wingwalls as part of the channel widening project. Therefore,the City may work with the engineers for the Hunter Douglas development to explore the cost and schedule implications of constructing the wingwalls so as to allow for the future channel widening. Hunter Douglas may include the cost of the preliminary engineering work in its reimbursement requests for additional costs associated with extending the abutments,which cost will be offset by the City in accordance with item 3 above. It is agreed, however, that Hunter Douglas will proceed assuming that the wingwalls for the bridge will be installed only to the depths necessary to fit existing grades, unless the following conditions are met: a. the City confirms in writing that it desires Hunter Douglas to install the wingwalls so as to accommodate the future widening. b. the City acknowledges in writing that it will reimburse Hunter Douglas for the additional engineering cost to produce final construction plans for the wingwalls and reimburse the construction cost of installing the wingwalls to accommodate the widened channel. c. Hunter Douglas determines that extending the wingwalls can be accomplished within the time constraints established for completing the bridge or any extensions thereto. Hunter Douglas agrees to seek the necessary extensions to allow installation of the wingwalls per the City's request, if such extensions are necessary and will not cause undo hardship to Hunter Douglas. The City will assist and support Hunter Douglas in negotiating any needed additional extensions. 6. Hunter Douglas agrees to pay any additional costs associated with the need for deeper retaining walls along the pedestrian trail in the vicinity of the bridge resulting from shifting the bridge 9 feet to the west. It is estimated that the wall height would increase 3 feet at the bridge and have no impact beyond 100 feet either side of the bridge. The resultant impact of the bridge offset and the need to install the widened channel section centered in the bridge opening and therefore closer to the pedestrian trail is then estimated at 300 square feet of additional wall area. H:DOCS:workl lb:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 3 of 7 7. The City agrees to provide and construct any compensatory storage volume required for filling in the 100-year FEMA floodplain caused by the Raymond Center West proposal. 8. The City and Hunter Douglas agree to defer construction of the pedestrian trail until no later than September 1998, unless an extension of the deferral is agreed to by both parties. The deferral shall be in accordance with Section 4-32-12 of the Renton City Code as if the requirements were set forth fully within this agreement, except that the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department shall perform all functions attributed to the Board of Public Works and the amount of the security shall be reduced from 150% to 120% of the estimated cost of the pedestrian trail and related appurtenances. The cost used to determine the amount of the security shall include the additional costs associated with the need for deeper retaining walls along the trail as set forth in item 6 above. At its option, the City may install the pedestrian trail as part of the channel widening project currently scheduled for the summer of 1998, in which case Hunter Douglas would reimburse the City for its share of the costs to install the trail and related appurtenances. This easement shall run with the land described herein, and shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors in interest and assigns. Hunter Douglas covenants that they are the lawful owners of the above properties and that they have a good and lawful right to execute this agreement. Signatures of Hunter Douglas: and ; and ; STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she/they was/were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of to be the free and voluntary act of such party/parties for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated Notary Public in and for the State of Washington residing at Notary(print): My appointment expires: Approved as to Legal Form: CITY OF RENTON BY: BY Lawrence J. Warren, Jesse Tanner City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: BY Marilyn J. Petersen City Clerk H:DOCS:workl lb:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Page 4 of 7 THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF o PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS FOURTH FLOOR 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH ' RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 R FAX: 235-2541 ` To: Mark Miller Company: Phone: 455-1724 Fax: 455-5076 From: Scott Woodbury Company: Phone: 277-5547 Fax: 235-2541 Date: 02/25/97 Pages including this cover page: 3 Please review the attached draft letter to John (Jack) Nelson of Drainage District No. 1 and call me at the above number with any comments. I hope to send a revised draft easement agreement to you later today which includes the tenants outlined in the attached letter to the Drainage District. Thanks. o � 5� r MAIG. Fejx , John E.Nelson,Attorney at Law Drainage District No. 1 601 West Gowe Kent, WA 98032-5745 SUBJECT: HUNTER DOUGLAS PROPOSED BRIDGE CROSSING OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 1 Dear Mr.Nelson: We recently received a copy of your letter to Mark Veldee of KPFF Consulting Engineers dated February 14, 1997. Since we have received your letter we have reached verbal agreement with Hunter Douglas regarding the issues raised in your letter as well as some other issues related to the proposed bridge crossing and the City's plans to widen the channel. The general tenants of the verbal agreement are as follows: • Hunter Douglas will grant the City an easement over the east 50 feet of their property along Springbrook Creek for future construction of a widened channel. The easement will also allow for use of a pedestrian trail within the easement area. Hunter Douglas has agreed to construct a trail along the creek as part of its proposed development. • Hunter Douglas will extend the depth of the bridge abutment pile caps so as to allow for future excavation of a widened channel. The bottom of the pile caps shall be installed no higher than elevation 9.7 feet (NAVD 1998 Datum). To reimburse Hunter Douglas for the additional cost extending the depth of the abutments, the City will offset up to 100% of its Surface Water Utility system development charge that may become due for the Raymond.t w*-- t development proposal. • Hunter Douglas will proceed with design of the bridge assuming that the wingwalls for the bridge will be installed only to the depths necessary to fit existing grades. The City will work with the engineers for the Hunter Douglas development to explore the cost and schedule implications of constructing the wingwalls so as to allow for the future channel widening. Hunter Douglas will install the wingwalls to accommodate the future channel upon the request of the City, provided the City reimburses Hunter Douglas for the additional cost and the installation can be completed within time schedule constraints. • The center of the proposed bridge over Springbrook Creek will be offset 9 feet west of the centerline of the property along the creek owned by Drainage District No. 1. Hunter Douglas will pay any additional costs associated with the need for deeper retaining walls along the pedestrian trail in the vici ity of the bridge resulting from shifting the bridge 9 feet to the west. u . 7z-),� '� W-" • The City will provide and construct any compensatory storage volume required for filling in the 100-year FEMA floodplain caused by the t proposal. /Ao/'4- Qow/&3 John E.Nelson Hunter Douglas Bridge Crossing Page 2 • The City and Hunter Douglas agree to defer construction of the pedestrian trail and related appurtenances (retaining walls) until after the channel widening is completed to avoid causing damage to a newly constructed trail. We trust that this letter addresses the concerns outlined in your February 14, 1997, to Mark Veldee. The tenants of our verbal agreement with Hunter Douglas will be formalized in a written easement agreement, which will require the approval of our City Council. We will provide the District with a copy of the draft easement agreement once it has been written. It is our intent to process the easement agreement for council approval as soon as possible. Finally, subject to formalization of the easement agreement with Hunter Douglas, we support the Drainage District granting the easement over District property that has been requested to allow installation of the bridge. If you have any questions, please contact me at 277-5547. Sincerely, Scott Woodbury,P.E.,Project Manager Surface Water Utility H:DOCS:97-work2:S W:ps cc: Ron Straka Jennifer Toth-Henning Neil Watts Sue Carlson Mark Miller in Rou stvakjt, ;y CITY OF RENTON ..� I \ Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator February 20, 1997 Mr. Mark Miller Mark Miller Consultants Inc. 10801 Main Street, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98004 Subject: Additional Proposed Revisions to Approved Site Plan for Raymond Avenue Center West (File No. LUA-96-104, SA, SM, ECF) Dear Mr. Miller: We are in receipt of your January 17, 1997 letter which requests consideration and approval of additional modifications to the approved site plan for the Hunter Douglas Inc. site, also known as Raymond Avenue Center- West. Staff has reviewed the revisions and analyzed proposed changes. We have delayed drafting a response until now, in order to allow Parks, Stormwater, and Plan Review to evaluate the changes with regard to issues of the Springbrook Creek Trail, Springbrook Creek widening, and requirements for on-site compensatory storage. Drawings attached to your letter illustrate the requested modifications which we understand to be as follows: 1) Sport Court. The location of the employee sport court has been modified and the ultimate desired location is shown to be adjacent to the south building facade; 2) Parking. The total number of parking spaces has been modified from the 174 parking spaces approved by the Hearing Examiner, to 191 approved by the January 13, 1997 administrative modification decision, to 195 parking spaces per the current request. In addition, we have noted that the arrangement of parking spaces and circulation drives on the site has been modified from both the site plan approved by the Hearing Examiner and the modification approved in the January 13th administrative determination. 3) Secondary Access. The secondary emergency access on the west has shifted approximately 190 feet to the north in order to align with the adjacent property owners requirements. As stated in the January 13, 1997 administrative decision letter, City Code Section 4-31-33F indicates that major adjustments to an approved site plan require an amended application and a decision by the approval body which approved the original site plan. Major adjustments involve a substantial change in the basic site design plan, intensity, density, use and the like generally involving more than a 10% change in area or scale. Revisions approved in the January 13th decision amounted to increases in building area (1.4%total and 7.3% footprint) and parking (10%). When considered in relation to the whole of the site plan, these changes were found to be within the definition of minor adjustments and did not require that the project be revisited by the City's Hearing Examiner. Site Plan modifications requested in your January 17th letter have been compared to the site plan approved both by the Hearing Examiner and site plan revisions approved administratively on January 13th. Based on our analysis we have determined the following: 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 0 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer February 18, 1997 Mr. Mark Miller Project No. LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF Page 2 1) Sport Court. The new location on the south side of the building that is proposed for the sport court responds to staff comments made in the January 13th determination and is acceptable. 2) Parking. The request for an additional four parking spaces results in a 12% change in the number of parking spaces from the site plan approved by the Examiner. The requested revision is still within the range of parking stalls (157 to 235) required by the City's Parking and Loading Ordinance, and for this reason appears to be appropriate. In addition, the reconfiguration of parking does not result in a substantial change to the previously approved site plan. However, the requested modifications have prompted a close look at the relationship of site parking areas to the Springbrook Creek Trail. Proposed parking areas and the circulation drives paralleling Springbrook Creek should to be designed and constructed to allow for a minimum 14-foot wide trail corridor(10 foot wide trail and 4 foot wide total gravel shoulder). Staff has recommended that wheel stops be provided for all parking spaces located adjacent to the trail, and that parking aisles and circulation drives be reduced to the minimum 24-foot wide dimension specified in the Code for those areas located adjacent to the trail. An attachment is included in this correspondence to illustrate the areas of concern. 3) Secondary Access. The shift in the location of the secondary emergency access appears to be appropriate, provided the adjacent property owner concurs with this revision and the appropriate easement documents between the parties are executed. Therefore, the proposed revisions to the Raymond Avenue Center-West Site Plan (Hunter Douglas, Inc.) as presented on Sheet A1.1 are approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall revise the parking configuration on the site plan in order to accommodate the 14-foot design width of the Springbrook Creek Trail. The width of the circulation aisle in the parking lot on the east portion of the site, and the circulation drive on the south side of the site adjacent to the trail, shall be reduced to the minimum 24 foot dimension. Wheel stops shall be included in all parking areas abutting the proposed trail location. This condition must be met prior to the issuance of building permits beyond the pre-load permit. 2. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City's Development Services Division that the appropriate access easements recognizing the revision to the secondary access location have been negotiated with the adjacent property owner to the west. This condition shall be accomplished prior to the issuance of building permits beyond the pre-load permit. In addition, the applicant shall be responsible for providing revised reductions of the approved site plan, landscape plan, and other site drawings to the City's Development Services Division for its files. These must be 8- 1/2 inch by 11 inch PMT's (photo-mechanical transfers). This determination will be final unless a written appeal of this administrative determination -- accompanied by the required $75.00 filing fee -- is filed with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the date of this decision. See Section 4-8-11 of the Renton Municipal Code for further information on the appeal process. Staff's review of the proposed changes has also yielded comments which will eventually have a bearing on the issuance of additional building permits beyond the pre-load permit. Several Hearing Examiner conditions must be met prior to the issuance of building permits. Condition No. 3 states that the site plan needs to show marked pedestrian crosswalks between the parking areas and building entrances. We note that one marked crosswalk is shown between the bridge and the building entrances, but additional pedestrian crosswalks between parking areas and building entrances still need to be shown. Also, the location of signage at the pedestrian crossing where the Springbrook Creek Trail intersects the bridge crossing must be indicated on the site plan. February 18, 1997 Mr. Mark Miller Project No. LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF Page 3 Hearing Examiner Condition No. 4 requires that a site lighting plan be submitted to the Development Services Division. This condition must be met prior to the issuance of the building permit. Hearing Examiner Condition No. 7 states that the applicant shall meet the criteria of the more stringent 100-year flood delineation to avoid any confusion or potential for displacing water which could harm either life or property. Since the City needs a drainage easement for the Springbrook Creek channel widening project, and because widening of the channel would create a significant amount of floodplain storage within the 50-foot setback area, Gregg Zimmerman proposed in a letter of October 23, 1996 that the City agree to provide the compensatory storage for the Raymond Avenue Center- West project in exchange for the granting of a drainage channel easement over the 50-foot setback area to the City. As Mr. Zimmerman noted in the referenced letter, such an agreement would require City Council approval. The City is willing to work with the applicant to provide the compensatory storage, but the drawings still need to show the area reserved for this storage. The owner has expressed the desire to satisfy compensatory storage requirement through an agreement with the City. That agreement must be negotiated prior to the issuance of building permits beyond the pre-load permit. City staff have identified preliminary design criteria for the Springbrook Trail, however, the design and location of the trail will need to be coordinated with Renton Parks, and the appropriate pedestrian easement must be negotiated with the City. The design width of the trail should be 14 feet wide consisting of a 10-foot wide paved trail and a gravel shoulder width of 4 feet either as 1) a 2-foot wide shoulder flanking each side of the trail (preferred); or, 2) a 3-foot wide plus 1-foot wide split shoulder-- with the 1-foot shoulder on the uphill or parking lot side of the trail, and the 3-foot shoulder on the downhill side (depending on slope conditions). Also, the maximum trail cross slope has been identified as 2% including shoulders, with a maximum slope in the direction of travel of 5%, or 8.3% (1:12) with handrails. The construction standard is 4-inches of crushed rock capped with 2-inches of asphalt/concrete paving (ACP). Shoulders are to be 6-inches of gravel. The trail should be located as far west as possible in the easement and must not reduce the ability of overbank flooding in the south portion of the site along the bank--that is, the trail must match the existing grade as much as possible. In order for City staff to review the trail design, the applicant will need to provide plans with cross- sections of the trail at 100-foot intervals. The applicant has expressed willingness to defer construction of the trail per the City's request. An agreement formalizing the deferral will be developed for the applicant's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits beyond the pre-load permit. Should you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please do not hesitate to contact Jennifer Toth Henning at (206) 277-6186. Sincerely, Jaimes C. Hanson Director, Development Services Division Attachments cc: Parties of Record Neil Watts, Plan Review Ron Straka, Stormwater Utility Leslie Betlach, Parks Sue Carlson, Mayor's Office Jennifer Toth Henning, Development Services Mark Miller Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. Raymond Avenue Center West File No.: LUA-96-104,SA,SM November 12, 1996 Page 8 8. The low scale nature of the buildings, the setbacks from the creek and from the wetlands and the preservation of the wetlands themselves, assure that there will be plenty of openness and therefore light and air reaching the subject site. 9. The applicant will have to provide utility extensions but the infrastructure to deliver those services is available. DECISION: The site plan is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant is required to comply with the mitigation measures which were required by the ERC threshold determination prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. The applicant shall provide additional landscaped tree islands in the parking areas on the west property boundary and north property boundary in order to break up the barren appearance of the parking lot. The revised landscape plan is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division (DSD) and must be approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. The applicant shall provide marked crosswalks between the parking areas and building entrances in order to enhance pedestrian safety on the site. A striped crossing and signage shall also be provided where the Springbrook Creek trail intersects the bridge crossing. The pedestrian crossing shall be shown on a revised site plan and is subject to the review and approval of DSD prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The applicant shall provide a site lighting plan that provides for safe vehicle and pedestrian movement on the site, without resulting in off-site light and glare impacts. The lighting plan shall be submitted to the DSD for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. The applicant shall provide a 6 inch curb and sidewalk on the bridge to separate pedestrian from vehicular traffic. 6. The applicant and adjoining site shall coordinate access and directional signs to accommodate traffic access to the subject site. 7. The applicant shall meet the criteria of the more stringent 100 year flood delineation to avoid any confusion or potential for displacing water which could harm either life or property. ORDERED THIS 12th day of November, 1996. I--- YV4�' FRED J. KAU AN HEARING EXAMINER N_0: 46' 08 E t12C4Q� - - - - a - - - -�-•i �- _ - - — 't'--- - - - - - - - - - - — �__ —_—_i ITI TYR WETLAND A EIJFFER r GONG.PAD FOR COMPACTOR 9 _ --------- I / AND W IPSTER LLETLAEDGE ND / IC i •'�5 DUCK F416-4 ATE 1 AREA s:n 5PORT5 COURT rl PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION / MANLFACTURING BUILDING_ ---_® - 51KE RACK 115=0 5F.FOOTF 196PARZING STALLS SNOIW o. --� - --�j/ ---•- --- -��� -.. \ CONC.PATIO- ---- ---- ---- _,-------- -_-- -.-_'--� -----• - -- - - /i '-- '- . - 1 DOCK HIG m j IN ' From the, d . 5uoam Carlson ' Q � M i� OF RENT �e�oot N Economic Development Director �Fo Fhone: 277-4419 Fax: 235-2532 02/18/97 TUE 16:08 FAA 206 455 5076 E & B Q 002 JOHN E. NELSON 'C� ATTORNEY AT LAW 601 WEST GOWZ KENT, WASHINGTON 98032-5745 �' >� t✓ GC /� 'v (206)854-7200 • Fax(206) 854-8%0 14 February, 1997 VVtGti.f Kk-,(,� lS Mark A. Veldee, P.E. kpff Consulting Engineers 1201 Third A.veoue, Suie 900 Seattle, WA 99101 Re: Hunter Douglas Bridge Design Drainage District No. One Dear Mary: Thank you for the copy of your letter to Scott Woodbury,Renton, regarding the above-referenced bridge and design. I have had a chance to discuss the letter with Doug Conyers, Barghausem Consulting Engineers, on behalf of the District, and would like to comment on some of the issues raised. The Commissioners have tentatively agreed to the installation of the bridge and, during conversations with them, they have indicated that, against their preference,they would be willing to accept the off-centered feature of the proposed construction. However, this was aver assurances that the developer was cooperating fully with Renton in regard to the future W enmg o prnngbroak ree ,Rua igal'mg a nnnpact. I am not sure that some of the suggestions in your letter support my representations to the Commis-oners and that,under the proposals in your letter,the Commissioners would still agree to the off-center design. For those reasons,I wish to specify some of the conditions which,must be met ifDoug Conyers and I are to recommend to the District that it agree to the granting of an easement for the bridge. If they are not acceptable,I suggest you consider re-designing the bridge to center it on the District property or plan on attending the next meeting of all the Commissioners(March 27, 1997)to see if the off-center design is satisfactory along with the suggestions in your letter. 1, The first issue to which I refer is your reference to the additional wall_hizg t which will be required. My recommendation to the District is that the grantee design and construct, I'A d� VJ la. I'� �P 02/18/97 TtiE 16:09 FAX 206 455 5076 E & B a 00a . 14 February, 1997 Mark A. V eldee, P.E. kpff Conwhing Engineers Page 2 at its cost,the additional wall height which is anticipated and referred to in your letter, at the time of the installation of the bridge. 2_ in regard to the lowered pile caps,my recommendation to the Commissioners will be, that the pile caps be extended vertica]ly to the elevation of 9.7 feet at the time of construction of the bridge, and at the grantee's costs. I would not anticipate recommending the alternative option suggested is your letter. Numbers 1 and 2, above,are conditions which I expect to recommend to the District_ If these conditions are not acceptable,it may change my recommendation to the District, and would also have a bearing on the acceptance of the off center design. Therefore, it is important that I hear back from you. Would you or Mark Miller confirm to me in writing that these threshold conditions are acceptable. of course, all other conditions still apply. ba the meantime,thank you for your kind attention. Arsery truly,elson JEN_ab cc: Doug Conyers, Barghausen Consultiug Engineers DD41 Scott Woodbury, Renton Engineering Mark Miller,Mark AOer Consultants,Inc. 4 JOHN E. NELSON ATTORNEY AT LAW 601 WEST GOWE KENT, WASHINGTON 98032-5745 (206) 854-7200 • Fax (206) 854-8960 En ;jrn s^ij�t?. P-Pt. 14 February, 1997 Mark A. Veldee, P.E. , Consulting k ff Engineersr. P g 1201 Third Avenue Suie 900 Seattle, WA 98101 Re: Hunter Douglas Bridge Design Drainage District No. One Dear Mark: Thank you for the copy of your letter to Scott Woodbury, Renton, regarding the above-referenced bridge and design. I have had a chance to discuss the letter with Doug Conyers, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, on behalf of the District, and would like to comment on some of the issues raised. The Commissioners have tentatively agreed to the installation of the bridge and, during conversations with them, they have indicated that, against their preference, they would be willing to accept the off-centered feature of the proposed construction. However, this was after assurances that the developer was cooperating fully with Renton in regard to the future widening of Springbrook Creek, and mitigating the impact. I am not sure that some of the suggestions in your letter support my representations to the Commissioners and that, under the proposals in your letter, the Commissioners would still agree to the off-center design. For those reasons, I wish to specify some of the conditions which must be met if Doug Conyers and I are to recommend to the District that it agree to the granting of an easement for the bridge. If they are not acceptable, I suggest you consider re-designing the bridge to center it on the District property or plan on attending the next meeting of all the Commissioners(March 27, 1997)to see if the off-center design is satisfactory along with the suggestions in your letter. 1. The first issue to which I refer is your reference to the additional wall height which will be required. My recommendation to the District is that the grantee design and construct, 14 February, 1997 Mark A. Veldee, P.E. kpff Consulting Engineers Page 2 at its cost, the additional wall height which is anticipated and referred to in your letter, at the time of the installation of the bridge. 2. In regard to the lowered pile caps, my recommendation to the Commissioners will be that the pile caps be extended vertically to the elevation of 9.7 feet at the time of construction of the bridge, and at the grantee's costs. I would not anticipate recommending the alternative option suggested in your letter. Numbers 1 and 2, above, are conditions which I expect to recommend to the District. If these conditions are not acceptable, it may change my recommendation to the District, and would also have a bearing on the acceptance of the off-center design. Therefore, it is important that I hear back from you. Would you or Mark Miller confirm to me in writing that these threshold conditions are acceptable. Of course, all other conditions still apply. In the meantime, thank you for your kind attention. o rs ery truly, ck elson JEN:ab cc: Doug Conyers, Barghausen Consulting Engineers DD41 Scott Woodbury, Renton Engineering Mark Miller, Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. THE CITY OF RENTON �. DEPARTMENT OF a m � PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS Q FOURTH FLOOR ` 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: 235-2541 To: Rod DenHerder, NRCS, Renton Kip Yasumiishi, NRCS, Spokane From: Scott Woodbury Phone: 277-5547 Date: 2/14/97 Pages including this cover page: 5 Attached is a letter from Mark Miller Consultants regarding the Hunter Douglas bridge with a letter from KPFF dated February 7, 1997, attached. We are being asked to approve the concept for the bridge shown in the sketch included with the KPFF letter so that detailed design of the bridge may proceed. The sketch is consistent with the criteria defined in Figure 5 of the package I sent to both of you with a cover memo dated January 21, 1997. Therefore, I recommend we approve the concept shown in the sketch, with the qualifier that the elevations are NAVD 88. 1 would appreciate your concurrence. With regard to the text of the KPFF letter, I have the following concerns: 1. The letter does not acknowledge that the increase in height of retaining walls within 100 feet of the bridge is the responsibility of Hunter Douglas because they want to locate their bridge off center with the existing channel. 2. The second bridge foundation option would mean that we would have to extend the abutment downward when we constructed the widened channel. However, I feel the abutments should be constructed to accommodate the future project when the bridge is first erected. 3. The wingwalls should also be constructed to accommodate the future project. I am also coordinating with Drainage District No. 1 regarding the bridge configuration. Verbally they have told me that the configuration for the bridge shown in the sketch is acceptable. I will be contacting you soon. Thanks for your help. U:1997:97-013:SW Mark MillerCONSULTANTS INC. DEVELOPMENT ■ LAND USE ■ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT February 11, 1997 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF I;E�:'T`^^' Ms. Jennifer Henning, Senior Planner City of Renton RECEr v3{a Public Works Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Hunter Douglas Bridge Design Dear Jennifer.- Enclosed are two original letters from KPFF dated February 7, 1997 to Mr. Scott Woodbury. Each of these letters outline the basic criteria as we understand it for designing the future Hunter Douglas bridge across Springbrook Creek. Please have Mr. Woodbury, or whomever is the appropriate person acknowledge their approval by initialing one of these letters and then you can return it to me for our files. Upon receipt of your confirmation, we will direct KPFF to complete the building permit drawings of the future bridge for submittal to the City. Please feel free to call If you have any questions. Sincerely, MARK MILLER CONSULTANTS, INC. Mark Miller smh:MM Enclosure cc: Allen Tosch (w/enc.) Darrell Donovan (w/enc.) Bob Fadden (w/enc.) Mark Veldee ACKNOWLEDGED, CITY OF RENTON- Title: 10801 Main Street, Suite 100 ■ Bellevue, Washington 98004 206/455-1724 FAX 206/455-5076 Mark MillerCONSULTANTS INC. DEVELOPMENT ■ LAND USE ■ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT February 11, 1997 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RFr,TI-) �28 E a- Ms. Jennifer Henning, Senior Planner City of Renton R E C E i v' Public Works Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Hunter Douglas Bridge Design Dear Jennifer: Enclosed are two original letters from KPFF dated February 7, 1997 to Mr. Scott Woodbury. Each of these letters outline the basic criteria as we understand it for designing the future Hunter Douglas bridge across Springbrook Creek. Please have Mr. Woodbury, or whomever is the appropriate person acknowledge their approval by initialing one of these letters and then you can return it to me for our files. Upon receipt of your confirmation, we will direct KPFF to complete the building permit drawings of the future bridge for submittal to the City. Please feel free to call If you have any questions. Sincerely, MARK MILLER CONSULTANTS, INC. Mark Miller smh:MM Enclosure cc: Allen Tosch (w/enc.) Darrell Donovan (w/enc.) Bob Fadden (w/enc.) Mark Veldee ACKNOWLEDGED, CITY OF RENTON: Title: 10801 Main Street, Suite 100 ■ Bellevue, Washington 98004 206/455-1724 FAX 206/455-5076 ffmdpCuns ; iinp Erg February 7, 1997 Mr. Scott Woodbury City of Renton Surface Water Utility 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Hunter Douglas Bridge Design Dear Scott: We have had numerous discussions and a February 3, 1997, meeting concerning the location of this project's bridge pile caps as they relate to your future channel widening project. The purpose of this letter is to document the conclusion of these discussions so that we may proceed with our design documents. Pile Cap Horizontal Location The center of the bridge will be offset 9 feet west of the centerline of Drainage District One's right-of-way. This location is consistent with the approved site plan Drawing SP-3. As the bridge will be offset from the centerline of your future widening project, we understand that you would likely relocate the creek section 9 feet west to be centered beneath the bridge after your project is complete. When your channel widening project is constructed, we understand you may need to construct a retaining wall to support the pedestrian trail on the west bank of the creek. Hunter Douglas has been informed and acknowledges that the 9-foot relocation of the creek will result in higher retaining walls supporting the trail. It is estimated that wall heights would increase 3 feet at the bridge and have no impact beyond 100 feet either side of the bridge. The resultant impact of the bridge offset and creek relocation is then estimated at 300 square feet of additional wall height. Pile Cap Vertical Location The bridge foundation will be designed to allow for future excavation of the channel, as shown in the attached section. Currently, there are two designs being considered. The first is to extend the pile cap vertically to elevation 9.7 feet. The second option is to leave the pile caps at the current design elevation and install a sheet pile wall behind the piles and pile caps. Both of these options will prevent the undermining of the bridge foundation. Bridge wingwalls will be designed to accommodate the existing channel section as shown on SP-3. Seattle Portland San Francisco Los Angeles Phoenix San Diego Mr. Scott Woodbury February 7, 1997 Page 2 If the above design approach is approvable, please initial both copies of this letter and return one for our files. Sincerely, Mark A. Veldee, P.E. Associate MAV:gms Attachment cc: Mark Miller/Mark Miller Consultants Inc. Jack Nelson, Drainage District 1 96527 aoa.ot by/'n/9t/ MAP Consulting Engineers location 1201 Third Avenue,Suite 900 lob no. Seattle, Washington 98101 client (206)622-5822 Fax(206)622-8130 J U - a � V C1 00 N l s �\ n r � v o V\ �tl r/wI --J r�o� it JOHN E. NELSON ATTORNEY AT LAW 601 WEST GOWE KENT, WASHINGTON 98032-5745 (206) 854-7200 • Fax (206) 854-8960 29 January, 1997 Mr. Scott Woodbury City of Renton JA Dept of PlanningBuilding/Public Works 31 j,jc9 Fourth Floor Ci 7-Y C,F 200 Mill Ave So Engil? r i4V 3,ON Renton,WA 98055-2189 �'C'Y�h� D Via Fax:235-2541 apt Re: Raymond Center West Winmar Bridge- Springbrook Creek Drainage District No. One Application#96-5 Renton Application#96-104 Dear Scott: This letter is written on behalf of Drainage District No. One,owner of Springbrook Creek in the area of the above-referenced project. Previously,the District granted to the applicant,KPFF Consulting Engineers, tentative approval for an easement to install a bridge across Springbrook Creek. I understand that construction may be scheduled for the near future. From my conversation with you,I was led to believe that it may be contemplated that the bridge design be based on Sheet No. SPR-3 (Spring Brook Creek Bridge- General Plan and Elevation)of the Site Plan Review prepared by the applicant,Job No. 96327.10,and dated 8/23/96. It is necessary that the Drainage District be presented,for review and approval,the final plans for construction of the bridge. Based on a review of the plans referred to above,the Commissioners of the District support the general design of the bridge span and height. However,at this pre-design stage,the District has a serious objection to the location of the bridge in relation to the center of the channel. It is the District's desire that the span of the bridge be centered over the existing channel of Springbrook Creek. The above plans do not meet this criterion. Renton intends to widen Springbrook Creek in the future. The District supports that objective,and intends to act so as to protect that goal and not increase the difficulty or cost of the widening. Centering the bridge will assist in accommodating the future widening of Springbrook. The District needs the bridge centered on the channel in order to maintain the integrity of the existing channel and optimize the hydraulics. Centering of the bridge will serve the District's and Renton's objectives. As I said,the District must have an opportunity to fully evaluate and approve the bridge design prior to any construction on Springbrook Creek. On behalf of the District,myself and/or Doug Conyers(Barghausen Consulting Engineers)will attempt to make ourselves available for any pre-design meetings which Renton may schedule in this regard. Please keep us e . Y rs very truly, ack elson JEN:ab cc: Doug Conyers,Barghausen Consulting Engineers DD#1 Mark Veldee,KPFF Consulting Engineers THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS FOURTH FLOOR 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: 235-2541 To: Jack Nelson, Doug Conyers Company: DD#1 From: Scott Woodbury Phone: 277-5547 Date: 01/23/97 Pages incl. this page: 7 As you know, the proposed Hunter Douglas bridge near SW 19th Street on Springbrook Creek is shifted about 9' west from being centered on the existing channel. Attached is some information I said I would forward to you following our meeting yesterday. • Figures 1 to 3. Three optional locations and widths for the high flow benches that may be constructed by the future channel widening project. Figure 1 assumes a bench elevation of about 7.6 feet while Figures 2 and 3 assume a bench elevation of about 12.1 feet(NAVD 1988 Datum). • Figures 8-3 and 8-5 from the East Side Green River Watershed Project Draft Plan and EIS document. These are conceptual sections of the proposed channel widening project and are referenced in the attached Figures 2 and 3. The elevations on these figures are to the NGVD 1929 datum, which is 3.58 feet lower than the NAVD 1988 datum. • Figure 4. This figure shows a possible configuration for curving the proposed channel bench upstream and downstream of the bridge so that it fits centered under the proposed bridge. Please see the notes on the figure. The location of the high flow bench is again different from the locations presented in Figures I to 3. I am told the developer is trying to arrange a meeting next week to finally resolve how the bridge is to be designed. Jennifer Henning of our Development Services Division is planning to contact you to invite you to attend the meeting. U:65025:97-005:S W attachments =i ..r 4 t /=Low sra��F OD 1 _/ 12 HMR { 1 � 20 i I f �K F' ff L _ i•Y a ' ...,.:.. .ujj�' h :::. .- _... � :5:N''�+�e.. •ter^"- S F• So Lo Al 00 i 12 14 r — 16 /S � �'�cN FckB• — So � 20 3o r !t yo, ��osEo 5o' �smr 4 } k - 4 t � s —_ 12 14 18 s :1' Alternative 2 - Dement 2 Improved Section Between SW 16th & SW 23rd 20 j > 15 �� . Approximate / z \ Existing Channel / 010 New Channel a w a, 5 3 ` d X a 3 . . .12': . . Q 0 Q 560 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Approximate Horizontal Distance Ft Notes: Dimensions are approximate. © Low flow channel. Approximate future land use condition 2 year water surface elevation ® Disturbance of low flow channel will be avoided where feasible 10/11/96 y! Figure 8-3 Springbrook Creek Alternative 2 — Typical Cross Section i Alternative 3 — Element 2A Between SW 16th and SW 23rd 25 ca >20 z +1 015 Existing: Channel ---- 1 3 \\ New Plantings Q3 10 New \. . . . . . . . . Channel \ / QX O ` . Varies: Varies Q 5 10'_1T : . . . . . . . . : . . . . 101_1_71. . . . . . . . High Flow' 1 ' High Flow Bench 3 Bench 00 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Approximate Horizontal Distance Ft Notes, Dimensions are approximate. ® Approximate future land use condition 2 year water surface elevation 03 Alternative allows for dense plantings between low flow water levels and high flow bench. 10/11/96 E Figure 8-5 Springbrook Creek Alternative 3 — Typical Cross Sections Cross Section Plot 6958.00 I �/z.o197 �6U(,CAs 1;?IZ4,06 �,e�sSiNU P(Ad - CIi41IJ GoNf�6v/�AriuN 3 o 1 1 I i 3 5/��f`f1N'v TNT I!n N /o' 30, him, ANN{� To l�� �rgE�0 vNo�2 �jaC �(LaPo�� /3�d6c �G -Ica� u/S Dt- I 8 NAVD Ar FACE OF wog'-p 3��-1v 3�nt ScoPFs, 2 of f,,i, S GQc ZS✓ �0 3 Acri-w, ?F ,L �G, Ira2 U4,,, / I 3s f THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLICRK W S - - O _ FOURTH FLOOR - 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: 235-2541 -_- To: I'h��k vac p Company: Phone: Fax: (,oZ2 - ?/30 From: 5- {q T woc)o6 c/o Company: Phone: 2,7'7- S 5q7 Fax: Date: I�23��7 Pages including this cover page: 2 Comments: SC "m/art"t C' f LA d Of f6S'516 L4 C.49-4-1✓141. (JUNT`�( — BauCiCAS �!C)O6Ir- �,eoSSiNU P(Ad - p055-1gCL' C LJ NEt Go n)F)Gu%Ar)010 1 1 I /v��S CoNfl,vvi0 � i 3 5��1 f"IINv T 1/E 11 Allu /0 3o Iry Epp �,''o�z r7a� o% (P /V0 s 1. A 1 6 ' NAVp FACE OF At3 woULO ryF/q 3P:Iv �•n! sc�PEs 2 , Rio/u5 N (/AR)6 S / `�c z5✓ TO 3 oar T/1¢rE Rc�oFi ,APE. Co S�SF<��7 w� of �fC. O�ri6N l SrN� H1 ( "I""?) ,Acrime ?F /G f 612 cl T r)tJ i CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: January 21, 1997 TO: Kip Yasumiishi Rod DenHerder FROM: Scott Woodbury SUBJECT: PROPOSED BRIDGE CROSSING OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK ABOUT 340 FEET UPSTREAM OF SW 19TH STREET The following information is attached for your review regarding the proposed bridge crossing. I would appreciate your input on the proposed bridge's design, particularly how it may affect our plans for widening the creek. As you know,the bridge is shifted about 9' west from being centered on the existing channel. The applicant proposes the shift in order to prevent excessive approach grades from the existing developed site to the east and also not have the bottom chord of the bridge encroach into the FEMA floodway of the creek. The information enclosed includes: • 22"04" drawing SPR-1 by KPFF. This is a vicinity map of the Hunter Douglas site (formerly owned by Winmar). • 22"04" drawing SPR-2 by KPFF. This is a site plan of the Hunter Douglas development, showing the proposed bridge crossing location. • 22"04"drawing SPR-3 by KPFF. SPR-3 includes a plan and section of the proposed bridge. • Figures 1 to 3. Three optional locations and widths for the high flow benches that may be constructed by the future channel widening project. Figure 1 assumes a bench elevation of about 4 feet while Figures 2 and 3 assume a bench elevation of about 8.5 feet (NGVD 1929 Datum). • Figures 8-3 and 8-5 from the East Side Green River Watershed Project Draft Plan and EIS document. These are conceptual sections of the proposed channel widening project and are referenced in the attached Figures 2 and 3. • Figure 4. This figure shows a possible configuration for curving the proposed channel bench upstream and downstream of the bridge so that it fits centered under the proposed bridge. Please see the notes on the figure. Also the NAVD 1988 datum I reference on this figure is 3.58 feet higher than NGVD 1929. The contractor's plans are based on NAVD 1988. • Figure 5. On a copy of Figure 4, I estimated the extent of retaining wall that may be needed along the east side of the pedestrian trail upstream and downstream of the bridge as a result of the bridge and excavation for the proposed channel. I assumed 3H:1V side slopes. Hunter Douglas Proposed Bridge ' Page 2 For Kip's use, I have included a disk with the HEC2 files used by the developer's engineer, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC), to analyze the hydraulic effect of the bridge. A letter report by NHC (provided earlier to Rod) is also enclosed summarizing the results of the hydraulic analysis, including the flow and channel conditions used in the analysis. Separate from the bridge issue, I have also included for Kip's use a mini-data tape backup of the FEQ hydraulic model of the existing channel system. I will be contacting each of you to discuss the enclosed information. Your assistance in reviewing the information and providing comments as soon as possible is appreciated as the developer wants to initiate detailed bridge design right away, but needs to have clear direction on how the bridge is to be designed. U:1997:97-003:S W attachments �z _ C t �.1 M ys' sraEc,F `� 72� yo, po 12 - .- -- 1416 18 20 t;�ws f S.` Fk �� *ccA A-S n - - .... ... ..._..... _". .... .. ._.._.. .._..=d{ram � ._v.a- ,. ........_ ".�t-�..�::. .,:,,�. s r r s 777 ti Ir o, sr-� rG` 1 (.00� � 7-L No. So' { 12 20 5 4: 3o lF49 2w FIV gap Sp 4k�'- I �w 1 .r• ! Jr sR, t i -7`' iF'� I qU 99 5® f F 12 14 { 18 - 2S� p,(N r gam---� , �. 50 20 ' - s i, Alternative 2 - Element 2 Improved Section Between SW 16th & SW 23rd 20 > 15 \ APProxlmdte / z \ Existing Channel / . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . d 3.\. . \ � 10 New Channel � : .3. . a 1L\ � p X 1 0 3 L : a 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."12'� -560 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 Approximate Horizontal Distance Ft Notes` 0 Dimensions are approximate. © Low flow channel. (3 Approximate future land use condition 2 year water surface elevation ® Disturbance of low flow channel will be avoided where f easibte 10/11/96 —3 S rin brook Creek Alternative 2 — Typical Cross Section Figure 8 P 9 � i' Alternative 3 — Element 2A Between SW 16th and SW 23rd 25 >20 z 15 — =- Existing. ChannelCj �---- 41 v 13 �� New Plantings ( w 10 New �. 2 Channel � � °X Ql \ Varies Varies n_ 10 _17�. . . . . . . Q 5 10 -17 High Flow: 1 High Flow Bench 3 Bench p0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Approximate Horizontal Distance Ft i Note i Dimensions are approximate. © Approximate future land use condition 2 year water surface elevation 0 Alternative allows for dense plantings between ' low flow water levels and high flow bench, 10/11/96 Figure 8-5 Springbrook Creek Alternative 3 — Typical Cross Sections Cross Section Plot 6958.00 l/u197 L)fjfCR— 6ouCAAS- �?/1406If- C-P-67Sbv(r PL A d - P055'13(-6 Cd 1 A-)NE( Go ni f IGv AAri uN 3 o. 1 � 1 I I II Al"U I6� I 3 0 �,r-1.NNl� 7-0F/f 6-6,,f PIZ,POV �G -116, 015 1A I (j D,rS Q//a 7IZ�IL 1. /-iS�U/✓JL I36/09 AT �L�✓, 68 _ Ar ato FACE OF Al3 LuD AO A //13 7/a S-4*r As 564 owAJ, S, wINGL",aak ur/r% 2, Rc\olu$ of C44A,IN t /Y��•I PALPLI lAE �� p(3� /j4r�Gt� Sllu N V,C)R1/rS c u 1 TO TP � ZSU 70 3 R�OFi ACE. Co $,�s<.r�q wl / 8 LiKCn-) of Pic., 04r/GN 35 RPyuio6ti RosGFru) ?R t Fug UAsti r� � ��� �� o F rkl1J Iry '° 3� r/za/g� � Ll UN4"ER— BoU�iCGs /�/Li06� SSiNc. PLAd C-4I c.�NFL- Go i✓f l6-v RArI uN �K 0 \ G \ P�.�i �w AMA, {70 y705f n ss, - �2 /sf. T,! !S 41,70 r2,1)_�� y00 EOf. WA ES - s N�1�S CoN�/n�v�p 8� goo, Soh II/7+1N I6/ 30 /hlN ^ 2 0/660 terra vr�o£Q 76 2 ,o CIA AljN4C eo-I(GI u/S T p mat d- / rr 1a,j, to I Toe zz If I c�R�T���A f c s 0�5 � 7�-�PNC, kkIA»j,� ,,,,,emu - 1 g ' 1VAV,9 e8 _ ���� /47- aO p (jfCA0 OF 10 fnCE 6F /g 7 mFNt W D f.IL jJ 7/a ss� ,45 Sd4OWAJ 3lJ-1V ��of SLOPES, 4,e,� Ar 2o.s 5 C✓IN(sW/�rlS fl�ar^ �fn, 2, Rc\o/u5 of /rvR�1 �7a� a ���` �uL �ro 1 / Gzcn zs� To 300' Ty¢sE 2 6uK0\0 of 4ic, Oar/GN ( ""o A('fL/ o Z, lho/17 11 UNfCA •- VGU(7CAr 14406il CK,05'5lN(y PLAd — poS5*16(-j ' C-41��N6c. Co�f�Gc,�QAri un� 3 . 1 � o 1 1 I NUJ S' CAivflN vF0 I 3 Sl-4lf'T)i"& Tj/E lln+,N log 3o Col A-wvA- To ccri4ao cvN04t 77iz A, /3p-dO /Nlc'L-4,,<X5 T)4,iK i C(d ANN4i L f o2 015 /odd nlS of I 4klog I 1. ASSu&iC I g ' NA✓o 88 . GR�= Aru FACE 5F A03 TP4,jr uroLD TAfiJ Bf $ ii/3 = //,7/ASS 3/a:IV .riot 5(-oNs, 2. RQ\o/U,S o - C'P,A ,.i u.k 3f��r-t Su" N V'AAif,s / `QP Z!" PD 3 on'. T4¢sE RPog ACE co S n?'CN7 w/ I 5f,-3 "-�' C 9(-7) "t Mr1.1E40 2,v,-Q /=0,2 3.5 �PP-U,G" ( RaSGCo) 3a' 5-1vs, UPfCA— 000(7CA5- r Se65'Vo& PCAd — Pv5'SS13CIC n \ G vl'115 \ �k.sF/ rikw watA. APIAt 70 9705f .. ,T y-7o r-z =may yo,o h � T C-5Ir OF OUT. wA ES 5 /Vr��S CDnifINV�D ��/ goo, SAh rW P2aPos:�q /3 le-d6-' ,o I �W^WNOL �6P �6 -1 r o' 015 TO /7 o 44406f . 700922,r I TEM/� �NvrkS y, D�v�c.oPFac �,r� j`� /E,o 7/L�1C. I 8 ' NA✓D 88 _ GRA�� /Ar /�C�p (3fCnU OF ,�� �S fncf OF r)r3 uro�-'Lo /�SS�MIy - Tv2E A� rAf� �E P v/3 = //,7/Assc S, wlNGwau s F�� ern• 2, R4-\o/u.5 0r C4aAr/N�t V/�Ra/e s cv l ^ro 77a �Tn,E,�r,• / �QG�t zS' 70 3 00' Ty¢sE Z / / 8 U/zE nu of ,-C. l -5 -r° 412 �U 2/��Q .35 RPy�u,6ti QuS(,E,,� fat uR �nf� o F rl iJ / 3a' S/ / / / 3S i �, i i �'� i �,\ � i� J'; � r j f °, ( d � `� �� i .� �; ,, � � `#i P, i ,� � 1{) ��, ` 1 � �! Y, � I `` i �� 4 `:, d �, i i `' � t` M1 9 �� � t � ` i i ,^�i i� i '--4vy 9�7 o t„2 '�* " S��v�yy •�� j 5�•���iarg �^ln�n� Y�I-0�/ -Lvl vjwwW� bf�olr` 6,101 • 1407-:4 (v9/S � #140 6vojf5 a�99 d .In rr10,0Y ?#,Z s'�-10i2 yOJ (L e4-d.(,s evg>S BY PLOT SCALE PLOT SET UP P SPACE I VIEW I UCS JORIGINAL TO DISCARD OLD#PRINTS PRINTS TO 1=1 RCWOCECF.PCP EGR pgn / C - _- LE N I � m q K 68RpOK--.EREfIf --- - �_ - - co i 20-- _`-- --- - A --- 2 14, 14, 35' 31 c� � c z v o 31 > / m< r v m � zm I j / o x � v in z I c /. �f-ArAmlk(r 1.��- P-"o f=o2 r-Fr, o' v/s 1 D1s U✓ /�P�,0GE --- 2" ks'rApVlAtr �-/A ANoISR /) AN,172A/4, 4 419 /1--& ��.✓L✓GG/,GD A64//4n of bridge Plan: plan 02 1/11/97 CU vt 5's COA-N^^cc. Upstream Inside Bridge#F I .075 .05 - --- .035 .05 20 f I0 7 -- - 5 EG 1 NM a s c _ WS 1 e g�g — f-- -70 7/zn/1 /v S9i —— Ground L� „ „ ,< :.. ~ /� �� BankSta � i 7 3r I SC c.Rb /AnroR�ltS o a� 10 w I � I O �- I �-----F-T- 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 Station (ft) S k//,r&,; q/ u Ie--f bridge Plan: Imported Plan 01 1/11/97 Upstream Inside Bridge#2 h< .075 � �. - 05 .035 -- -�.�— — — .05 _I 20-- i 7 -- _ 5 EG 1 _ \ 'INS 1 ' Ground � Bank Sta 15 c o � � 10- Ui 5 �r I 0 — - ------ - -7 r--�� —� 400 420 440 460 480 500 I 520 540 560 Station (fi:) A Lr CMAI"^'f t CC-1--rtA10 0616 LA-5'r '/ bridge Flan: Imported flan 01 1/11/97 Upstream Inside Bridge #2 20 .075 ---- .05 .0.35 �� �- .05 —� 0 I I — 5 f EG 1 k ° a MM ' UMMMMM" WS 1 lW t%t gar L10 4 I ■ / Ground 8 bE % Bank Sta-- I — Suv� 15- ( ■` ,�74dolA��S PA,�- I SAa oG L� N E M I 10 W M. ru I 5 0 t 40Q 420 440 —TO 480 5©0 —� 520 540 560 ---- Station (ft.) </l AN,-6 C�+K�Ii6� /auNG lrubis�. Cla4, . gkol"., Sw16TE'O 91 (r UI` E"�f.ST��v 60,4W ACA-. SSE 1,21.5-HEC-RAS Reach;1 -02 1:46*r+djj 014 River Sta. Plan E.O.Elev W.S.Eiev Crit W.S. Frctn Loss C&E Loss Top Width Q Left Q Channel a Right Vel Chnl (ft) (RI (ft) (ft) (ft) (R) t� (cfs) (cfs) (f0's) 6830 imported Pla 9.30 9.1E 0A3 Q03 74 97 20.89 9 477.10 3.04 6830 imported Pia 9.30 9. 66 0.03 0.03 74.97 20.89 1477.10 Ni0.0 3.04 P(�� Z laAs !la(VE l 6838 tmoorted Pla 9.33 9.14 4.61 0.00 0.02 60.00 1498.00 3.47 L!"C'.2,6 Imported Pia 9.33 9.14 4.61 0.00 0.02 60.00 1498.00 L1�lr✓� G►9.ANMfa, imported Pia 9.33 9.14 4.61 0.00 0.00 60.00 1498.00 3.47 Imported Pis 9.33 9.14 4.61 0.00 0.00 60.00 1498.00 3. l 9t�E6 "-Sulmportwd 9.36 9.17 4.61 0.03 0.00 60.00 1498.00 .45MUS 9.36 9.17 4.61 0.03 60.00 1498.00 9.3E 9.17 4.61 0.00 0.00 --80.00 1498.00� 3.45 6898' -1n p rted Pla-9.361 9.17 4.61 0.00 0.00 60.00 4498.00 3.45 6938 Imported Pla 9.45 9.13 0.03 0.07 79.61 232.55 1022.91 232551 5.23 6938- Imported Pla 9.45 9.13 0.03 0.071 79.61 23255 1022.91 232.55 5.23 6968 1mpuned Pia M34 10.12 O.ir 0.01 85.40 251.22 983.07 253.71 4.43 6968 Imported Pla 10.34 10.12 0.77 0.01 85.40 251 22 983.07 253.71 4.43 7708 Imported Pla 10.89 10.7E 0.53 0.01 88.31 1441.00 2.81 7708 Imported Pla 10.89 10.76 0.53 0.01 88.31 1441.00 2.81 7736.6 BD Imported Pla M911 10.77 5.90 0.01 0.01 72.06 1441.0013.07 7736.6 BD Imported Pla 10.90 10.77 5.91 0.01 0.00 73.78 1441.00 2.89 �qPI gr77777731G.6 BU impdr2ed Pla 10.99 10.86 5.90 0.08 0.00 72.33 1441.00 3.03 ,A , BU Immported Pla 10.92 10.79 5.91 0.02 0.00 7: 1441.00 2.88 7766 Imported Pla 11.01 10.901 5.92 0.01 0.01 89.11 1441.00 2.75 77" Irported Pla 10.92 10.80 5.92 0.01 0.00 88.54 1441.00 2.79 $408 Imported Pla 11.41 11.31 5.82 0.39 0.001 93.70 1441.00 2.48 8403 Imported Pla 11.33 11.24 5.83 0.41 0.00 93.24 1441.00 2.51 9878 Imported Plal 12.12 11.92 5.47 0.< 0.01, 86.64 1344.00 3.62 9878 1!rporLd P!a 12.20 12.01 5.47 0.3E 0.03 100.65 1344.00 3.54 9928 imported Pl. 12.19 11.94 4.57 0.04 0.03 28.98 1344.00 4.0 9928 Imported Pla 12.27 12.02 4.57 0.04 0.03 39.81 1344.00 4.04 9549.6 BD jlmportedPla 12.23 11.92 4.56 0.01 0.02 0.04 1344.00 4.43 9949.E BD Imported P!a 12.31 12.01 4.5E 0.01 0.03 0.04 1344.00 4.43 '$54I 5.6 SU IImp rtcd Pla 12.51 12.20 4.56 0.28 0.00 0.03 1344.E 4.43 9049.6 SU {mported Pie 12.59 12.29 4.5$ 0.28 0.00 0.03 1344.00 4.43 9071 Imported Pia 12.54 22.29 4.57 0.01 0.02 181.20 1344.00 3.94 3571 Imported Pla 12.62 1238 4.57 0.01 0.02 227.18 3344.00 3.91 10011 Imported Pla 12.63 12.59 6.75 0.03 0.0E 485.47 714.36 629.64 ji��1W11 ImportedPla 12.71 12.68 698 0.03 00E 486.49 901.87 642.13 [jg4lj(�MEE Imported Pla 17.17 16.99 9.72 0.39 0.03 626.39 1.27 1229.93 7.80 3 3a Imprrrtrd__, 17.18 17.00 9.72 0.39 0.03 649.11 1.31 1229.60 8.09 3.38 14546'' Imported Pla 17.19 17.01 9.71 0.02 0.00 779.82 1.36 2229.14 8.50 3.37 14946 Imported Pla 17.201 17.02 9.71 0.02 0.00 702.34 1.40 1228.80 8.80 3.37 HEC-RAS Reach:1 (continued) River Sta, Plan E.Q.Elev I W.S.Eisv Crit W.S. Fran Loss C 8 E loss Top Width Q Left Q Channel Q Right Yei Chnt (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ftl (ft) (mi) (mi) (Cft) (ftfs) 14960 BD 1 imported Pie 17.27 17.10 10.05 14"0 BD imported Pia 17.27 17.10 10.05 14950 BU Imported PIa 17.27 17.10 10.06 14560 BU Imported Pia 17.27 17.10 10.06 1496E Imported Pia 17.27 17.10 9.70 913.77 1.81 1225.27 11.92 3.33 14965 Imported Pia 17.27 17.10 9.70 923.33 1.83 1225.09 12.08 3.33 i4996 imported Pia 1Z 0 17.15 0.03 0.01 134.73 3.03 1226.96 9.01 3.13 1405E Imported Pta 17.1E 0.03 0.01 135.15 3.09 1226.85 9.0E 3.13 JAN. 8, 1997 2 : 38PM 110, 6382 P. 1%2 Confirmation # Consulting Engineers FAX TRANSMITTAL 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 900 Saattle, NA 98701 Dare Phone (206) 622-5822 Fax (ZC6) 62-8130 Projec: No-/Pages(incl. cover sheer) Z (Call(206)622-5a22 if you do not raceive ail pages/ To G/o;�i � From l�'7 s.• l� �/ f�� Company ziv,•-. Pax 0 S— "�// Phone Project e4 a ki Subject Descriprion C,7mments These are transmitted as noted below. originaC -Ef-7-For your use ❑ Will follow in mail ❑ As requested -E^ill not follow in mail ❑ For review and comment cc: b W a an c c c o c o 75. Z ROP. LINE 7- 7 ,84 ROP , LINE Ll f�l ❑ M ❑ iZ1 o,3D 77.E ROP, LINE ,—, TREDIP. LINE tzj m 9.46 9.30 P7.62 C: !tw"r d In w4ib.�l��i .a PLANNING/ BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ���Y p MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 UTILITY SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2631 `�l AT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION - 235-2620 TO: L ML O UL DATE: Z61P 7 JOB NO. / F RE: nLi,;,a^j J�S /2 a/ 71-o" A v S"T/ 9 gab srA7-V ATTN: GENTLEMEN: WE ARE;SENDING YOU ATTACHED Cl UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: ❑ SHOP DRAWINGS ❑ PRINTS ❑ REPRODUCIBLE PLANS ❑ SPECIFICATIONS ❑ COPY OF LETTER ❑ COPIES DATE NUMBER DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS "Or; Aot oroj 5J1-4 A y's'w o THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: ❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED AS SUBMITTED ❑ RESUBMIT COPIES FOR APPROVAL O FOR YOUR USE ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ SUBMIT COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION �AS REQUESTED ❑ RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ❑ RETURN CORRECTED PRINTS O FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ❑ ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPIES TO: SIGNED lJ� TITLE IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ONCE THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF � �' PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS FOURTH FLOOR 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 FAX: 235-2541 To: Mark Miller Company: Phone: Fax: 455-5076 From: Scott Woodbury Phone: 277-5547 Date: 12/31/96 Pages including this cover page: 6 Attached is a revised copy of the proposed Agreement and Easement for Drainage Channel for the Hunter Douglas property. In the revised agreement I changed the grantor's name to Hunter Douglas and also corrected an error in the legal description. In the previous draft I had mistakenly written the easement as being 40 feet wide. Now I believe the legal description is correctly written as a 50-foot wide easement. Finally, it is important for your designers to keep site grades along the edge of the 50-foot easement as low as possible. Preferably, it would be best if the design called for the proposed grades to be below existing grades along the easement. This will minimize or eliminate the need for a fill slope from the edge of the pedestrian trail toward the channel. Thanks. If you have any questions, please contact me at 277-5547. WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Project:East Side Green River Office of the City Clerk Renton Municipal Building AGREEMENT AND EASEMENT Watershed Project 200 Mill Avenue South FOR DRAINAGE CHANNEL Work Order#65230 Renton,WA 98055 DR PID: 24230490115 //��R D ,A f r Grantor:Hunter Douglas.Inc STR: Sec 24,T23N.R4E (p Street Intersection: 19th Street and Raymond Avenue THIS INSTRUMENT, made this day of 1997; by and between Hunter Douglas, Inc.,hereinafter called "Grantor," and the CITY OF RENTON, a Municipal Corporation of King County, Washington, hereinafter called "Grantee." That said Grantor(s), for and in consideration of ten dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by said Grantor, do by these presents, grant, bargain, sell, convey, and warrants unto the said Grantee, its successors and assigns, an easement for drainage with necessary appurtenances over, under, through, across and upon the following described property (the easement area) in King County, Washington,more particularly described as follows: See attached EXHIBIT A for legal description For the purpose of installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, removing, repairing, replacing, and using a drainage channel, together with the nonexclusive right of ingress and egress thereto without prior institution of any suit or proceedings of law. Following the initial construction of its facilities, Grantee may from time to time construct such additional facilities as it may require. This easement is granted subject to the following terms and conditions: l. The Grantee shall, upon completion of any work within the property covered by the easement, restore the surface of the easement, and any private improvements disturbed or destroyed during execution of the work, as nearly as practicable to the condition they were in immediately before commencement of the work or entry by the Grantee. All restoration shall be performed as soon as reasonably possible following completion of any work and shall be coordinated in advance with Grantor so as to cause the minimum amount of disruption to the use of and operation of Grantor's property of which the easement area is a part. 2. Grantor shall retain the right to use the surface of the easement as long as such use does not interfere with the easement rights granted to the Grantee. Grantor shall not, however, have the right to: a. Erect or maintain any buildings, utilities, structures, and related appurtenances within the easement except the following: I) Grantor may install a vehicular bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances as needed to provide access and utility service across the creek for the Grantor's property. The design and construction of the bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances are subject to City and other governmental agency permit and code requirements. 2) Grantor may install storm water outfall culverts to the creek across the easement. Culvert design and construction are subject to City and other governmental agency permit and code requirements. b. Develop, landscape, or beautify the easement area in any way which would unreasonably increase the costs to the Grantee of restoring the easement area and any private improvements therein. 3. The City agrees to provide and construct any compensatory storage volume required for filling in the floodplain caused by the Raymond Center West proposal(City File No. LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF). H:DOCS:workl Ib:SW:ps Agreement and Easement INITIAL. Sheet 1 of 5 PROPERTY SERVICES This easement shall run with the land described herein, and shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors in interest and assigns. Grantors covenant that they are the lawful owners of the above properties and that they have a good and lawful right to execute this agreement. Signatures of Grantor: and ; and ; STATE OF WASI IINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she/they was/were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of to be the free and voluntary act of such party/parties for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated Notary Public in and for the State of Washington residing at Notary(print): My appointment expires: Approved as to Legal Form: CITY OF RENTON BY: BY Lawrence J. Warren, Jesse Tanner City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: BY Marilyn J. Petersen City Clerk H:DOCS:work I I b:S W:ps Agreement and Easement INITIAL Sheet 2 of 5 PROPERTY SERVICES EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Easement Area: The east 50 feet of Lot 1 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-95-064 (King County Recording No. 9508039005) in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington,more particularily described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 1 and the true point of beginning; thence alone the east line of said Lot 1 the following courses: N 37000'42" W 4.90 feet; thence N 55°28'15" W 77.73feet; thence N 52°24'00" W 186.51 feet; thence N 54°03'57" W 286.58 feet; thence N 35"11'09" W 148.78 feet; thence N 23"44'21" W 85.39 feet to a curve concave to the east having a radius of 75.78 feet; thence northerly along said curve through a central angle of 59°07'34" an arc distance of 78.20 feet; thence leaving said curve on a non-tangent bearing N 50°08'30" E 114.42 feet; thence N 51°45'16" E 72.30 feet; thence N 59°39'11" E 96.54 feet to a curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 114.57 feet; thence northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 45°50'57" an arc distance of 91.68 feet; thence N 1 3°48'14" E 114.90 feet to a curve concave to the west having a radius of 294.26 feet; thence northerly along said curve through a central angle of 36°45'26" an arc distance of 188.78 feet; thence leaving said curve on a non-tangent bearing N 23°47'30"W 102.20 feet; thence N 28°32'10" W 64.18feet; thence N 20°51'33" W 61.80 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence leaving; said east line of said Lot 1 N 87°26'45" W along the north line of said Lot 154.49 feet; thence leaving; said north line S 20051'33" E 86.81 feet; thence S 28"32'10" E 65.46 feet; thence S 23°47'30" E 99.40 feet to a point on a curve concave to the west, said curve being non-tangent to the preceeding course and having a radius of 244.26 feet, the center of which bears S 67°02'48" W; thence southerly along said curve through a central angle of 36045'26" an arc distance of 156.70 feet; thence S 13'48'14" W 114.90 feet to a curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 64.57 feet; thence southwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 45°50'57" an arc distance of 51.67 feet; thence S 59°9'1 1" W 99.99 feet; thence S 51'45'16" W 75.45 feet;. thence S 50'08'30" W 120.75 feet to a point on a curve concave to the east, said curve being non-tangent to the preceeding Course and having a radius of 125.78 feet, the center of which bears S 510 17'16" E; thence southerly along said curve through a central angle of 62°27'05" an arc distance of 137.10 feet; thence S 23'44'21" E 90.41 feet; thence S 35°1 1'09" E 162.11 feet; thence S 54°03'57" E 294.16 feet; thence S 52"24'00" E 187.12 feet; thence S 55°28'15" E 5.72 feet to the south line of said Lot 1; thence S 87'18'57" E along said south line 91.82 feet to the true point of beginning. Contains 88.15> square feet of land, more or less. H:DOCS:vvork I I h:N\\':ps Agreement and Easement INITIAL Sheet 3 of 5 PROPERTY SERVICES r. EXHIBIT A CONTINUED MAP EXHIBIT 10 26 9 i" 8 27' 7 See Line and Curve Tables on Following Sheet i 6 28 •0 \ \ 5 29\ 30 \� 3 j.n'io ;\ ( IN Fl-.,ET ) 31 \� \2 33 Southeast Corner of Lot 1 K DOCS:work I I b:.,,W:hs Agreement and Easement INITIAL Sheet 4 of 5 N u.;ss�zStiKArNcsronciPcr PROPERTY SERVICES EXHIBIT A CONTINUED MAP EXHIBIT Northeast Corner of Lot 1 17 Line Table 1 16 8\ lD# Bearing Dist.(ft) 15 1 N 37''(10'42-W 4.90 2 N 55t-18"1 i"W 77.73 3 IN 5--''1'-4'00"W 186.51 19\\ 4 N 54'03'57-W 286.58 14 5 N3� 11,09"w 148.78 \ \ 6 N 23 1-1*--'1"W 85.39 8 N 5(! I)x 110--F 114.42 20\ 9 N >I I� I-0"F 72.30 10 1 1"F, 96.54 12 14"'F 114.90 14 17 111—\V 102,20 \I 15 N 2N 2 10"W 64.18 16 IN 111 1*13-w 61.80 Curve Table 21 13 17 \N X 7 1 5-W 54.49 18 S 0 1'.33"1-7 86.81 ID# Radius(ft) Central Angle Arc Length 19 S 18 12,10"F 65.46 7 75.78 59'07'34" 78.20 20 S 211"IT10"1: 99.40 11 114.57 45'50'57" 91.68 22 S 13 IN' 14"W 114.90 13 294.26 36'45'26" 188.78 24 S 5() 1--W 99.99 21 244.26 36*45'26'* 156.70 25 S 5 1 1;'16­W 76.45 23 64.57 45'50'57" 51.67 26 S 30 oX*310"w 120.75 27 125.78 62-27'05'- 137.10 22 /12 28 S 14 21"E 90.41 1/ 29 S 35l 1 09-E 162.11 30 S 5 1 01'57"E 294.16 31 11 -1 1-'4 00-F- 187.12 23 / s 54;,;,N 32 I 5..F 5.72 33 S S7:'l X-57--F 24 91.82 11 10 26 9 1"=100' 100 I N FEET KDOCS:Nwrk I I 1)S\\:ps Agreement and Easement INITIAL Sheet 5 of 5 "x PROPERTY SERVICES �^X TRANSMITTAL MEMO . of P—gfp� FROM tic V/tto-,A <r-,.'r Guoa vMT Fax r --• M =a— ryLof S4 CA"L 7� t ter. , ti. is , y s� f 1 'fir 4 : 3 _ 4 i ; t t �4 12 14 z --- - , r 20 J 5 Y'k `iS r� ;3 ° 4 T;i l ' �• :: � �Pa °?x 4`a :ems.. u . O i i ila � - 3 ` 4 / fa 4} i sg k ' i I 12 ram` E ti 18 20 3 3 fi ri F16 Z r 4 . t¢ ,+_ I � - E e � ? 1 s ; 1 ¢ s ± Z i i 3 i 5'l�Nrf ' �K 9 3q t = , } } r , 12 A� - 'k: ..a' . _'"' -- - �U�� Ba��aC.�T � �'Nputis (�o��r�vL �-4r►uf-�u�/'�diS��u�'raeC T RAtl, t>tj 7-19l-tl fin 4. fi,/,/b of kO,,OA^AA 7z 0✓7c,r 'D O/AX Tic,, A-4o IoSr 6-rao Ap2 I rS GoNSfYWLn, j Uk TZ) G.NSrfl�UCr W1 Cam' Gw',o J3 E 40i M A5- fl4A ' 456 A / 43tto /y f$' ,S 1 f'A with -PL,4� bi.,Ir ors U% (,u j tiL, DI 5w3 ,o emu, IvQo �,� (�•ss s'�P� a� Z� - wow r��o T� �' log 31 1 F t Q t � 1 d .1 sc,o- t U_)(� MarkMillOr CONSULTANTS INC. DEVELOPMENT ■ LAND USE ■ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT December 9, 1996 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON VIA FAX AND MAIL DEC 1 1 1996 RECEIVED Jennifer Henning, Senior Planner City of Renton Public Works Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Hunter Douglas Building Dear Jennifer: As discussed, Hunter Douglas, Inc. is about to begin the design for a building permit on the future building site work and bridge along Springbrook Creek. Prior to working on the permit drawings we would like a pre-construction design meeting to discuss several issues. Enclosed are a list of questions from Lance Mueller&Associates, the project architect, as well as KPFF, the civil engineer for the project. We look forward to meeting with you and other city staff members to discuss these questions in the near future. Please advise the date and time for the meeting and I will advise the team of the scheduled meeting. Thank you for your assistance in coordinating this meeting. Sincerely, MARK MIk-L-E� CONSULTANTS, INC. 17 Mark Miller MM:pp Enclosures cc: Allen Tosch (w/encls.) Bob Fadden (w/encls.) Mark Veldee (w/ encls.) Darrell Donovan (w/ encls.) 10801 Main Street, Suite 100 ■ Bellevue, Washington 98004 206/455-1724 FAX 206/455-5076 LANCE MUELLER& ASSOCIATES QUESTIONS Bob Fadden 1. How do we permit off side road? 2. How do we coordinate trail design with city plan? 3. Can we have pre-review of hazardous materials survey (H.M.S.) required by fire department? 4. Integrated sign permit submittal with building application. 5. Grading permit is required in February? How do you facilitate? 6. Can we have a separate foundation permit? 7. What permit will the bridge construction be issued under? KPFF QUESTIONS Mark Veldee A. Bridge 1. Verify no more hydraulic modeling. 2. What input, if any, does the city have with respect to guardrail type, lane and sidewalk widths or other geometric elements? 3. Verify abutment locations shown are approvable. 4. Need city's proposed final grading at bridge after channel improvements. 5. Bridge will drain to Opus pond. As pond is oversized, what calculations will city need? B. Civil 6. Sewer pumps will be located within the project. Does city have any requirements specific to this location? 7. 1 interpret city site plan approval conditions as saying we do not need to worry about compensatory storage. Is this correct? 10801 Main Street, Suite 100 Bellevue, Washington 98004 206/455-1724 FAX 206/455-5076 8. Level of survey and design for Boeing access road. 9. City has provided water distribution modeling for the building and recommended pipe sizes. Are latest pipe sizes valid for design? 10. Input on trail location. 11. If we pump loading docks for flood protection are there any city requirements? \mark\questions.wpd R 10801 Main Street, Suite 100 ■ Bellevue,Washington 98004 206/455-1724 FAX 206/455-5076 NarkMiIlOr CONSULTANTS INC. DEVELOPMENT ■ LAND USE ■ CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY Or RENTON December 9, 1996 DEC 1 1 1996 RECEIVED VIA FAX AND MAIL Jennifer Henning, Senior Planner City of Renton Public Works Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Hunter Douglas Building Dear Jennifer: In anticipation of our future pre-construction design meeting, also enclosed are a list of questions from Donovan Brothers Commercial Construction, who will be the general contractor for the project. Please include these questions with the previous questions submitted by Lance Mueller&Associates, the project architect, and KPFF, the project civil engineer. Once again, thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, MARK MILLER CONSULTANTS, INC. Mark Miller MM:pp Enclosure cc: Allen Tosch (w/encls.) Bob Fadden (w/encls.) Mark Veldee (w/ encls.) Darrell Donovan (w/ encls.) 10801 Main Street, Suite 100 ■ Bellevue, Washington 98004 206/455-1724 FAX 206/455-5076 t DONOVAN BROTHERS COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION Darrell Donovan l. Are any bonds required for construction or permits? 2. What agreements are to be executed with the city for permits and/or prior to occupancy? 3. Contact person and phone number to schedule pre-construction meeting. 4. Forms for special inspections. 5. Requirements for: Grade and fill permit Building permit Foundation permit Bridge permit 6. Any as-built drawing requirements. 7. Allowed working days and hours. - $ A i � .10 . x 10801 Main Street, Suite 100 Bellevue, Washington 98004 206/455-1724 FAX 206/455-5076 ak , Springbrook Futr Brdge4a Cross -section 7755 . 000 30 - - N 25 ' t i Z Bridge Dec 2 7 `I /-- --ter—i --------------- -N 15 co > I 1 W 10 _ I I 1 ! 10.75 5 1 Proposed ESGRWP Channel I 0 400 420 440 46 460 5 0 520 540 j 560 Distance (feet) i ao CITY OF RENTON- ..� Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator November 21, 1996 State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit for File No. LUA-96-104;SM Gentlemen: Enclosed is the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the above referenced project. The permit was issued by the City of Renton on November 20, 1996. We are filing this action with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General per WAC 173-14-090. Please review this permit and attachments and call me at (206) 277-6186 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, nnifer Toth Henning Project Manager Enclosures: Copy of Original Application Affidavit of Public Notice/Publication Site Plan SEPA Determination cc: Office of Attorney General City of Renton, Transportation Systems City of Renton, Utility Systems City of Renton, Code Compliance Inspector Applicant 200 Nlill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 CITY OF RENTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO.: LUA-96-104, SA, SM, ECF DATE RECEIVED: August 29, 1996 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: September 9, 1996 DATE APPROVED: DATE DENIED: N/A TYPE OF ACTION(S): [X] Substantial Development Permit [ ] Conditional Use Permit [ ] Variance Permit Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton has granted a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit: This action was taken on the following application: APPLICANT: Winmar-Metro Inc. Contact Person: Mark Miller(Mark Miller Consultants Inc.) PROJECT: Raymond Avenue Center- West DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to develop the site with a 124,300 square foot building for warehouse, office, and manufacturing uses as permitted in the Light Industrial (IL) Zone. The structure would be built on the northern portion of an approximate 14-acre site. Springbrook Creek defines the eastern edge of the parcel. The southern portion of the subject parcel is occupied by a 4.21 acre Category 3 Wetland. The wetland is identified and delineated in a wetland report from October 1992 that was prepared by Shannon and Wilson, Inc. for the Van Woerden Tract. The wetland study considered this site as well as the adjacent site to the east. Proposed site development (building, water quality areas, parking and circulation) would maintain a minimum 25-foot buffer from the wetland. The subject site is presently owned by Winmar-Metro Inc. and was previously discussed with regard to a development proposal for the adjacent property on the east side of Springbrook Creek (Raymond Avenue Center). That eastern parcel has since sold to Opus and is presently being developed with a building similar to that being proposed for the Winmar site. Since the Winmar site is landlocked, and has no direct access to a public street system, the applicant is proposing that a bridge crossing be constructed over Springbrook Creek. The bridge would span Springbrook Creek and provide access between the Winmar and Opus parcels. An easement has been negotiated between the property owners to allow access through the Opus site to the new bridge. A separate easement has been negotiated with Drainage District No. 1 in order to cross Springbrook Creek with the bridge. Because no public roads currently serve the Winmar site, the development proposal would not be able to proceed without the bridge component. SHSBDV.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Page 2 of 4 The proposed building would be 29 feet in height and would provide parking for 174 cars. Dock-high truck door service for 36 trucks is proposed and four drive-in truck doors are proposed near each of the buildings four corners. Parking and maneuvering areas would be located on the periphery of the structure on the portion of the site being proposed for development. The applicant is proposing on-site employee recreation areas, including half-court basketball play area and bike racks. In addition, the applicant has agreed to construct a portion of the Springbrook Creek Trail along the entire length of the site, within a 50-foot setback area from Springbrook Creek. The parcel is designated Urban Environment under the City's Shoreline Master Program. Industrial development is permitted only when: A. They are water related, or they provide reasonable public access to and along the water's edge; and. B. They minimize and cluster those water-related portions of their development along the shoreline and place inland all facilities which are not water dependent; and, C. Any over-water portion is water dependent, is limited to the smallest reasonable dimensions, and is approved by the Land Use Hearing Examiner; and, D. They are designed in such manner as to enhance the scenic view; and, E. It has been demonstrated in the permit application that a capability exists to contain and clean-up spills or discharges of pollutants associated with the industrial development. The proposal would provide reasonable public access via a sidewalk on the bridge over Springbrook Creek, and by the inclusion of a public recreation trail along the entire length of the site. Facilities that are not water dependent would be located inland, the over-water portion (that is, the bridge crossing) is water dependent, is the smallest area reasonable for access and has been approved by the City's Hearing Examiner (pending completion of the 14-day appeal period on November 26, 1996). Scenic views would be enhanced through the inclusion of site landscaping and by the provision of the trail. Since the development has not identified the specific end user, it is not known how spills/discharges associated with the development would be contained or cleaned up. This report will recommend that the end user demonstrate that capability to contain and cleanpup spills as a condition of the approval of the Shoreline Permit. The City's Shoreline Master Program states that industrial structures should only be permitted where they are set back 25 feet from the water's edge. The proposal would maintain a minimum 50 foot setback from Springbrook Creek, except for the construction of the Springbrook Trail, which would be within the 50-foot setback, and the bridge crossing which would also be within the setback and within the Creek. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Attachment "A" SEC-TWNP-R: Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 4 East WITHIN SHORELINES OF: Springbrook Creek SHSBDV.DOC r City of Renton P/B/PW Department Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Page 3 of 4 APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: City of Renton Shoreline Master Program The following section/page of the Master Program is applicable to the development: Section Description Page 4.04 Public Access page 17 4.05 Recreation Element page 18 4.06 Circulation Element page 18 5.04 Urban Environment page 22 6.04 Public Access page 24 6.06 Landscaping page 24 7.07 Industrial Development page 30 7.11 Parking page 32 7.15 Roads and Railroads page 38 7.16 Stream Alteration pages 38, 39 7.17 Trails page 39 Development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures established by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee (see Attachment "B"). 2. The applicant shall comply with the conditions of Site Plan Approval established by the City of Renton Hearing Examiner as set forth in the Hearing Examiner Report and Decision, dated November 12, 1996 (see Attachment "C"). 3. The owner of the industrial structure shall be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Development Services Division that plans have been formulated and implemented to contain or clean-up any spills or discharges associated with the development. Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued by the City of Renton, the owner shall submit a clean-up management to the City. This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Action of 1971 and pursuant to the following: 1. The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall not release the applicant from compliance with federal, state, and other permit requirements. 2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7) of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the event the permittee fails to comply with any condition hereof. 3. A construction permit shall not be issued until thirty (30) days after approval by the City of Renton Development Services Division or until any review proceedings initiated within this thirty (30) day review period have been completed. Il �0 6 Planning/ u'ding/ blic Works Administrator Date SHSBDV.DOC � CITY OF RENTON ..LL Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator November 20, 1996 Mark Miller Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. 10801 Main ST- STE 100 Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT: RAYMOND CENTER WEST(CITY FILE NO. LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF) ITEM 7 OF THE HEARING EXAMINERS DECISION DATED 11/12/96 Dear Mr. Miller: As you requested, the purpose of this letter is to confirm what is required to satisfy item 7 of the Hearing Examiner's Report and Decision (dated November 12, 1996) for the above-referenced project. Item 7 of the decision states: "The applicant shall meet the criteria of the more stringent 100-year flood delineation to avoid any confusion or potential for displacing water which could harm either life or property." This decision is consistent with my previous letter to you dated October 23, 1996, in which I determined that compensatory storage must be provided to the 100-year FEMA floodplain. As I discussed in the letter, it appeared that the volume of compensatory storage required for the Raymond Center West project could be excavated within the 50-foot setback area along the creek. However, because the City has plans to acquire rights to use the 50-foot setback area for a future channel widening project, I had proposed that the City agree to provide the compensatory storage for the Raymond Center West project in exchange for the granting of a drainage channel easement over the 50-foot setback area to the City. Based on review of the Hearing Examiner's reports supporting findings and conclusions, entering into such an agreement with the City is still a valid option. The report does specify that the compensatory storage be provided using the FEMA 100-year floodplain (rather than the City's modeling results), but item 22 of the Findings section of the report states that it does not have to be provided immediately. Item 22 states: "The City apparently in its Springbrook Creek widening efforts has what can be described as additional flood storage capacity. This is available in the interim to provide the compensatory storage that will be needed by the site. This is supported by item 4 of the conclusions, which states: "The City has "excess" capacity which it will "lend" while the widening of the creek occurs in this vicinity." 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Mark Miller, Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. Item 7 of the Hearing Examiner's Decision Page 2 Given that the City plans to widen the creek as soon as the summer of 1998 and that the compensatory storage does not have to be provided concurrent with construction of the Raymond Center West project, I wish to again propose that the City agree to provide the compensatory storage for the Raymond Center West project in exchange for the granting of a drainage channel easement over the 50-foot setback area to the City. A copy of the draft easement agreement that was included in my previous October 23 letter to you is enclosed with this letter. Under the agreement the City would accept all responsibility for satisfying the compensatory storage requirement of the Raymond Center West project. Tile Hearing Examiner's decision does not establish a deadline for construction of the compensatory storage. Therefore, the timing for construction depends on when the additional capacity referred to in Findings Item 22 of the hearing report is no longer adequate to compensate for the storage filled by the Raymond Avenue Center West project. Since compensatory storage for filling in the floodplain fringe is not required by FEMA, but is a City requirement, the responsibility for determining when the compensatory storage must be constructed rests with the City. When it is determined that the compensatory storage must be constructed, the City would be obligated under the proposed easement agreement to construct the compensatory storage, even if the City did not have sufficient funding or cannot obtain permits for the planned Springbrook Creek channel widening project from SW 16th Street to SW 23rd Street. If this were to occur the City could under a separate, independent project construct the storage either within the 50 foot setback area along the Raymond Center West site or on some other City owned land or easement. I hope that this letter alleviates the concerns you may have had with regard to the floodplain issue and facilitates your moving ahead with the Raymond Avenue Center West project. Please accept my apology for sending my previous October 23rd letter so close to the site plan review hearing and for the difficulties it created in being prepared for the hearing. The City has in fact been considering use of the 100-year floodplain elevations established by our basin modeling efforts for determining compensatory storage in lieu of the FEMA elevations. However, we have not yet reached a determination on this issue. These considerations led to the delay in our response to your modification/alteration request. Because the easement agreement must be formally approved by the City Council, I suggest that we submit an agreement for Council approval as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please contact me at(206)277-6211. Sincerely, Gregg Z1e4m i, P.E., Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department H:DOCS:96-777:SW:ps Attachment CC: Project File Ron Olsen Ron Straka Jennifer Henning 1 , WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Project:East Side Green River Office of the City Clerk AGREEMENT AND EASEMENT Water shed Pro ect Renton Municipal Building 200 Mill Avenue South FOR DRAINAGE CHANNEL Work Order#65230 Renton,WA 98055 -PID: 24230490115 .Grantor:Winmar-Metro.Inc STR: Sec 24.T23N,R4E Street Intersection: 19th Street and 1 Raymond Avenue J THIS INSTRUMENT, made this day of 19 by and between Winmar-Metro, Inc., hereinafter called "Grantor," and the CITY OF RENTON, a Municipal Corporation of King County, Washington, hereinafter called "Grantee." That said Grantor(s), for and in consideration of ten dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by said Grantor, do by these presents, grant, bargain, sell, convey, and warrants unto the said Grantee, its successors and assigns, an easement for drainage with necessary appurtenances over, under, through, across and upon the following described property (the easement area) in King County, Washington, more particularly described as follows: See attached EXHIBIT A for legal description For the purpose of installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, removing, repairing, replacing, and using a drainage channel, together with the nonexclusive right of ingress and egress thereto without prior institution of any suit or proceedings of law. Following the initial construction of its facilities, Grantee may from time to time construct such additional facilities as it may require. This easement is granted subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The Grantee shall, upon completion of any work within the property covered by the easement, restore the surface of the easement, and any private improvements disturbed or destroyed during execution of the work, as nearly as practicable to the condition they were in immediately before commencement of the work or entry by the Grantee. All restoration shall be performed as soon as reasonably possible following completion of any work and shall be coordinated in advance with Grantor so as to cause the minimum amount of disruption to the use of and operation of Grantor's property of which the easement area is a part. 2. Grantor shall retain the right to use the surface of the easement as long as such use does not interfere with the easement rights granted to the Grantee. Grantor shall not, however, have the right to: a. Erect or maintain any buildings, utilities, structures, and related appurtenances within the easement except the following: 1) Grantor may install a vehicular bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances as needed to provide access and utility service across the creek for the Grantor's property. The design and construction of the bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances are subject to City and other governmental agency permit and code requirements. 2) Grantor may install storm water outfall culverts to the creek across the easement. Culvert design and construction are subject to City and other governmental agency permit and code requirements. b. Develop, landscape, or beautify the easement area in any way which would unreasonably increase the costs to the Grantee of restoring the easement area and any private improvements therein. 3. The City agrees to provide and construct any compensatory storage volume required for filling in the floodplain caused by the Raymond Center West proposal (City File No. LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF). H:DOCS:work 1 I b:S W:ps Agreement and Easement INITIAL Sheet I of 5 PROPERTY SERVICES T This easement shall run with the land described herein, and shall be binding upon the parties,their heirs, successors in interest and assigns. Grantors covenant that they are the lawful owners of the above properties and that they have a good and lawful right to execute this agreement. Signatures of Grantor: and and ; STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she/they was/were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of to be the free and voluntary act of such party/parties for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated Notary Public in and for the State of Washington residing at Notary(print): My appointment expires: Approved as to Legal Form: CITY OF RENTON BY: BY Lawrence J. Warren, Jesse Tanner City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: BY Marilyn J. Petersen City Clerk W DOCS:work I I b:S W:ps Agreement and Easement wtrlAt Sheet 2 of 5 PROPERTY SERVICES EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION U !' [:u LJ _l u U Easement Area: 1 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-95-064 (King County Recording No. 9508039005) in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington described as1olloyws: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 1 and the true point of beginning; thence along the east line of said Lot 1 the following courses: N 37000'42" W 4.90 feet; thence N 55°28'15" W 77.73 feet; thence N 52°24'00" W 186.51 feet; thence N 54003'57" W 286.58 feet; thence N 35'11'09" W 148.78 feet; thence N 23°44'21" W 85.39 feet to a curve concave to the east having a radius of 75.78 feet; thence northerly along said curve through a central angle of 59°07'34" an arc distance of 78.20 feet; thence leaving said curve on a non-tangent bearing N 50°08'30" E 114.42 feet; thence N 51°45'16" E 72.30 feet; thence N 59'39'11" E 96.54 feet to a curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 114.57 feet; thence northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 45°50'57" an arc distance of 91.68 feet; thence N 13°48'14" E 114.90 feet to a curve concave to the west having a radius of 294.26 feet; thence northerly along said curve through a central angle of 36°45'26" an arc distance of 188.78 feet; thence leaving said curve on a non-tangent bearing N 23°47'30" W 102.20 feet; thence N 28°32'10" W 64.18 feet; thence N 20°51'33" W 61.80 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence leaving said east line of said Lot 1 N 87026'45"W along the north line of said Lot 1 43.59 feet; thence leaving said north line S 20°51'33" E 81.81 feet; thence S 28°32'10" E 65.21 feet; thence S 23°47'30" E 99.96 feet to a point on a curve concave to the west, said curve being non-tangent to the preceeding course and having a radius of 254.26 feet,the center of which bears S 67°02'48" W; thence southerly along said curve through a central angle of 36°45'26" an arc distance of 163.12 feet; thence S 13°48'14" W 114.90 feet to a curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 74.57 feet; thence southwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 45°50'57" an arc distance of 59.67 feet; thence S 59'39'11" W 99.30 feet; thence S 51°45'16" W 75.62 feet; thence S 50°08'30" W 119.58 feet to a point on a curve concave to the east, said curve being non-tangent to the preceeding course and having a radius of 115.78 feet,the center of which bears S 51°46'22" E; thence southerly along said curve through a central angle of 61°57'59" an arc distance of 125.22 feet; thence S 23°44'21" E 89.40 feet; thence S 35°11'09" E 159.44 feet; thence S 54°03'57" E 292.65 feet; thence S 52°24'00" E 187.00 feet; thence S 55°28'15" E 21.55 feet to the south line of said Lot 1; thence S 87'18'57" E along said south line 72.87 feet to the true point of beginning. Contains 70,622 square feet of land, more or less. H:DOCS:work 1 I b:S W:ps Agreement and Easement INITIu Sheet 3 of 5 PROPERTY SERVICES EXHIBIT A CONTINUED MAP EXHIBIT / 10 C 26 9 ' / 8 27 j 11 7 � See Line and Curve Tables on Following Sheet I 4 28 5 29\ 4 30 3 1"=100' ioc ( I N FEET ) 31 33 � I Southeast Corner of Lot i H:DOCS:workl Ib:SW:ps Agreement and Easement INITIAL Sheet 4 of 5 /Zf HAW U.J&W25WA rJISTD0G1OYT PROPERTY SERVICES EXHIBIT A CONTINUED f i r„ AP ) r, M EXHIBIT Northeast Corner of Lot 1 � 17 \. Line Table 18\` \\16 � >t ID# Bearing Dist.(ft) \ I N 37°00'42"W 4.90 ` \15 2 N 55°28'15"W 77.73 �\ 19 3 N 52°24'00"W 186.51 \ i 1 4 N 54°03'57"W 286.58 � 5 N 35°11'09"W 148.78 \ �\14 6 N 23°44'21"W 85.39 \ \ 20 8 N 50°08'30"E 114.42 \\ \ 9 N 51°45'16"E 72.30 \ i 10 N 59°39'11"E 96.54 \ 12 N 13°48'14"E 114.90 14 N 23°47'30"W 102.20 t �' 15 N 28°32110"W 64.18 16 N 20*51'33"W 61.80 Curve Table 21 i i 13 17 N 87°26'45"W 43.59 18 S 20°51'33"E 81.81 [D# Radius(ft) Central Angle Are Length i 19 S 28°32'10"E 65.21 7 75.78 59°07'34" 78.20 20 S 23°47'30"E 99.96 11 114.57 45°50'57" 91.68 22 S 13°48'l4"W 114.90 13 294.26 36°45'26" 188.78 24 S 59°39'11"W 99.30 21 254.26 36°45'26" 163.12 r i 25 S 51*45'16"W 75.62 23 74.57 45°50'57" 59.67 i 26 S 50°08'30"W 119.58 27 115.78 61°57'59" 125.22 22 i 12 28 S 23°44'21"E 89.40 1 r� 29 S 35*11'09"E 159.44 1 / 1 30 S 54°03'57"E 292.65 31 S 52°24'00"E 187.00 / 23 32 S 55°28'15"E 21.55 33 S 87°18'57"E 72.87 /1 24 25 /0 26/ � \\ _ 9 0 1"=100' -o ( IN FEET ) �� g H:DOCS:work I I b:S W:ps Agreement and Easement INITIAL Sheet 5 of 5 fx,-mAAE• U.16.5=5 IRA r4ES7.OMC^r PROPERTY SERVICES R CONCURRENCE DATE d A4- NAME R IAVD T i. fA November 14, 1996 Mark Miller Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. 10801 Main ST- STE 100 Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT: RAYMOND CENTER WEST (CITY FILE NO. LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF) ITEM 7 OF THE HEARING EXAMINERS DECISION DATED 11/12/96 Dear Mr. Miller: As you requested, the purpose of this letter is to confirm what is required to satisfy item 7 of the Hearing Examiner's Report and Decision (dated November 12, 1996) for the above-referenced project. Item 7 of the decision states: "The applicant shall meet the criteria of the more stringent 100-year flood delineation to avoid any confusion or potential for displacing water which could harm either life or property." This decision is consistent with my previous letter to you dated October 23, 1996, in which I determined that compensatory storage must be provided to the 100-year FEMA floodplain. As I discussed in the letter, it appeared that the volume of compensatory storage required for the Raymond Center West project could be excavated within the 50-foot setback area along the creek.,However, because the City has plans to acquire rights to use the 50-foot setback area for a future channel widening project, I had proposed that the City agree to provide the compensatory storage for the Raymond Center West project in exchange for the granting of a drainage channel easement over the 50-foot setback area to the City. Based on review of the Hearing Examiner's reports supporting findings and conclusions, entering into such an agreement w�itl� lay is still a valid option. The report does specify that the compensatory storage b�providi �ing the FEMA 100-year floodplain (rather than the City's modeling results?-,+, rtetn 22 of the Findings section of the report states that it does not have to be provided immediately. Item 22 states: "The City apparently in its Springbrook Creek widening efforts has what can be described as additional flood storage capacity. This is available in the interim to provide the compensatory storage that will be needed by the site. This is supported by item 4 of the conclusions, which states: "The City has "excess" capacity which it will "lend" while the widening of the creek occurs in this vicinity." Mark Miller, Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. Item 7 of the Hearing Examiner's Decision Page 2 Given that the City plans to widen the creek as soon as the summer of 1998 and that the compensatory storage does not have to be provided concurrent with construction of the Raymond Center West project, I wish to again propose that the City agree to provide the compensatory storage for the Raymond Center West project in exchange for the granting of a drainage channel easement over the 50-foot setback area to the City. A copy of the draft easement agreement that was included in my previous October 23 letter to you is enclosed with this letter. Under the agreement the City would accept all responsibility for satisfying the compensatory storage requirement of the Raymond Center West project. The Hearing Examiner's decision does not establish a deadline for construction of the compensatory storage. Therefore, the timing for construction depends on when the additional capacity referred to in Findings Item 22 of the hearing report is no longer adequate to compensate for the storage filled by the Raymond Avenue Center West project. Since compensatory storage for filling in the floodplain fringe is not required by FEMA, but is a City requirement, the responsibility for determining when the compensatory storage must be constructed rests with 4440-Ae andM*4.t4f. When it is determined that the compensatory storage must be constructed, the City would be obligated under the proposed easement agreement to construct the compensatory storage, even if the City did not have sufficient funding or cannot obtain permits for the planned Springbrook Creek channel widening project frotn SW 16th Street to SW 23rd Street. If this were to occur the City could under a separate, independent project construct the storage either within the 50 foot setback area along the Raymond Center West site or on some other City owned land or easement. 9 Q 1 hope that this letter alleviates the concerns you may have had with r gard to the fl odplain issue and facilitates your moving ahead with the Raymond Avenue Cente West project. Please accept my apology for sending my previous October 23rd letter so close t the site pla review hearing and for the difficulties it created in being prepared for the hearing.., ecause the_greement must be formally approved by the City Council, I suggest that we submit an agreement for Council approval as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please contact me at(206)277-6211. Sincerely, V I� C, cow y rG �' UL e cr Gregg Zimmerman, P.E., Administrator 5 Planning/Building/Public Works Department ® _ l C9 H:DOCS:96-777:SW:ps Attachment CC: Project File Ron Olsen Ron Straka A� Jennifer Henning Fp—el/� fo ( P,C.Z' ��I'-P l✓�4� !/'C9'��zeG� mil' mot'�'7U�1�1/�l�"�� 9 'lee Ab 111,6d-l(o lllzxlq(. . "^x TRANSMITTAi. MEMO I# of P�-7-s . rn 27 7 _SS�/� 5,A41 y5'S-Su7ri, FAX d � � OK� November 15, 1996 'L1E" 14Avk AoW11_ a49 r is o,Q kr-f C Mark Miller Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. 10801 Main ST- STE 100 Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT: RAYMOND CENTER WEST (CITY FILE NO. LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF) ITEM 7 OF THE HEARING EXAMINERS DECISION DATED 11/12/96 Dear Mr. Miller: As you requested, the purpose of this letter is to confirm what is required to satisfy item 7 of the Hearing Examiner's Report and Decision (dated November 12, 1996) for the above-referenced project. Item 7 of the decision states: "The applicant shall meet the criteria of the more stringent 100-year flood delineation to avoid any confusion or potential for displacing water which could harm either life or property." This decision is consistent with my previous letter to you dated October 23, 1996, in which I determined that compensatory storage must be provided to the 100-year FEMA floodplain. As I discussed in the letter, it appeared that the volume of compensatory storage required for the Raymond Center West project could be excavated within the 50-foot setback area along the creek. However, because the City has plans to acquire rights to use the 50-foot setback area for a future channel widening project, I had proposed that the City agree to provide the compensatory storage for the Raymond Center West project in exchange for the granting of a drainage channel easement over the 50-foot setback area to the City. Based on review of the Hearing Examiner's reports supporting findings and conclusions, entering into such an agreement with the City is still a valid option. The report does specify that the compensatory storage be provided using the FEMA 100-year floodplain (rather than the City's 100-year modeling results), but item 22 of the Findings section of the report states that it does not have to be provided immediately. Item 22 states: "The City apparently in its Springbrook Creek widening efforts has what can be described as additional flood storage capacity. This is available in the interim to provide the compensatory storage that will be needed by the site. This is supported by item 4 of the conclusions, which states: "The City has "excess" capacity which it will "lend" while the widening of the creek occurs in this vicinity." M Mark Miller, Mark Miller Consultants,Inc. Item 7 of the Hearing Examiner's Decision Page 2 Given that the City plans to widen the creek as soon as the summer of 1998 and that the compensatory storage does not have to be provided concurrent with construction of the Raymond Center West project, I wish to again propose that the City agree to provide the compensatory storage for the Raymond Center West project in exchange for the granting of a drainage channel easement over the 50-foot setback area to the City. A copy of the draft easement agreement that was included in my previous October 23 letter to you is enclosed with this letter. Under the agreement the City would accept all responsibility for satisfying the compensatory storage requirement of the Raymond Center West project. The Hearing Examiner's decision does not establish a deadline for construction of the compensatory storage. Therefore, the timing for construction depends on when the additional capacity referred to in Findings Item 22 of the hearing report is no longer adequate to compensate for the storage filled by the Raymond Avenue Center West project. Since compensatory storage for filling in the floodplain fringe is not required by FEMA, but is a City requirement, the responsibility for determining when the compensatory storage must be constructed rests with me and my staff. When it is determined that the compensatory storage must be constructed, the City would be obligated under the proposed easement agreement to construct the compensatory storage, even if the City did not have sufficient funding or cannot obtain permits for the planned Springbrook Creek channel widening project from SW 16th Street to SW 23rd Street. If this were to occur the City could under a separate, independent project construct the storage either within the 50 foot setback area along the Raymond Center West site or on some other City owned land or easement. I hope that this letter alleviates the concerns you may have had with regard to the floodplain issue and facilitates your moving ahead with the Raymond Avenue Center West project. Please accept my apology for sending my previous October 23rd letter so close to the site plan review hearing and for the difficulties it created in being prepared for the hearing. The City has in fact been considering use of the 100-year floodplain elevations established by our basin modeling efforts for determining compensatory storage in lieu of the FEMA elevations. However, we have not yet reached a determination on this issue. These considerations led to the delay in our response to your modification/alteration request. Because the easement agreement must be formally approved by the City Council, I suggest that we submit an agreement for Council approval as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please contact me at(206)277-6211. Sincerely, Gregg Zimmerman, P.E.,Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department H:DOCS:96-777:SW:ps Attachment CC: Project File Ron Olsen Ron Straka Jennifer Henning Consulting Engineers ELECTRONIC MEDIA TRANSMITTAL 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, Washington 98101 Date November 13, 1996 (206) 622-5822 fax(206) 622-8130 Job# 96327.10 To SCOTT WOODBURY/CITY OF RENTON Project RAYMOND CENTER WEST 200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH, 1ST FLR RENTON, WA 98055 From Ed Rogers The following electronic media items are enclosed.- Copies Date No. Description 1 KPF17962.DWG - SURVEY FILE (WHITE SHIELD, INC.) 1_.,._._...._..._,.._................._ ___.,.__............---.,_ RCWXMPA.DWG - SITE PLAN (LANCE MUELLER ) r.........._._..__...._... __ ._.._.._...._......__ ___ __ .._,.__._--------------------------------.__...____...; ----_--------___._ _----_----.-----_------_.............._..__.,.____._..___,_._.._...._..._..._.. ,_ __ _.....__..._.___._.__ a J' n pp ., ._....--- _. 99OF .. ... r Comments: SHOULD YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE ELECTRONIC FILES PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CALL. Errors and discrepancies can be inadvertently introduced into electronic media by differing hardware, software, and operators. Recognizing this, your use of the attached media acknowledges that use of information contained on these disks is at your sole risk and without liability, risk, or legal exposure to KPFF. Furthermore, you shall to the fullest extent permitted by law, defend, indemnify and hold harmless KPFF and its shareholders and employees from and against demands, losses, expenses, damages, penalties, and liabilities of any kind including without limitation attorney's fees arising out of or relating to any use of the electronic media disks by you or third party. All electronic media disks will remain the property of KPFF and are subject to KPFF's copyright. Your use of the attached media shall constitute an acceptance of the above. Signed: _ READMEQOC S,-oT-f 6f,100 D6UR/ November 12, 1996 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: Mark Miller Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. Raymond Avenue Center West File No.: LUA-96-104,SA,SM LOCATION: 1901 Raymond Avenue SW SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To develop site with 124,300 square foot building, parking for 174 cars and dock-high service for 36 trucks. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on October 22, 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 October 29, 1996 hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, October 29, 1996, at 9:02 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 Exhibit No.4: Landscape plan Exhibit No. 5: Detail view of bridge crossing Exhibit No. 6: Building elevation drawing Exhibit No. 7: Preliminary approval letter from Drainage District dated October 28, 1996 Mark Miller Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. Raymond Avenue Center West File No.: LUA-96-104,SA,SM November 12, 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. The applicant is proposing a mixed use building of approximately 124,000 square feet and parking for 174 cars. There would also be dock-high service doors for 36 trucks provided on site. This site is located in the Green River Valley portion of the City. It is located on the west side of Springbrook Creek and is within 200 feet of the creek and requires a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The applicant has gone through environmental review with the City and was issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M). This project site is 14.15 acres and until recently was part of a larger site which spanned both sides of Springbrook Creek. The east side of the common ownership known as the Opus site came in for site plan approval a year and a half ago. At the time there were certain conditions put on the east side of the development that would eventually affect development on the western portion. The conditions pertained to providing public access along Springbrook Creek and extending the trail. Because it was all in common ownership an agreement was forged between the property owner and the City that at such time that the western portion came in for development, a link to the Springbrook Creek trail would be provided, and that the western portion would be limited in how it could be developed because it had no access. In this case the applicant has come forward with a proposal for the west side of Springbrook Creek which is the Winmar parcel. This particular proposal includes a bridge crossing over Springbrook Creek. An agreement has been executed between Winmar and Opus to allow the construction of this bridge crossing and provide all the necessary easements to come through the Opus site, cross the creek and reach this site. There were also easements that had to be obtained from Drainage District No. I because they have the responsibility for Springbrook Creek. The primary access would be from Raymond Avenue SW via the new bridge crossing over Springbrook Creek and through the Opus property. A secondary emergency access is proposed on the adjacent Boeing property to the west which would then connect with SW 27th. The applicant intends to access the site during construction by the secondary emergency access for purposes of preloading the site and also to construct the bridge. This particular site is zoned Light Industrial and the Comprehensive Plan(CP) land use designation is Employment Area Valley. The sites to the north are zoned for Commercial Office and the Boeing Customer Service Training Center is to the northwest. The site directly to the east is the Opus site and is currently under construction as a light industrial use. Sites to the south include vacant and heavy industrial use sites, including the All-Pak Container Corporation site. The site to the west is currently vacant. It is zoned for Commercial Office and is the former Longacres Race Track site. The south portion of this site has a large Class III wetland that would not be developed. In this instance the only disturbance that would occur is along the creek itself for the extension of the Springbrook Creek trail, and that would be within the buffer area. There is presently no water or sewer service that comes directly to the site. However, when Opus was being developed the lines were sized and the design of the bridge is such that the extension of the utilities was considered in order to accommodate development on the west side of the creek. In terms of transit service in the area, Metro does provide some service on Lind Avenue and Grady. This project is compatible with the Shoreline Master Program. Where they are required to maintain a minimum 25 foot setback, there would not be any development within 50 feet of the ordinary high water mark. Also there Mark Miller Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. Raymond Avenue Center West File No.: LUA-96-104,SA,SM November 12, 1996 Page 3 is a requirement with the Shoreline Master Program to provide either visual or physical public access and there will be both. There would be access with the trail system. Over 50 percent of the site will be maintained in natural area. This is a speculative development; however, the applicant has been in negotiation with a potential end user, and they are very close to striking an agreement. It would be a light industrial use, a combination fabrication/warehouse/offices. Based on this the applicant has provided 174 parking spaces which is within the range. The proposed structure would be 29 feet in height. There would be dock high service doors for 36 trucks. The dock high doors would be located on the east and west facades. There would also be four drive-in truck doors located at the northwest, northeast, southwest and southeast corners. The applicant is proposing on- site employee recreation areas including a half-court basketball area, a bicycle rack, benches and seating. They have also agreed to extend and construct the Springbrook Creek trail along the creek for the entire length of the site. There were five mitigation measures issued by the ERC that will apply to the project. They include paying the appropriate fire mitigation fee, securing the necessary easements from adjacent property owners and from the Drainage District in order to access the site, paying the appropriate traffic mitigation fee, and widening a 325 foot unimproved section of SW 19th Street that is located between Raymond and Lind to a width of 25 feet. This measure was going to be required only if traffic studies being conducted in the City yielded results that warranted improvement of SW 19th in that area. The Opus property to the east was required to make a connection in that area of 20 feet in width. If this applicant is required to provide the additional improvement, it would be 2-1/2 feet on either side of that 20 feet for a total of 25 feet. The final mitigation measure had to do with providing a portion of the Springbrook Creek trail for public use along the entire length of the property, and also to come up with a solution to connect to the property to the north. The applicant is required to coordinate with the Parks Department for the final design. In terms of conformance with existing land use regulations, the manufacturing and warehousing uses envisioned are allowed in the zoning code. The site is required to provide an additional 2 percent of natural landscaping because it is located in the Green River Valley. They are reserving approximately 52 percent of the site as existing habitat,wetland and buffer area. Regarding the planned parking, staff has a concern that there is a long expanse of parking along the western boundary, and would like to see a couple parking spaces removed and some tree islands put in. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site is examined. There would be new impervious area. Development would occur between a shoreline area and a wetland. The applicant has managed to avoid the sensitive wetland areas. They have provided more than the minimum setbacks from Springbrook Creek, and they have provided for an extension of the Springbrook Creek trail. The applicant does have a site that is located within the 100 year flood plain, and they need to demonstrate to the City that compensatory storage is being provided to address the development of the site within the flood plain, or come up with some suitable agreement with the City that responds to the City's needs. The City is going to be negotiating with this particular applicant to obtain some additional area in order to widen Springbrook Creek. There are some concerns regarding how people get from the parking lots and potentially cross truck maneuvering areas to get into the building entrances, and staff has noted that there seems to be some potential conflicts in that area, and also where the Springbrook Creek trail and the bridge would intersect. The applicant Mark Miller Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. Raymond Avenue Center West File No.: LUA-96-104,SA,SM November 12, 1996 Page 4 has been asked to provide some sort of walkway system, striping or some clear way so pedestrians know that they have a safe route to get into the building, and also across the bridge. Staff is recommending approval of the Raymond Avenue Center West site plan, subject to conditions. The first condition is compliance with the ERC mitigation measures. The second condition is provision of additional landscaped tree islands in the parking areas on the west property boundary and the north property boundary in order to break up the barren appearance of the parking lot. The third condition addresses pedestrian safety by providing marked crosswalks between the parking areas and building entrances, and providing a striped crossing and signage where the Springbrook Creek trail intersects the bridge crossing. A further condition has to do with the separation of pedestrians on the bridge by at least a 6 inch curb and a minimum of one sidewalk. The last condition is providing a site lighting plan that would be subject to the review and approval of Development Services Division. MARK MILLER, Mark Miller Consultants, Inc., 10801 Main Street, #100, Bellevue, Washington 98004, applicant herein, introduced the owner's representative, the structural and civil engineer, project architect, and landscape architect. He gave a status report of the various easements and agreements. He stated that any and all easements necessary with the easement property are recorded. With respect to the drainage district, it has given preliminary approval to the proposed bridge crossing, and reserves the right to look at the construction engineering drawings which will be at the building permit process. Finally, with respect to the easement with Boeing,the Winmar Company and Boeing are in the final days of completing an agreement. SCOTT WOODBURY, Surface Water Utility, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055, responded regarding the drainage design and stated that applicant has submitted an option to include direct discharge to the wetland of their roof drainage. The site is in two sectors--the north sector that they are developing is upland and is not encumbered by restrictions such as wetlands, and the south which is predominantly wetland. The two portions are divided by a deep drainage ditch. There is no hydrologic effect on the wetland due to the proposed development. The wetland gets its hydrology from mainly precipitation and its own local tributary area which does not include the north portion. He explained the City's relationship with Drainage District No. 1 and their efforts to coordinate this project, as well as others along the Springbrook Creek. The applicant has proposed a 72 foot clear distance between the bridge abutments, and they have done a preliminary hydraulic analysis of the effect of the bridge abutments on the stream. It has relatively little effect in terms of restrictions to the stream. Mr. Woodbury explained the issues regarding widening the channel,the necessary easements required for the project, and the location and requirements for the trail. Regarding compensatory storage, the City has decided to continue with the requirement of compensatory storage to FEMA 100 year flood plain elevations, but that the compensatory storage could be done by the applicant within the setback area. However, because there are plans to widen the channel,the City would agree to construct their compensatory storage in exchange for the channel easement. Mr. Miller objected to the lateness of the City's response regarding the flood plain elevations, but agreed that the applicant would grant the easement for the 50 feet. Mark Miller Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. Raymond Avenue Center West File No.: LUA-96-104,SA,SM November 12, 1996 Page 5 NEIL WATTS, Plan Review Supervisor, Development Services, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055, spoke regarding the traffic study for Raymond Avenue and SW 16th Street. The City is trying to determine if there are sufficient volumes on SW 16th to require a further widening of this section by the applicant. 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 10:20 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Mark Miller for Winmar-Metro, filed a request for approval of a site plan for a mixed use warehouse, office and manufacturing facility. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, issued a Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M)for the subject proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 1901 Raymond Avenue SW. The site is actually a parcel without access to a public street. The site is located west of Springbrook Creek and south of SW 19th Street if it were extended to the west. The Boeing Longacres site abuts the subject site to the west. 6. The subject site is zoned IL(Light Industrial). 7. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of employment generating uses compatible with the Green River Valley, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 8. The primary access to the subject site will be through the adjacent site to the east via a new bridge over Springbrook Creek. The applicant has an easement which will permit the access. An agreement for the bridge will need to be secured from the Drainage District with jurisdiction over the creek. 9. The subject site is a vacant, irregularly shaped parcel whose east boundary is defined by the meandering creek alignment. The site is approximately 1,327.46 feet long and varies from approximately 836.84 feet wide to approximately 250 feet wide at the location where the creek swings west. 10. The subject site is approximately 14.15 acres in size. Mark Miller Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. Raymond Avenue Center West File No.: LUA-96-104,SA,SM November 12, 1996 Page 6 11. The southernmost portion of the site starting where the creek narrows the site is dominated by wetlands. These areas will be preserved by the applicant. The wetlands, buffers and landscaping will amount to approximately 52 percent of the site. 12. The applicant proposes developing an approximately 124,300 square foot building which will be located on the north half of the site. The building will be approximately 550 feet long(north to south) by approximately 260 feet wide. 13. The proposed building will be 29 feet tall. It will have docking bay doors along the east and west facades. There will also be drive-in doors located in the corners. 14. The exterior will be concrete panels with painted cast reveals to break up the appearance. There will be articulated offsets at each corner of the building. The southeast corner will be further articulated to step away from the creek. 15. The applicant proposes parking for 174 vehicles as well as the loading bays. The parking will be located along the perimeter of the site. Staff has recommended that the long parking area along the western boundary be broken up with additional landscaping. 16. The applicant also will be providing an asphalt path along Springbrook Creek to extend the City's trail system. There may need to be some accommodation to provide a connection to the segment of trail north of the site. That segment is somewhat offset to the west. 17. The City has been widening Springbrook Creek in stages. Any bridge and bridge foundations will need to accommodate the widening that might occur along this section of the creek. The applicant and City have agreed that the plan will allow the widening. 18. Emergency access will be provided from west of the site through the adjacent Boeing property. This secondary access will also provide the initial construction access to the site. The City will require evidence that this access exists prior to the issuance of any construction permits to provide access in the event of an emergency. 19. There were changes in the determination of whether the City or federal criteria for 100 year flood delineation was applicable to the site. The City has determined that compensatory storage will be required for any displacement that might occur in the 100 year flood plain. 20. Staff noted that truck maneuvering could conflict with pedestrian access on both the east and west side of the building. Staff recommended clear demarcation of pedestrian walkways be installed. 21. The area contains a mix of warehousing and office uses similar in scale to that proposed for this site. 22. The City apparently in its Springbrook Creek widening efforts has what can be described as additional flood storage capacity. This is available in the interim to provide the compensatory storage that will be needed by the site. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: Mark Miller Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. Raymond Avenue Center West File No.: LUA-96-104,SA,SM November 12, 1996 Page 7 a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; C. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use. The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. 2. While the combined warehouse, industrial and office use will not generate as many jobs as some uses, it is still compatible with the Comprehensive Plan's designation for the site. The use is also generally compatible with other uses in the area. An office use with more workers might have better exploited the locale adjacent to the natural areas, but then fewer workers will mean fewer impacts on these areas. It involves tradeoffs which seem reasonable. 3. The building's height and setbacks meet those mandated by code. Building and fire code compliance will be determined when a permit is requested. 4. The preservation of approximately half of the site for wetlands,wetland buffers and trail certainly minimizes the impacts of this development on its site and on surrounding uses. The applicant will have to provide flood storage to compensate for any displacement. Since there were apparently changes in applicable law, it was unclear how this would affect the site and more appropriately other flood prone areas. The City has "excess" capacity which it will "lend" while the widening of the creek occurs in this vicinity. In any event, the applicant shall meet the criteria of the more stringent 100 year flood delineation to avoid any confusion or potential for displacing water which could harm either life or property. 5. The need to provide access across another parcel will clearly create impacts to that adjacent site. But these issues were sorted out when the site was divided into two parcels. There will be a need for the applicant and adjoining site to coordinate access and directional signs to accommodate those who plan access to this "hidden" parcel. 6. The development of the site should not adversely impact property values. It will increase the tax base of the City. 7. As noted, except for the possible conflict between pedestrians and the loading dock truck traffic, access to the site appears reasonable. The applicant shall provide delineated pathways for pedestrians through the site. The applicant shall also provide assurances that there will be safe pedestrian access across the new bridge. Mark Miller Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. Raymond Avenue Center West File No.: LUA-96-104,SA,SM November 12, 1996 Page 8 8. The low scale nature of the buildings, the setbacks from the creek and from the wetlands and the preservation of the wetlands themselves, assure that there will be plenty of openness and therefore light and air reaching the subject site. 9. The applicant will have to provide utility extensions but the infrastructure to deliver those services is available. DECISION: The site plan is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant is required to comply with the mitigation measures which were required by the ERC threshold determination prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. The applicant shall provide additional landscaped tree islands in the parking areas on the west property boundary and north property boundary in order to break up the barren appearance of the parking lot. The revised landscape plan is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division (DSD)and must be approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. The applicant shall provide marked crosswalks between the parking areas and building entrances in order to enhance pedestrian safety on the site. A striped crossing and signage shall also be provided where the Springbrook Creek trail intersects the bridge crossing. The pedestrian crossing shall be shown on a revised site plan and is subject to the review and approval of DSD prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The applicant shall provide a site lighting plan that provides for safe vehicle and pedestrian movement on the site, without resulting in off-site light and glare impacts. The lighting plan shall be submitted to the DSD for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. The applicant shall provide a 6 inch curb and sidewalk on the bridge to separate pedestrian from vehicular traffic. 6. The applicant and adjoining site shall coordinate access and directional signs to accommodate traffic access to the subject site. 7. The applicant shall meet the criteria of the more stringent 100 year flood delineation to avoid any confusion or potential for displacing water which could harm either life or property. ORDERED THIS 12th day of November, 1996. Sc FRED J. KAUU4AN HEARING EXAMINER Mark Miller Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. Raymond Avenue Center West File No.: LUA-96-104,SA,SM November 12, 1996 Page 9 TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of November, 1996 to the parties of record: Jennifer Henning Mark Miller Scott Woodbury 200 Mill Avenue S 10801 Main Street, #100 200 Mill Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 Bellevue, WA 98004 Renton, WA 98055 Neil Watts Rick Ford Allen Tosh 200 Mill Avenue S Boeing Company 7015 S. 212th Renton, WA 98055 PO Box 3707, MS 2R-71 Kent, WA 98032 Seattle, WA 98124 Lori Pitzer Winmar-Metro, Inc. Boeing Company 700 5th Avenue, #2600 PO Box 3707, MS 2R-71 Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of November, 1996 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman, Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator Members, Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson, Development Services Director Art Larson, Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann, Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney James Chandler, Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington, Mayor's Executive Assistant Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Valley Daily News Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,November 26, 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. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 16, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. Mark Miller Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. Raymond Avenue Center West File No.: LUA-96-104,SA,SM November 12, 1996 Page 10 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. w C.D. HILLMAN'S EARINGTON GARDENS v' 1 ADD. DIV. NO. 1 W ` o VALLEY OFFICE VICINITY MAP 1u l«,mw-w.o PARK I I c-o z anal Pala att+ C-0 C-0 I I < lu 1«Nww-w„-o S. 19TH ST. LONGACRES RACE I TRACK I OPUS C-o v' 70NING COMMERCIAL c-0 PRO.JEC.T. NW (� w > H-1 - HEAVY/INDUSTRIAL I , SITE.. . LLC o STONEHENGE a I-L - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BOEING I_� J II LTD. IA-1 - INDUSTRIAL COMPANY 1"1„pow-"" � � I-H- INDUSTRIAL I I lu la!m„„el� I1 w � +7°1 l°'1-a1°a 1" ' Y 1 1 z 6 SOUTHGATE i -- OFFICE PLAZA w WINMAR— p METRO INC: c=c-o N - - - - - --__ I� - 23RD ST GLACIER PARK z ' I H-1 COMPANY LACIE H-1 PARK KOCH ALL—PAK J :� lu la!»na•r+o- I...a„v».„u♦ I lulel -I OM HANS 7PE INE CO. CONTAINER LLGEORGE CORP. ❑ i 1 GRAPHIC SCALE RAYMOND CENTER NEST `I -- - — --- — CA 1, � ^^D E10-9 RENTON.WASHINGTON -- -- -- -- -- -- -- `qq} SPR-1 utur 11�V.� SITE PLAN REVIEW ��„ ° coc, M,&Tem NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL 71ilPTI�`TfMR17 ` . au � �.`.�I�r,•,��" �II1 ••' `t fl ' cn r o� - g �,I'a/ f,J'�yj,�.� ? C:. .}•a4 1)- D�Z��2_i� .r'' :'� i I �DDIE •/ II ,.ca•o•••.••.ua,,ua r+' ,r.. ��:� 1 0, ^�'� .•r.. .V � 111 IY uj 1 1 Ul o, i7- / t�V f � , ar. I ' . .. r i.,.�E.�9�; .cw ra.w cv�•o< Q �� 110 lot , ' n I' � � ._�_..—.._._ � ...-._...� _-_.-----.._._.__---• r._...� �.�—�� ,'\� �. �'�{�^�' -.-...._ •gyp .:.�..� 9 J - Wb I'i4_C�CIL S:S>RY't 1_Pll r� •• .•wrv[[•Krra .. rn ucn• j •u��. ,,.o.o....,.�r..o SITE PLAN _.L'.'�_I•Tf��- ([.tKl••.'YMlO.rt•..4 V pi :�,-_`{{�s, r �" w,[o..row xr nrr.w•w: `����'yl� • ; o ' ���i �- _ . ra � _ .�L±l�_• nn n u..•+s.ar w ti.o+� ���i.�'c•�..o•�•�i••ui .i.:.. .w i 7�I� -_ -1..._x �,.}�. [c<vc.o..v �r .ar••o.ao n,••..c, `a �.[' `. ''!3"� +oro[,nc, uw.sv�ara• .r.uu•.c�s,o ,J •n••: L•f.� � U[l1 WP ••.YC n.N4l•�I+C VM•rC 1,411' W �_��,�!� --�i..�.. cn.o:r..�o-n.o oar .nw[.or[.n r[• o»,•r r,! - ____._ .._.__-_---- Ali a f' C.D. HILLMAN'S 3 1 Mn EARINGTON GARDENS I'� C ADD. DIV. N0. 1 a VALLEY OFFICE C-0 41o'InTM. o PIIARK VICINITY MAP I'I I I I 14 LOT/NnM-MTT-o C-0 C-0 u <L I I I r Q w Im/,,Taro-T000-o 19TH -T. LONGACRES �d^� RACE TRACK vi ZONING C-0 PROJECT Opus C-0 C0 COMMERCIAL/OFFICC NW El LJ > H-1 -HEAVY/INDUSTRIAL SITE. LLC o STONEHENGE BOEING I— I-L - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL I-L II LTD. M-I- INDUSTRIAL �,., .n of/onnlo-aoo.s 14 mi uTrTp-MA-0 COMPANY 4 I-H - INDUSTRIAL „s i IL Zs SOUTHGATE I OFFICE PLAZA ! w sl" i t WINMAR- z h1 i /i I I rNIOtI]I1J01•M6i V) OP-0 i I II 14 LOT/nTn.-W" — — — — —23RD ST. GLACIER PARK x LACIE H-1 H t COMPANY 14 to,/NTM ft >I i KOCH ALL—PAK H-1 a Isl`' PARK � ❑ -) CO. GEHANS ORGE CONTAINER ❑ OLYMPIC PIPE CORP. LINE CO. 14 TOT In"OT-ow-a 14 Tot/nrwl-/a.a 1 14 01/mm-soM-o N i i 1n' ' I 1 .rtI GRAPHIC SCALE Tao 0 0o ron M eao I �T�■Tr—T� Tloor: � IwrD1) T hcn.loon. it GAAMI 8r DATE SCALE.- r EGR RAYMOND CENTER PEST vcEl NO. DESIGNED BY 1 .200 Cals✓1+p Enp.ers RENTON.WASHNGTON SPR-1 R 7����AT D/ �Y'ViwJtilc SITE PLAN REVIEW DtGKED By k rnro An'Tq&rIe ab L _--- — -- MAY �JOB NO.: 0 O M I A N V.1 N C. $aitf4,IYagLryhY1 S9UI AE1VroVED Br 9027.I0 VM uzz-sen Fe.QW&T-8 D NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP ND. DATE 8r DD. /PY9 REVISION MAV B/23/96 _ I N ' - •\. ISOu-7R•SD•.sx�:�. Iso -7R•SD•.3%, 6OIF-WSO•3% I Isou-Is so�.n. r 11 7�1x . 1 J WETLAND..- � : � y//� �� RARER I I 1 �.. 7Y/� J" •I !�` x 1KIFA ...... ....... I .................. ......... - ........_R ............. I `I Is:I DETENTION POND I. - ° • -- �11 , ff TOP a POND 4 t I R.. RIOT wiER.17.0 — ..� 0011DN OEIENDON•13.0 �:i �. `\.`� OYFAEL /J •� I ` 11\ � TRENCH DRAW...'. 7 1 I IOP.OF DEAD STdiACE.110 ./' (�1 ,. - _ I II I I Sk SOT TQI CC W, .bo- ram' 1 '�/ I l,ri •� I R.�. 6 I!, ._ � I-1' I - _.-. —� �'' T I:l a ' / 6AC°FIOR • 1 . PREKNRR ! I. PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION ■ f L,j-' - �;� ,.4• •, 1 p - _ BUILDING •- ' F-JJ JW,SI LLS15 OM Aa AIiCWG bYALL i t ••. . --------DEEla1E - ;t.,. t' owRrlow S" -------------r— \\ I 1 �F, - YNNI.ACCESS JJ 57RCnffiE 109 CF- RUA 100 YEAR \\ I 1 7 __ 400p[l 19.6 I I a l�l i� �.i• SEVER ! ,. • ' t \ Ix PDYP IIE �"011 �CI„I ;-' 7 �'� .. / .. % \ \�• � � \ .1•.SS FW ... , � � � ! Tsu u-le•s0�.sx%s u-1e`s'o•.s �/ i a sNEE �!7 _ _ t xE r svn s Io f Q i r' FOR°Rocs DE I 1 1 CJ;; EXISTING BUILDING caacCT 11'I! 111' 11 j Itl SPRINGBROOK INDUSTRIAL CENTER I p ` TgEXISi I ! 4 I _ eaNEcr r0I17sr I J 1� I IN 1 SCALE;i��jj;ll II •� -- ' I I I ! r•�. , I 1 le ! i to ,OII!.�'lli�.10 I I:II•IIII I y NOTE: DATUM REFERS TO NAVD88 _- ESTIMATED FILL OUANTITIY= 9,000 C.Y. I Tj I �I ; I� DRAIN BY DATE SCALE: PL YECI W. EGR 1•,p' J� o RAYMOND CENTER WEST ;� DESIGNED DY • CWwalYlr Erpaeara REN TON, WASHINCTON SPR-2 wrA I ° s 96 SITE PLAN REVIEW w C1EtRED 17L - ' A VOI MCI Ar WN,JUO wv a 7s%JW NO.: wawa wwwww DDor APPRDYED 9Y ae777.10 W&622Z%12 Fa,QM b22-OGRI GRADING, DRAINAGE & UTILITY PLAN wl DAIE er ao. NCR REYISIW N.v n'71�a n....�: Reasons behind not using city models for compensatory storage 1. Recent projects were required to use FEMA (16th street tech center 150,000 cf fill but 175,000 cf provided by city connecting channel project 2. compensatory storage could be done in setback area by applicant. however, city has plans to wid n channel and would construct applicants compstorage in exchange for channel easement. :dz •v.N� fre 1Me., vwh 4"Ilcs too `'t- kft'`IrO Only o J4 /L'Sabf���r J.Te— CA u+tcL 3. discuss two modeling scenarios. city models show under current conditions that there is ono floodplain on the site, storage or conveyance. 4. city models also show no floodplain on site in future conditions, storage or conveyance scenarios 5. however, uncertamty in storage scenario (does not affect ESGRWP because conveyance event controls) 6. plan on modeling storage case for february 1996 ND <�,'ojv wl,e# J/v cress lf4c-Av Na l�iJc�o- �vf. 0,G54 J3Sof5 x// Sacs - �i�t21► F S s �s��,.,�� 311 �v AW AMC- ,Aff fc�S �Ra l'oS c Gdr�d� 6�9>f- o; ' w�o•�y M¢,�Ds". L�&v./r c 4� AWL Documenth " " � ' / �� / � T - � I ��� � � I ---� __ 1 CITY OF RENTON J'lanning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator October 23, 1996 Mark Miller Mark Miller Consultants,Inc. 10801 Main ST- STE 100 Bellevue,WA 98004 SUBJECT: RAYMOND CENTER WEST (CITY FILE NO. LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF) COMPENSATORY FLOODPLAIN STORAGE Dear Mr. Miller: I received the attached letter from Tom Jones of KPFF dated August 23, 1996, requesting that the City allow the Raymond Center West project to use the City's hydraulic model of Springbrook Creek for determining the volume of compensatory storage required, rather than the FEMA 100- year flood elevation. I am addressing my response directly to you in your capacity as agent for the owner of the project site so that you and the owner will have this letter prior to the site plan review hearing scheduled for October 29, 1996. Upon review of the request, I have decided not to allow use of the City's model for determining the compensatory storage requirement. It has been City policy to use FEMA floodplain elevations in determining compensatory storage. In fact, in just the past two years, several development projects were required to provide compensatory storage using FEMA elevations, such as the 16th Street Technical Center, Springbrook Industrial Center, and Allpak developments. According to calculations by KPFF using FEMA floodplain elevations, approximately 92,000 cubic feet of compensatory floodplain storage would have to be provided by the Raymond Center West project. From review of the preliminary site plans, it appears that this volume of flood storage could easily be excavated within the 50-foot setback area along the east boundary of the site without encroaching into the code required 25-foot stream buffer, which is measured from the ordinary high water mark of the creek. While the Raymond Center West project could construct its compensatory storage within the 50- foot setback, the City has plans, as you know, to acquire rights to use the 50-foot setback along Springbrook Creek for a future channel widening project. A draft environmental impact statement for the proposed channel widening project is scheduled for issuance next month for public comment under the title of the East Side Green River Watershed Project (City File LUA-95-205,ECF). Obtaining rights for the channel widening depends upon the granting of a drainage easement (or deed) over the 50-foot setback area from the owner of the Raymond Center West site. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 -- Mark Miller , Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. Raymond Center West Compensatory Floodplain Storage Page 2 Because the City needs the drainage easement for the channel widening project and because widening of the channel would create a significant amount of floodplain storage within the 50-foot setback area, I propose that the City agree to provide the compensatory storage for the Raymond Center West project in exchange for the granting of a drainage channel easement over the 50-foot setback area to the City. Such an agreement would of course require City Council approval. A draft drainage channel easement agreement is enclosed whereby the City would agree to provide the compensatory storage for the Raymond Center West project. The easement would benefit the City by enabling the channel to be widened. Construction of the channel widening is currently scheduled for the summer of 1998, depending upon whether funding for construction is available from the project's federal sponsor, the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The easement agreement would directly benefit the Raymond Center West project by transferring the compensatory storage responsibility to the City. Widening of the channel would also provide additional flood protection to the Raymond Center West site and reduce current flooding problems in the valley area streets that serve the project site. I would appreciate the owner's consideration of this proposal. If you have any questions, please contact me at(206) 277-6211. Sincerely, ` Gregg Zimmerman, P.E., Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department H:D0CS:96-715:SW:ps Attachment CC: Project File Ron Olsen Ron Straka Scott Woodbury Jennifer Henning Tom Jones/Mark Veldee,KPFF August 23, 1996 Mr. Gregg Zimmerman, P.E. ' Administrator City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Raymond Center West Compensatory Storage Dear Mr. Zimmerman: The Raymond Center West project involves the construction of 124300-square foot building, with surface parking on a site adjacent to Springbrook Creek. They site will be filled to elevate the finished floor 1 foot or more above the FEMA 100-year flood elevation. Through discussions with Scott Woodbury, we understand the City has performed extensive hydraulic modeling of Springbrook Creek to estimate peak flows and water surface elevations during extreme rainfall events. This modeling projects a 100-year flood elevation at our site of 16.9, which is 2.7 feet lower than the FEMA elevation of 19.6 (NAVD 88). We understand the City's model results have compared favorably with field observations and that a FEMA letter of map revision will soon be applied for by the City. Based on the above, we request an administrative revision that allows this project to use the 100-year storage elevation generated by the City's model for determining the volume of compensatory storage required. We appreciate your consideration of the above. Sincerely, Tom Jones Project Engineer MAV:cjs cc: Mark Miller, Mark Miller Consultants Mark Veldee, KPFF ( 65700 V Seattle Portland San Francisco Los Angeles Phoenix San Diego Cairo WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Project:East Side Green River Office of the City Clerk Renton Municipal Building AGREEMENT AND EASEMENT water shed Project 200 Mill Avenue South FOR DRAINAGE CHANNEL Work Order#65230 Renton,WA 98055 PID: 242304901 15 .Grantor:Winmar-Metro.Inc STR: Sec 24,T23N,R4E Street Intersection: 19th Street and 7 Raymond Avenue p THIS INSTRUMENT, made this day of 19 by and between Winmar-Metro, Inc.,hereinafter called "Grantor," and the CITY OF RENTON,a Municipal Corporation of King County, Washington, hereinafter called "Grantee." That said Grantor(s), for and in consideration of ten dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by said Grantor, do by these presents, grant, bargain, sell, convey, and warrants unto the said Grantee, its successors and assigns, an easement for drainage with necessary appurtenances over, under, through, across and upon the following described property (the easement area) in King County, Washington, more particularly described as follows: See attached EXHIBIT A for legal description For the purpose of installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, removing, repairing, replacing, and using a drainage channel, together with the nonexclusive right of ingress and egress thereto without prior institution of any suit or proceedings of law. Following the initial construction of its facilities, Grantee may from time to time construct such additional facilities as it may require. This easement is granted subject to the following terms and conditions: l. The Grantee shall, upon completion of any work within the property covered by the easement, restore the surface of the easement, and any private improvements disturbed or destroyed during execution of the work, as nearly as practicable to the condition they were in immediately before commencement of the work or entry by the Grantee. All restoration shall be performed as soon as reasonably possible following completion of any work and shall be coordinated in advance with Grantor so as to cause the minimum amount of disruption to the use of and operation of Grantor's property of which the easement area is a part. 2. Grantor shall retain the right to use the surface of the easement as long as such use does not interfere with the easement rights granted to the Grantee. Grantor shall not,however, have the right to: a. Erect or maintain any buildings, utilities, structures, and related appurtenances within the easement except the following: 1) Grantor may install a vehicular bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances as needed to provide access and utility service across the creek for the Grantor's property. The design and construction of the bridge, approach roadway, and related appurtenances are subject to City and other governmental agency permit and code requirements. 2) Grantor may install storm water outfall culverts to the creek across the easement. Culvert design and construction are subject to City and other governmental agency permit and code requirements. b. Develop, landscape, or beautify the easement area in any way which would unreasonably increase the costs to the Grantee of restoring the easement area and any private improvements therein. 3. The City agrees to provide and construct any compensatory storage volume required for filling in the floodplain caused by the Raymond Center West proposal(City File No. LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF). H:DOCS:workl Ib:SW:ps Agreement and Easement INITIAL Sheet 1 of 5 PROPERTY SERVICES This easement shall run with the land described herein,and shall be binding upon the parties,their heirs, successors in interest and assigns. Grantors covenant that they are the lawful owners of the above properties and that they have a good and lawful right to execute this agreement. V( r 0I �� 7 Signatures of Grantor: ') and J u and ; STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she/they was/were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of to be the free and voluntary act of such party/parties for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated Notary Public in and for the State of Washington residing at Notary(print): My appointment expires: Approved as to Legal Form: CITY OF RENTON BY: BY Lawrence J. Warren, Jesse Tanner City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: BY Marilyn J. Petersen City Clerk H:DOCS:workI Ib:SW:ps Agreement and Easement INITIAL. Sheet 2 of 5 PROPERTY SERVICES EXHIBIT A Easement Area: LEGAL DESCRI 1,PTION `-' L � LI That portion of Lot 1 of City of Renton Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA-95-064 (King County Recording No. 9508039005) in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 1 and the true point of beginning; thence along the east line of said Lot I the following courses: N 37000'42" W 4.90 feet; thence N 55°28'15" W 77.73 feet; thence N 52°24'00" W 186.51 feet; thence N 54°03'57" W 286.58 feet; thence N 35011'09" W 148.78 feet; thence N 23°44'21" W 85.39 feet to a curve concave to the east having a radius of 75.78 feet; thence northerly along said curve through a central angle of 59°07'34" an arc distance of 78.20 feet; thence leaving said curve on a non-tangent bearing N 50°08'30" E 114.42 feet; thence N 51°45'16" E 72.30 feet; thence N 59°39'11" E 96.54 feet to a curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 114.57 feet; thence northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 45050'57" an arc distance of 91.68 feet; thence N 13°48'14" E 114.90 feet to a curve concave to the west having a radius of 294.26 feet; thence northerly along said curve through a central angle of 36°45'26" an arc distance of 188.78 feet; thence leaving said curve on a non-tangent bearing N 23°47'30" W 102.20 feet; thence N 28°32'10" W 64.18 feet; thence N 20°51'33" W 61.80 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence leaving said east line of said Lot 1 N 87°26'45"W along the north line of said Lot 143.59 feet; thence leaving said north line S 20°51'33" E 81.81 feet; thence S 28°32'10" E 65.21 feet; thence S 23°47'30" E 99.96 feet to a point on a curve concave to the west, said curve being non-tangent to the preceeding course and having a radius of 254.26 feet,the center of which bears S 67°02'48" W; thence southerly along said curve through a central angle of 36°45'26" an arc distance of 163.12 feet; thence S 13°48'14"W 114.90 feet to a curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 74.57 feet; thence southwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 45°50'57" an arc distance of 59.67 feet; thence S 59'39'11"W 99.30 feet; thence S 51°45'16" W 75.62 feet; thence S 50°08'30" W 119.58 feet to a point on a curve concave to the east, said curve being non-tangent to the preceeding course and having a radius of 115.78 feet,the center of which bears S 51°46'22" E; thence southerly along said curve through a central angle of 61°57'59" an arc distance of 125.22 feet; thence S 23°44'21" E 89.40 feet; thence S 35011'09" E 159.44 feet; thence S 54°03'57" E 292.65 feet; thence S 52°24'00" E 187.00 feet; thence S 55028'15" E 21.55 feet to the south line of said Lot 1; thence S 87'18'57" E along said south line 72.87 feet to the true point of beginning. Contains 70,622 square feet of land, more or less. H:DOCS:workI Ib:SW:ps Agreement and Easement INITIAL Sheet 3 of 5 PROPERTY SERVICES EXHIBIT A CONTINUED MAP EXHIBIT za \ 10 r-, 26 *AO 9f r 7 / 8 27 7 See Line and Curve Tables on Following Sheet 6 28 \\ \5 29 �\ \ \ 4 1"=100' 100 \ IN FEET ) 31 \�2 32' 33�, - Southeast Corner of Lot 1 H:DOCS:workl Ib:SW:ps Agreement and Easement Sheet 4 of 5 FX£NA4�l.- V..-1650251RA YH£ST.ONG^T PROPERTY SERVICES EXHIBIT A CONTINUED MAP EXHIBIT L Northeast Corner of Lot 1 17 \ Line Table 18 \16 r # Bearing Dist.(ft) 1 N 37°00'42"W 4.90 \15 2 N 55*28'15"W 77.73 �\ 19 .� 3 N 52°24'00"W 186.51 4 N 54103'57"W 286.58 5 N 35*11'09"W 148.78 14 6 N 23°44'21"W 85.39 20 8 N 50'08'30"E 114.42 9 N 51*45'16"E 72.30 10 N 59'39'11"E 96.54 12 N 13°48'14"E 114.90 14 N 23°47'30"W 102.20 15 N 28°32'10"W 64.18 I 16 N 20*51'33"W 61.80 Curve Table 21 i 13 17 N 87°26'45"W 43.59 ! 18 S 20*51'33"E 81.81 lD# Radius(ft) Central Angle Are Length 19 S 28°32'10"E 65.21 7 75.78 59°07'34" 78.20 20 S 23°47'30"E 99.96 11 114.57 45°50'57" 91.68 22 S 13°48'14"W 114.90 13 294.26 36°45'26" 188.78 24 S 59'39'11"W 99.30 2l 254.26 36°45'26" 163.12 t � 25 S 51*45'16"W 75.62 23 74.57 45°50'57" 59.67 // t 26 S 50°08'30"W 119.58 27 115.78 61°57'59" 125.22 22 1 i 28 S 23°44'21"E 89.40 12 t i 29 S 35*11'09"E 159.44 it it 30 S 54°03'57"E 292.65 { ;' 31 S 52-24'00"E 187.00 23/i t 32 S 55°28'15"E 21.55 33 S 87°18'57"E 72.87 /11 24 25 14 26 j 9 1"=100' � F ( II\ FEET H:DOCS:work I 1 b:S W:ps Agreement and Easement INITInt Sheet 5 of 5 fXFMAME. 141650251RAYNE5rD*V^r PROPERTY SERVICES �y k CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator Post-it"Fax Note 7671 Date To em,O,E From MARk October 23, 1996 Co./Dept. y,'C� �,.v1� % co. �, f Phone# Phone# 1-) 7 _ S 5 4/y Mark Miller Fax# Fax# / Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. 4 10801 Main ST- STE 100 Bellevue,WA 98004 SUBJECT: RAYMOND CENTER WEST(CITY FILE NO. LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF) COMPENSATORY FLOODPLAIN STORAGE Dear Mr. Miller: I received the attached letter from Tom Jones of KPFF dated August 23, 1996, requesting that the City allow the Raymond Center West project to use the City's hydraulic model of Springbrook Creek for determining the volume of compensatory storage required, rather than the FEMA 100- year flood elevation. I am addressing my response directly to you in your capacity as agent for the owner of the project site so that you and the owner will have this letter prior to the site plan review hearing scheduled for October 29, 1996. Upon review of the request, I have decided not to allow use of the City's model for determining the compensatory storage requirement. It has been City policy to use FEMA floodplain elevations in determining compensatory storage. In fact, in just the past two years, several development projects were required to provide compensatory storage using FEMA elevations, such as the 16th Street Technical Center, Springbrook Industrial Center, and Allpak developments. According to calculations by KPFF using FEMA floodplain elevations, approximately 92,000 cubic feet of compensatory floodplain storage would have to be provided by the Raymond Center West project. From review of the preliminary site plans, it appears that this volume of flood storage could easily be excavated within the 50-foot setback area along the east boundary of the site without encroaching into the code required 25-foot stream buffer, which is measured from the ordinary high water mark of the creek. While the Raymond Center West project could construct its compensatory storage within the 50- foot setback, the City has plans, as you know, to acquire rights to use the 50-foot setback along Springbrook Creek for a future channel widening project. A draft environmental impact statement for the proposed channel widening project is scheduled for issuance next month for public comment under the title of the East Side Green River Watershed Project (City File LUA-95-205,ECF). Obtaining rights for the channel widening depends upon the granting of a drainage easement (or deed) over the 50-foot setback area from the owner of the Raymond Center West site. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 eThis paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer l cON I.JRRE V Gr- DATE October 23, 1996 Mark Miller )�� �P�L/G�� Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. 10801 Main ST- STE 100 ?rkVA7 Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT: RAYMOND CENTER WEST(CITY FILE NO.LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF) COMPENSATORY FLOODPLAIN STORAGE a �! Dear Mr. Miller: I 1 received the attached letter from Tom Jones of KPFF dated AugusC23, 1996, requesting that the City allow the Raymond Center West project to use the City's byic model of Springbrook Creek for determining the volume of compensatory storage requireher than the FEMA 100- year flood elevation. I am addressing my response directly to you has agent for the owner of the project site so that you and the owner will have this letter prior to the site plan review hearing scheduled for October 29, 1996. Upon review of the request, I have decided not to allow use of the City's model for determining the compensatory storage requirement. It has been City policy to use FEMA floodplain elevations in determining compensatory storage. In fact, in just the past two years, several development projects were required to provide compensatory storage using FEMA elevations, such as the 16th Street Technical Center, Springbrook Industrial Center, and Allpak developments. According to calculations by KPFF using FEMA floodplain elevations, approximately 92,000 cubic feet of compensatory floodplain storage would have to be provided by the Raymond Center West project. From review of the preliminary site plans, it appears that this volume of flood storage could easily be excavated within the 50-foot setback area along the east boundary of the site without encroaching into the code required 25-foot stream buffer, which is measured from the ordinary high water mark of the creek. While the Raymond Center West project could construct its compensatory storage within the 50- foot setback, the City has plans, as you know, to acquire rights to use the 50-foot setback along Springbrook Creek for a future channel widening project. A draft environmental impact statement for the proposed channel widening project is scheduled for issuance next month for public comment under the title of the East Side Green River Watershed Project (City File LUA- 95-205,ECF). Obtaining rights for the channel widening depends upon the granting of a drainage easement (or deed) over the 50-foot setback area from the owner of the Raymond Center West site. Mark Miller Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. Raymond Center West Compensatory Floodplain Storage Page 2 Because the City needs the drainage easement for the channel widening project and because widening of the channel would create a significant amount of floodplain storage within the 50- foot setback area, I propose that the City agree to provide the compensatory storage for the Raymond Center West project in exchange for the granting of a drainage channel easement over the 50-foot setback area to the City. Such an agreement would of course require City Council approval. A draft drainage channel easement agreement is enclosed whereby the City would agree to provide the compensatory storage for the Raymond Center West project. The easement would benefit the City by enabling the channel to be widened. Construction of the channel widening is currently scheduled for the summer of 1998, depending upon whether funding for construction is available from the project's federal sponsor, the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The easement agreement would directly benefit the Raymond Center West project by transferring the compensatory storage responsibility to the City. Widening of the channel would also provide additional flood protection to the Raymond Center West site and reduce current flooding pro lems ' e valley area streets that serve the project site. ALd 1,' I appreciate the owner's consideration of this proposal. If you have any questions, please contact Xe at(206)277-6211. Sincerely, Gregg Zimmerman, P.E., Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department H:DOCS:96-715:5 W:ps Attachment CC: Project File Ron Olsen Ron Straka Scott Woodbury Jennifer Henning Tom Jones/Mark Veldee,KPFF CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: October 18, 1996 TO: Jennifer Henning FROM: Scott Woodburys6) SUBJECT: LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF RAYMOND CENTER WEST ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON SEPA APPLICATION Following are comments to the above-referenced application that are in addition to my comments to you in my earlier September 17 memo. 1. The location of the bridge abutments most likely will need to be shifted east from the location shown in the application plans. Just how far east will be determined during design plan review. 2. I overlooked a note that the applicant had put on sheet 3 of the application plans (bridge general plan and elevation). Note 3 states the following: "It is assumed that the future East Side Green River Watershed Project will provide armoring, revegetation and retaining structures as required by excavation at the bridge structure." I agree with the assumption regarding armoring and revegetation. However, we will be looking to the applicant to providing a bridge structure that accommodates our future project in all aspects, including retaining walls. If you have any questions, please contact me at X-5547. U:1996:96-02 1 a:S W cc: Ron Straka f CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 17, 1996 TO: Jennifer Henning FROM: Scott Woodbury SUBJECT: LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF RAYMOND CENTER WEST COMMENTS ON MASTER APPLICATION Following are my comments to the above-referenced application: 1. The checklist in Section B.3.a.5 states that there is no floodplain on the project site. The FEMA maps do show floodplain on the site, but I assume site grades are such now that there is not any floodplain on the site. A simple no statement does not clarify why there is not any floodplain on the site when FEMA clearly shows there is. Building finish floor elevations are required to be constructed 1-foot above the FEMA 100-year floodplain elevation. Compensatory storage is required for filling of the 100-year floodplain. In an August 23, 1996, letter included with the preliminary drainage report, the applicant's engineer has requested administrative approval to allow the use of the City's modeling results for determining the volume of compensatory storage, rather than using FEMA elevations (the City's modeled 100-year elevation is 2.7 feet lower than FEMA). 2. Section B.12.c states that the applicant proposes to extend trail from the north property line. However, the plans do not show any trail. I cannot perform a review without plans detailing the trail's location and relationship to the creek and the proposed bridge(see last bullet of Item 8). 3. The Surface Water Utility wishes to obtain an easement from the owner over a 50-foot strip of land along the east boundary of the site. This should be noted in the ERC report and determination. The applicant should have also referenced the East Side Green River Watershed Project (ESGRWP) plans to widen the creek along the site in Section A.8 and A.9 of the checklist. The ERC issued a DS for the ESGRWP in January 1996, scoping for the EIS was completed in April 1996, and a preliminary draft EIS has been prepared. The public review draft is pending issuance in October 1996. 4. Section B.3.c.1 indicates that runoff would be discharged into a City (?) drainage ditch (stream?) at the north (east?) edge of the site. This conflicts with what was stated in Section B.3.b.2, which notes that drainage will be into Springbrook Creek. Also, the plans do not show a separate system for roof drainage into the wetlands on the east as Section B.3.c.1 states. There are not any wetlands to the east of the proposed improvements. Even roof drainage must be Jennifer Henning Comments to Raymond Center West Application Page 2 detained, unless the applicant intends to use the wetlands to the south for peak rate runoff control. Depending upon where the outfall to the wetland is located in relation to the topography of the wetland, the runoff may "short circuit" and drain quickly to the creek with little, if any attenuation. 5. It is my understanding that Section B.8.f incorrectly states the comprehensive plan designation as industrial. The current designation is Employment Area- Valley. 6. Section 12.a states incorrectly there are no informal recreation opportunities. Aside from an estimated 200 foot long section across City property between SW 23rd Street and SW 24th Street, providing a trail along the creek for the entire frontage of the Winmar site would provide a continuous trail along Springbrook Creek from SW 27th Street to SW 7th Street. 7. The maintenance access road on the Grading, Drainage, and Utility plan will need to be coordinated with the recreational trail. 8. On more of an engineering plans review level, I have the following comments. I leave it up to you, Jennifer, in determining if these are pertinent to the SEPA review. • There needs to be an emergency overflow on pond 1. This should be to the south into the existing ditch. • The condition of the existing 36" culvert between ponds 1 and 2 that the maintenance road crosses over should be assessed. If the culvert is in poor condition, I suggest that the culvert be replaced when the maintenance road is constructed (we and the applicant wouldn't want the culvert collapsing after the project is built). Although replacement of this culvert is not discussed in the applicant's checklist, it is my understanding that replacement of the culvert would be exempt from SEPA. Therefore, separate SEPA review would not be necessary should the applicant decide later to do the replacement. Only a State Fish and Wildlife permit may be required. If the SEPA exemption does not apply, then I think possible replacement of the culvert should be added to the project description and checklist. This may require some sections of the checklist be amended to recognize there may be need for temporary diversion of flows and dewatering operations. • We will need to coordinate with the applicant on potentially extending the depth of the bridge abutments further below grade to allow for the future widening of the channel. • We will be involving our federal sponsor for the ESGRWP, NRCS, in the review of the hydraulic impact analysis report included in appendix C of the drainage report. The applicant should already be coordinating directly with Drainage District No. 1. The hydraulic analysis assumed the ESGRWP alternative 2 future channel section, which would have greater conveyance area through the structure than the alternative 3 future channel section. Depending upon NRCS review,we may wish to also request the applicant to model the alternative 3 configuration to determine the hydraulic impact of the proposed structure on that alternative. Jennifer Henning Comments to Raymond Center West Application Page 3 If the applicant proposes to route the recreational trail under the bridge, then the applicant would need to perform the engineering and analysis necessary to determine the elevation and design of the trail under and approaching the bridge. The City would need to define the criteria to be used in the analysis and design, i.e., allowable headloss across the structure, typical trail sections, maximum allowable trail grade, etc. Hydraulic analysis would be needed to model the hydraulic effect of the trail, with the results of the analysis documented in a report. In summary, we will work with the applicant as expeditiously as possible to provide a final approval of the proposed bridge span. However, the applicant should be advised that we must coordinate with NRCS, and possibly other agencies, which can take time. Therefore, we suggest that the applicant be advised to not proceed with final design of the bridge until the hydraulic and recreational trail issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of the City, NRCS, Drainage District No. 1, and any other interested agency. If you have any questions, please contact me at X-5547. U:1996:96-021:S W cc: Ron Straka Clint Morgan t in isA northwest hydraulic consultants c. sacramento 16300 christensen road,suite 350 vancouver -- tukwila,washington 98188-3418 edmonton rPc ;E fTl E (206)241- 0-phone -_----- i--- (206)439-2422420-fax seattle August 20, 1996 -- KPFF Consulting Engineers -—=L-- Attn: Mr. Tom Jones _ I 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 900 ----- Seattle, WA 98101 RE: HEC-2 modeling of proposed Springbrook Creek road crossing for Winmar project. Dear Mr. Jones: Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC) has completed its hydraulic impact analysis of the proposed road crossing over Springbrook Creek for the Winmar development. You had retained us to determine, using the HEC-2 backwater model program, the potential water level increases due to constructing a bridge over Springbrook Creek. The proposed bridge site is in south Renton, Washington,just upstream of SW 19th Street (extended). We are pleased to summarize herein our analysis and present our results. Baseline Modeling (no bridge) Using an existing HEC-2 model developed by NHC for the City of Renton, we ran the following baseline scenarios: • Existing channel topography, future land-use 100-yr discharge, and no Winmar bridge crossing; • Alternative 2 channel improvement proposed under the East Side Green River Watershed Project (ESGRWP), future land-use 100-yr discharge, and no Winmar bridge crossing. The proposed channel widening improvements under the ESGRWP extend from SW 16th Street to about SW 23rd Street, which includes the reach through the Winmar project. The existing condition HEC-2 model had already been modified by HNTB Corporation to reflect the Alternative 2 channel improvements. We utilized their baseline model to simulate this condition. The discharges used for the respective baseline model runs were taken from Table 1 of a letter dated February 2, 1996, from Scott Woodbury of the City of Renton to Tim Puryear of the Winmar Company. The following table presents these flows, extending from the Black River Pump Station (BRPS) upstream through the channel improvement reach (to SW 23rd). These RIVER ENGINEERING HYDRAULIC MODEL TESTING HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN COASTAL ENGINEERING HYDROLOGY SEDIMENTATION ENGINEERING NUMERICAL MODELING APPLIED RESEARCH FORENSIC ENGINEERING Tom Jones 2 August 20, 1996 flows represent the ESGRWP conveyance event, which assumes no pumping restrictions at the BRPS. The table also compares water surface elevations from the ESGRWP (using the FEQ unsteady model) to the water surface elevations we computed with the baseline HEC-2 models described above. The HEC-2 model results are shown to compare reasonably well to the FEQ results from the ESGRWP. Existing channel, future 100-yr Alt. 2 channel, future 100-yr flow: flow: ESGRWP HEC-2 ESGRWP HEC-2 Location/ Flow water water Flow water water description (cfs) level (ft) level (ft) (cfs) level (ft) level (ft) BRPS inflow 1223 4.7 4.7 1747 5.4 5.4 Grady Way u/s 1110 7.6 7.6 1498 8.8 8.7 SW 16th u/s 1106 8.2 8.0 1488 9.1 9.1 SW 19th extend 1088 11.6 11.9 1441 11.0 10.5 SW 23rd extend 989 12.6 13.3 1344 11.9 11.7 The existing HEC-2 model, as well as the ESGRWP, reference elevations to the NGVD 1929 datum. Therefore, all results herein (including the above table) are referenced to this datum. To convert to the NAVD 1988 datum, one should add 3.57 feet to these elevations. With-bridge Modeling The baseline HEC-2 models were modified to reflect the proposed bridge crossing over Springbrook Creek, resulting in the following baseline scenarios: us • Existing channel topography, future land-use 100-yr discharge, and Winmar bridge alternative 4 (from KPFF); • Alternative 2 channel improvement proposed under the East Side Green River Watershed Project, future land-use 100-yr discharge, and Winmar bridge alternative 4. The respective "with-bridge" models were run using the same discharges as used for the baseline conditions (see above table). Winmar bridge alternative 4a consists of a clear-span bridge, 72 ft long between abutments and 37 ft wide. The proposed bridge deck is 3 ft above the approximate water surface of the 100-yr storage event (assumes BRPS pumping restrictions), as per City of Renton clearance northwest hydraulic consultants inc. Tom Jones ; Augu st 20, 1996 requirements. For the 100-yr conveyance event, the abutments of the proposed structure may encroach somewhat into the channel. Please find attached a cross-section plot from the HEC-2 model, showing the Winmar bridge crossing over the proposed ESGRWP alternative 2 flood control channel. Results For each of the respective channel conditions (existing and ESGRWP improvement), the baseline results were compared to the results with the proposed Winmar bridge. We also investigated the potential further impacts due to shortening the bridge span by 6, 12, and 18 ft (i.e. moving the abutments in towards the channel). The following table summarizes the impacts due to the bridge, in terms of upstream water level increases (given in feet). Existing channel, future 100-yr Alt. 2 channel, future 100-yr flow.- flow: Bridge alternative Just u/s of At u/s Winmar Just u/s of At u/s Winmar (span length) proposed bridge property line proposed bridge property line Bridge 4a (72 ft) 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 Bridge 4b (66 ft) 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 Bridge 4c (60 ft) 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.04 FBridge 4d (54 ft) 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.06 The results show that the primary bridge design (bridge alternative 4a) will have minimal impact on Springbrook Creek 100-yr conveyance event water levels. The computed results from HEC-2 indicate the water surface elevation just upstream of the bridge would increase from 12.26 ft to 12.27 ft (NGVD 1929), given the existing channel. At the upstream property line, there is no impact shown. For the proposed ESGRWP alternative 2 channel widening, the abutments cause a minor increase in water level, from 10.74 ft to 10.75 ft at the bridge. Shorter bridge lengths (bridges 4b through 4d) result in measurable, although still small, increases in water level. Conclusions The analysis described herein indicates the proposed Winmar bridge design (alternative 4a) would have negligible hydraulic impact on water levels in Springbrook Creek, given both the existing channel and the ESGRWP improved channel geometry. Furthermore, the proposed clear-span bridge design calls for no piers; therefore local pier scour does not need to be investigated. Unnrthwact hwirniilin nnnciiltnntc inn Tom Jones 4 August 20, 1996 The input and output files for the HEC-2 models are included on the enclosed diskette. Please call me should you have any questions. I look forward to working with you again soon. Yours very truly, NORTHWEST HYDRAULIC CONSULTANTS Robert C. Elliot, P.E. i northwest hydraulic consultants inc. EE E C Springbrook Futr Brdge4a r Cross —section 7755 . 000 30 r. rn (V 2 5 > Z Bridge Deck 4� 20 v C O . 15 i---------------------------------i cD > I , � � I W j I 10 ` I 10.75 5 Proposed ESGRWP Channel 0 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 Distance (feet) APP 25 19G 11!15 Md HYDRAULIC 421 Pool northwest hydraulic consultants inc. 16300 Christensen Road Suite 350 Tukwila, WA 98188-3418 206-241-6000 phone * 206-439-2420 fax FAX MESSAGE Date: ,i A From To: S Company: C-M 'f, ReA;' Fax #: 23.E —25-4- 1 City: Y4v,-E;,, c,,)A Pages to Follow- I Original in Mail: Please call immediately if you do not receive all pages of thi.s trnnsmissinn_ OFF- V.""A.�? OK ��, _ K1Vt'1(1 NQINteR@Iii/HYDRAULIC MODeL TESTINO/HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AND D'E TCN 1 COASTAL PSIdQ�EEIIII'10 HYDROLOGY/SEDNENTATION ENGNEERING I NUMERICAL MODEUNU/APPLLF-V XI!Z?AKI:Yi I iORENSIC EN-324EER NG kE AR -70 Ai-. 4 In A-1441 A ff, 4 Aff 4 A 4 ff 4c 4M, ose J 6 0A2 0.03 0,0(!� s O. ro 0.,057 (f). 0,0/ 0,09 DI CD Jk e- 0102 i o,Oet 0,06 fu -7 r4 Ae- LvdR-F- 1 etJ L-6 010/ -17L e bmc�2 4 oz i _o ' CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) *REVISED MITIGATION MEASURE #2; 10/08/96 APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF APPLICANT: Winmar-Metro, Inc. (Mr. Mark Miller) PROJECT NAME: Raymond Avenue Center West DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant proposes to develop the site with a building of approximately 124,300 s.f., parking for 174 cars, and dock-high service for 36 trucks. The site is located on the west side of Springbrook Creek and requires a shoreline substantial development permit, environmental review, and site plan approval. Access would be from Raymond Avenue SW via a new bridge crossing over Springbrook Creek. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1901 Raymond Avenue SW LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. The 15 day comment period and the 14 day appeal period for this project will run concurrently. The comment/appeal periods for this project will end at 5:00 p.m. on October 26, 1996. Appeal procedures and the mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on October 29, 1996 at 9:00 AM to consider the Site Approval (SA). If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. PUBLICATION DATE: October 11, 1996 DATE OF DECISION: October 08, 1996 (Revised Mitigation Measure#2) SIGNATURES: At G &Z Greg Zim r an, Adffiihistrafor DATE Departmen o Pla Ing/Building/Public Works o Sam Chast ' , A m nis rator DATE Community ervice Department Lee h eler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department DNSMSIG.DOC CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES *REVISED 10/08/96 (MIT. MEASURE #2) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF APPLICANT: Winmar-Metro, Inc. (Mr. Mark Miller) PROJECT NAME: Raymond Avenue Center West DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant proposes to develop the site with a building of approximately 124,300 s.f., parking for 174 cars,and dock-high service for 36 trucks. The site is located on the west side of Springbrook Creek and requires a shoreline substantial development permit, environmental review, and site plan approval. Access would be from Raymond Avenue SW via a new bridge crossing over Springbrook Creek. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1901 Raymond Avenue SW MITIGATIONMEASURES: 1. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$0.52 per square foot of new construction. This fee is payable prior to the issuance of the Building Permit. 2. The applicant/owner shall secure the necessary easements from Drainage District No. I and from adjacent property owners in order to construct primary access across Springbrook Creek and secondary emergency access on the adjacent property to the west. Copies of the recorded easements shall be provided to the City of Renton Development Services Division prior to the commencement of construction activity. Both primary and secondary access must be engineered and constructed to meet Fire Department standards. The secondary emergency access route must be constructed prior to the start of overall site contruction. 3. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee at a rate of $75 for each new average daily trip attributable to the project. The fee will be based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Manual and traffic studies conducted by the applicant (if appropriate) and is payable prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 4. The applicant/owner shall be responsible for the widening of an 325-foot unimproved section of SW 19th Street between Raymond Avenue SW and Lind Avenue SW to a width of 25 feet. This measure will be required if traffic studies presently being conducted by the City yield results that warrant improvement of SW 19th Street in the specified area. 5. The applicant/owner will be required to provide a portion of the Springbrook Creek Trail to be open for public use along the entire length of the property adjacent to Springbrook Creek. The location and design of the trail must accommodate a connection with the existing portion of Springbrook Creek Trail to the north. Location of the trail and specifications for development shall be coordinated between Parks Department and the applicant/owner. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF APPLICANT: Winmar-Metro, Inc. (Mr. Mark Miller) PROJECT NAME: Raymond Avenue Center West DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant proposes to develop the site with a building of approximately 124,300 s.f., parking for 174 cars, and dock-high service for 36 trucks. The site is located on the west side of Springbrook Creek and requires a shoreline substantial development permit, environmental review, and site plan approval. Access would be from Raymond Avenue SW via a new bridge crossing over Springbrook Creek. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1901 Raymond Avenue SW LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. The 15 day comment period and the 14 day appeal period for this project will run concurrently. The comment/appeal periods for this project will end at 5:00 p.m. on October 22, 1996. Appeal procedures and the mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on October 29, 1996 at 9:00 AM to consider the Site Approval (SA). If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. PUBLICATION DATE: October 07, 1996 DATE OF DECISION: October 01, 1996 SIGNATURES: Aeqq �O 6 Gregg ZP/nermarf, Administrator DATE Department of anning/Building/Public Works / C Sam Chastain, A ministrator DATE Community Service Department L e Wheeler, Fire Chief DATE Renton Fire Department DNSMSIG.DOC CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF APPLICANT: Winmar-Metro, Inc. (Mr. Mark Miller) PROJECT NAME: Raymond Avenue Center West DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant proposes to develop the site with a building of approximately 124,300 s.f.,parking for 174 cars, and dock-high service for 36 trucks. The site is located on the west side of Springbrook Creek and requires a shoreline substantial development permit, environmental review, and site plan approval. Access would be from Raymond Avenue SW via a new bridge crossing over Springbrook Creek. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1901 Raymond Avenue SW MITIGATIONMEASURES. 1. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$0.52 per square foot of new construction. This fee is payable prior to the issuance of the Building Permit. 2. The applicant/owner shall secure the necessary easements from Drainage District No. 1 and from adjacent property owners in order to construct primary access across Springbrook Creek and secondary emergency access on the adjacent property to the west. Copies of the recorded easements shall be provided to the City of Renton Development Services Division prior to the commencement of construction activity. Both primary and secondary access must be engineered and constructed to meet Fire Department standards. The primary and secondary emergency access routes must be constructed prior to the start of overall site construction. 3. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee at a rate of $75 for each new average daily trip attributable to the project. The fee will be based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Manual and traffic studies conducted by the applicant (if appropriate) and is payable prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 4. The applicant/owner shall be responsible for the widening of an 325-foot unimproved section of SW 19th Street between Raymond Avenue SW and Lind Avenue SW to a width of 25 feet. This measure will be required if traffic studies presently being conducted by the City yield results that warrant improvement of SW 19th Street in the specified area. 5. The applicant/owner will be required to provide a portion of the Springbrook Creek Trail to be open for public use along the entire length of the property adjacent to Springbrook Creek. The location and design of the trail must accommodate a connection with the existing portion of Springbrook Creek Trail to the north. Location of the trail and specifications for development shall be coordinated between Parks Department and the applicant/owner. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF APPLICANT: Winmar-Metro, Inc. (Mr. Mark Miller) PROJECT NAME: Raymond Avenue Center West DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Applicant proposes to develop the site with a building of approximately 124,300 s.f.,parking for 174 cars,and dock-high service for 36 trucks. The site is located on the west side of Springbrook Creek and requires a shoreline substantial development permit, environmental review, and site plan approval. Access would be from Raymond Avenue SW via a new bridge crossing over Springbrook Creek. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1901 Raymond Avenue SW ADVISORYNOTES: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. General 1. The applicant/owner shall comply with all applicable City, state, county, federal and other jurisdictional regulations, codes and policies governing the project and site. 2. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will requires separate submittals prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, according to City of Renton Drafting Standards. Permit application must include an itemized cost 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. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. 3. The applicant is required to obtain a construction permit in order to accomplish site work and installation of site improvements. Police Services 4. Police calls for annual service are estimated at 64.27 based on the size of the proposed building. The building will need exterior lighting for security to help prevent theft and burglary. All doors should have heavy-duty dead-bolt locks, and auxiliary locking devices. Raymond Avenue Center West LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF Advisory Notes(Continued) Police Services (Continued) 4. (Continued) During construction,temporary fencing surrounding the site should be used for both a physical and psychological barrier to thieves. Security lighting is also recommended. All building materials, tools and equipment should be kept locked up when not in use, to help prevent theft. If a portable office trailer is using during construction, it will need bars over any windows, extra locks, an alarm if possible, and all tools and machinery will need model and serial numbers recorded in the event of theft. The applicant is advised to contact Renton Police to discuss site security during and after construction. Fire Prevention 5. Preliminary fire flow required is 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm). Four (4) fire hydrants are required, one (1) within 150-feet of the proposed structure and three (3) fire hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. A looped water main is required to be installed around the building. 6. An approved fire sprinkler system and fire alarm system will be required to be installed throughout the structure. 7. An approved secondary access roadway is required for Fire Department apparatus. The roadway must be a minimum of 20 feet paved and capable of supporting Fire Department apparatus (minimum weight of 20 tons). 8. The proposed bridge crossing over Springbrook Creek must be capable of a minimum load of 20 tons for Fire Department apparatus. Utilities --Water 9. A preliminary review indicates that the looped water line shall be 10-inch or 12-inch. A 16-inch line is needed across the bridge to a 12-inch line as shown on the Utility sheet of the project drawings. 10. A 15-foot utility easement is required around the building showing center line stationing and the utility off-set from center line. The easement should be shown on the site plan drawing prior to the public hearing. 11. A back-flow prevention device is required for the fire sprinkler system and the irrigation system. This will need to be shown on the civil drawings. In addition, the detail sheets of the construction drawings need to show all gate valve, typical City domestic service meter installation and all required blocking. 12. A System Development Connection Charge of$0.113 per gross square feet of the site is required. Raymond Avenue Center West LUA-96-104,S A,S M,E CF Advisory Notes(Continued) Utilities -- Waste Water 13. A System Development Connection Charge of $0.078 per square foot of gross area of site is required. 14. The construction drawings should note that if a fire sprinkler system is installed, the floor drains are to be conveyed to the sanitary sewer system. 15. The applicant's engineer must confirm in written documentation for the file, that the proposed location of the force flow pump station location is situated such that it will not overflow into Springbrook Creek, or be affected by creek flooding. The system must have an alarm connect to a 24-hour auto dialer to a responsible party. The control panel is to have an hour meter. Construction drawing submittals shall include floats, check valves, gate valves and the 24-hour alarm notification. 16. The force main is to be embedded or tucked up into the bridge crossing so it cannot be impacted by floating debris in Springbrook Creek. 17. The minimum pipe cover for sewer pipes is two (2) feet. Utilities -- Storm Drainage 18. The Special Utility Connection Charge for storm drainage is $0.129 per square foot of new impervious surface. 19. Submittal construction drawings for the storm system is required. Vertical profile, stationing and any utility crossings need to be shown on the construction drawings. 20. The City is considering the widening of the Springbrook Creek channel. The City will discuss with the applicant the need to obtain a 50-foot channel easement for channel widening and to accommodate the channel slope. 21. An emergency overflow is needed for Pond #1. This should be located to the south into the existing ditch. 22. The existing condition of the 36-inch culvert located between Ponds # 1 and#2 should be assessed. This is the culvert that the maintenance road crosses over. If the culvert is in poor condition, it should be replaced when the maintenance road is constructed. 23. The applicant shall coordinate with the City on potentially extending the depth of the bridge abutments further below grade to allow for the future widening of the creek channel. 24. The applicant is responsible for negotiating an easement from Drainage District No. 1 in order to cross Springbrook Creek with the proposed bridge (per Mitigation Measure No. 2). 25. The project site is located within the 100-year flood plain according to FEMA maps. Compensatory storage is required for development on sites within the flood plain. The applicant has requested to use the 100-year storage elevation generated by the City's hydraulic modeling of Springbrook Creek in order to determine the volume of compensatory storage required in lieu of using the FEMA maps to calculate the amount. A decision on the applicant's request is pending. . Raymond Avenue Center West LUA-96-104,SA,SM,ECF Advisory Notes(Continued) Site Design 26. Garbage and recyclable deposit areas and collection points shall be easily and safely accessible to hauling trucks. 27. The applicant is subject to the landscaping requirements for the Green River Valley, whereby an additional 2%of the site must be retained as natural landscaping to provide for wildlife habitat per the City's agreement with Soil Conservation Service. Recreation 28. On-site recreation serving site employees will be required as a condition of site plan approval and needs to be shown on the Site Plan prior to the public hearing. Building Construction 29. Structural fill is to be supervised and inspected by the applicant's soils engineer with a written final report submitted to the City's Building Official. All recommendations of the Soils Engineer will be considered as requirements for construction. August 23, 1996 Mr. Gregg Zimmerman, P.E. Administrator City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Raymond Center West Compensatory Storage Dear Mr. Zimmerman: The Raymond Center West project involves the construction of a 124 30 - square foot building, with surface parking on a site adjacent to Springbrook Creek. The site will be filled to elevate the finished floor 1 foot or more above the FEMA 100-year flood elevation. Through discussions with Scott Woodbury, we understand the City has performed extensive hydraulic modeling of Springbrook Creek to estimate peak flows and water surface elevations during extreme rainfall events. This modeling projects a 100-year flood elevation at our site of 16.9, which is 2.7 feet lower than the FEMA elevation of 19.6 (NAVD 88). We understand the City's model results have compared favorably with field observations and that a FEMA letter of map revision will soon be applied for by the City. Based on the above, we request an administrative revision that allows this project to use the 100-year storage elevation generated by the City's model for determining the volume of compensatory storage required. We appreciate your consideration of the above. Sincerely, Tom Jones Project Engineer MAV:cjs Icc: Mark Miller, Mark Miller Consultants Mark Veldee, KPFF 65700 1 Seattle Portland San Francisco Los Angeles ^ Phoenix San Diego - Cairo OCT. 3. 1996 10 ; 24111M NO, 3346 F. 1/1 13=0 Confirmation # Consulting Engineers FAX TRANSMITTAL 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 90o Seattle, WA 98101 Date .2 It Phone (206) 622-5822 Job# - Fax (206) 622.8130 Project fn.A 'f No.lPages(incl. cover sheet)_ To From ok v Company iee•' 7/•. RCS Fax# 3�� 0_Sy/ Phone# Subject 44000Q.% WIZV Description r Comments CrG .�' Lo••� O•`�� 02 33 noo G .2 ,'Z , 4V470 G IF % Ooa cIr These are transmitted as noted below: Original. 00For your use ❑ Will follow in mail ,a A requested ❑ Will not follow in mail ❑ For review and comment CC' (Call(206)622-5822 if you do not receive all paces] ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 8 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: RAYMOND AVENUE CENTER 2. Name of applicant: Winmar-Metro, Inc. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Winmar-Metro, Inc. 700 Fifth Ave., Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98104 Contact person: Architect: Mark Miller Bob Fadden Mark Miller Consultants, Inc. Lance Mueller&Associates/Architects 10801 Main St., Suite 100 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Seattle, WA 98122 Phone: (206)455-1724 Phone: (206)325-2553 4. Date checklist prepared: August 26, 1996 5. Agency requesting checklist: CITY OF RENTON 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Site Plan Approval Receive Shoreline Permit Receive Grading Permit Receive Building Permit 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. East Side Green River Watershed Project (ESGRWP) Soils Report Wetland Review 1 f • s 2, Ak i 12 18 20 - h - y {( ti i� r •~•g' . .............. 1J t s hid Y. .a .i4 e. i { i s 5 3 i ,zx i s I 12 16 .. 20 --TVA it l l F' 00 R r, S i »✓ ; ' ? _ 1 � Lm y f I - r N 3p � 1 �i F j - !j i f y'Y r r rt r f f t i P i i f