The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSWP272190(2) Technical Information Report Stratford Heights Plat Renton, Washington 93108 Prepared for: CamWest Development , Inc. 924 Bellevue Way NE, #101 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (206) 637-9747 Prepared by: Pacific Engineering Design, Inc. 130 Andover Park East, Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98188 (206) 431-7970 . D O� 1 l E61 �' March 9 1994 2rV�sr�� 0u7 6 , 1 94- >, vcy 1995 I E . a men t,7 1 L'i 1 i•".i+It ��+./!11 a'yy+.•.t v }}wn A 7 4 ..!• -ta tw•t• i n r PART 1 PROJECT,OyVNER AND 1' w+ R��PA T 2ta OJ b•,c,A�`Ib�i�kct�l �; I{r � � ��7�j �.:-! t f t'i�`'j '�+ !Wit, �y rpi 1+:Y � I 1 y r ry�l Mtty SL:�AC7(Iy�Z 4iLy iJ'�I.ti �PROJEC7'ENQiNEER,I �1 ,;.t i?{ d °1k .� '. .'.� a g�c ��'�I NI #n' ,I(,�xt.k'lk 11 1... i,r.. +r...lii,.t.k It 1 '' +1• / fl.i,7'A:1:AF�11A�»§7M4f:�R;{'l�Jf14:11 ,.1Stli�:Tia 6 • � • r i n L, h .tJ I Y a't 'PART, 3 YP ;Oi=PE MI�''APPLC 10 h I '�`;� �`tly,•`�'1iy,. t � f 4, a;t77�r��.�,a��+ia,.�., �• R t .1 !�1Y � .r.:}iI,c, �PAR�',4.,.C>,XI�E�i��RMIrS,Y ,;��,�r7.r;;!„�l4�Alr1i ,,1.r,rt/��,"{�;>:.4��tt��iy��'it; • • �• • e �• t 12 "' ''PART5;!SIT@.�:COMIVj.UNITY;AND;bRgINAGE,BA$•N,�� i t �' L jt ,; 1�.�'�'z 1'ti��'�' ;••: , ,r ?�y,1' ��z;y?;�.t,r�,i,lLL�f,;nt r1r• a r;+ ,1, >., ,alrqlilt..".1+A I.t.,.i.. ,a+R'ra..* .Y,i}Il��v4�it�•asl��hSf v 7.1' �Y� ��'�.,•rr,..N.fY��r a. lu ri.. WtY{ Tt ¢t p.,F.;•.1- :..1••.'�•,.rt 7. .,,r 1 ,/ 1 t �!� t 4 t�•y i✓t Y M� !1}i;. 'Ni`:'( i{ J'fLN? r o' M.. PART 6 SITE:CH RACTE 191 C :?:t t 1 „:`, '''' , t ? ` ,r l;`.� ;� ,+. :�, ; Y{;•1'Y ' °`.. :1r ;� '}�i',�� .,t' 't p sQ Y Ll ,.t 1G' j I1 1,'�},jt.1�{/ Y ,,�,.r� ��r 54yy��" t,�y .{ 1p4Jli � t 1• tLta' i i!t}e� r t' rt. „�. .e., '!' .I.�...r:'frltJf it x,r,.\I.;�Y..�{,v.14;:l,trt.rh vl:Clwtir•�.�y!tSPe�:�V!i:t.;4f•t%.'a:'4}�4�4i7iii>�VI �h1�tiYr�',i�P�.li� 4t{+�ti'r�t� +f ''Y, i;� t:Y �:jl��- II . t • a •II II t• • �'• a • C • 1 i • t - II • • •i •i tt• ••2 • t SOILS; , ;1 ( � �y +i y}f i1 I�i��r�y,C./3 �t`M�'� �►� � Y 'f,1..i 1�'! }''��'•��`iPt,t,�l�'it .��1" .s✓�"�7�14( r.. k. !I . r111S i. � 1.�;'�,1. ..1 .v.1..:5,..,v7��IC11P4e�ie��,+l:k v�7� IIt P,:� .��Ixeh:;�.� "'7�.Iyti'k1.\V Vr.�'iv ld�it;,.�1 i.1Y•1r+:q`�+r�7-a��J:::u1.11 � ' •• • a a s• 1 • Pago 2 of 2 King County Bullding and Land Development Dlvlsion TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET . • . !' REFERENCE LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT 0 Ch.4-Downstream Analysis a 0 0 Additional Sheets Attatched r J MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION ED Sedimentation Facilities Stabilize Exposed Surface Stabilized Construction Entrance Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities Perimeter Runoff Control ® Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris 0 Clearing and Grading Restrictions ( Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities 0 Cover Practices Flag Limits of NGPES E'El Construction Sequence Other = Other Grass Lined Channel Tank Infiltration Method of Analysis Pipe System Vault 'wrT 0 Depression Open Channel 0 Energy Dissapator = Flow Dispersal Compensation/Mitigation Dry Pond 0 Welland 0 Waiver of Eliminated Site Storage Wot Pond Stream Regional Detention Brief Description of System Operation �fA205 , l'CAAa�S ��+z.l �1 �1��5 Ai,v Cal, o17 •SAC 'D2Aio -10 cf� C(?( JE'L/alrl I-C, - tom(---ryia ,>rL—ly5-I4Z/i1 1'1 Facility Related Site Limitations Additional Shoots Attatched Reference Facility Limitation • Drainage Easement Cast in Place Vault El Other 0 Access Easement C] Retaining Wall [] Native Growth Protection Easement Rockery>4'High Tract I� Structural on Steep Slope C] Other I or a civil engineer under my supervision have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed wore incorporated into this worksheot and the /l�n 3 attatchmonts. To the best of my knowledge the information provided / 1t(/ l/� here is accurate. sryn.av,r. 1/90 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I . PROJECT OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . II . PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . 7 OFF SITE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 G IV. RETENTION/DETENTION ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . .2 2 V. CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . 47 VI . SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . 4V VII . BASIN AND COMMUNITY PLANNING AREAS . . . . . . . (, � VIII . OTHER PERMITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �Z IX. EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DESIGN . . . . . . �3 X. BOND QUANTITY WORK SHEET, RETENTION/DETENTION FACILITY SUMMARY SHEET AND SKETCH, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT . . . . . . . . . . . . . G� XI . MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS MANUAL . . . . . . . . 67 I . PROJECT OVERVIEW This site is located in northeast Renton with the south property line abutting NE 19th Street . The site is approximately 200 feet west of Union Avenue NE. The total site area is approximately 2 . 2 acres with a relatively flat to gentle slope to the southwest . There are no existing structures on-site. There are some existing trees in the northwest portion of the site with the remainder being grass and weeds . The site will be built into approximately 13 single family lots with one dead end cul -de-sac . On-site detention and water quality will be provided within a wet vault . 5 SEE MAP —Z-� COPYRIOIIT 1991 goolldi-9w.J�O — y a 625 F S eon : m ti kk sss• r�+�'sa� _. r o I �� y 8 ey g�� 84TH R---IAV H Y 84TN rA S a ° t u AV .•' S w I s�� v V1SI6 N 1 S 3NVN• >, Z as Arrxalau 6EOISiT air DR SE ti94TM AV to ^'38I5d3AIH. -g ti g y 96111 AV SE-. .. , r v r n Pn S: x, AV � mm y < V N H �{ —CAROEN If N' z nv N FRWY " —��Av N a NEAWN < I - JOKES NAVH AV E v N v RE to a p I. r / .ZONES N _ V RE z ;_r RJ _ KENN 1 K A NE— �'A�_._.— P(_ (A.. .. ,- -+-r___ •: �— LINUU AV NE T 11O N s AV SE LINCOLS7 Munn 111—WEREYti, AV NE !✓ - B 'n AACAetT„Arm _ m ABERDE.EN' �r �z� V .NE �'';3 tr z � ,�S •� ....•. E4 C4�S m a AV NE ^� s-�Mv 112T11 AY SE �a a m •!Ilm n E BUIHE- AV • NE m. 16 t. i q� m __ __— IIZM Ar 1121� S`4"aAV SE CJt EJ'r r n z 'M" •• A v, MAINT }.'J l V11 sr -- T--� A uto A_ X - N JM 11 m 7r pVN AV y';: - ✓'3 :^r5 113TH I nA UPI AV NE BAVlg1 AV F.s HE v� l,rr7'..: sa. 1Jq� IR -gym A =1 14s�•;��4` 4 a IISM c AY O N __ AV z NE 116TH SE h V y=S ,m a ' AV Clo N4RRI } T •NE 'i� �i �19 117n IIn" L1v RARRINGT V'py h �. v. e:>u ME HratN111e1 m 1a AV S m liam sc i6n n � 120TFI E: lu R 1 nn9rx KIRK AV NE:'P.�,�s KIRKIµ AY t not9pr AV 5..� TI1T+1 !._ i4 tY 'm R \st s< •;.. ✓`� x' rn r S s I SE 2 - S .0 L � � IP 122ND # > "'`Ar 121ST P�." SE m .LYNNN000 AV r .. .. X MDNROE AV NE NE `a F P A rnp M �--••� t� r9`fi 122ND SAV E ?� -, IgNROE h -'NE NE z _. +y a 35 AV �60 n r>s a�'''�'la Ar rLS 4 il .yy OLYMP AV HE m [J A fi AV HIV T N k,'P '1_rrn - .:.. M 174I), srr n ` �aH.dl 1 RI�m.Y AV 12 AV 75 J, 9S�` 4^ A• c RrY a 3 EN AYE m � Av i AV Hl rrrr n q �, 7 xl q `•'� 11( V11 35 'a 1. IT"R rr A :3 'k AY q RFll AY 'a X 4 g ^ % SFm� E SIT,ms V st AV V _ + v� �A Ig113N5 rmN•AY av SSE qs AV y A •$ 4 F,Na N Izsin Y ,x K./ E ?mm I rA r LJ' a- - — -- 'A " 132ND_. AV -SE P i trHx �' YR Ar^E Iaxl t34n1- l l Fes` �S �s AMAG A T Y uurarts Ttr�4 F AV S[ {{ 3��5 sS rL X .. 'rS AY •Ni'f'� AP sf� y1i' Nr r ft , . - �AV- L CREEK qa Is v - 138TN '- m y" n 1'� ■ >A rn $ e 35 .. x~ < wgEl ��$' I 130T11 AV SE38 7� � "" = 140TN ay S _ 38IH" - --- - ---- --- - -� ' p---- --- 141 ' 14ZND 4 AV. .'sM n d u � A y 1441N ' 0 aY � 'rs �• i. red Ar- A A ` v r G14 d'q b�t'/y 471N A ; ^r�1a7— IS .k`V ran`;.i RXr) *. .,. i ..r': .:,P •P' G.J. *`•s ?` *.Ni te. gF?,+ rit' qw avN /.1) 33S • 0 II . PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS SUMMARY The preliminary review meeting letter , Public Hearing Report and misc . correspondence between CamWest and the city is included in this section. 7 _"177=r 11•U_• l.t-II'IWL—�I VCVCL_Ut'I'ICI`I I r,i,J; "L' Pl=iing/Building/Public Works Department Carl Clymer, Mayor February 7, 1994 i Mr. Eric H:Campbell Cam West Real Estate Development, Inc. PO Box 308 i Kirkland, WA 90083 r; SUBJECT: Brun Preliminary Plat Dear Mr. Campbell: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the preliminary plat. I hope that the staff '.. comments were constructive and will assist you In designing a project that meets the intent of the City's codes and policies. As promised I have put together a tentative schedule for the processing of your preliminary plat. The project should proceed as follows: .; Environmental review - approximately three months taking into consideration comment and appeal periods. Public Hearing- Once the appeal period has expired for the Determination of Non-Significance the public hearing on the preliminary,plat can be advertised 10 days prior to the hearing (hearing date is dependent the Hearing Examiner's schedule). Following the public hearing the Examiner takes two weeks to render a decision. Following the decision there is a two week appeal period. , The above is only an estimate of the time it will take to process the preliminary plat, the schedule can be thwarted and delayed by issues raised by outside parties, staff and/or the applicant. At the pre-application meeting density was discussed and a ranee between 5.6 units per acre to 8 units per acre was given with corresponding figures for the number of units that can be provided for the subject site. Staff has interpreted the density requirement in the code to define 8 du/ac as the maximum ailowed density,"however there have been recent discussions among staff to interpret the density requirement to mean that 8 du/ac is the goal rather than the maximum allowed density. This issue is currently being discussed among staff and an interpretive policy will soon follow. If 8 du/ac is the maximum allowed density then according to our calculations only 14 lots can be created. Another issue concerning density has been presented to the City Council.. This issue asks for clarification on the ability of the Hearing Examiner to determine the appropriate density for a subdivision , when there is a density range, such as in your case where because or the density range 10 to 14 lots could be created. Before staff recommends or supports a certain density, this matter needs to be . resolved in order to save the applicant from possibly having to redesign a preliminary plat in order to comply with the Hearing Examiner°s decision. s 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 THIS►AVER CONTAINS YIOb REGYC LEV&LA.TERIAI-10'6 POST CONSUMUR VV 1JJ1 1JVV LII .w�....1✓�v�.Y_v. .•b..I YI . •w F7As nr. Eric H. Campbellebruary 3,.1994 age 2 mentioned at'the pre-application meeting, variances approved by the Hearing Examiner would be neoded in order to deviate from the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Each variance will be considered based on Its merits to the project and surrounding area. Staff will work with the applicant to help.insure that the variances, If needed, can be justified and that the overall design of the plat reflects the intent of the City's policies and codes. i If you have any questions please call me at 235-2518. Once a revised plan is prepared I would be happy to circulate it for review and comments prior to formal application. in erelyl GG ; . Ja a Huertor Project Manager cc: Jim Hanson t Neil Watts ' , 5 iY 1 i i TOTRL P.03 # # July 13, 1994 OFFICE OF TIIE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION ( S CZ 1 VF_U APPLICANT: CAMWESI'DEVELOPMENT, INC. STRATFORD HEIGHTS jy9.1 File No.: LUA-94-057, PP/V/ECF 1'A01f1C Cf;Gf�V(:t:R1NC LOCATION: 3900 Block of NE 19th Street SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Applicant seeks approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide a 2.19 acre parcel of land into 13 lots for single family development. A variance is sought for reduction of the right-of- way width requirements, the minimum street offset requirement, creation of a pipestem lot, and installation of rolled curbs. A waiver is sought from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow installation of a sidewalk on only one side of the street. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions, except deny rolled curb variance. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on June 21, 1994. 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 June 28, 1994 hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, June 28, 1994, at 9:02 a.m., in the courtroom of the Municipal Court building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow File containing application, Exhibit No. 2: Vicinity plan. proof of posting, publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 3: Preliminary plat. Exhibit No. 4: Four page illustration of proposed houses. Exhibit No. 5: Drawing of originally proposed cul- Exhibit No. 6: Photographs of slides. de-sac layout. Exhibit No. 7: Housing density information from Rebecca Lind, Interim Principle Planner for the Long Range Planning Section. I � 'f CAMWEST DEVELOPMENT,INC. STRATFORD I3EIGHTS LUA-94-057, PP/V/ECF July 13, 1994 Page 2 The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by, JANA HUERTER, Project Manager, Development Services, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. The property is approximately 2.19 acres in size. Preliminary plat approval is requested for development of 13 single family lots. The applicant seeks variances to reduce the right-of-way width, the minimum street offset requirements, creation of a pipestem lot, and the installation of rolled curbs. A waiver from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a sidewalk on one side of the street is also sought. The property is located approximately 218 feet west of NE Union Avenue, near NE 19th Street and Shelton Avenue NE. Surrounding lots ranging from .8 to .2 acres. To the west are three lots that are served by a private road. Single family residential uses are on the north, east, south and west of the site. In addition, there is church property on the north and vacant land to the south. The site area is served with adequate utilities but the development will require a watermain extension into the plat, an additional fire hydrant, and a 8" main sewer extension. Staff supports and recommends that a combined wet vault/detention vault facility be located in the street right-of-way. This change in policy is included in the draft Surface Water Utility Comprehensive Policy Plan currently under review by the City. The Examiner asked if the wet vault is permitted now or if it is a change in policy. Ms. 1-luerter replied that it is a change in policy. The Examiner noted a problem with staff recommendations that are not countenanced by Ordinance or Resolution at this point and asked if the proposals are supported by City Code. Referring to the street width variance, he noted no problem with reducing the amount of asphalt but stated that if Ordinance does not permit street width then the request needs to be justified under the appropriate variance criteria. Originally, Camwest submitted a cul-de-sac plan and the City proposed a loop road system layout. Ms. Huerter stated that a road grid system is difficult on infill property that is served by one street. Variances are required so that this proposal meets the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, requiring a density of 8 units per acre. The cul- de-sac proposal created a higher density and would require similar variances. City efforts are in progress to revise some public right-of-way standards and this project reflects some of the proposed changes. This project will act as a prototype for future subdivision right-of-way standards. The looped roadway is offset less than 200 feet from the intersection of Shelton Avenue NE and NE 19th Street. The westerly plat access will be offset approximately 16.5 feet west of the center line of Shelton Avenue NE and the easterly access is offset approximately 150 feet to the east of Shelton Avenue NE. This deviation is supported by staff since traffic volumes in the area are relatively low. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC) issued a Determination ofNon-Significance, Mitigated (DNS-M) on June 13, 1994. The mitigation measures included the City's park mitigation fee of$530.76 per unit, as well as the requirement for an amended construction mitigation plan. Thirteen lot subdivision is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Single Family Residential. The Comprehensive Plan Policy(R-15.5)directs the provision of sidewalks on both sides of the street. The applicant requests a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance and Long Range Planning notes that pedestrian traffic will be internal to the site so one sidewalk will sufficiently serve this site. The 13 lots will range from 6,741 square feet to 4,500 square feet in size and appropriate setback standards are met on each lot. The property is located approximately 218 feet west of NE Union Avenue. Access comes from NE 19th Street, via NE Union Avenue or Shelton Avenue NE. Ms. Huerter stated that acquiring an easement or right-of-way to the north is virtually impossible and noted that the applicant approached adjacent property owners about combining properties, but was unsuccessful. A variance from Section 9-12-X8.Le of the Subdivision Ordinance is requested for a right-of-way reduction from 50 feet to 40 feet in width. The full 32 foot width of pavement and 6 foot sidewalk on one side of the street will be provided. This modification is necessary for the applicant to achieve the density goal of the Comprehensive Plan. It has been granted in other applications and will likely be a part of the City's new subdivision regulations. �l CAMWEST DEVELOPMENT, INC. STRATFORD HEIGIITS LUA-94-057, PPN/ECF July 13, 1994 Page 3 A variance from Section 9-12-8.G.14 of the Subdivision Ordinance is requested to allow a reduction in the 200 foot minimum street offset. The hardship is created by the existing pattern of surrounding subdivisions and streets that make it impossible for the applicant to line up streets and achieve the required density. Staff supports the request since NE 19th Street is a low volume residential street. A variance from Section 9-12-8.I-I of the Subdivision Ordinance is requested for rolled curbs, as opposed to vertical curbs. Staff is concerned that rolled curbs would encourage parking on the sidewalk and recommends denial of the variance, and notes that this variance is generally denied and is found unacceptable by the traffic committee. A variance from Section 9-12-8.X.6.c of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the development of a pipestem lot that is not permitted unless the Hearing Examiner grants a variance for the pipestem. One pipestem lot on Lot 5 is proposed and is necessary in order to achieve the desired density. Due to the design of the plat, a long driveway is necessary. The area of Lot 5 is 6,741 square feet(minus the pipestem.) The pipestem is 20 feet wide and 60 feet long. The Examiner noted staffs previous problem with a pipestem in a tight corner that causes maneuverability problems between adjacent driveways on adjacent lots. Ms. Huerter stated this was discussed with the applicant and noted that the applicant proposes detached garages in the rear yard area. It is more desirable to have private driveways with this kind of layout so that there can be a barrier down the property line. It was noted that pipestems are commonly approved, and approval will not constitute a special privilege. One sidewalk along the north side of the looped street is proposed. The sidewalk will be six feet in width and will be the only sidewalk in the area, outside of NE Union Avenue, and will serve the inside lots. Ms. Huerter stated that staff recommends approval of Stratford Heights and the variances for the reduced right-of- way width, reduction of the 200 feet offset requirements, pipestem on Lot 5, and a waiver for the installation of sidewalks on both sides of the street. Approval is recommended subject to compliance with the ERC's mitigation measures, construction of right-of-way improvements along the western side of the property (unless otherwise specified by the owners of the three abutting properties west of the site) which includes installation of appropriate curb cuts to serve the three lots. If the residents of the three lots to the west desire a physical barrier to screen the subdivision from the existing lots, then the applicant shall install a landscaped barrier to be approved by Development Services Division prior to final plat submittal. Depending on the consensus of the three property owners, the combination of the landscape screen and curb cuts will be required. The pipestem shall be developed with 10 feet of permanent paving and 5 foot landscaped strips on either side of the pavement or a 10 foot landscape strip on either side of the pavement. Staff requests denial of the rolled curbs. The Examiner asked what the width of the private road was. Ms. Huerter replied that the road is below the required 30 feet. It was noted that the three properties would all have more expansive front yards if they were connected to the looped street. ERIC CAMPBELL, Camwest Development, Inc., 924 Bellevue Way NE, Suite 101, Bellevue, WA 98004, showed slides (Exhibit No. 6)and provided drawings to illustrate detached garages, reduced right-of-way, floor plans layouts, facade drawings, and sidewalks on one side of the street. In regard to sidewalks on one side of the street,the Examiner commented that this reduces pedestrian and child safety. Mr. Campbell commented that a sidewalk on one side of the street has been widely accepted by other municipalities. The Examiner stated that he is does not doubt the wisdom of changing an Ordinance, it is the granting of a variance that must be justified due to a hardship. There is no problem if City Council decides they want streets that are 28 feet wide, but a variance has to be justified and this application requires justification for four variances to implement the proposed design. Iz CAMWEST DEVELOPMENT, INC. STRATFORD I1EIGIITS LUA-94-057, PPN/ECP July 13, 1994 Page 4 Mr. Campbell noted that the City asked them to provide the western property owners access to a private street. The Examiner noted that it has not been shown that the private road will be abandoned and the staff recommendation is that if these people do not concur, they will keep the private road and even put in a barrier. Mr. Campbell stated that his communication with these property owners is that they do want the access to the public road as it will provide increased front yards of a minimum 15 feet. In regard to the safety issue, Mr. Campbell stated that in the cul-de-sac design, more homes front NE 19th Street and traffic will back up onto a major road. The proposed loop system permits internal circulation and is safer. I-Ie referred to the Growth Management Act requirement to reduce the width of right-of-ways. The Examiner stated that he has no problem with narrower roads, it is that a variance has to be justified by a hardship since the City has not changed its Ordinance. The Examiner noted that density can still be reached with a more traditional cul-de-sac plan. He noted that the City has many conflicting policies that lie must deal with and the policies are being changed rapidly. People do not want cul-de-sacs but they also do not want narrower roads. REBECCA LIND, Interim Principle Planner for the Long Range Planning Section, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055, stated that she works on the housing element and land use element of the Comprehensive Plan. During the process of analyzing the multi and single family capacity, they went back to the direction that asks for a 50/50 mix of single-family and multi-family units. In trying to reconcile policy conflicts, they have tried to assess whether there is adequate single family capacity to provide the balance, and what needs to be done to the regulations to achieve the balance. It was found that the land use map, as presently mapped, has a capacity for a 1,877 single family units. Projected growth to the year of 2010 is 1,685 single family units. The capacity is only 10% of the projected growth and this is too close for comfort. Tile rule of thumb is to allow 25% additional capacity over growth to allow the market to work. Their discussions with the Council are how to preserve the 50/50 mix and how to insure that the single family capacity is realized as building blocks in the future. This leads to the discussion on minimum density. The capacity number is calculated at 8 dwelling units per acre and the minimum density required in the zoning ordinance is 70% of capacity, or 5.6 dwelling units per acre. The City cannot get to the 1,800 units if we achieve only the minimum density. The City is looking at different options, including zoning additional land single family in order to relieve the problem. In the interim, efficient use of single family land is needed to meet the 50/50 goal set by the City Council. The Examiner noted that according to Exhibit 5, the original cul-de-sac plan, the applicant can carve out 15 lots rather than the 13 proposed lots and noted that this proposal presents a number of contradictions. Ms. Lind stated that the cul-de- sac design is overdense and there are rough edges on the 4,500 square foot lot size. In this case, the looped road design created a more desirable neighborhood configuration. The Examiner stated that he would review the written material justifying the various variances, noting that although there is a density requirement, variances require justification and a hardship. The fact that a plan is a more desirable plan does not demonstrate a hardship. The fact that staff is working to amend Ordinances to allow narrower right-of-ways and possibly sidewalks on one side of the street does not justify granting a variance at this point. The applicant may, unfortunately, be premature. Ms. Lind gave the Examiner a summary of single family, multi-family building permits from 1988 to 1993. In regard to the road and cul-de-sac configuration, Ms. Lind noted that there are policies in the residential section that support the non cul-de-sac approach to laying out development. The purpose for this concept is to allow for the interconnecting webb. The Examiner stated that the looped road does not achieve the interconnecting webb. Ms. Lind stated that the looped road does not achieve it as much as desired and noted that other alternates were considered. The Examiner commented that this plat involves a number of tradeoffs, none of which seem to achieve everyone's goals. Ms. Lind noted a section of the zoning code that addresses conflicting code. Ms. Huerter read the code as follows "in the event that there is a conflict between either the development standards or special development standards listed above and the standards and regulations contained in other Ordinances, the Zoning Administrator shall determine what Ordinance shall prevail based upon the intent of the zones. Life, safety, public health ordinances are presumed to prevail." 13 CAMWEST DEVELOPMENT, INC. STRATFORD HEIGIITS LUA-94-057, PPN/ECF July 13, 1994 Page 5 Responding to questions from the Examiner, ARNETTA I-IENNIGER, Temporary Plan Review Supervisor, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055, stated that placement of the wet vault/detention system in the public right-of-way has nabeen allowed in the past and she does not know if it is permitted by code. Staff has been operating on policy and Ms. Henniger stated that the wet vault/detention system placement is included in the draft Surface Water Utility Comprehensive Plan. In regard to the location of driveway, Ms. Hennieer stated that staff generally requests five foot separation from the property line with the driveway approach. Joint use has also been allowed. The Examiner confirmed with staff members present that no driveways would access NE 19th Street and that the street offsets will not be impacted by traffic. BILL ORTH, Pacific Engineering, 130 Andover Park East, Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98188, stated that he has worked on many wet vaults in public right-of-ways, although not in the City of Renton. This type of system is being used more and more and is gaining acceptance. The Examiner commented that in the past the City has forbidden wet vaults in public right-of-ways and lie asked if this is a change of policy or code. It was confirmed that the change is a policy. 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 10:06 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Camwest Development, Inc, proposes developing a 13 lot Preliminary Plat called Stratford Heights. In addition, the applicant has requested variances to allow less than the required street width, less than the required street offset distance, a pipestem lot and rolled curbs as opposed to vertical curbs. The applicant also seeks a waiver from the sidewalk requirements. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit No. 1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC), the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance, 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 on the north side of the 3900 block of NE 19th Street. The subject site is approximately 200 feet west of Union Avenue NE. Shelton Avenue forms a T-intersection with NE 19th Street near the southwest corner of the subject site. 6. The subject site is zoned SF (Single Family). It received this classification with the adoption of Ordinance 4404, enacted in June, 1993. 7. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 2472 enacted in March, 1969. `F CAMWEST DEVELOPMENT, INC. STRATFORD I1EIGHTS LUA-94-057, PPN/ECF July 13, 1994 Page 6 8. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of single family use, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 9. The area in which the subject site is located is developed primarily with single family homes, although the site north of the subject site is church property. Many of the lots in the area are large like the subject site. 10. The almost square site is approximately 305 feet wide (east to west), by 313 feet deep. The subject site is 2.19 acres or approximately 95,396 square feet. The subject site is relatively level. IL The subject site is served by City water and sewer lines located in NE 19th Street. Lines will have to be extended into the subject site. 12. In a departure from past policy, staff recommends approval of locating the combined detention and wet vault in the City right-of-way. This departure is one of policy and not Code. 13. The subject site is located in the Renton School District, which assigns students on a space available basis. 14. Kiwanis Park and Highlands Park serve this site. 15. The applicant proposes developing a 13-lot plat served by a looped road instead of the now standard cul- de-sac arrangement. 16. Proposed Lots 1 through 5 would run from the south to the north along the east edge of the parcel. Proposed Lots 6 through 9 would run east to west across the north edge of the parcel. Proposed Lots 10 through 13 would be located generally in the southwest portion of the parcel in block type of arrangement. 17. Proposed Lot 5 would be served by a pipestem driveway for which a variance is requested. 18. The proposed looped access road would be a northerly extension of Shelton, extending north of NE 19th that would run then east and back south to 19th again. 19. As proposed, the looped access road provides less than the required 200 feet between existing intersections. The westerly segment would be slightly ajog from the existing intersection of Shelton, at approximately 16.5 feet west of the centerline. The easterly intersection would be offset approximately 150 feet. Due to low traffic volumes on the existing roads, staff supports this request. A standard cut-de- sac would be approximately 130 feet from the intersection and would require only one offset variance. 20. The applicant has requested a variance to provide a public right-of-way that is 40 feet wide as opposed to 50 feet wide. The applicant further proposes eliminating the sidewalk on the inside of the loop road, providing instead a sidewalk only on the outside of the road. To achieve this goal, the applicant has requested a waiver from the Subdivision requirements. 21. The applicant proposes installation of rolled curbs rather than the standard vertical curbs required by Ordinance. The reason is that rolled curbs provide design flexibility since driveway curb cuts are not required. A variance was requested to permit rolled curbs. Staff noted the City has consistently opposed rolled curbs and recommended that the variance be denied. �5 • • CAMWEST DEVELOPMENT, INC. STRATFORD HEIGHTS LUA-94-057, PPN/ECF July 13, 1994 Page 7 22. Staff noted their support of the proposed subdivision design. They further note that certain changes are under review that would reduce right-of-way widths. No ordinance changes have occurred that support street or right-of-way width reductions and any approval must rest on the merits of variance relief. The applicant must demonstrate a hardship that would deny the applicant specifically reasonable development rights. 23. Staff also submitted a rough plan for a 15 lot plat arrayed around a cul-de-sac street. Staff noted that 15 lots would probably exceed the maximum density permitted but a reduction in the number of lots would achieve the density goals. This layout, while being less creative, would not require variances for less than the required street width and would not require two offset road variances, nor would it require a waiver of sidewalks on one side of the street. It would require an offset street variance and a variance to allow pipestem access to at least one lot. Sidewalks on both sides of the street would be provided. 24. Staff noted that the looped road would require more pavement(although it achieves a more aesthetic road system)and therefore more storm water detention. 25. Neither the looped road nor the cul-de-sac arrangement provide connections to adjacent developments. The looped road may permit, but does not guarantee, that property west of the site and now served by a private road could use the proposed loop road. It might be possible to provide access to that private road from the cul-de-sac, although this was not reviewed. 26. Staff noted a number of policy goals, including connecting through streets. The proposed plat does not accomplish this goal although it would possibly permit neighboring property to use the road system. But the arrangement proposed does require three variances and a waiver of sidewalks. The loss of sidewalks is antithetical to another policy goal of providing sidewalks along all streets. 27. A number of large trees are located on the parcel. They are concentrated in the northwest portion of the site. The applicant proposes retaining some trees, but many would need to be cleared to permit the development of dwellings. The applicant hopes to relocate some of these trees elsewhere on the site. 28. Lot sizes range from 4,500 square feet to 6,741 square feet. Most of the proposed lots are between 5,000 square feet and approximately 5,500 square feet. 29. The developed plat would add approximately 29 new people to the City's population and approximately 6 students to the school district. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary Plat 1. While a subdivision of the subject site is warranted, the proposed subdivision does not appear appropriate for a number of reasons. Unfortunately, staff did not analyze a less creative alternative plat as it appears that a variation on the plat accessed by a cul-de-sac, as demonstrated by Exhibit No. 5, would be appropriate. The subdivision of the subject site appears to serve the public use and interest. It will provide additional housing choices in an area with urban services. It will avoid urban sprawl by providing a range of smaller lots in an area where services can be provided. It meets the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. The major problem with the proposed plat is that it does not meet the Code requirements that have been used to judge other similar subdivisions. The proposed plat, and the applicant's illustrative although non- binding layouts, seem well meaning and aesthetically designed but they are not supported by the current I� CAMWI'ST DEVELOPMENT, INC. STRATFORD IIGIGIITS LUA-94-057, PPN/ECF July 13, 1994 Page 8 code. Approval requires stretching the normal requirements for variance approval and the waiver cannot be approved. 3. At Page 3 of the staff report, staff notes: "This project will act as a prototype for future subdivisions using the revised right-of-way standards." This office has nothing against innovation but this office notes that its actions must be sanctioned by appropriate legislation. The staff report further mentions that "efforts are in progress to revise some of the public right-of-way standards . . .." This office notes that these revisions have yet to be decided in terms of emergency access, sufficient parking and other potential issues. There has been no public debate on these revisions and after public debate the revisions must be adopted by the City Council. A proposed project cannot be judged by proposed changes in law. A proposal must be judged by existing standards. 4. Some aspects of the proposed plat are not sanctioned by existing code and would result in less appropriate development, particularly the elimination of sidewalks. Again, it cannot be emphasized enough that variances are available only if the regulations preclude reasonable development of a subject site. The regulations that exist do not preclude reasonable development. 5. Therefore, it seems appropriate to authorize the preliminary plat shown in Exhibit No. 5 subject to its revision to meet the density requirements. Exhibit No. 5 inappropriately provides 15 lots, whereas the density goals suggest that the site should be divided into 13 lots. Exhibit No. 5 meets most objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, including density. It provides sidewalks on both sides of the street. While it does not link up or connect neighborhoods with its closed cul-de-sac street, neither did the proposed plat. The proposed plat merely gave the appearance of a grid street system. 6. While a variance for street offset will be required, only one such street would be created. The proposed plat with a looped street creates two streets that have less than the required offset. The cul-de-sac plan eliminates the potential for providing access to the parcels on the west; but a creative solution could provide access to the parcels in the vicinity of Proposed Lots 11 or 12. This office notes that the elimination of the private driveway(that serves the parcels on the west) is not guaranteed under the applicant's looped road proposal either. As discussed below, a hardship that justifies a variance must be solely determined on the basis of the subject site and not adjoining properties. 7. Since the cul-de-sac plat will require revision it is difficult to determine if pipestem access is required for one or two lots, but the shifting of lot lines to provide a 13-lot plat should offer some flexibility. In this respect, the proposed plat and Exhibit No. 5 both require pipestem access so there is little difference in that regard. 8. The plat demonstrated by Exhibit No. 5 demonstrates a cul-de-sac block arrangement. While this development pattern is less favored, there are times(particularly where pre-existing platting patterns limit the range of choices)that a cul-de-sac, dead-end road, or private road is appropriate. The applicant's proposed plat, as staff notes, does not create a typical block configuration either. 9. The cul-de-sac layout provides sidewalks on both sides of the street, will not sacrifice privacy, nor reduce or arbitrarily restrict parking. It also provides a road that meets the width requirement. If that road width is,excessive, a Code change would be instrumental in reducing excessive width. 10. Either arrangement has the same access to public services. �7 CAMWEST DEVELOPMENT,INC. STRATFORD HEIGHTS LUA-94-057, PP/V/ECF July 13, 1994 Page 9 Variances 11. Variances may be granted when the property generally satisfies all the conditions described in part below: a. The applicant suffers undue hardship caused by special circumstances such as: the size, shape, topography, or location where code enforcement would deprive the owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by others similarly situated; b. The granting of the variance would not materially harm either the public welfare or other property in the vicinity; C. The approval will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other property in the vicinity; and d. The variance is the minimum variance necessary to allow reasonable development of the subject site. As demonstrated below not all of the variances are appropriate and for that reason the variances for less than the required street width, for less than the required street offset distance for one leg of the proposed roadway and for rolled curbs should be denied. The applicant's property appears ripe for the variance for pipestem accesses and for street offset distance for the cul-de-sac. 12. Variances can only be granted when there is such hardship that denial would preclude reasonable use of the subject site. They cannot be granted if they are unnecessary to allow reasonable development. They cannot be granted to avoid the Code restrictions that apply to all property equally. The hardship also has to be unique to the subject site. 13. Variances should only be granted when they are the minimum necessary to afford relief. The number and type of variances requested in this case are not the minimum necessary to allow reasonable development. Although it appears that some variance relief may be necessary to achieve the density that the code suggests, it appears that this can be achieved with fewer variances. In addition, there would be no need to waive the requirement for sidewalks on both sides of the street for the plat proposed in Exhibit No. 5. 14. The nature, number and range of variances requested to provide a "nice" proposal demonstrates that something is amiss. Staff, in recommending most of the proposed variances, is attempting to use a precise legal tool, a variance, to achieve an objective that would best be achieved by amending offending City laws. 15. Since reasonable division of the site can be accomplished with a cul-de-sac roadway, it does not appear that a variance for a road of less than the required width is necessary. There is no undue hardship and no need for this variance. 16. Due to the location of the subject site, access into any lots created by a subdivision must of necessity be less than the required 200 feet from any adjacent street intersection. Any street created to serve this site would be either too close to Shelton or possibly too close to Union. A cul-de-sac requires one offset street intersection and one variance. Whereas, the proposed looped road requires two offset street intersections, and therefore two variances. Since development can be achieved with only one variance, two would be more than the minimum variance relief necessary. In addition, the loop road creates a need for more actual roadway surface than does the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac may appear less "friendly" in terms of roadway width than the loop road, but it provides less impermeable surface and less need for additional storm water detention. While staff cited the Comprehensive Plan's objective of reducing the I� CAMWEST DEVELOPMENT, INC. STRATFORD HEIGHTS LUA=94-057, PPN/ECF July 13, 1994 Page 10 size of roads, this proposal appears to decrease the apparent dimensions and actually increases the overall amount of pavement. 17. Again, constrained by the existing dimensions of the parcel and the requirement to provide a certain minimum density, pipestem access would be required under the looped road or cul-de-sac layout. A hardship is demonstrated in this instance when access to certain portions of the subject site would be difficult, if not impossible, without a variance for pipestem access. Even if two pipestems are required, they would be less intrusive in a cul-de-sac bulb, than two full roadway intersections along NE 19th Street. 18. As staff concluded, there is absolutely no hardship to permit rolled curbs for this development. Reasonable development can occur without it, as it has almost everywhere in the City. Approval would create an undeserved precedent and grant the applicant a privilege not afforded others similarly situated. 19. In supporting some of these variance requests, staff cited the decision of this office in Summit Park, wherein variances for reduced right-of-way were approved as justification for approving the substantial deviations from Code. The subject project is entirely different from Summit Park. In Summit, the applicant set aside approximately half of their acreage in preserve and wetland. This deprived that applicant of both reasonable development rights and constitutes a hardship. In this case, reasonable subdivision and development can be achieved with a minimum of variance relief. In addition, the waiver for sidewalks would result in poor property demarcation, and would force some residents onto the street for miscellaneous reasons such as routine yard work. Before eliminating sidewalks, which is a definite safety feature, other available options should be used. 20. A study of the staff report provides no foundation to approve this plat with its attendant variances, under current law. A change of the law would eliminate any need to manufacture tenuous approvals. Albeit, this applicant is caught up in changing conditions that may need to be addressed, but not in this forum. Waiver 21. There is no justification for a waiver(Section 9-12-8(C)(2)) of the requirement that sidewalks be installed on both sides of the street. The general justification of such a request is that such improvements are not in the area. Even in such a case, a right-of-way is generally reserved for improvements such as sidewalks, but such improvements may be deferred. In this case, there would be no property reserved for such improvements at a later date. In addition, a major factor that needs to be considered is that without sidewalks, or at least public property between the road-curb and the proposed lots, there would be a problem with people encroaching on private property if they chose to not walk on the street, or if they step out of the street to avoid cars. Without a sidewalk, persons entering and exiting parked vehicles would also cause encroachment onto private property. 22. Approval of this waiver would allow invasion of private property every time a person exited a car from the curb side of a vehicle that has parked on the no sidewalk side of the street. Technically a trespass would occur each time someone got out of a car on that side of the street. In practical terms, the lots' owners would not be able to control their property or plant low laying landscaping within the "sweep" of a car door's distance from the curb without risking damage to that landscaping. Since owners of these lots cannot fence their entire yards, they usually resort to planting hedges at the curb line to block encroachment by pedestrians and vehicle passengers. Again, the waiver request is an adverse compounding of the request for less street width. Since a request to eliminate sidewalks would result in potential harm to property and people, it cannot be sanctioned. Restricting parking to one side of the street should not be an option either. As noted above, a cul-de-sac solution exists which does not create this situation. CAMwEST DEVELOPMENT,INC. STRATFORD HEIGIITS LUA-94-057, PP/V/ECF July 13, 1994 Page 11 23. Finally, these home will not be afforded the same ability to erect fences and protect their privacy as those buffered by or provided with sidewalk separation from the street. 24. In conclusion, while it may be possible to conjure up justifications for ignoring the requirements for sidewalks on both sides of the street, or reducing pavement width, these are standards that still exist. There is not the required true hardship that has justified prior granted variances, or the granting of the sidewalk waiver. This office does not oppose the creative plat the applicant proposed. It believes that the law requires that Ordinances need to be changed to support such proposed development. Rather than inventing creative hardships, the Code should be modified after appropriate Council review. This office cannot in good faith manufacture reasons and hardships to approve variances and waivers that are not justified. DECISION: 1. A 13-lot Preliminary Plat is approved subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant shall submit a revised plat layout demonstrating a 13 lot plat in a cul-de-sac arrangement that approximates that demonstrated in Exhibit No. 5. b. If the applicant can accommodate a legal access to the three properties west of the subject site that permits them to abandon the existing private road, and driveway intersection on NE 19th Street, it shall be shown on the plat map. C. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. 2. The variance to permit the cul-de-sac to be less than 200 feet from another street intersection is approved. 3. Variances to provide pipestem access is approved. 4. The variance for less than the required street width is denied. 5. The variance for rolled curbs is denied. 6. The waiver is denied. ORDERED THIS 13th day of July, 1994. FRED J. KAU N HEARING EXHAINER 2.0 CAMWEST DEVELOPMENT,INC. STRATFORD HEIGHTS LUA-94-057, PP/V/ECF July 13, 1994 Page 12 TRANSMITTED THIS 13th day of July, 1994 to the parties of record: Eric Campbell Bill Orth Kathy Francis Camwest Development, Inc. Pacific Engineering 1909 Shelton Avenue NE 924 Bellevue Way NE, #101 130 Andover Park East, 11300 Renton WA 98056 Bellevue WA 98004 Seattle WA 98188 Raylene Gibson Elaine Jernberg Ben McDonald 1901 Union Avenue NE 1922 Redmond Avenue NE 1919 Shelton Avenue NE Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98056-3375 Henry Raketty Doris Sanders Arneta I-lenniger 1901 Shelton Avenue NE 1909 Union Avenue NE Temp. Plan Review Supervisor Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98059 City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Jana Huerter, Project Manager Rebecca Lind, Interim Development Services Principle, Long Range Planning City of Renton City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue-South 200 Mill Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Renton WA 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 13th day of July, 1994 to the following: Mayor Earl Clymer Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Members, Renton Planning Commission Gregg Zimmerman, Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator Art Larson, Fire Marshal Jim Hanson, Development Services Manager Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Mike Kattermann, Technical Services Manager Transportation Systems Division James Chandler, Building Official Utilities System Division Jay Covington, Mayor's Executive Assistant 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.,July 27, 1994. 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. ZI CAMWEST DEVELOPMENT,INC. STRATFORD HEIGHTS LUA-94-057, PPN/ECF July 13, 1994 Page 13 If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. ZZ Stratford IIeights rile: LUA-94-057, PPN/1✓Cr ck� VICINITY MAP i � bbm ,rr 3S J4. z, 24 Zs 2i t� 7 ENTIRE AREA IS J/ C 37 40 ;< 81NC]LE FAMILY RESIOENTIA N♦._ r k Lit ItJ /)1 �� t•l wt W rt— loi t.l AOdrey ltl h 1 r, `K. :! rY Di 11ji rnAc. i ' Ik CO-1,llK If— U � r• .c.• ,N 1 l ;j All E ifTH !TREET w 11 lot t L71 ri� l} •• tt x 1 Y 4 • N � 7 M 4c 1 � c! K ,I �• � ! " � t ,t l n tt w y NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP: 2? Stratford Heights File: LUA-94-057, PPN/E-✓CF 55.00' -STUD, 65.45' LOT 5 . .i • .'y T 8 LOT 7 , J 14'5 L .07' T ErW 32 G.W.T _04 3414's -22 LOT 4s ss*ir.-j-.rj 8'. TR 1 IFIRE HYDRnNT t7 ACCE55RISER I 55MO2 so LOT 3 it T CONCRETE I ki cc Twill cc DETENTION VOULT ACCESS RISE LOT 2 N -2 5Ur,W C. (TYP) WTR.MF-TE (TYPICAL) _j i Lu I Cm 01 14" 5T 6. " LOT-,12 LOT L �13 ACCE55 R15ER C15il Ile lcolyc L 40 1) A F1w.x: I.W4 V 71 JEer;(A'_V14A- I VA 7 40 ST.41.p X_ I-LK CE) I I Off SITE ROAD rROVIDEXRM5.111 1.411 N IMPROVEMENTS. LANDSCAPE' '6TW,,.- RELOCATE If-X. C 5 ZOVO.C..T?P FIRE HYDKRNT,9 , ............... :z 55MH#1 4' A I Ur-LiRADE EX13TIN(4 4"WRTER MAIN TO 8 21, Stratford Heights "r .- Exhibit No. S File: LUA-94-057, PPN/ECF 10 4 IZ 3 13 `'J -M1, —�l'1—j'_!',7=� l_Il,i• j'_? _YYI'Il.n!L:I L'L';LL'_'I 1 ILI'.I __ CITN#F RENTON City Clerk Earl Clymcr, Mayor _ _ _ Mruylpi J. Petersen September 14, 1994 Mr. Erie 1-1. Campbell, President Camwest•.Development, Inc. P.O.-Box 308 Kirkland; A.• 98083 Re: Stratford Heights Preliminary Plat File No. PP-94-057 Dear Mr. Campbell:, _ The referenced,preliminary plat was approved by the Renton City Council on September 12, 1994. In accordance.with Renton City Code Section 9-12-6, a final plat shall be submitted for approval within. three (3) years of the date of preliminary plat approval. Your plat will lapsa on SSeggin er 12. 1997. By filing a written request to the hearing examiner at least 30 days prior to th,; expiration date, a one year extension shall be granted if the applicant demonstrates that a good faith effort nas been made to submit the final plat within the three year period. If I can provide additional information or assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ,emu Marilyn je rsen, CMC City Clerk ce: Mayor Earl Clymer Council President Richard Stredicke Fred J. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner Jana Huerter, Development Services Division 26 2(1(l Mill Avemie Snnth - Kentrn�. Wa.ehinatrin QR(1`iti - (7(ltil�:�5-?.501 TOTHL P.02 F, _U 4 AM , . RECEIVEI A U G 24 1994 Real Estate I e, opiiieiil , Inc . ti pp,,++1-Y nF HEARING EXAMINER August 23, 1994 Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Stratford Heights Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-94-057 Dear Mr. Kaufman, I am requesting that CamWest Development, Inc. be given the right to appeal the Hearing Examiner's July 26, 1994 reconsideration decision or that a 14 cul-de-sac plan be approved. The reason for this request is due to the incorrect interpretation of the Hearing Examiner's response of July 26 by the staff of the City of Renton that 14 lots would be allowed. The reason for this conclusion is specifically stated as follows in the July 26 denial of reconsideration, "The cul-de-sac design appears to provide an additional lot....." Therefore, due to your response of August 18, 1994, will an appeal to the City Council be permitted because of the confusion between your office and the City of Renton's planning staff? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Eric H. Campbell, ; side t CamWest Development, Inc. Z-7 nn nnv nnn Iimvl Anin I11A WOO I D11 007 n7/17 VAV 4 U97 PARTIES OF RECORD- SERVICE LIST STRATFORD HEIGIITS PRELMINARY PLAT File No. LUA-94-057, SA/PPN/E-CF Property Location: 3900 Block of NE 19th Street Applicant: CainWest Development, Inc. Eric Campbell Bill Orth Kathy Francis Camwest Development, Inc. Pacific Engineering 1909 Shelton Avenue NE 924 Bellevue Way NE, # 101 130 Andover Park East, 11 300 Renton WA 98056 Bellevue WA 98004 Seattle WA 98188 Raylene Gibson Elaine Jemberg Ben McDonald 1901 Union Avenue NE 1922 Redmond Avenue NE 1919 Shelton Avenue NE Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98056-3375 Henry Raketty Doris Sanders 1901 Shelton Avenue NE 1909 Union Avenue NE Renton WA 98056 Renton WA 98059 cc: Mayor Earl Clymer Jay Covington, Mayor's Executive Assistant James Hanson, Development Services Director Jana Huerter, City of Renton Project Manager Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Neil Watts, Plan Review Supervisor Gregg Zimmerman, Plan/Bldg/Public Works Administrator 2� P CITY OF RENTON PL Hearing Examiner Earl Clymer, Mayor Fred J.Kaufman August 25, 1994 Eric H. Campbell, President CamWest Development, Inc. I�✓ PO Box 308 Kirkland WA 98083 ECEI VED AUG .:,-0 1994 Re: STRATFORD HEIGHTS PRELIMINARY PLAT PACIFIC ENGINEERING FILE No.: LUA-94-057, PP/V/EJ CF Dear Mr. Campbell: This office has received your August 23 request for approval of a 14 lot cul-de-sac plan, or permission to file an untimely appeal to City Council. This office notes that the appeal period for the Stratford Heights' application expired on August 10, 1994. Therefore, this letter is in response to your letter; it is not a new decision and is not appealable. The July 13, 1994 decision of this office clearly states approval of a "13-lot cul-de-sac" plan. On July 22, CamWest submitted requests for reconsideration that included illustrations of a looped road plan and 14-lot cul-de-sac plan. In the July 26 response of this office CamWest's various proposals were generally discussed, as well as the lack of Ordinance support for some approvals, but this office did not change its July 13 decision. Specifically, the July 26 decision states in the last sentence of the second to last paragraph that ". . . the decision will not be modified . . .." This office regrets that the two written decisions were misread. In response to your request for permission to file an untimely appeal to the City Council, City Ordinance establishes the 14 day appeal period and this office does not have the authority to change Ordinance. If you have any questions please feel free to write. Sincerely, JZJ Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner FJK/dlf cc: Parties of Record 2C1 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2593 III . OFF-SITE ANALYSIS Runoff sheet flows to the south property line and into an existing ditch and storm system. From there runoff flows westerly through some existing driveway culverts and an open ditch for approximately 225 feet and enters a type 2 catch basin. Runoff exits this cb to the south through a 18" culvert that crosses NE 19th Street . Runoff enters and exits another type 2 catch basin adjacent to the south side of this street . Runoff enters an open swale to the south that has been landscaped by a homeowner for approximately 150 feet . From there runoff continues flowing southerly for approximately 700 feet through a well defined swale . At the end of this swale runoff enters Honey Creek and flows northwesterly for approximately 1 mile at which point it joins with May Creek and continues westerly to Lake Washington. The drainage channel for the entire 1/4 mile is within a clearly defined stable channel with varying widths , side slopes , and depths . The average channel width is 2 to 6 feet with side slopes ranging from 1 : 1 to 4 : 1 . The channel appears stable with no evidence of scouring or abnormal erosion. 30 13�L'11� �r 11 F�Iti I �I 1/B$ I � x4J5 1 I �•.` I I O •765 5266 � I es � ^` r Hill x465- / — -. jV'>- 2'30' 1 Cy �� ___'��, \ I (' Neva t ��•, =• Mj u—Ir 1�• 5265 Ni 5263 ncrgx`1Q•�'�Q 1 0 -- -� /l ...1*'- •r� �/ -- — .—�• Q 0— — T.24 N. 308x (71 _ I '_' J• ••� • -45 �,-��'; 1((1-Q-�= 1't�4 `� 1,• -_ \ IL �.. -`� li� � �' �k.^,�� - .p ;/`2`'v —�a�. \•� trailer 'ark o \ a BM a -. -- � � i , � ; --- -- - - ---•� b 58,.5 y=- - \`��Q �:I I .•i fl. A�4 �� 4 l�----_ - B •�� ` h P t r� : goo i7. r.•r A a J�. — ( Y �i�Q_ ;�� C ._ \ 47°30' rRENTONI (• �512 1,0/ 563 • INTEPIOR-GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.WA HINGTON.O.C.-1969 1578!NW 1 565°0°"'E 122007130" E 1:24000 i22"ClI1 l0j ROAD CLASSIFICATION 3 f 9O u i MILE Heavy-duty Light-duty----........... 'J�< 9000 4000 5" 6000 7000 FEET Medium-duty -- Unimproved dirt • 0 IV. RETENTIO_IDETENTION ANALYSIS Runoff and collection systems for this site have been sized using the 1990 King County storm Drainage Manual . The detention system has been designed for release at the 2 , 10 , and 100 year existing conditions . The SBUH methodology has been utilized using the "Water Works , release 2 . 9" computer program. This site will detain runoff in an underground wet vault . This vault will be located within the Right of Way near the first portion of the cul-de-sac. Per the city , the bottom 2 feet of the vault (dead storage) will be utilized as bio filtration. Runoff will be discharged to the storm system located within NE 19th Street . 3Z 130 ANDDVER PARK EAST, SUITE 300 SEATTIE, WA3H|NGTON 98188 (206) 431-7970 FAX431-7975 10/ 3/94 Wific Engineering Design page 1 Bruns Plat 93108 BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: A10 NAME : Developed 10 year SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA . . . . . . . : 2 .20 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0 .00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE . . . . : USER1 PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION . . . . : 2 .90 inches AREA . . : 1 .32 Acres TIME INTERVAL . . . . : 10 .00 min CN . . . . : 86 .00 TIME OF CONC . . . . . : 14 .06 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF : 0 .20 AREA . . : 0 .88 Acres CN . . . . 98 .00 TcReach - Sheet L: 110 .00 ns:0 .1500 p2yr : 2 .00 s: 0 .0200 TcReach - Shallow L : 75 .00 ks :27 .00 s: 0 .0100 TcReach - Channel L: 40 .00 kc:42 .00 s:0 .0050 PEAK RATE : 1 .02 cfs VOL : 0 .37 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: A100 NAME : Developed 100 year SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA . . . . . . . : 2 .20 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0 .00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE . . . . : USER1 PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION . . . . : 3 .90 inches AREA . . : 1 .32 Acres TIME INTERVAL . . . . : 10 .00 min CN . . . . : 86 .00 TIME OF CONC . . . . . : 14 .06 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0 .20 AREA . . : 0 .88 Acres CN . . . . 98 .00 TcReach - Sheet L : 110 .00 ns: 0 .1500 p2yr : 2 .00 s:0 .0200 TcReach - Shallow L : 75 .00 ks:27 .00 s:0 .0100 TcReach - Channel L : 40 .00 kc: 42 .00 s :0 .0050 PEAK RATE : 1 .52 cfs VOL : 0 .54 Ac-ft TIME: 430 min BASIN ID: A2 NAME : Developed 2 year SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA . . . . . . . : 2 .20 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0 .00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE . . . . : USER1 PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION . . . . : 2 .00 inches AREA . . : 1 .32 Acres TIME INTERVAL . . . . : 10 .00 min CN . . . . : 86 .00 TIME OF CONC . . . . . : 14 .06 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0 .20 AREA . . : 0 .88 Acres CN . . . . 98 .00 TcReach - Sheet L: 110 .00 ns:0 .1500 p2yr : 2 .00 s:0 .0200 TcReach - Shallow L: 75 .00 ks:27 .00 s : 0 .0100 TcReach - Channel L: 40 .00 kc:42 .00 s :0 .0050 PEAK RATE : 0 .60 cfs VOL : 0 .22 Ac-ft TIME : 480 min 10/ 3/94 Pacific Engineering Design Inc page 2 Bruns Plat 93108 BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: a10 NAME : Existing 10 year SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA . . . . . . . : 2 .20 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0 .00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE . . . . : USER1 PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION . . . . : 2 .90 inches AREA . . : 2 .20 Acres TIME INTERVAL . . . . : 10 .00 min CN . . . . . 85 .00 TIME OF CONC . . . . . : 55 .35 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0 .20 AREA . . : 0 .00 Acres CN . . . . 98 .00 TcReach - Sheet L: 300 .00 ns:0 .2400 p2yr : 2 .00 s:0 .0120 TcReach - Shallow L: 120 .00 ks :9 .00 s:0 .0120 PEAK RATE: 0 .42 cfs VOL : 0 .28 Ac-ft TIME: 490 min BASIN ID: a100 NAME: Existing 100 year SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA . . . . . . . : 2 .20 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0 .00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE . . . . : USER1 PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION . . . . : 3 .90 inches AREA . . : 2 .20 Acres TIME INTERVAL . . . . : 10 .00 min CN . . . . : 85 .00 TIME OF CONC . . . . . : 55 .35 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0 .20 AREA . . : 0 .00 Acres CN . . . . 98 .00 TcReach - Sheet L: 300 .00 ns :0 .2400 p2yr : 2 .00 s :0 .0120 TcReach - Shallow L : 120 .00 ks:9 .00 s: 0 .0120 PEAK RATE: 0 .71 cfs VOL : 0 .43 Ac-ft TIME: 490 min BASIN ID: a2 NAME : Existing 2 year SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA . . . . . . . : 2 .20 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0 .00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE . . . . : USER1 PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION . . . . : 2 .00 inches AREA . . : 2 .20 Acres TIME INTERVAL . . . . : 10 .00 min CN . . . . . 85 .00 TIME OF CONC . . . . . : 55 .35 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF : 0 .20 AREA . . : 0 .00 Acres CN . . . . 98 .00 TcReach - Sheet L: 300 .00 ns:0 .2400 p2yr : 2 .00 s :0 .0120 TcReach - Shallow L : 120 .00 ks:9 .00 s:0 .0120 PEAK RATE: 0 .19 cfs VOL : 0 .15 Ac-ft TIME : 490 min 3� �T F T A n,L 36 • • 10/ 3/94 Pacific Engineering Design Inc page 3 Bruns Plat 93108 HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY PEAK TIME VOLUME HYD RUNOFF OF OF Contrib NUM RATE PEAK HYDRO Area cfs min . cf\AcFt Acres 1 0 .187 490 6350 of 2 .20 r Msi 2 Y2 2 0 .418 490 12016 of 2 .20 io 3 0 .708 490 18916 of 2 .20 I aG 4 0 .601 480 9736 of 2 .20 ory z 5 1 .025 480 16082 of 2 .20 10 6 1 .520 480 23476 of 2 .20 100 18 0 .187 560 9736 of 2 .20 2r- ,.rraSO 2 y2 19 0 .418 540 16082 of 2 .20 10 20 0 .713 520 23476 of 2 .20 Jv 37 10/ 3/94 Pacific Engineering Design Inc page 4 Bruns Plat 93108 STORAGE STRUCTURE LIST RECTANGULAR VAULT ID No . V1 Description: Vault Length: 100 .00 ft . Width : 20 .00 ft . L_ 100 1-- ZO 0 = Z- Ic = 4320 cr OLt,S Skrr�;7T 7 rA G ro-Z, 0(- 30 c7o g320 G k 1.3 = 5� Ic Gr- ;GIB Z.1� 2(OO 2G : )3D ' LC"ltq L4vwT— 3� 10/ 3/94 Pacific Engineering Design Inc page 5 Bruns Plat 93108 STAGE STORAGE TABLE RECTANGULAR VAULT ID No . V1 Description : Vault Length : 100 .00 ft . width : 20 .00 ft . STAGE (----STORAGE----) STAGE (----STORAGE----) STAGE (----STORAGE----) STAGE 1----STORAGE----) (ft) ---cf--- --Ac-Ft- (ft) ---cf--- --Ac-Ft- (ft) ---cf--- --Ac-Ft- (ft) ---cf--- --Ac-Ft- 100.00 0.0000 0.0000 100.60 1200 0.0275 101.20 2400 0.0551 101.80 3600 0.0826 100.10 200.00 0.0046 100.70 1400 0.0321 101.30 2600 0.0597 101.90 3800 0.0872 100.20 400.00 0.0092 100.80 1600 0.0367 101.40 2800 0.0643 102.00 4000 0.0918 100.30 600.00 0.0138 100.90 1800 0.0413 101.50 3000 0.0689 102.00 4000 0.0918 100.40 800.00 0.0184 101.00 2000 0.0459 101.60 3200 0.0735 100.50 1000.00 0.0230 101.10 2200 0.0505 101.70 3400 0.0781 ?c�J 0 0 10/ 3/94 pacific Engineering Design Inc page 6 Bruns plat 93108 DISCHARGE STRUCTURE LIST COMBINATION DISCHARGE ID No . C1 Description : Combo Structure : R1 Structure : Structure : 01 Structure : Structure : MULTIPLE ORIFICE ID No . 01 Description: Orifice Outlet Elev: 100 .00 Elev: 98 .00 ft Orifice Diameter : 2 .7480 in . Elev. 100 .90 ft Orifice 2 Diameter : 2 .9766 in . RISER DISCHARGE ID No . R1 Description: Riser Riser Diameter ( in ) : 12 .00 elev: 102 . 12 ft Weir Coefficient . . . : 3 .782 height : 103 .00 ft Orif Coefficient . . . : 9 .739 increm: 0 . 10 ft 40 10/ 3/94 Pacific Engineering Design Inc page 7 Bruns Plat 93108 STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE COMBINATION DISCHARGE ID No . C1 Description : Combo Structure : R1 Structure: Structure : 01 Structure Structure : STAGE (--DISCHARGE---) STAGE (--DISCHARGE---) STAGE (--DISCHARGE---) STAGE (--DISCHARGE---> (ft) ---cfs-- ------- (ft) ---cfs-- ------- (ft) ---cfs-- ------- (ft) ---cfs-- ------- 100.00 0.0000 100.80 0.1833 2 y2 101.60 0.4604 102.40 2.0549 100.10 0.0648 100.90 0.1944 101.70 0.4822 102.50 2.9095 100.20 0.0916 101.00 0.2810 101.80 0.5030 102.60 3.2642 100.30 0.1122 101.10 0.3225 101.90 0.5229 102.70 3.5396 100.40 0.1296 101.20 0.3562 102.00 0.5420 102.80 3.7930 100.50 0.1449 101.30 0.3857 102.10 0.5604 102.90 4.0292 100.60 0.1587 101.40 0.4125 10--to- 102.20 0.7985 loo yrL 103.00 4.2512 100.70 0.1715 101.50 0.4372 102.30 1.3390 41 0 0 10/ 3/94 Pacific Engineering Design Inc page 8 Bruns Plat 93108 STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE MULTIPLE ORIFICE ID No . 01 Description: Orifice Outlet Elev : 100 .00 Elev: 98 .00 ft Orifice Diameter : 2 .7480 in . Elev : 100 .90 ft Orifice 2 Diameter : 2 .9766 in . STAGE (--DISCHARGE---) STAGE (--DISCHARGE---) STAGE I--DISCHARGE---> STAGE (--DISCHARGE---> (ft) ---cfs-- ------- (ft) ---cfs-- ------- (ft) ---cfs-- ------- (ft) ---cfs-- ------- 100.00 0.0000 100.80 0.1833 2-1 2 101.60 0.4604 102.40 0.6119 100.10 0.0648 100.90 0.1944 101.70 0.4822 102.50 0.6282 100.20 0.0916 101.00 0.2810 101.80 0.5030 102.60 0.6439 100.30 0.1122 101.10 0.3225 101.90 0.5229 102.70 0.6593 100.40 0.1296 101.20 0.3562 102.00 0.5420 102.80 0.6743 100.50 0.1449 101.30 0.3857 102.10 0.5604 102.90 0.6890 100.60 0.1587 101.40 0.4125 10 y 2 102.20 0.5781 100 y 2 103.00 0.7034 100.70 0.1715 101.50 0.4372 102.30 0.5953 �Z i !► 10/ 3/94 Pacific Engineering Design Inc page 9 Bruns Plat 93108 STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE RISER DISCHARGE ID No . R1. Description : Riser Riser Diameter ( in ) : 12 .00 elev : 102 . 12 ft Weir Coefficient . . . : 3 .782 height : 103 .00 ft Orif Coefficient . . . : 9 .739 increm : 0 . 10 ft STAGE (--DISCHARGE---) STAGE (--DISCHARGE---) STAGE (--DISCHARGE---) STAGE (--DISCHARGE---) (f0 ---CfS-- ------- (ft) ---CfS-- ------- (ft) ---CfS-- ------- (ft) ---Cfs-- ------- 102.12 0.0000 102.40 1.4430 102.70 2.8803 103.00 3.5478 102.20 0.2204 102.50 2.2813 102.80 3.1187 103.00 3.5478 102.30 0.7437 102.60 2.6202 102.90 3.3402 43 0 0 10/ 3/94 Pacific Engineering Design Inc page 10 Bruns Plat 93108 LEVEL POOL TABLE SUMMARY MATCH INFLOW -STO- -DIS- (-PEAK-) STORAGE (--------DESCRIPTION---------) (cfs) (cfs) --id- --id- (-STAGE) id VOL (cf) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ex 2 yr - dev 2 yr ........... 0.19 0.60 V1 01 100.84 18 1672.09 ex 10yr - dev 10yr ........... 0.42 1.02 V1 01 101.42 19 2843.97 ex100yr - dev100yr ........... 0.71 1.52 V1 C1 102.16 20 4328.13 �d- 4' ,. r . IN k , rhihandah.' +,'. t � �•�^� �'� 1 r.Qar Ian l � ,+,. .. I � �I� '� ' :,/��'� �`1'- P�,��1:': �riJJ, l �� 'r II r '1 � t�� ' _ "eS It f '�f � � � ','•;� �• 1 v�'i�,S`- �1 r. tol f�.:.N + � A 28b V , t f.•`fi ,/:+.,` °• -qr Ll� L.,I \\\5�+ ��.,r .. \\, bpi\ ,� u • }\ I 1 c,.\�1•�. , u Mr' � n. it �-;.��) ' y aka �\ ` I,l .r�l t-rr I 1!, 1', �,j".{-U. Y�;V• �t�I+ .� }�'.'_ 1' n � � �; . a ,t.. •alt. C •� �; �.�` \ y�y �,. � '� \\��, it � \�\`ir< .;'204i • �.• �.;��? { 4.'fl ,,�fy� i -�' - P— t: I . •, + +'111 1 1', , ,Il v if _ ,\ �\ - III. 11 ` ,. �'•i'il,y�, r �._ Ia {� s� �'a ri `'F H• + ylt (.'` .•.�,�•a�•t� 1 �F. Y,° �.R..��ny 4 \.?.�'t •/r �J rx r � 1 u� 'lppp`r{ r� 1 ,�I •t: � �.:\ tl � Ct .ti f�a �� •, .`' ,{, y, G �-rl / \� +•,7.? �yy�� ' x�' sue. � \� lac RI 'y' f .�,� ,�, �' � � _i 7 � •:�1 1 Y l ' .M l i l4 �• �1\•�..I / I•.___ _ _ 30 1 ]9 •~. /�I ;'"l ]I r '� I ` .� �' •S _ � 1. 1 I i I.j � ,� — i r J vith an wetlands L Wetlands Duwamish q In the The - " have ® Open Water 2' 7 Ilety of 5 , 'e map- service �� Basin Boundaries g 14 11r Iota- s to Sub-basin Boundaries s 11 ring so• 2 basins. --- fn /UP �' 44 KIM ��ir� '�� ► ran ° � ', w � ,.�,� lv Y•r ® Ct`B �� .,� li r �.. �. ��'� �� i III I�i �;,,r ,�•,� "' . 11 1 • � � • V. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS The conveyance system has been designed using the 1990 King County Guidelines . The on-site storm system has been sized to convey the 100 year developed flows . The "Flowmaster" computer program has been used to check pipe capacity. q7 • . VI . SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES A copy of the soils report is included in this section �(Y RZA AG RA Inc. 11'35 NE 122nd Way r I sultc. 100 Eng c ineen,�o & nvironn-ien!ji S(=,;1,106, Kirkland, WA 98034-6918 i2061 820-4669 FAX (206) 821-3914 25 October 1993 11-09182-00 Cam West Development, Inc. 924 Bellevue Way Ne, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Mr. Eric Campbell Subject: Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Proposed Residential Development NE 19th Street and Shelton Avenue NE Renton, Washington Dear Eric: This letter report presents the results of our Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation for the proposed residential development at the intersection of NE 19th Street and Shelton Avenue NE in Renton,Washington. The subject property and the approximate locations of the explorations accomplished for this evaluation are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1. Test pit logs with interpretive descriptions of the soil conditions encountered at the exploration locations are enclosed with this letter report. Infiltration rate test results are discussed in the report text. The following engineering considerations and recommendations are based on the subsurface exploration performed for this project on 19 October 1993. The scope of our services consisted of the field exploration program, visual assessment of the site conditions, on-site infiltration rate measurements, geotechnical engineering analyses, and preparation of this report. This letter report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices for the exclusive use of Cam West Development, Inc. and their agents, for specific application to this project. The scope of work for this evaluation was performed in accordance with our confirming letter for geotechnical studies, dated 18 October 1993. 4 �,` AG RA Earth&Environmental Group Cam West Development, Inc. 1 1-091 82-00 25 October 1993 Page 2 Site and Project Description The site is located at the northeastern corner of the intersection of Northeast 19th Street and Shelton Avenue Northeast in Renton, Washington. The property is approximately 300 feet square and 2 acres in size, and has an overall vertical relief of approximately 5 feet. At the time of our exploration, the site was covered with grass and brushy vegetation, a few scattered small trees, and a grove of conifers on the west property boundary. We understand that the proposed project would consist of constructing a new cul-de-sac, several single- family residential home sites,and associated utilities. We understand that an on-site surface water infiltration structure is also proposed. We anticipate that grading cuts and fills of approximately 5 feet or less would be required to complete the site preparation. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on our understanding of the project at this time. As the project was in the preliminary planning stage at the time of this writing, we recommend that this report be reviewed and modified as needed to accommodate any significant changes from the assumed conditions. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION The subsurface exploration procedure for this project consisted of advancing seven soil test pits with a rubber-tired backhoe on 19 October 1993. One water infiltration rate test was completed in test pit TP-2 in general accordance with procedures presented in the King County Surface Water design manual. Test pits logs with interpretive descriptions of soil conditions encountered are appended to this report. The depths shown on the logs are approximate, and were measured from the ground surface at the time of exploration. Where soil contacts were undulating or gradational, the depths shown represent typical values. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The near-surface soil conditions on the site generally consisted of dense silty gravelly sand glacial till soils mantled by medium dense weathered glacial till, with approximately 0 to 3.6 feet of variable fill soils at the test pit locations. Each test pit encountered approximately 0.6 to 2.0 feet of topsoil and sod. Published United States Soil Conservation Service Maps for the area denoted site soils are Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, AgC. S0 A G R A Earth&Environmental Group Cam West Development, Inc. 1 1-091 82-00 25 October 1993 Page 3 None of our test pits encountered groundwater seepage, though our exploration program was completed during near seasonal low groundwater. We did observe soil coloration in our test pits which would suggest that a seasonal perched groundwater condition may occur on the site. A perched groundwater table occurs where vertical infiltration is impended by a dense soil layer, such as the glacial till soils, and horizontal migration atop the dense strata occurs. Variations in groundwater levels should be anticipated in response to fluctuations in seasonal precipitation, on and off-site land usage, and other factors. Infiltration Rate Testing One subsurface maximum infiltration rate test was performed in general accordance with the guidelines published in Section 4.5.2 of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. The approximate test location is noted on Figure 1, and the test depth was approximately 4.0 feet below ground surface. The test was run as a"falling head"test, with head changing from approximately 4.0 to 3.5 feet during each timing cycle. Our testing indicated an actual average infiltration rate (Im) at the test location of 0.5 foot per hour, or 12 minutes per one-tenth of a foot. This value should be applied In accordance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual, utilizing the recommended overall factor of safety for the infiltration structure of 2.0. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The subject parcel is located north and east of the intersection of Northeast 19th Street and Shelton Avenue Northeast in Renton, Washington. The proposed development would include construction of a new cul-de- sac and several residential home sites. Access driveways, utilities, and landscaping will be provided for the proposed development. In our opinion, the development as proposed is feasible utilizing spread and continuous footings. The following paragraphs contain our detailed recommendations related to site preparation, structural fill placement, foundation design and construction, permanent and temporary slopes, retaining wall design, and drainage considerations. Site Preparation Because the site grading plan for the proposed development is not available at this time, we have provided general site preparation recommendations in this report. Prior to site grading, any site surface runoff and groundwater seepage should be collected and routed away to a proper drainage to facilitate earthwork and foundation construction. All building, pavement, and sidewalk areas, and areas to receive structural fill S1 AGRA Earth&Environmental Group Cam West Development, Inc. 1 1-091 82-00 25 October 1993 Page 4 should be cleared of all vegetation, topsoil, uncontrolled fill, and debris. Based on our explorations, we estimate a stripping effort will typically encounter 0.6 to 2.0 feet of topsoil and localized areas with up to 3.6 feet of previously placed fill which will require stripping. Thicker topsoil depths should be expected around and beneath tree root balls, and the nature and distribution of man-placed fills is likely to vary across the site. We recommend that foundation, floor subgrade, pavement areas, and areas to receive "structural fill" be prerolled and compacted with a roller or other suitable heavy equipment to a firm and non-yielding condition in order to achieve a minimum compaction level of at least 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM:D 1557 test procedure. The upper 1 foot of subgrade soil in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the its modified Proctor maximum dry density. Due to the silty nature of the on-site soils, prerolling and adequate compaction can only be achieved when the soils are at or near their optimum moisture content. Any soft, wet, or significantly organic areas disclosed by prerolling should be excavated as necessary to reveal firm, non-organic soils and backfilled with "structural fill" if necessary, as discussed in the following section of this report. The need for or advisability of prerolling due to on-site soil conditions during or after wet weather should be evaluated at the time of construction. Earthwork done in the presence of excess soil moisture or during wet weather conditions may be difficult due to the silt content and moisture sensitive nature of some of the ' near-surface sand and gravel soils. If required, a representative from RZA AGRA could observe the soil conditions prior to and during prerolling to evaluate the suitability of stripped subgrades prior to structural ' fill or foundation placement. In this way, the adequacy of earthwork may be evaluated as it proceeds. Structural Fill All fill placed in building areas, below sidewalks, and for backfilled utility trenches should be placed in accordance with the recommendations presented herein for structural fill. Prior to structural fill placement, the surfaces to receive structural fill should be prepared as previously described in the Site Preparation section of this report. All structural fill should be free of organic material, debris, and other deleterious materials. The maximum individual particle size of soils used for structural fill applications should be less than 6 inches in diameter. /AZ AGRA Earth&Environmental Group • Cam West Development, Inc. 1 1-091 82-00 25 October 1993 Page 5 Structural fill should be placed in lifts no greater than 8 inches in loose thickness and each lift should be uniformly compacted to at least 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. The upper 1 foot of soil under paved areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. If required, a representative of RZA could be present during grading and fill placement so that a representative number of density tests may be conducted as the structural fill placement occurs. In this way, the adequacy of earthwork may be evaluated as it proceeds. Permanent sloping fills should be compacted to the same 90 percent density as the body of the fill, as determined by the ASTM:D-1557 test procedure. This may be accomplished by overbuilding the slope and cutting back to a compacted core, or by compacting the slope face when fill placement is completed. In ' any case, no uncompacted fill should remain on site except in non-structural and planting areas. The suitability of soils for structural fill use depends on the particle size distribution and moisture content of the soil when it is placed. As the amount of fines, that soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve, increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate ' compaction becomes more difficult or impossible to achieve. Generally, soils containing more than about 5 percent fines by weight, based on the soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 4 sieve, cannot be compacted to ' a firm, and non-yielding condition when the moisture content is more than a few percent above optimum. The optimum moisture content is that which yields the greatest soil density under a given compactive effort. The near-surface site soils could be used for structural fill provided that they are suitably free of organic ' material and cleared of debris, and that their moisture content is carefully maintained within about two percent of optimum. Placement of the soils would more readily be accomplished during the drier summer months when the soils could be moisture conditioned by spreading and/or windrowing. Foundation Considerations The proposed structures may be supported by conventional spread and continuous footings. Footings may be constructed on either the undisturbed, native, medium dense to very dense silty gravelly sands or on structural fill.placed above properly prepared subgrade soils and compacted to 90 percent of their modified Proctor maximum dry density. We recommend that footings founded on the above recommended bearing soils be designed with a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). All footings should have a minimum width of at least 18 inches. The base of the exterior footings should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final ground elevation or the top of floor slabs, �� A G R A Earth&Environmental Group Cam West Development, Inc. 1 1-091 82-00 25 October 1993 Page 6 whichever is lower. Interior footings need only extend 12 inches below surrounding finished grades or floor slab surfaces. The above recommended allowable bearing pressures may be increased by up to one-third to accommodate transient and seismic loads. All footings should be founded in the prescribed bearing strata; foundations should not be set in or above loose or disturbed soils or any existing uncontrolled or uncompacted fill. As the near-surface soils are silty, site work in the presence of water or during wet weather may disturb the bearing strata. We recommend that the contractors exercise proper excavating techniques to minimize the disturbance of the exposed bearing soils. We estimate the total settlements of foundations founded in the prescribed bearing strata may be on the order of 3/4 inch with differential settlements estimated to be on the order of 1/2 inch or less. As the subgrade soils are primarily granular, settlement would be essentially elastic in nature and occur as the load is placed. Foundation settlement is often a function of how the footing subgrade was prepared. The footing excavations should be free of loose or soft soils, slough, debris, or water prior to pouring the footing concrete. If disturbed or soft soils are left within the footing area prior to concrete placement, future settlements may be greatly increased. For that reason, we recommend that the footing subgrade soils be observed by a representative of RZA prior to pouring footing concrete to confirm that the condition of the bearing soils are consistent with the recommendations presented in this report. Slab-On-Grade Floor Slab-on-grade floor subgrades, if used, should be prepared in accordance with the previous site preparation recommendations. The slab-on-grade floors should be founded on prerolled or compacted native ground or structural fill compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM:D 1557). We recommend that the floor slabs be underlain by a minimum 6-inch thickness of washed rock or pea gravel containing less than 3 percent fines by weight, based on that soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 4 sieve, with at least 30 percent retained on the No. 4 sieve. This granular fill is intended to serve as a capillary break and working surface. An impervious moisture barrier should also be placed between the capillary break and the floor slab. Pavement Construction The subgrade for the new cul-de-sac paving should be prepared as described above in the Site Preparation section of this report. Any fill required to achieve design grades below paving should be placed in =^ AG RA Earth & Environmental Group n Cam West Development, Inc. 11-09182-00 25 October 1993 Page 7 accordance with our recommendations above for "structural fill'. Pavement subgrades prepared as recommended should provide adequate support for minimum pavement section thicknesses set forth by King County for the applicable road service category. Drainage Considerations The site soils are somewhat silty and highly susceptible to disturbance when wet. Prior to construction, site surface water or groundwater encountered during grading should be routed away from construction and building areas. Based on soil weathering, due to the possibility of high periodic groundwater conditions, we recommend that the buildings be provided with a perimeter footing drain system to collect available water. The footing drains should consist of a perforated pipe fully enveloped by pea gravel or washed rock. Footing drains should discharge into a tight-line drain network away from the building via gravity to a suitable discharge point. Site grades should be planned to provide a positive surface gradient away from the buildings and to avoid ponding. Roof and surface runoff should not discharge into the footing drain system. Instead, a separate tight-line drain network should be installed to direct rainfall away from completed buildings. CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on our understanding of the proposed project and our subsurface exploration program and geotechnical engineering evaluation. The number, location, and depth of the explorations were accomplished within the authorized scope of work and site constraints to formulate our recommendations. We recommend that RZA AGRA be provided the opportunity to review the geotechnical aspects of the project plans and specifications in order to confirm that the recommendations and design considerations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and implemented for this project. The integrity of the foundations depend on the proper site preparation and construction procedures. RZA AGRA, Inc. would be available to provide geotechnical engineering services and construction observation services during earthwork and foundation and utility construction phases of this project. If variations in subsurface conditions were observed at that time, RZA would be available to provide additional geotechnical recommendations to minimize time delays as the project proceeds. AGRA Earth&Environmental Group n i I Cam West Development, Inc. 1 1-091 82-00 j 25 October 1993 Page 8 i We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, or require further information after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to call us. Respectfully submitted, RZA AGRA, INC. Bruce W. G enzl r u e Engineering Geologist Y1 3'- Kurt D. Merriman, P.E. O Associate BWG/KDM/ah EXPIRES 11 2u/ `I` S�� Enclosure: Figure 1 - Site and Exploration Plan Test Pit Logs TP-1 through TP-7 G^ AGRA Earth&Environmental Group l \ l fit 1Ix c rs 34 �p9 vtA E yapnl�sr 111M 51 M/7 s � E -L�•4 i \ Lk _ 91 SI + I'. s F•' CKffK a 'P ti�N ' �-' N `t l NSF Mar TP-4 \ g 1. r;`cKror`rAec �`'_( gs?� u \ 4NAI`Pr ao W I7r :` — �y\ s1CWU -Y�x p ' 'r ! L- —1„x sI HE'IUnS I• C ww -�i fr - A�.�i } c x A SE IAik� CC d -1- 0 _G simix uimi1Pl3Z sF iusrm s? ! n 1 SITE ` I �5�' � � 4 -- u rarx'� �s / l�Na01 Si , Ani 9 m $[ IGIn a3o >•� ,� v +1 r.Y i ae�� G Y nt 1--_yi .. \ rY �. +� `\\\\ y _ S�IOKix iiv r I x lu-Ix 5I w xw'":s sl VU0 5, 1cc .E 3 90 t UNSE • �`r��— —{ - —- w A d PLO TP-2 �Ix I IP nnn <wE iznl• `.., c� v TPl- it 17 (INFILTRATION TEST) P �za ,qi SE lii' _ sl Q OW -- r 9m $r]610. Si-. L BiN='S<'�.� I.._• sr I:ulx 1_ .1 71W 5T> cc 428 W 3 ll 8 W <> TP-6 / a LEGEND TP-7 SHELTON AVE. N.E. ASPHALT CULVERT TEST PIT LOCATIONNUMBER AND APPROXIMATE co co RZA-AGRA wo 11 1 CAM-WEST SHELTON AVE. N.E.& 19th ST. ENWNEERiNG6ENVIRONAtENTd�$ER\'ICES DESIGN RWG RENTON.WASHINGTON Z 0 40 80 11335N.E. 122nd Way DRAWN Mom_ suite 100 DArE OCT logg SITE & EXPLORATION PLAN SCALE IN FEET Kirkland, Washington DRAWING BASED ON PLAN BY TRIAD ASSOCIATES.DATED 9-29-93 96034-6916 SCALE NOTED FIGURE 1 TEST PIT LOGS Depth (feed Soil Classification 11-9182 Test Pit TP-1 Approximate ground surface elevation: 428 feet 0.0 - 1.9 Loose, moist, brown, TOPSOIL, with sod 1.9 - 4.1 Medium dense, moist, tan to mottled gray, silty gravelly fine SAND 4.1 - 6.6 Dense to very dense, moist, gray, silty gravelly fine SAND 6.6 - 7.9 Dense to very dense, moist, gray, fine SAND some silt and gravel Test pit terminated at approximately 7.9 feet No caving No seepage Test Pit TP-2 Approximate ground surface elevation: 430 feet 0.0 - 0.6 Loose, moist, brown, TOPSOIL, with sod (Fill) 0.6 - 2.2 Loose, moist, brown buried TOPSOIL 2.2 - 4.1 Medium dense to dense, moist, tan to gray, silty gravelly fine SAND Test pit terminated at approximately 4.1 feet Infiltration test completed at 4.1 No caving No seepage Test Pit TP-3 ' Approximate ground surface elevation: 430 feet 0.0 - 1.1 Loose, moist, brown, TOPSOIL, with sod ' 1.1 - 2.0 Medium dense, moist, tan to gray silty gravelly fine SAND 2.0 - 7.1 Dense to very dense, moist gray, silty gravelly fine SAND Test pit terminated at approximately 7.1 feet INo caving No seepage r >S; I I 0 I 11-9182 Test Pit Logs, Page 2 ' D th f t _Soil Classific tion 99-Eft _4 Approximate ground surface elevation: 429 feet 0.0 - 1.6 Loose, wet, brown, silty SAND, with brick (Fill) 1.6 - 2.5 Medium dense, moist, tan, silty gravelly fine SAND 2.5 - 6.1 Dense to very dense, moist, mottled gray Y to gray, silty gravelly fine SAND 6.1 - 7.1 Dense to very dense, moist gray, gravelly fine SAND, some silt Test pit terminated at approximately 7.1 feet INo caving No seepage I Test---Pit TPA` IApproximate ground surface elevation: 430 feet 0.0 - 1.3 Loose, moist, brown, TOPSOIL, with sod 1.3 - 3.3 Medium dense, moist, tan, silty I ty gravelly fine SAND 3.3 - 5.9 Dense to very dense, moist, mottled gray to gray, silty gravelly SAND Test pit terminated at approximately 5.9 feet No caving No seepage e Tst— P— it TP-6 IApproximate ground surface elevation: 428 feet 0.0 - 0.5 Loose, moist, brown, TOPSOIL, with sod 0.5 -I 1. 00se, moist, tan, silt 1 L y gravelly fine SAND (Fill) 1.1 - 3.6 Loose, moist, brown, organic TOPSOIL, with sod 3.6 - 4.6 Medium dense, moist, tan, silty gravelly fine SAND 4.6 - 7.8 Dense to verydense moist, mottled gray to gray, silt 9 Y 9 Y y gravelly find SAND Test pit terminated at approximately 7.8 feet No caving No seepage ! -1 11-9182 Test Pit Logs, Page 3 Depth (feet) Soil Classification Test Pit TP-7 Approximate ground surface elevation: 428 feet 0.0 - 1.4 Loose, moist, brown, organic TOPSOIL, with sod 1.4 - 4.0 Medium dense, moist, brown, silty gravelly fine SAND 4.0 - 6.7 Dense to very dense, moist, gray, silty gravelly fine SAND Test pit terminated at approximately 6.7 feet No caving No seepage Date excavated: 19 October 1993 Logged by: BWG �G VII . BASIN AND COMMUNITY PLANNING AREAS NA i 9 0 VIII . OTHER PERMITS NA �7 0 • IX. EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL DESIGN The site erosion control plan has been designed using the 1990 King County Drainage Manual as a guide . This site is very flat and should not present any special erosion control measures . 5 T i 1� 1 ►.�'� Por H 1L 7L i" a��writ+a•a ..wlsFp area tn.w:t:sm< s s wwys a.+rc:a J9if5�+ vY�+w s x:a. i I"2 BeD J I I BeC , A, I • f� I I i r I AkF ikf Bh •'.i I'.: ACD AgC I ,' BMQ eBN B ,;B—Q 1 85 AgG' 42 — � — — I BeC — — 4 ----- ----— I -----t — ---- r CJ AgC r D �CR� j BeC ' • 'Pin Ne g wpo A •9 i Hills BeC Am ,EB BeC I AkF AgCj 4°u B h I i KPD 44" k ,t i gM BeC ,N M Newca tl t;93 • gM 998 I EvC J BeD eC i t,'y, ,' p, (' .r Y •,• •• AgC AgC ' I •�\. EvC 9 IP• P \ Agg f i� ar a •P OvD �:. � a Qx .� N ..\ . w,afi V v '/ BM�q A D r BMD'aBM I w 78 BeCs'`" •g s, 690 692 m I. I t p t, AgC N° :. _ I •/ , � • ;"".� 1 • _ AgC BM 0 I AgC ^.a. ti 9 OvD 605 L ' ate, 01, o, O •• .\� �, •I n O BeC I AgC 1 I. a�}+ 7 k r rl •:: .0 I BeD *; \ AgD 34 I , A&0 AgD N I J ISe AgC A9CI? i j �, �•• q\ ALP •I' II �`: p •• /: ipt I I , fOVD s AkF �1� AkF I; F tritf'+" .� i Agc EvB ; I eec EvC I' GRAVEL AgC I'' .• ^I • 'AkF 4 r 306 •I ABC ' -- --�--- — — — -- — — 13M. 1 „ BM 1 s• • ,- OvC �y O ,p .�' N\ 0 �v0 —ter. AgD f Bh 9L . Ev� s v� ' 1AgC . ; 5p i °� • ',``r RdC its AgC O. r k ��Inll •r r ` � � f �� • ice,_ Cast. ti si/i N t�• CVC _s • � AgD tr`R ti ••� EvBl,l f x�• �I�AI .r•�l ..�'�,� 1 � 4{'' !K'l AgC�.x' _! _- _ t 1 •s •�• • • J s M "Bh '+ ,1 r ,Ur I .. �� I t` 1 v •Sm 1 Jz..- , J' �•� r �,' ,'� �' I• R®ry ir. t � I. F d �r . v railer• ark ..a,• lel. •`J BM_ �s sP0 BM 12 EvC �.. I. J� •s s v. (•_� --.; AgC AgC •� +r-�' ";�.•' "` 'q. i�'k� •♦ 's's ! `•," ,, ' AgC`' �2�E'• zy!i •900 D�' ' ;,.. � l—JLJ �1r•' � � •, ,n +):i;,_ O �.J !.7 Ml. RdC 10, 1220C 'ON N Orthophotobase compiled in 1970 by USGS. Pla 1 2 Miles detail obtained from USGS 7��minute series m, 5000 10000 Feet Polyconic projection. 1927 North American datu 10,000•foot grid based on Washington coordinal X. BOND QUANTITY WORK SHEET, RETENTION/DETENTION FACILITY SUMMARY SHEET AND SKETCH, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT �5 KING COUNTY, Wo; I-iINGTON, SURFACE WA�; R DESIGN MANUAL RETENTION/DETENTION SUMMARY SHEET Development ST6LI�Tf �2�7 I1n Date 0(�7-4e /g y ¢ Location n r I°)Th ST �M ;vv� �r✓� f�� ENGINEER DEVELOPER Name (2,1 U- Name_ E-Gz/G GA"Q Firm Firm GAM Address 1W Al-b,X✓6 6e lei L G -..t 3 c1r) Address 924- 13f=LL/�_Vwf'� nr Phone Q)- : 9?0 Phone 63-7 - 97 4 Z • Developed Site 7,Z acres Number of Lots 13 • Number of Detention Facilities On Site I • Detention provided in regional facility 0 Regional Facility location • No detention required F-1 Acceptable receiving waters • Downstream Drainage Basins Immediate Major Basin BasinA _}lo��r=—� ASii Basin B Basin C Basin D TOTAL INDIVIDUAL BASIN Drainage Basin(s) A B C D Onsite Area Offsite Area Type of Storage Facility Live Storage Volume 5C Z 6 Gr Predeveloped Runoff Rate 2 year 0. 1 10 year 0, 4 Z Postdeveloped Runoff Rate 100 year -� 1 2 year 0 10 year 1,03 Developed Q 100 year 1. 5 Z Type of Restriction r-_ ,-~ Size of Orifice/Restriction Orifice/Restriction No.1 ? 74k ' No.2 No.3 f, No.4 No.5 1/M XI . MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION MANUAL MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR DRAINAGE FACILITIES PICK UP TRASH AND DEBRIS AROUND PROPERTY ON A DAILY BASIS . ANY VEGETATION WHICH MAY BE POISONOUS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: TANSY RAGWORT, POISON OAK, STINGING NETTLES OR DEVILS CLUB SHOULD BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY . (COORDINATE REMOVAL WITH SEATTLE/KING COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT) . ANY ITEMS SUCH AS OIL, GASOLINE, ETC. , SHOULD BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY AS NOT TO HARM PLANTS , ANIMALS OR CAUSE POTENTIAL FIRE HAZARDS. (COORDINATE REMOVAL WITH SEATTLE/KING COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT) . GRASS SHOULD BE MAINTAINED AS NEEDED, NEVER EXCEEDING 18 INCHES IN HEIGHT, THEN MOWED TO 2 INCHES . OTHER LANDSCAPE AREAS SHOULD BE KEPT UP ACCORDINGLY AS NOT TO CAUSE INTERFERENCE TO THE COMPLEX. ANY RODENT DAMAGE TO DAM OR BERM SHALL BE REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY AND RODENTS DESTROYED. (COORDINATE WITH SEATTLE/KING COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT) . INSECTS SUCH AS WASPS AND HORNETS SHALL BE DESTROYED OR REMOVED IMMEDIATELY . REMOVE TREES .CAUSING INTERFERENCE WITH MAINTENANCE OR COMPLEX ACCESS. ANY POND SIDE SLOPES WITH EROSION OVER 2 INCHES DEEP SHALL IMMEDIATELY BE STABILIZED. WHEN ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT EXCEEDS 10% OF THE POND DEPTH THE POND SHALL BE CLEANED OUT TO DESIGNED DIMENSIONS AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES TAKEN IF NEEDED. ANY DIKE THAT SETTLES 4 INCHES BELOW THE ORIGINAL ELEVATION SHOULD BE BUILT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL DESIGN ELEVATION . REPLACE ROCK IN EMERGENCY OVERFLOW/SPILLWAY AS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN ORIGINAL DESIGN STANDARDS . JOB JOHN D. GRIFFIN ENGINEERS, INC. SHEET NO. I OF Civil/Structural Consulting Engineer 11680 Slater Avenue NE CALCULATED OY DATE MKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 (206) 823.9903 FAX (206) 821-9408 CHECKED 6Y DAME SCALE vA ffie .5 VC/11v 4io.64 �— Z ,Lf �,tPu�ao + �Y.+y f 3rC��:,�l Yi'3,a PSa/J•'_�'�r�k�c',}. � I lfiv F- � 8A0 ; to MT /Ow 7L 1`t�_ , O ZZ X 3,s p 7 ' ) Cy oCPIRg.S J A Id 29 V c� • � � lV �'� / � Ct/3�<L1 1 Z6r/� /Zo Z, S` 933� Y JOHN D. GRIFFIN ENGINEERS, INC. JOB�G �� Civil/Structural Consulting Engineer SHEET NO. of 11680 Slater Avenue NE CALCULATED BY � DATE MkLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 (206) 823-9903 FAX (206) 821-9408 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE _ 4,( �- r yg11. l`lo/psI= S � ,51.E�z = , O�//�Z- Z a USE NiN, le6irvF x id,F-./sx z) =G•�F�f �� 4-oof 8 9x✓,S,c/Z. y/2/ /Zuz/ Z �o Z�C c� 1 / IL PACIFIC ENQINEAG DESIQN INC. 0 M4M OF 4p QaONOVUL CIVIL ENGINEERING AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS 130 ANDOVER PARK EAST, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98188 DATE 7 C� 5 " NO. �'� Q (j (206) 431-7970 FAX:431-7975 a r ATTENTION P p � / TO G I"I�� 2 r=n�j� PROJECT- We We Are Sending You: VIA: tr Blue Prints ❑ Copies ❑ Other ❑ Fax Sheets Including Letter of Transmittal ❑Mylars/Vellums❑ Disks ❑ Engineering Xerox ❑ Courier Hour Delivery ❑ Mail Printing: IN HOUSE ❑ REPROGRAPHICS ❑ Other COPIES DATE NO. These Are Transmitted As Checked Below: ® As requested ❑ Approved as submitted ;®'For approval ❑ For review and comment ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Returned for correction ❑ COPY T0: SIGNED: LIZ /f enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 5130 5137 5160 5135 5150 5165 5136 5155 5166