Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 3 - Folder 3 of 3Cynthia Moya
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Stacy and Cindy
Vanessa Do I bee
Thursday, July 11, 2013 422 PM
Stacy Tucker; Cynthia Moya
Fieldbrook LUA12-001
Please add the following person to the POR list for the subject project. Thank you.
Richard Garana
10841 SE 172°• St. Unit D
Renton, WA 98055
P.S. Stacy, please use all the LUA12-001 POR's for the variance application which was added to the 12-001 file.
Thank you.
'Vanessa (})o[6ee
Senior Planner
Department of Community & Economic Development
City of Renton
Renton City Hall -6th Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
425.430. 7314
1
Jeremy Adams
11012 SE 173rd Street
Renton, WA 98055-5927
Party of Record
Robert Lyon
10817 SE 170th Street
Renton, WA 98055-5909
Party of Record
Richard Garana
10841 SE 172nd St #9D
Renton, WA 98055-5945
Party of Record
Patrick & Claire Creager
10833 SE 173rd St
Renton, WA 98055-5907
Pa,ty of Record
Justin Lagers
PNW Holdings, LLC
9675 SE 36'" Street #105
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Contact
George & Frances Subic
PO Box 89
Renton, WA 98057-0089
Pa,ty of Record
Laura Smith
10841 SE 172nd Street #9A
Renton, WA 98055-5945
Party of Record
Darlene Bjornstad
14624 SE 183rd Street
Renton, WA 98058
Party of Record
Karen Huseth
17123 113th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98055
Party of Record
Field brook Commons, LLC
9675 SE 36'" Street #105
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Owner/Applicant
Jesse Hurtado
PO BOX 59743
Renton, WA 98058-2743
Party of Record
Dan Phillips
PO Box 60256
Renton, WA 98058
Party of Record
Corine Kumano
10829 SE 172nd Street #6C
Renton, WA 98055-5945
Pa,ty of Record
Richard Miles
10809 SE 172nd Street #1B
Renton, WA 98055-5926
Pa,ty of Record
Denis Law -c·ty f
---~M:ayo:r ______ ... r l __ O ,r, l_ . ._,
October 21; 2013
Justin Lagers
Field brook Commons UC
9675 SE 36th Street #105
Mercer Island, WA 98040
~~lQ>lll
Department of Community and Economic Development
C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator
SUBJECT: Fieldbrook Commons Variance
. LUAlZ-001, V-A
Dear Mr. Lagers:
This letter is to inform .you that the appeal period ended September 3, 2013 for the
Administrative Variance approval. No appeals were filed, therefore, this decision is final
· and application for the appropriately required permits may proceed.
The applicant should be aware that the Administrative Variance decision will expire two
(2) years from the decision date of August 20, 2013. If they are unable to commence
construction or otherwise implement effectively the variance granted within the two-
year time-frame, a sing.le one (1) year extension may be requested in writing, pursuant
to RMC 4-9-2506.18.
If you have any questions regarding the report and decision issued for this variance
proposal, please call me at (425) 430-7314.
Sincerely,
~-D(Jlbea_
Vanessa Dolbee
Senior Planner
cc: Fieldbro·ok Commons LLC / Owner{s)
Jeremy Ad.ams, Darlene Bjqrnstad, Patrick & Claire Creager, Richard Grana, Jesse & _Linda Hurtado, Karen Huseth,
Danny & Corine Kumano, Robert Lyon, Richard Miles, Dail Phillips; laura Smith, Geo(ge & Frances-Subic/
Party(ies) of Record
Renton City Hall , 1055 South Grady Way , Renton, Washington 98057 , rentonwa.gov
~
R-8 I~
~
I R-8
~
"' ,:;
"' i'
~ .,.,j.
CA
400.0
Cit of Renton, Washington
CA
o
14
R-14
ti
l
"' :g ...
SE·I7211d s;:_
ti
~
-s:
~ ...
200.00 400.0 Feet
Private Rd
R-14
~
8
r-Rdf 6-,;; ... I~~
rr& --·
SE' 173rdSt
R-14
NEIGHBORHOOD MAP
SE' 1691/1 Pl
~[ I 1, IR-1~ I I ...,
/;;
"' ...
l ]
Ji
s!;
f
=f.-8
/
1~·~1;,sir··
~e~~ti" ·' ::;: .. _'.' -_ -
·• · .. "1Jor'ls>1;,~cl(;,\,
'q~
i
"' "' SE' 1·70th ·SI~
~
"' ~ ,.,.
R-10
· ···SE·/691/1 St·
R·
---·--·SE-172mtSrf ~
This map is a user generaled static output rrom an Internet mapping site and
is for reference only. Data layers !hat appear on this map may or may not be
accurate, current, or olllerwise reliable.
THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION
D Lakes and Rivers
D Parcels
Zoning
Resource Conservation
Rasidenlial 1 du/ai::
Residenlial 4 du/ac
Residanlial B duf.ac
Residen1ial ManufaC:Ured Hames
Residenlial 10 dufac
Residenlia! 14 dufac
Resldenlia1 Mum-Family
Residential Multi-Family Traditional
Residential Multi-Family Urban Ct!l1
l Center Village
:.J Ccmler Downtown
Urban Center -North 1
Urban Cen:et • North 2
Commercial Office/Resi(ren!ial
Commercial Arterial
commercial Office
• Commercial Neighborhood
Industrial-light
Industrial-Medium
Ci1 lndus1rial-Heavy
Street Names
Rights of Way
Streets
Roads
Jurisdictions
Bol!llVUQ
Das Moines
Issaquah
Kent
(] King County
Mercer lslartd
Newcaslle
RENTON
SeaTac
Seallla
~..';';~ila
' ,,, -·· l .~i-f">
,·1,:1:;: ~::{';-~f:)!;
,!UN ;J .Jat1
'?,ii-: ,i,· /\ :/ 1
1
,,: r
··,·1
·,
1: 2,400
@11" X 17" 0
Notes
Enter Map Description
1~
Ji---------
R-8 ,:t·
;,::.
-;5 .. ,
R-8
-;g, • i----------1
--=
400.0
CII o! Ren Ion, Washhgton
NEIGHBORHOOD MAP
-B
200.00
r--i ' I I
\J0-(1 (UO(C
~;+kJ
R~10
I I I llilil!!II
Lakes end Rlvar.1
Pan.e15
Zoning
" Rnc,inoCom,o,..uor,
R•-1<111ac
RH-4dullo0
Rul<lri1l!du/M:
R"<lonl""-•-1-hTIH
R••"°"'lol1D<1<>'10 ,, R-14dulao
•; -IM~U.fomly
u R.uklnialr.utl-FOlll'l'T,.dltonal
lluldri1lt.lull~Fornl/tllil>onCOfl
Contarl•ll•'l• • c ... ,,Do,,oi....,
U-.Conlor-HOllh1
U,t,onC..--Naon2
" Con1-0fflcel!loo.ior<1e1
, __ --• ~N""'1t>o"1o<>d ---u -1-Modun
r.i lno'51rial-lie&Vl'
Street NamM
Rlghl9 of'JVay
Streelll
""'' Jurtsdlctlons ··-Oeot.lOll>oo ,._. .. -lJ K"'ll'Cou,iy
"*""<l....,d
I.' ·--RENTON
llnToo -~· ,_.
1:2,400
@11"x:17" 0
This map Is a LIS&J geoaraled staUc oulput rrom an lntumut m8pplng slle and ____ _
I• ror nofnnce only. Data layo"' ln•t appear en lhl• map may or may not ba I ! Enler Map Dewlplion
aa:uratl!I, current or otharM"'I r~llable,
TlllS MAP IS NOTTO BE USED FDA NAV,GATION
"' is :::,
~
i
"' " ~ w a: •
NW 1/4, 5£ 1/4, SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 £, WM
~-
., .,,·
-
·-I•! ll~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I -_ -,
I ~
I /}
11
I lli LJ :~
(\ :·~,, .j -' i~i-
',,, ----,,, ..; -----, --I ,r;.·D
•
---_--r------,------+-----~-----._ , ----~ _ _ ,~-'1/if
~ 1;,,. tr.:-.i
,1UN
.. ,'} iL;;,j
@
1W NOR.TH
oe,PH,c sc•.e
,~"'
~ -----+------./~-------~~
-=~'••· ·' ---------------~ ,('l'.-----;DflA:::::\'aN=--GS----------+-~-· FOi! coosn:_,or AP?ROVED ~ /Ji"-STAMPED OR SI CTION UNLESS ru
BY l1-iE ~ APPROVED GAGENCY
~ "'""""" """""""'""""""' ---_ .. _ ... ____ _
G-.-,-
RECOMMENDED
Fal APPROVAL
"-----"-----
"
" RrnSIOI<
Plcan,ng/S,, ,,,,/P""" -•• 0.,>1 17040 108TH A\ENU( SE
R£NTOO, IA
-"'-
,._
* ~ CITY OF FlEI..DBROOI< COMMONS PUO
.!!! 1!..;.~,
RENTON TREE VARIANCE SITE PLAN I GRADING PLJ\.N
a• lnAT<
"' ~ :,
2l
<.)
~
O]
':l ..,
C:
--/
I-/~ r -r -\,._ ~ /I,-,~
1( it..\ \
\\ :> I ~....._ ........ /
NW 1/4, SE 1/4, SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 E, WM.
1 / . ' _.-/--.......·. ·.:-"' r, .
/.·/ ~ --....~/'\ '·-,
~-" """~· / \ /
/ -
' \ "-•" . J8!!:':... ,!_/ I . \
~ / ,f ' /v / '/ \_,,---
-" . J
IL)
' __)
-/
'~, ·1~
.,.,
-.. -.. ,..., ~.::-..:11~
so
I£:';.";,. I
RN010N ~
I
I
'
\J
~
\ '
~
,=
~ CITY OF
RENTON
Plon,;"'l/au,ld,,gjP,bl,, W<rl> D<pl
(;i
/ I
;·~ tlW
, ..
-,_,;.'!ti, -~· \ )
)1)/:l i! .J ,· @
NORTH
-~
''J""'""
Df!AlMl',IGS NOT APPROVED
FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS
STAMPED OR SIQ'llED APPROVED
BY THE F€VIEWINQ AGENCY
REca,IMENDED
F~ lff'RCNN...
"-----,, ____ _
" F1EL0BR00K COMMCNS PUO
TREE VARIANCE SITE PLAN/ GRADING PLAN
17o«I 108TH A',£NUE 9::
RENTON, WA
"' i5
" ~
g
"' <D
" cJ a:
. :~r;·
\· "1,:,;;.,~J'·
;1 I . I ., I ~· I ~ .;;_.-
I
I
I ;
I / I I I
I I '
qi
,I
B
,,n,_,.o •,•
'"""""'' " _,010.:10>10.ff.
'_(·":""~',,
~"~:·
NW 1/4, SE 1/4, SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 £, WM.
--------i--".::Ji:" / -..........
......... ;;,1
\1
i
~\t\ .·
\\ . \ _ .... ,,,.~'
\
l
~i;r.:;•; ......... , .. ,., "· ("-""""'Tt)
----.. -"'~-/· . ...,.,~ ----.
I
\
.. ........, ...
""'""'"' NIU-,0,1>0 >O. ,r, l•""' """"'l"l
--f~[NTON
-....
"""""""'""""""" ---,·-~ CITY OF
,,...:..:
,, _ _;, !,. -r,1 f,o,;-
• ~'.:c---.
,,,
~-lt,, .
e JI ~) 'i
J1. .
JUN .r .;!
@
NORTH
"""'HIC SC'LS
~,:,
DRAWINGS NOT APPROVED
FOA CONSTRUCTION UNLESS
ST M4PED OR SIGNED APPROVED
BY 11-E REVlEWING AGENCY
FIELDBROOK CCIIMOOS PUO
RECC...MENDID
:~_-__ "_~ __ 1
"
(WJJ DR.smoNG
--:=====-1;,..;~1 *-Pio,n,no/3a,.o.ag/P,Ol,c """'' ll<pt
TREE VARIANCE SITE PLAN/ GRADING PLAN
17().f(J 108TH A'l{NUE 5£
"' RE\,'~ION ~y 10.icl/.f'P!11"= RENTtft, WA
I
NVld DNIOV1!D o' NOLL VDLlll\ 1VfUd3JNOJ
J11 'SDN!OlOII MNd
' '
!
i
l
' ' l
SNOWWOJ 2100l!H013U
i
' !
ml I I•••] III I :•: :::::::
'.1····· I
/}
cu I
•I' •,I
-"---~{H{J(N~,="":."~,'';,'~i:c:~'.'{{~;.fi]w~311 V
s,,,.,=..,,u,1x:1-'Jl!IJY'd.l<~J;= "[;
-NV'ld QNLL;.!Vld NOLL VDilll'. 1VN!d
·<" Y!1 'SDNIG101I MNJ
~NOWWO:l )100118G'J3),
0[J-
L__~~--+---.,.-+---~
t I \.
I' ,I
' I *· I I
' ' ' H, fl1 i)i !"':-. 1~§!!. "' .,
it
I i
-l; § l
C! HH i,
--
a • ,
-----
0 @) 6l
' ..... ·,,~ '._. ' ... ' >~:..:._:
!
;
H
I~
I •
0
•-.
•.
! ! !
1 L 1 Hilb
"
©
•
"
' ' u ti
•
®
~.
!!
d
~
0
l l 1
l i !
1 t 1 l ~ it;.~
~ .. -... ·. ,•
; i ·I ', [ H '. '
l
] . t •) iii . ,; ~ • i~ JhU ! llfl!l1 ,
" , f j
,i
i
'
,i l
i!l1iuln!
11Hh!lllf1 ., cli. ~ ~ .,. ·1
~,a---,
!{, I
l p !
"'1 ~H
I
I
' !
' I
l
'
\
v-
r-
~
..
--
I
)
I
I
~
----·---
• 1. I
I
,I
I
I
\
\
!
JUN 1 :i 1.IJt\
DEPARTMENT OF COMML .. Y
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE REPORT & DECISION .. .. ,i:c.iri;;
A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST '
DATE/"'J;·',; / c'.,
REPORT DA TE:
Project Name:
Project Number:
Pro1ect Manager.
Owner/ Applicant:
Contact:
Project Summary:
Project Location:
Exist. Bldg. Area SF:
Site Area:
NAMc:: ....... ~ ... ···-
August 20, 2013
Field brook Commons I(__ I ',i'\°~J/1,..-J ....-~1!
I I 'J._, i / l, -~t.-1 ' A.)\'. " Y-/.,.,/L;
LUA12-001, V-A ')' J::f::--IJ ,:n,,, JJlc/13 . ~ . ', ,. , ·;J I_,.,,
Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner
\T_AJ1~-,c_~ \t .. ./ _-, ., __ ,
Fieldbrook Commons, LLC, 9675 SE 361h Street, Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA
98040
Justin Lagers, Fieldbrook Commons, LLC, 9675 SE 36'h Street, Suite 105, Mercer
Island, WA 98040
The applicant is requesting a Varince from RMC 4-4-13003 Restrictions for
Critical Areas -General; to allow for the removal of trees in 3 wetlands and
their assoicated buffers. The subject site is located at 17040 108th Avenue SE
and is comprised of three parcels totaling 10.77 acres. All parcels are currently
undeveloped. The site is located in the Residential 14 (R-14) units per net acre
zoning designation.
17040 -108th Avenue SE, Renton WA, 98055
N/A
469,158 SF
(10.77 acres)
: •. J
Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): 71,939 SF
Total Building Area GSF: 180,934 SF
''
Project Location Map
Variance Report12-001.docx
DEPARTMENT OF COM Ml Y
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE REPORT & DECISION
A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST
REPORT DA TE:
Project Name:
Project Number:
Project Manager:
Owner/ Applicant:
Contact:
Project Summary:
Project Location:
Exist. Bldg. Area SF:
Site Area:
August 20, 2013
Fieldbrook Commons
LUA12-001, V-A
Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner
Field brook Commons, LLC, 9675 SE 36'h Street, Suite 105, Mercer Island, WA
98040
Justin Lagers, Fieldbrook Commons, LLC, 9675 SE 36'h Street, Suite 105, Mercer
Island, WA 98040
The applicant is requesting a Varince from RMC 4-4-130D3 Restrictions for
Critical Areas -General; to allow for the removal of trees in 3 wetlands and
their assoicated buffers. The subject site is located at 17040108th Avenue SE
and is comprised of three parcels totaling 10.77 acres. All parcels are currently
undeveloped. The site is located in the Residential 14 (R-14) units per net acre
zoning designation.
17040 -108th Avenue SE, Renton WA, 98055
N/A
469,158 SF
(10.77 acres)
Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): 71,939 SF
Total Building Area GSF: 180,934 SF
Project Location Map
Variance Report12-001.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
FIELDBROOK COMMONS
Report of: August 20, 2013
I 8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND:
Administrative Variance Report & Decision
WA12-001, V-A
Page2of7
The subject site is located at 17040 108th Avenue SE and is comprised of three parcels totaling 10.77
acres. All parcels are currently undeveloped and forested. The site is located in the Residential 14 (R-
14) units per net acre zoning designation. Prior to this variance application the applicant requested a
preliminary planned urban development (PUD) approval and SEPA environmental review. In the
Hearing Examiner's decision on the PUD, he denied the request to modify 4-4-130D3 as a variance was
required. Due to the Hearing Examiner's determination, the subject variance application was
submitted. All other development on the subject site have previously been reviewed and approved
with conditions; which is not a part of the subject variance.
The applicant is requesting a Variance from RMC 4-4-130D3 Restrictions for Critical Areas -General; to
allow for the removal of trees in wetlands and their associated buffers. The subject site contains 6
wetlands identified as wetland A-F. The applicant has identified three different reasons for the need
to remove trees within wetlands and their buffers as follows:
1) The applicant has proposed to fill wetlands D, E, and F. The filling of these three wetlands requires
the removal of the trees within these areas. The applicant has proposed to remove 99 trees from
these three wetlands and their buffers.
2) In order to mitigate for the impacts of wetland filling, wetland creation is required. The applicant
has proposed wetland creation between retained wetlands A and C. The area between these
wetlands is forested. To create an on-site wetland grading is required. As such, removal of trees
between the wetlands is proposed to create the new wetland as mitigation. The applicant has
proposed to remove 27 trees and replace these trees with 141 trees.
3) The applicant has proposed to remove trees in the wetland buffer of wetland A and B, for
temporary construction impacts (trees identified as 2399 and 2400). Trees are proposed to be
replanted in the temporary impacted area following construction.
Pursuant to RMC 4-3-0SOC; tree removal is not an exempt activity in wetlands and/or their buffers;
however, pursuant to RMC 4-3-0SOM.2.a, a proposed action on property involving regulated wetlands
can be approved if the project takes affirmative and appropriate measures to minimize and
compensate for unavoidable impacts and that the proposed activity results in no net loss of regulated
wetland area, value, or function in the drainage basin where the wetland is located. Pursuant to the
previous Preliminary PUD approval and SEPA environmental review, mitigation has been identified for
all impacts proposed to the wetland and such mitigation has been approved subject to conditions.
By way of providing background; the following is a description of the perviously approved project
which would be developed at the subject site. The applicant applied for a Preliminary PUD to develop a
multi-family development containing 162 units in the Residential 14 (R-14) units per net acre zone.
Bonus density was requested to provide for the 162 units resulting in a density of 17.90 units per acre.
The development would be comprised of 12 separate multi-family residential structures and one
recreation building, totaling 180,934 square feet. Preliminary approval was granted by the Hearing
Examiner on March 29, 2013 subject to 38 conditions of approval. The applicant is still required to gain
approval of a Final PUD and the subject Variance in order to complete their required land use permits
for the proposed development.
Variance Reportl2-001.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
FIELDBRDOK COMMONS
Report of: August 20, 2013
I C. EXHIBITS:
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit 1: Neighborhood Map
Exhibit 2: Tree Variance Site Plan/Grading Plan, VSPl -VSP3
Exhibit 3: Conceptual Mitigation and Grading Plan, 2 sheets
Exhibit 4: Parties of Record
I D. FINDINGS:
Administrative Variance Report & Decision
LUAlZ-001, V-A
Page 3 of 7
Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now makes and enters the following:
1. Request: The applicant has requested an administrative variance from RMC 4-4-130D3 Restrictions
for Critical Areas -General; to allow for the removal of trees in 3 wetlands and their assoicated
buffers.
2. Administrative Variance: The applicant's administrative variance submittal materials comply with
the requirements necessary to process a variance request. The applicant's tree retention site plan
and grading plan and wetland mitigation plan are provided as Exhibits 2 and 3.
3. Existing Land Use: The subject parcel is surrounded on the north by single family residential (R-14,
R-10, and R-8 zones), on the east by vacant property (R-14 and R-8 zones), on the south by single
family and multi-family residential (R-14), and on the west by single family, a day care center and
vacant property (R-14 and CA zones).
4. Zoning: The subject property is within the Residential 14 dwelling unit per net acre (R-14) zone.
5. Topography: Site topography generally undulates between a high of about 436 feet to a low of 420
feet mean sea level.
6. Lots and Building Size: The lot area is 10.77 acres in size. The propsoed Field brook Commons
development would have a total gross building area of 180,934 square feet.
7. Tree Removal: A total of 133 trees have been requested to be removed within existing wetlands
and/or their buffers.
I E. CONSISTENCY WITH VARIANCE CRITERIA:
Section 4-9-2508.5.a. Lists 4 criteria that the Planning Director is asked ta consider, along with all other
relevant information, in making a decision on an Administrative Variance application. These include
the fallowing:
The Planning Director shall have authority to grant an administrative variance upon making a
determination, in writing, that the conditions specified below have been found to exist:
a. That the applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and the variance is
necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the
Variance Report12-001.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
FIELDBROOK COMMONS
Report of: August 20, 2013
Administrative Variance Report & Decision
LUAU-001, V-A
Page 4 of 7
Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other
property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification:
The applicant contends that due to the requirement to provide secondary fire access directly from
108th Ave. SE and the required street frontage improvements along SE 172nd Street, impacts to
wetlands E and Fare unavoidable. Furthermore, the applicant contends that the Renton Municipal
Code (RMC) is in conflict with itself as one cannot construction a wetland in an upland forested
area without removing trees.
Staff has reviewed the applicant's justifications and concurs with their analysis. As the secondary
fire access and the street frontage improvements are required. Furthermore, in the SEPA
Environmental Review for the subject project (City file number LUA12-001) impacts to the three
identified wetlands to be filled was evaluated and mitigation was proposed, identifying compliance
with RMC wetland regulations. Furthermore, the proposed wetland fill and development was
approved previously by the City's Hearing Examiner for the wetland fill and creation on the subject
site. The applicant is correct in stating that there in an internal conflict in the RMC which allows for
wetland fill and creation but does not exempt tree removal in those wetlands that are being filled
and/or created. As such, the applicant suffers practical difficulties and an unnecessary hardship
with the strict application of the Zoning Code.
However, as it relates to the trees proposed to be removed, due to temporary construction
impacts, trees identified as 2399 and 2400, this same practical difficulty does not exist. The
applicant has proposed and is not required to grade the site to result in temporary construction
impact to the buffers of wetlands A and B. Furthermore, as a part of the SEPA Environmental
review, these two trees were identified through a mitigation measure and as a condition of
approval of the preliminary PUD as required trees to be retained.
b. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is
situated:
The applicant justification was not clear in their submitted materials. However, staff has reviewed
the proposal and concurs that by allowing the removal of the trees from the identified wetlands
and their buffers (with the exception of trees 2399 and 2400) it would be detrimental to the public
welfare, as this would restrict the construction of a secondary fire access onto 108'h Ave. SE and
street frontage improvements along SE 172nd Street. Furthermore, prohibiting the removal of trees
for wetland creation would restrict the ability for the developers to mitigate the impacts of the
wetland fill. The proposed tree removal would not be injurious to the property or the
improvements in the vicinity and the zone; as the applicant has proposed to re-plant trees
throughout the developed site and plant 141 trees as wetland mitigation. When analyzing the
overall future development there would be more trees following the development, a larger
wetland area, and improved street frontage and fire access, compared to the existing site today.
c. That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation
upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated:
The applicant contends that RMC is in conflict with itself as one cannot construct a wetland in an
upland forested area without removing trees, and mitigation for filling of the wetland would be
provided through the creation of a new wetland area and enhanced buffer areas for the existing
Wetland A, B, and C.
Variance Reponll-001.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
FIELDBROOK COMMONS
Administrative Variance Report & Decision
LUA12-001, V-A
Report of: August 20, 2013 Page 5 of 7
Staff has reviewed the applicant's justifications and concurs with their analysis. The SEPA
Environmental Review for the subject project (City file number LUA12-001) evaluated impacts to
the three identified wetlands to be filled and evaluated the proposed mitigation; which identified
compliance with RMC wetland regulations; provided all conditions and mitigation measures were
met. Provided the applicant's mitigation proposal does not result in a net loss of ecological
functions and values; granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the
subject property is situated, with the exception of trees 2399 and 2400.
d. That the approval as determined by the Planning Director is a minimum variance that will
accomplish the desired purpose:
The applicant contends that the proposed tree removal is the minimum variance that will
accomplish the desired purpose.
Staff has reviewed the applicant's justifications and partially concurs with their analysis. The
removal of the trees within the three wetlands to be filled and the wetland creation area is the
minimum amount of trees necessary to accomplish the required mitigation necessary for the
project to not result in a net loss of ecological functions, provide secondary fire access and street
frontage improvements. However, the trees identified to be removed due to temporary
construction impacts exceed the minimum necessary to provide mitigation for the filled wetlands
and are not in an area needed for street frontage improvement's or fire access. As such, trees 2399
and 2400 exceed the minimum to accomplish the desired purpose.
I F. CONCLUSIONS:
1. The subject site is located 17040 -108th Avenue SE, Renton WA, 98055, Residential 14 (R-14) units
per net acre zone.
2. RMC 4-4-130D3 restricts tree removal in wetland and their buffers unless exempted by the critical
areas regulations. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050( (critical areos regulations); tree removal is not an
exempt activity in wetlands and/or their buffers. The applicant is requesting to be allowed to
remove trees in wetlands and their buffers.
3. The requested variance, with the exception of the portion identified below in conclusion 4, meets
the four criteria to be considered in making a decision on a variance request as specified in RMC 4-
9-250B.5. The analysis of the proposal according to variance criteria is found in the body of the
Staff Report.
4. The requested variance to remove trees 2399 and 2400, due to temporary construction impacts,
does not meet any of the four criteria to be considered in making a decision on a variance request
as specified in RMC 4-9-250B.5. The analysis of the proposal according to variance criteria is found
in the body of the Staff Report.
Variance Report12-001.docx
City of Renton Department of Community & J:conomic Development
FIELDBROOK COMMONS
Administrative Variance Report & Decision
LUAll-001, V-A
Report of: August 20, 2013 Page6of7
G. DECISION:
The Administrative Variance for the Fieldbrook Commons, File No. LUA12-001, is approved in part and
denied in part. All trees proposed to be removed as a result of the wetland fill and creation is approved.
All trees proposed to be removed as a result of temporary construction impacts is denied. The approval is
subject to the following conditions:
1. The project shall comply with all the conditions identified in the Environmental Review and
Preliminary Planned Urban Development located in City file LUA12-001.
2. No tree removal is permitted on site until approval of a Final PUD and an approved grading and/or
construction permit has been issued for the activity.
3. The development shall meet the minimum tree retention requirements of the R-14 zone, and shall
provide an updated tree retention worksheet identifying compliance with these standards with the
Final PUD for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager.
4. The wetland creation shall be completed prior to the tree removal and fill of wetlands D, E, and F.
DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION:
SIGNATURE: J
c.2.\_~
C.E. "Chip" Vincent, CED Administrator
TRANSMITTED this 20" day af August, 2013 to the Owner/Applicant/Contact:
Field brook Commons LLC
9675 SE 36'" Street, Suite 105
Mercer Island. WA 98040
Justin Lagers
Fieldbrook Commons LLC .,
9675 SE 36'" Street, Suite 105.
Mercer Island, WA 98040
TRANSMITTED this 20" day of August, 2013 to the Party(ies) of Record:
See Exhibit 4
TRANSMITTED this 20th day of August, 2013 to the following:
Neil Watts, Development Servkes Director
Kayren Kittrick, Development Services
Jennifer Henning, Current Planning
Fire Marshal
Renton Reporter
H. LAND USE ACTION APPEALS, REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, & EXP/RATION
The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14days of the
effective date of decision.
APPEAL: This administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing
Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on September 3, 2013. An appeal of the decision must be filed within
Variance Report12-001.docx
City of Renton Deportment of Community & f:conomic Development
FIELDBROOK COMMONS
Report of: August 20, 2013
Administrative Variance Report & Decision
LUA12-D01, V-A
Page 7 of 7
the 14-day appeal period {RCW 43.21.C.075{3); WAC 197-11-680). Appeals to the Examiner are governed
by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process
may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. Appeals
must be filed in writing, together with the required fee to the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055
South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.
RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the effective date of decision, any party may request that the
decision be reopened by the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if material
evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there was
misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the approval body finds sufficient
evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any
person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the 14-day appeal time frame.
EXPIRATION: The variance(s) approval will expire two (2) years from the date of decision. A variance one
(1) year extension may be requested pursuant to RMC 4-9-250B.17.
THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one)
communications may occur concerning the land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial
decision, but to Appeals to the Hearing Examiner as well. All communications after the decision/approval
date must be made in writing through the Hearing Examiner. All communications are public record and
this permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to
openly rebut the evidence in writing. Any violation of this doctrine could result in the invalidation of the
appeal by the Court.
Variance Reportll-001.docx
D.
<(
:;;
C
0
0 :c
~
CD :c
~ w z
--
I
j
I
l
!
l ! V) , z
I j
" " 0
0
"' <D
g1
!\
!
!
• I
('.
I
~r..; .. ·t
.-i7
NW 1/4, S[ 1/4, SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANG£ 5 £, WM
,.,,_.,..._.)
/-L ,
-I--;;'
JI
-1 '.'1. ·1 '-
'l_,i-1
i
' ,--
J
-1 C
-:...:;
1"·----'
·r.::
-· \-:; ~'.
·., \
,-.11
·:·<
L
'1'
() 0
·"'/
), ,,,
I
I
;:i
I _liU __ _
I JJ
., I
TT l_i I le
!Jfl' ii,,: , • ! I ·-'"-L·-·' :-·,. __ _J_ '" ___J ' ~-
I .-, 0-'
I
City t)f a
o · "enton · f(tnr 1 /nc1 r·J --
' · ,~ c n,.;1sion
I I_ \ ~'<· ,----, · --'\'. A_· ,1u1v 1 o ~.,. ,. · --~ >F \ ·) 21;1) @ , , ·--• _ _J_1 _ I', '\ -..,.
-,-,-·--• \ ,_,. ...... \ -·,· 1 ( &. 6--;,--
( ; _ :: 'i U .. , () ; \. : ,/, , ',1 C ,, !!lf'lr--,J ?:;f" __ >/~~-/f,l/7 _ NORTH
(:,-·;/ . . C i_ )_ ., ·' -. •• . ,_. ----__ /~ b{_l. ,{/'I"/~§-_], .. ;"•:•"" '
• -.: _:___' -------=~;~--=-.. ~;-~_:::_~} ~~~ DAA.aNGSNOTAPPA:VE~
1
• ·-
~ ~ . . ~ . ~ ~ • r__ FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS ffi ~~~~~~ --------=-------7--------1-------1-------,-------f-------1--------------------------\----+-~-.. -"'"a~~E ~~ !6":::10 m ::. ____ 1
.,. ria]J) .. '""""' OONSULTINO ENGfNEERS ---_,..,_ ... ,,,,, ___ .. _ o-.-F--',.o.
_..
"'°'"SIOO ev1o.o•tl-
EXHIBIT 2
~-CITY OF ··-~ RENTON Ii.,_;.._;: "'"'"''"'/Bu''"""/"·'""""'"'""•'
" FIELD9ROOK COMMONS PUD
TREE VARIANCE SITE PLAN I GRADING PLAN
17040 108™ A'IENUE SE
RENTOO, WA
I
I
!
I ;
l
" V) l z ' ~ I el u
"' 8
"' ~
C:
NW 1/4, SE 7/4, SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANG[ 5 E, WM
~1··~ . ., ...
C •,' '\ ~
L" \
'" I
', ··J~·
-.. -~
f!E"SION SY fCt,1.!!ll"Pflf= ~ ··-
I::.:,:...-;_ I
1
?''! ···;.·'
/:,
•
(·,
*' CITY OF RENTON
"''""'"w°""'"''•/1'•~'' -••'-"'o'
/ -,
I
I
~:::r. ,,.,.,,._,,, ... , ~·""'·""1'" ,---.c.!_·
City Off:?
i'1: .· •Or:,0 ,
1 ,.tnn, .. ),-.
1
t,.
''~ .. ,. ' ; . ,_ --~ 'i/,;;iOn
DAAWINQS NOT APPAOVED
FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS
STAMPED OR SIGNED APPROVED
BY TI-iE REVIEWING AGENCY
REC<;Nr,,ENDcO roo N'Pfl.\NN.
:~-----1
"
FIELOBROOK COMMOOS PUO
TREE VARIANCE SITE PLAN I GRADING PLAN
17040 10ij1H AVENUE SE
RENTON, WA
a
' l
!
i
i
!
' ' l
• u,
l z
t 0
i ~ u
~
~
0:
I /'
--~:t;.t~:
_..-_ ·.'
"".'.)
... <::\
-~--~
/
{,> .. <>
fil lDl 8 §II:::§~ .., ___ _
NW 1/4, S[ 1/4, SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANG[ 5 £, WM.
... ~·. ·\:·'_ '\~ -
::'J ••• -
'"," -. . (~ --· ·· .... '.··,_ -._ ,~
. C) ..
. /.!,. . . , ..
' '
{)
~-, ~-.. (: .. ~ .. ' \ . . ........._.,, ·.: -,.... '. '. ··1~ "'.::;:;-_ " .'
' '" ,. ' ,' ......... ·' \. ', \ '\ ..• ~\ ~,x": .'. I •
('; .
. ocn.o.o-.-•
. """""'' .
-·· "'·"' IIO. n, \'"-"'"""'")
'
J. ~ ' ' ----'· " ' ' ·, : \ {: : :\:· ,,
('. . < r) ..
.:_· () c.
·._o_
'\~ \
·~\\\ ,''•, ' 1\1 () \ (\~,
J '' i) ._·_. \ i ··~
-~-~-~--~_i'i~}
·\' ~-. ·.::,,'
-.. -~ ..... ~
':.!\ , I .. ... ·, _\)i i'J._) . , ·' I,
' ----:~ '
!' ' .. c-
I.
) .... .,. ....
_., 1
,.
J
1·-20•
·0 .. 1.-'' .r''
.. , .. r:, _,,. ......
C · 1·
',·
... _;!;.--;:.'
-:~i::-.?~J'1:·
ill> CITY OF
~ RENTON
Cit,,
_ _ .,, Of f'.?~r, , ,~;-,,.) . T:011
. Cf /)/,'·1r, t) ·, · .
'.~; '-1'.:1.slor.:
Jurv 1 .1
21111
16Jficc --1 }, ·-~1 r~ ("-,, @
NORT ..
,0_ u;::, t,'C 1111/1~,, .. ", -II.,u IY, · /LJ1
~y ,.....,...csc.ce
0 10 >f, __,
-;-;;:;;:;-• ._Fl
DRAWINGS NOT APPROVED
FOA CONSTRUCTION UNLESS
ST AMPED OR SIGNED APPROVED
BY THE REVIEWING AGENCY
RUX)Nr.t~NOE1J
FOR l>J'?ROVAL
"-----"-----
"
I::._:'..-;,_ I 1i ..,,,.,o,f&lld~o/Publi< """"' O.o1
FIELOBROOK COMMONS PUO
TREE VARIANCE SrTE PLI\N f GRADING P...AN
17040 103TH A\€NIJE SE == RDITCN, W~
0 ;;c r-----------~---.c, pl
) _41;
' '
!'.
f
i
i I
i
!
!
i
I
' I
!
M
t-
M
a:i
M ::c >< w
~ I \.
~ I ' i ' ! I I ! I ' ~ ' i
" . • ' • • ' ., ' ' • I ~ • • ;I•: • • l ! ! " . §),; ' ' ' ' ~
~ !I lj i I ~ d H H fi ~ tl t !J
" " a ' • I § • • ~ I ~ ~i 0 @ 00 0 ® • 0 I 0
~ § ' I ' I !I ' { ~ . • ' • • ' ~
§ ~ ! !
~
!i
I i • i: H ~ ~ H
i ~ a a , • • I "
0 @ G !, 01®
r-_
( i i ' ! ! ' •
! !
I
,I !
i I 11 la d
• • §
0 • ©
'l ' ' -' ! ! ~
0 0 0
' ' ,
l l l
! I
J I i 1 l
~ ~ ~ ::::::~::
,
t
I ! i ~ -i
,~ I
!
I
'
JEREMY ADAMS
11012 SE 173RD St
RENTON, WA 98055-5927
Robert Lyon
10817 SE 170th St
Renton, WA 98055-5909
Richard Garana
10841 SE 172nd St
90
Renton, WA 98055-5945
PATRICK & CLAIRE CREAGER
10833 SE 173rd St
Renton, WA 98055-5907
George & Frances Subic
PO Box 89
Renton, WA 98057-0089
Laura Smith
10841 SE 172nd St
9A
Renton, WA 98055-5945
Darlene Bjornstad
14624 SE 183rd St
Renton, WA 98058
Karen Huseth
17123 113th Ave SE
Renton, WA 98055
JESSE HURTADO
PO BOX 59743
RENTON, WA 98058-2743
Dan Phillips
PO Box 60256
Renton, WA 98058
Corine Kumano
10829 SE 172nd St
6C
Renton, WA 98055-5942
Richard Miles
10809 SE 172nd St
1B
Renton, WA 98055-5926
"It
I-
"'"' a:i
1-4 :c >< w
r
LY ~ +lo_. f~ 6t rt~ +, \,v~ 3'to~':f, rl ~~ w , r_~ OA-J2---~~ '
ao ~ o:<t, of i10
I ~ l.}j \< qt,,<,L{,,JJ,t~±
. --H rtJU '1D ~ V\Ji ,~!r03 -~ \J . ,
. M-f~~ ~ JV,opof'd ~ . jY'A-.{ J
We JV.i'AV~ . . . .
f61 6VV ) . k
~I
P (--ea:_~ cd~ MS2 -A--,.
°J.~[pY',~ --o-r /V\~ 1rfy·~J
8-,,at ~ 2-Su,,~!
~f(vVY!~
I o 08-1 'St::-{ r-zd-._ hd 'St # fa c__
' ~/ l,A/)( 1?15~'7
~ CsQ)-;;,.c,'7-d-'l~
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
A Ma,ter Aj>plbtlon ha. bun fll•d •f!d accoptod with tho Department of Community & Economk Dovolcpmont
ICED)-Plonnlnc DM,Jon ol tho City of Ron ton. Th• folluwln1 brlofly dneribo, 1h1 oppllcatlM and the nea.>1ory
PubllcApprov1I,.
DAn Of NOTICE Of APPLICATION: July 2, 2013
PRO IE CT NAME/NUMIIER: Fioldbrook Commons Var~nce / LUA12-00l, V-A
PIIOJfCT DESCRIPTION: Applicant applied for a vorionco !rom the tree re1ula1i<ms, to runovo !roes
In the w,,ilartd buffer and woll,nd
PROJECT LOCATION: 17040 108~ Avenue se
PUBllCAl'PROVAl.S: Adminl,trot;.te Varl~nce Review
APPUCAJfT/PROJECT CONT ACT PERSON: Justin Logo rs, Fieldbroak Commons, UC; !'167S SE 36"' Slroot U05; Morn,
l51and, WA 98040; Eml:Justln@pnwfmldings.com
PUBLIC HEARING: N/A
Comments on tho obavo appllcatl"" IT!\>51 be submlttotd In writing to Vantssa Dolbe•, S.nlor Plonnar, Popartment of
Community• fc,:,nomk Dovelopmem, 105~ ~c.rth Gradv Wov, Ront<>n, WA HD57, bv 5:0ll p.m. on lu"r 1,, 2013. If
you h'IVI! questions 1bo1111hl, propo .. l or wl,h tot,,, m•d• • ?!lrtv of rea,rd ind '"«"Ive ackll11onal no1rntation by mall,
contact.tho Projeci M•""S"' at (415) 430-7314. Anyo,ie who submits wfinen ccmment, will •utomalitally become a
party of re,;<ml ind wttl bt notified of anydeci>lon on thb p,oJe<:1.
PLEASE INCWDETHE l'ROJECTNUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR l'ROl'ER FILE IDENTIFICATION
DATE OF APPLICATION: June 13, Z013
NOTICE Of COMPI..ETI APPLICATION: July 2, 2013
~you would like to bt made I party or re<."Ord to recelvo lurtlH!r lnformldion on this pr<>pooed project. complete this
form ind roturn tti: Cl)' of Renton, cm, Planning Division, 1055 S.Outh Gra!fy W~, Romon, WA 9f'IOS7.
file Name/ No.: Field brook Commons Variance/ lUA12-001, V-A
NAME:--------------------------
MAILINGADD~ESS: ____________ Cty/Stat~ip --------
TELEPHONE NO.:-----------
CERTIFICATION
I, , :\ 1a::O l Q d-0 9: ··-. hereby certify that -, copies of the above document
were posted in ___s__ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on
Date: 1/oJ/ I 3
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
)
) ss
)
Signed: j'. ,q::Dl \:
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that _ __:L=' :uJ"'"'"--5_·_"'_0~_..:.,,..,_ ______ _
signed this instrnment and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the
uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
n~,:,;~''''''\\\\\\\ \111,,
~s ·eE.!t,; 11D. kt J
ff 0 .... ,,,,~=~j 1111 = , $'0"f#,,. ~_, 1111 A '/
-~:~ t-,fll" I,,-~ ~ ~ :v; .... ~ 0 ~ -.. ., .. : ~i O .. ,;; I-.,, ~ ..i.. ~s z .. " }! ~ C!> ~
,; , 0 ~ !'?:=. ---~ 1-... a..· ..... -c;;._ -, "1""' Pl>¥ n.' = .;:, -"/. ,, ,.-.. ~:-c..== ,,., ,,,, 8" ~.... ,.,,,. =
It ,..,, .,:,_.1 -
,, ~ 111\\\\\\,,........ ~-,; ,;:-
///// '".<1 re of $'" 111 -:,,..,,,
11\\\\\\\\'''
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Notary ( Print): _ __.:Ji1...L.A.!....:...""G.l.l.!.!~-------
My appointment expires: A L.u1 ,-,k .J'i ,) /) I ·s ----'-'-"~.4J-"--'-''---'"'-4-, -""'-.c.L-'---------
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-PLANNING DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
On the 2nd day of July, 2013, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing
Acceptance Letter and Notice of Application documents. This information was sent to:
Name Representing
Justin Lagers Contact
Fieldbrook Commons, LLC Owner/ Applicant
300' Surrounding Property Owners See attached
,,, "I ,,, 11,
(.J...,, _ --..,/I ,, ·:~ -"".::-' GRAB~1:-.''1,11
(Signature of Sender): __ ....JA../J..L"""e::..,,"""~1<1--...il...LLL.L..-'~====--------~.:?...,,,:,~.,i'.,,ic1'~~-""011'1~•,,;,r 1
11 -.J:: .. f.'lb-v "''°1..: ,,, :i;.
' : ff~ o1Aff~ "P~\ ~
) :; ~· ~ ""t / STATE OF WASHINGTON ::: ~8 . , -~ z ~
)ss ~ ~ <., :o::: '*-,ft\ "'u11"''\n, ff~ ::: ) ~ "). ,,,, 8-29· ... ~ c, = 1 ,.,. ,,,, .,.. ......... ..s: -COUNTY OF KING
,, . -, >:. 1hl\\\\\'''" ~"" .;:
111 I: OF W ,._s .;:'"
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker 11111 111 ,,,,,,,
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the u~~~~~d purposes
mentioned in the instrument.
Notary Priblic in and for the State of Washington
Notary (Print): ____ tl--',1-'1_....__._,,cs,~u.,:-·.,__ ____________ _
My appointment expires: A -... Ci ., ct.
ri '4 c, <; t ·x '.) c;,.Oi..J
Fieldbrook Commons Variance
LUA12-001, V-A
SPRINGBROOK RIDGE L L C
800 S 3RD ST
RENTON, WA 98057
KUMAR KAMLESH+SAROJANI
10839 SE 173RD ST
RENTON, WA 98055
KUMA KAMLESH+SAROJANI
17314 108TH AVE SE
RENTON, WA 98055
US BANK NA
4801 FREDERICA ST
OWENSBORO, KY 72301
SUBIC GEORGE & FRANCES
PO BOX 89
RENTON, WA 98057
SALAYMANG HALIMAH
16824 113TH AVE SE
RENTON, WA 98055
HUA MY M+ TIN YEN N
17033 110TH PL SE
RENTON, WA 98055
ROBISON JAMES L
9670 RAINIER AVES
SEATILE, WA 98118
MARCHAND TERRY M
17021 110TH PL SE
RENTON, WA 98055
SANBERG BRUCE+ TAMI
17014 SE 224TH ST
RENTON, WA 98055
GILLELAND JOHN W
11005 E 173RD ST
RENTON, WA 98055
CREAGER PATRICK H
10833 SE 173RD
RENTON, WA 98055
EALY MICHAEL R
10838 SE 173RD
RENTON, WA 98055
PNW HOLDINGS LLC
9725 SE 36TH ST STE 214
MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040
CARTER STANLEY D+BILLIE B
17107 113TH AVE SE
RENTON, WA 98055
TEUNG YAOTA
CHAO CHIOTA
PO BOX 78414
SEATILE, WA 98178
VILLAGRANA RAMIRO+MARISELA
PO BOX 1336
BREWSTER, WA 98812
NG DEANNA
17015 113TH AVE SE
RENTON, WA 98055
NG ROBERT
17013 110TH PL SE
RENTON, WA 98055
STOIANOVA DINA
17007 110TH PL SE
RENTON, WA 98055
BATSCHI JR JERRY A+DIANE R
10843 SE 173RD ST
RENTON, WA 98058
BELL TIMOTHY
11004 SE 173RD ST
RENTON, WA 98055
NEATHERY DAVID H
10830 SE 173RD ST
RENTON, WA 98055
LYONS WADE M+AMANDA A
17109 113TH AVE SE
RENTON, WA 98055
SUBIC MARGERY
PO BOX 769
RENTON, WA 98057
KILLIAN DANIEL S
2100 PEARMAN DR
PALMDALE, CA 93551
MANGAHAS THERESA
17025 110TH PL SE
RENTON, WA 98055
GARRED DANIEL
17017 110TH PL SE
RENTON, WA 98055
NGY TENG+MORANY
17001 105TH AVE SE
RENTON, WA 98055
RENTON CITY OF
1055 S GRADY WAY
RENTON, WA 98057
KIRK FLOYD & GAIL
10845 SE 170TH ST
RENTON, WA 98055
LOWER KYNA J
10819 SE 170TH ST
RENTON, WA 98055
ADAMS JEREMY R
11012 SE 173RD ST
RENTON, WA 98055
MADFAI MARK
3010 ILWACO AVE NE
RENTON, WA 98059
LOOK JANAE D
350 106TH AVE NE #100
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
SANCHEZ SERGIO L+ANALYNN C
10821 SE 172ND ST #D
RENTON, WA 98055
VARDANYAN EDUARD
10821 SE 172ND ST #4B
RENTON, WA 98055
COPPOCK SYLVA JEAN
10813 SE 172ND ST #2A
RENTON, WA 98055
HART DONNA MAE
10813 SE 172ND ST #2B
RENTON, WA 98055
REALTY EXCHANGERS INC+NUNER
22732 126TH PL SE
KENT, WA 98031
MARTIN ANDREW WILLIAM
10839 SE 170TH ST
RENTON, WA 98055
LYON RB
10817 SE 170TH
RENTON, WA 98055
TZVETANOV IVAYLO K+VASELA T
17220 109TH PL SE
RENTON, WA 98055
KELLEY MICHELLE
10837 SE 172ND ST #SA
RENTON, WA 98055
ANDERSON BETTY
10817 SE 172ND ST #A-3
RENTON, WA 98055
TURPEN SUSAN K
8008 39TH AVE NE
SEATILE, WA 98115
BONIFANT DEANN MARIE
10825 SE 172TH ST # SD
RENTON, WA 98055
CONE CLARA L
10841 SE 172ND ST #9C
RENTON, WA 98055
LINDSTROM JOYCE
10825 SE 172ND ST #A-5
RENTON, WA 98055
LEGGED JILL L
10817 SE 172ND ST UNIT C-3
RENTON, WA 98055
SCHLAMP PHIL R+LINDA
10825 SE 170TH ST
RENTON, WA 98055
MAEHREN MARCIA L
PO BOX 494303
REDDING, CA 96049
WOODS JENNIFER L
10829 SE 172ND ST #6 B
RENTON, WA 98055
SIMPSON KEYSHA
10837 SE 172ND ST #SC
RENTON, WA 98055
CHEN FONGPIN
10825 SE 172ND ST #SC
RENTON, WA 98055
THOMAS DAVIDE
10817 SE 172ND ST #3-D
RENTON, WA 98055
STANLEY D BRUCE+NANCY A
10825 SE 172ND ST #BS
RENTON, WA 98055
KELLAR ANN MARIE
10829 SE 172ND ST #A6
RENTON, WA 0
HALLMARK MICHELLE ERIN
10817 SE 172ND ST UNIT 3B
RENTON, WA 98055
TAMAYAO TERESITA T
10813 SE 172ND ST 32C
RENTON, WA 98055
ONORATI KAREN M
10841 SE 172ND ST 9 B
RENTON, WA 98055
GARANA RICHARD
10841 SE 172ND ST #D
RENTON, WA 98055
SMITH LAURA L
10841 SE 172ND ST #A-9
RENTON, WA 98055
MARYOTT DANA G
PO BOX 188
OCEAN PARK, WA 98640
JUANEDA YARA
10821 SE 172ND ST #4C
RENTON, WA 98055
GARRISON KATRINA R
17032 110TH PL SE
RENTON, WA 98055
AROUND THE CLOCK INC
716 W MEEKER STSTE 101
KENT, WA 98032
COURTNEY ROBERT & TAMAKI
17209 109TH PL SE
RENTON, WA 98055
RUSSELL DANIEL & DEBRA
829 S 31ST ST
RENTON, WA 98055
ASSEFA ASAMENEW
17216 109TH PL SE
RENTON, WA 98055
SOHNL Y MARY P
10833 SE 172ND ST UNIT 7C
RENTON, WA 98055
LOUIE GARLAN W
9311 MAYES CT S
SEATTLE, WA 98118
MILES RICHARD D
MILES VIRGINIA C
10809-B SE 172ND ST
RENTON, WA 98055
GOLD GLADYS M
10829 SE 172ND ST #D6
RENTON, WA 98055
CALLIA GINA+RUTLEDGE KEVIN
10809 SE 172ND ST #1-D
RENTON, WA 98055
YU Al LING
17026 110TH PL SE
RENTON, WA 98055
ZHONG ZHI GUANG+JIAN MING W
17219 109TH PL SE
RENTON, WA 98055
HURTADO JESSE & LINDA
PO BOX 59743
RENTON, WA 98058
BOGGLE ADDISALEM
17018 110TH PL SE
RENTON, WA 98055
VONG BIEU C
5570 15TH AVE S
SEATTLE, WA 98108
STEVENS KRISTIN L
10817 SE 172ND ST #7-D
RENTON, WA 98055
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE A
301 W BAY ST
JACKSONVILLE, FL 32202
BACANI DENNIS P+MARIA CIELO
10813 SE 172ND ST #D2
RENTON, WA 98055
THOMPSON MICHAEL
10821 SE 172ND ST #4A
RENTON, WA 98055
HUSETH KAREN J
17123 113TH AVE SE
RENTON, WA 98058
VAUGHN TAMARA L
17010 110TH PL SE
RENTON, WA 98055
LEENKNECHT MATTHEW+AMANDA
17210 109TH PL SE
RENTON, WA 98055
SEIM JOHN R+CHARLENE A
17203 109TH PL SE
RENTON, WA 98055
OKADA-LOUIE JULIE
17215 109TH PL SE
RENTON, WA 98055
LEE DOUG+PHUNG VAN
17001 110TH PL SE
RENTON, WA 98055
WILLIAMS CHARLES D
25603 E LK WILDERNESS DR SE
MAPLE VALLEY, WA 98038
HARRELL FLORENCE
17557 110TH LN SE
RENTON, WA 98055
WATSON JESSE JR
17573 110TH LN SE
RENTON, WA 98055
GREVE DAVID P
17511 110TH LN SE
RENTON, WA 98055
RUIZ LI WEN
17549 110TH LN SE
RENTON, WA 98055
NUTT CHRISTOPHER L
17569 110TH LN SE
RENTON, WA 98056
SANT GAIL
17571 110TH LN SE UNIT 6
RENTON, WA 98055
MENDOZA EVELYN D+CYRUS
17559 110TH LN SE #11
RENTON, WA 98055
HOPPER SUSAN J
17507 110TH LN SE
RENTON, WA 98055
DAVIS ROSS+SUSAN BRADY
17561110TH LN SE UNIT 12
RENTON, WA 98055
SOOS CREEK WATER & SEWER
PO BOX 58039
RENTON, WA 98058
YEE DEBORA A
4401 40TH AVE SW
SEATTLE, WA 98116
TRAN MY+THUAN VAN ET AL
17567 110TH LN SE #8
RENTON, WA 98055
MOFFATT MARK W & THERESA C
17533 110TH LN SE
RENTON, WA 98055
GINER DAVID+JESSICA
17503 110TH LN SE #31
RENTON, WA 98055
SHUTLER MICHELLE L+JOSEPH J
17517 110TH LN SE #28
RENTON, WA 98055
SHPREYREGIN LEONID+SVETLANA
17555 110TH LN SE
RENTON, WA 98055
ADEGBITE STEPHEN+UCHE
17577 110TH LN SE
RENTON, WA 98055
STERLING SUSAN M+ROBERT D
17535 110TH LN SE
RENTON, WA 98005
FLOYD LANA M
17547 110TH LN SE
RENTON, WA 98055
SHLP BENSON DOWNS LLC
8110 E UNION AVE #200
DENVER, CO 80237
COYLE JANICE M
17527 110TH LN SE
RENTON, WA 98055
FERGUSON DARLENE+NEAL
17523 110TH LN SE
RENTON, WA 98055
DOZIER MICHAEL
17551 110TH LN SE
RENTON, WA 98055
CUSPARD STEVEN F
17515 110TH LN SE
RENTON, WA 98055
DE LA TORRE MELINDA L
17581 110TH LN SE
RENTON, WA 98055
DEMENEZES TWILA
17539 110TH LN SE
RENTON, WA 98055
PUTMANN-DAMM KELLI P
17529 110TH LN SE
RENTON, WA 98055
BENNETT ROBIN
17583 110TH LN SE #4
RENTON, WA 98055
HURNER JAMES F+RUBY
17545 110TH LN SE
RENTON, WA 98055
GORMLY EILEEN E
17513 110TH LN SE #26
RENTON, WA 98055
CLOMAN GERALDINE
17579 110TH LN SE #2
RENTON, WA 98055
FIELDBROOK COMMON LLC
9725 SE 36TH ST #214
MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040
SOREM RON
10835 SE 170TH ST
RENTON, WA 98055
JANOWSKI HENRY F+ANNA E
17505 110TH LN SE
RENTON, WA 98055
NELSON DONALD LEE JR
11011 SE 173RD ST
RENTON, WA 98055
BJORNSTAD DARLENE R TRUST
14624 SE 183RD ST
RENTON, WA 98058
KELLY LLANE
PO BOX 58093
RENTON, WA 98058
DANG NINA
17525 110TH LN SE
RENTON, WA 98055
WASHINGTON FEDERAL
425 PIKE ST
SEATTLE, WA 98101
NIEMI DONALD RICHARD
NIEMI SYDNEY
17022 108TH AVE SE
RENTON, WA 98055
M B INVESTMENTS
CHATHAM WR
1851 CENTRAL PL S #225
KENT, WA 98030
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development
{CED) -Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary
Public Approvals.
DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: July 2, 2013
PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: Fieldbrook Commons Variance/ LUA12-001, V-A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant applied for a variance from the tree regulations, to remove trees
in the wetland buffer and wetland.
PROJECT LOCATION: 17040 108th Avenue SE
PUBLIC APPROVALS: Administrative Variance Review
APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Justin Lagers, Field brook Commons, LLC; 9675 SE 35th Street #105; Mercer
Island, WA 98040; Eml: justin@pnwholdings.com
PUBLIC HEARING: N/A
Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, Department of
Community & Economic Development, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5;00 p.m. on July 16, 2013. If
you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail,
contact the Project Manager at {425) 430-7314. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a
party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project.
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
DATE OF APPLICATION: June 13, 2013
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 2, 2013
If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this
form and return to: City of Renton, CED, Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.
File Name/ No.: Fieldbrook Commons Variance/ LUA12-001, V-A
NAME: ---------------------------------------
MAILING ADDRESS: __________________ City/State/Zip:------------
TELEPHONE NO.: ----------------
Denis Law
Mayor
July 2, 2013
Justin Lagers
Fieldbrook Commons, LLC
9675 SE 35th Street #105
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Department of Community and Economic Development
C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator
Subject: Notice of Complete Application
Fieldbrook Commons Variance, LUAlZ-001, V-A
Dear Mr. Lagers:
The Planning Division of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application
is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore; is acGepted for review.
You will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your
application.
Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Senior Planner
Renton City H.all • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • re.ntonwa.gov
·,'IY of Ff:-=·n·uH· City of Renton ttq,~ .,. '.,_ '
,· i ~: ( 111 -~ LAND USE PERMIT '
JUN J " 10"' ~ ,J .. 1/.,
IA? /U ([;' 1,s' m,,J re:, 1,JVIA STER APPLICATIONiH/1 };-<A,...,.,
./ ·v.:i 1~"[T }Y))
PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME:
NAME: Fieldbrook Commons, LLC Fieldbrook Commons
9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105
PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)ILOCATION AND ZIP CODE:
ADDRESS: 17040 108th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98055
CITY: Mercer Island, WA ZIP: 98040
206-588-114 7
KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S):
TELEPHONE NUMBER: 292305-9023, 292305-9022, 292305-9168
APPLICANT {if other than owner)
EXISTING LAND USE(S): Vacant Land -Unimproved
NAME:
PROPOSED LAND USE(S):
COMPANY (if applicable): Variance Request -Tree Cutting
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION:
ADDRESS: R-14 -Residential Medium Density
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION
CITY: ZIP: (if applicable) Same
EXISTING ZONING: R-14
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): R-14 + bonus density
NAME: Justin Lagers
SITE AREA (in square feet):
469,203.55 square feet
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE
COMPANY (if applicable): Fieldbrook Commons, LLC DEDICATED:
24,559.67 square feet
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS:
ADDRESS: 9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105 NA
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET
CITY: Mercer Island, Washington ZIP: 98040 ACRE (if applicable)
162 units I 9.01 Acres= 17.98 dwelling units/ acre
TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable)
253-405-5587 -cell I 206-588-1147 -office NA
Justin@pnwholdings.com NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable):
162
H:\CED\Data\Forms-Templatcs\Sclf-Hclp Handouts\Planning\masterapp.doc -I -03111
PROJECT INFORMATION (continued) --~-----~-----------
NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable):
0
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS (if applicable): 178,534 square feet
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 0
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS (if applicable): 2,400 square feet (rec building)
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 0
NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if
applicable): NA
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW
PROJECT (if applicable): 0
PROJECT VALUE: $16,356,000.00
IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE
SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable):
CJ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE
CJ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO
CJ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft.
CJ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft.
CJ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft.
CJ SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft.
C!l WETLANDS 51,815 sq. ft.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
(Attach legal description on separate sheet with the followina information included}
SITUATE IN THE S.E. QUARTER OF SECTION~. TOWNSHIP 23N , RANGE~. IN THE CITY
OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
I, (Print Name/s) Michael Gladstein , declare under penalty of pe~ury under the laws of the State of
Washington that I am (please check one) 7 the current owner of the property involved in this application or~ the authorized
representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein
contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
~----.., /~:
05/23/2013
Date Signature of Owner/Representative Date
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
) ss
COUNTY OF KING )
ington
Notary (Print): ----'c:!A=--.c:.,eo-=-.:..:~=--.(.-'---'-. -'-.@-'-=-021:>,,9=::_:_;.L.V ____ _
7
My appointment expires: _ _;C,::_·-'/c...£7_·_:_/+¥''---------------
11:\CED\Data\Fonns-Tcmplatcs\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\masterapp.doc · 2 -03/11
PLANNING DIVISION
WAIVE:., OF SUBMITTAL RE.QUln.~MENTS.
FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS
Calculations 1
9pipf#il iili~R#fRFPr~mi~yj :r H>' "'
Construction Mitigation Description 2 AND 4
Environmental Checklist 4
§#r,~~r9'it?Y~m~~t~I~BP[#!l~fs?R~~~·:•••••·•:•:;::;;:;::••
Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) 4
Floor Plans , AND•
0 @~m1#pmr 1;\•R~@ri~~~*•: , > , ,
Grading Plan, Conceptual 2
Irrigation Plan 4
~im~:sp~nix~~#~~w~'#:M~R· 1m11s@rng ~it*#• •••·•·••••,,
Landscape Plan, Conceptual,
Legal Description 4
mii•if~Ki#/1m~~ii~gmH~i~i#r~•~•••••••·•·•·••••··•,••:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,.
Master Application Form 4
i@Mlliii/:~~r:#iKP~~ p~/rn#1wn~~ti'\' • t u >
Neighborhood Detail Map 4
A®f im~: it~m~~m~~•~,~~mijp~pii i~,~~i~ +••••::•
Plan Reductions (PMTs) 4
This requirement may be waived by:
1. Property Services PROJECT NAME: :Qdir,.t $1'.f 1hr fa(J( 0:
2. Public Works Plan Review
3. Building
4. Planning
DATE: y !?JI 2/)(3
I
H:\CED\Data\Fonns-Temp!ates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\waiverofsubmittalreqs.xls 06/09
PLANNING DIVISION
WAIVE >FSUBMITTAL REQUIR IENTS
FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS
Plat Name Reservation 4
Traffic Study 2
x~~~RHm1mWµ~/@pi~~r1riH!>r4mi i'' ;,:t< · ·
Urban Design Regulations Analysis 4
e ~@ti#~IBi~~: @'#n#H~i,:i'#Jt ::: ,,,, ........ .
Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Final 4
Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3
Inventory of Existing Sites ZAND 3
Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3
Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3
Map of View Area 2 AND 3
Photosimulations , AND 3
This requirement may be waived by:
1. Property Services
2. Public Works Plan Review
3. Building
4. Planning
PROJECT NAME: ~h,_id~cl~btwt-'-----,_· _f(._(ti_e~~~=·d/J-C~e~, -
~/20/20~73~--DATE:
H:\CED\Oata\Fonns-Tempfates\Self-Help Handouts\Planning\waiverofsubmittalreqs.xls 06/09
fl•)ti.l) D. R. STRON1.J
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
June 12, 2013
.iliN l J 2!r1:, DRS-Project No. 11062
City of Renton Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Re: Fieldbrook Commons -Project Narrative
Background:
This project narrative is provided in support of the variance request for the Fieldbrook
Commons PUD, located at 17040 1081h Ave SE. The Applicant is seeking approval to construct
a 162-unit apartment complex on 10.80 acres (Parcel Numbers 292305-9168, 292305-9022
and 292305-9023). A variance is being requested to allow tree removal within onsite wetlands
and wetland buffers in order to construct the proposed Project improvements.
Land Use Permits Required:
Clearing and Grading Permit
Zoning and Density:
The subject property and adjacent properties to the south are zoned R-14 (14 du/ac). North of
the site is property zoned R-14, R-10, and R-8 comprised primarily of single-family residential
development. To the east is property zoned R-14 and R-8 that is currently undeveloped. To the
south is property zoned R-14 developed with a mix of multi-family and single-family
development. To the west is property zoned R-14 and CA developed with single-family
residential and a day care facility. The adjacent property to the east is zoned RMH.
Current use of Site and existing improvements:
The Site is currently undeveloped and heavily forested with moderate underbrush.
Special Site features:
There are six wetlands located on the Site. Three wetlands (W.L. "D", W.L. "E", W.L. "F") within
the developable (western) portion of the Site will be filled in order to allow the proposed Project
improvements. Three wetlands (W.L. "A", W.L. "B", W.L. "C") in the eastern portion of the Site
will be set aside and remain undisturbed. Additionally, the filled wetlands will be mitigated
through the creation of a wetland area adjacent to W.L. "A" and W.L. "C".
Soil Type and Drainage Conditions:
A review of the SCS soils map for the area indicates Alderwood gravelly sandy loam with 6 to
15 percent slopes (AgC & AmC). The soils map also indicates Norma sandy loam (No) with
less than 2 percent slope. Per the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, this soil
type is classified as "Till" material.
The predeveloped Site is contained within two Threshold Discharge Areas (TDAs), TOA West
and TOA East. TOA West has three Natural Discharge Areas (NDAs), NOA 1,
NOA 2 and NOA 3. Runoff from NOA 1 discharges at the Site's southwestern
property corner and heads south through the conveyance system in 1081h Avenue
SE. It eventually crosses 1081h in a westerly direction into a stream through the
10604 N.E. 38 1n Place
Suite 232
Kirkland. WA 98033-3063
Phone: (425) 827-3063
Fax: (425) 827-2423
Toll Free: (800) 962-1402
www.drstrong.com
Engineers Suiveyors Landscape Architects
June 12, 2013
Page 2 of 2
Springbrook Project. Runoff from NOA 2 discharges at the Site's southern property line and
heads south through the conveyance system in 109th Place SE. It eventually is collected in the
conveyance system within Benson Drive S and converges with the path of NOA 1. Runoff from
NOA 3 sheet flows to the east across the southeastern property corner of parcel number
292305-9023. It sheet flows across adjacent developed properties and into SE 173rd Street
before converging with the downstream path of NOA 2.
TOA East has two Natural Discharge Areas, NOA 1 and NOA 2. Runoff from NOA 1 sheet
flows to the east and exits the Site near the northeast corner as sheet flow. The runoff is
eventually collected in Soos Creek. Runoff from NOA 2 sheet flows to the east and exits the
Site near the southeast property corner of parcel number 292305-9023. It reaches a closed
depression and overflows to the east where it converges with the downstream path of NOA 1.
Proposed Use of Property:
The applicant is seeking approval to remove trees within wetlands and wetland buffers.
Access, Traffic, and Circulation:
The Project will be accessed from 108th Avenue SE at SE 172nd Street.
Number, Type and Size of Trees to be Removed:
The proposed modification will result in the removal of 133 trees. See attached tree inventory
for identification number, type and size of trees to be removed.
Proposed Modification:
The City prohibits tree removal within wetlands or wetland buffers. However, the City allows
filling of wetlands. The proposed development will require tree removal within the three
wetlands to be filled, as well as the wetland mitigation area and adjacent wetland buffers.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this variance request, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc.
Maher A. Joudi, P.E.
Senior Project Engineer, Vice President
WJS/lib
Enclosures:
1. Site Plan
2. Justification for the Variance Request
3. Neighborhood Detail Map
4. Tree Variance Site Plan (Sheets 1, 2, 3)
5. Tree Variance Tree Removal List
6. Plan Reductions
R:\2011 \0\ 11062\3\Documents\ Variance\Project Narrative_ 11062.doc
fl•)til D. R. STRON<.:,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
June 12, 2013
..... ,L·~, ~>t .r=:·e~·i1ton
f n,.,1:·~1on
.:!JN ; 3 2013 DRS-Project No. 11062
City of Renton Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Re: Field brook Commons -Justification for the Variance Request
Per the City of Renton Variance Submittal Requirements, in order to approve a variance
request, the following four conditions must exist:
1. The Applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special
circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, and
location or surroundings of the subject property; and the strict application of the Building
and Zoning code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges
enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical classification.
2. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject
property is situated.
3. Approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation
upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is
situated.
4. The approval, as determined the Reviewing Official, is the minimum variance that will
accomplish the desired purpose.
Justification
(Applicable conditions from above are listed at the end of each bulleted item in bold)
• The location of Wetlands D, E, and F results in most of the site's developable property
being encumbered by wetland or buffer areas. These wetlands, particularly Wetlands E and
F are of low value, and Wetland D is small in size but because of its linear shape limits the
site's buildable area. (Condition #1 applies).
• The Applicant intends to fill these wetlands and provide adequate mitigation for lost function
by creating additional wetland on the eastern side of the site in and around Wetlands A, B
and C. The proposed wetland mitigation consists of connecting two wetlands on the site
with a created wetland in the area between them. Although Renton Municipal Code (RMC)
allows the proposed wetland fill and creation/mitigation, the RMC is in conflict with itself as
one cannot construct a wetland in an upland forested area without removing trees. In an
attempt to avoid removing trees, the Applicant proposed using the King County Fee
Mitigation method, in which the County would construct a mitigation area within the subject
drainage using fees from the project. However, the City has not allowed use
of the King County Fee program as it may move the mitigation area outside
the City limits. Consequently, there is no option but to provide the mitigation
on-site as proposed. (Conditions #2, #3, and #4 apply).
10604 N.E. 381
h Place
Suite 232
Kirkland. WA 98033-3063
Phone (425) 827-3063
Fax: (425} 827-2423
Toll Free: (800) 962-1402
www drstrong.com
Engineers Suiveyors Landscape Architects
June 12, 2013
Page 2 of 4
• Impacts to wetlands must be justified through a mitigation sequence as detailed in RMC.
This sequencing requires addressing the following criteria;
a. Avoid any disturbances to the wetland or buffer;
b. Minimize any wetland or buffer impacts;
• Wetland F located on the western side of the site is a Category 3 wetland measuring
1,595 sf. Due to the requirement to provide a secondary fire access directly from
1081h Ave S.E. the Applicant is unable to avoid direct impact to this wetland.
Wetland E located in the center of the site and adjacent to S. E. 172nd St. measures
68 sf and is rated as a Category 3 wetland. Due to the requirement to dedicate and
construct the north half of the S.E. 172"ct St. ROW the Applicant is unable to avoid
direct impacts to this wetland. Wetland D is located in the center of the project and
is rated as a Category 2 wetland measuring 7,671 sf. The Applicant previously
attempted to plan roadways and improvements around Wetland D. However, the
location and shape of the wetland impacted the vehicular circulation and building
locations to such an extent that the project would not be financially feasible to
construct. Therefore, the Applicant is unable to avoid direct impacts to this wetland.
(Condition #1 applies).
c. Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily;
• Restoration of the wetlands in their original locations would not be feasible due to
the location of the impacts, and the configuration of the parcel and remaining
wetlands. (Condition #1 applies).
d. Compensate for any permanent wetland or buffer impacts by one of the following
methods:
i. Restoring a former wetland and provide buffers at a site once exhibiting wetland
characteristics to compensate for wetlands lost;
• This is not applicable as no historic wetlands are noted on the property.
ii. Creating new wetlands and buffers for those lost;
• Mitigation for filling of wetlands would be provided through the creation of a new
wetland area and enhanced buffer areas for the existing Wetlands A, B & C in the
eastern third of the site. (Conditions #2, #3, and #4 apply).
• Tree retention requirements listed in the RMC are addressed as follows:
2.e. Tree Retention:
2.e. 1. Per RMC 4-4-130 tree removal is an allowed activity under certain circumstances.
However, prohibited activities include tree removal from critical areas, including
wetlands and their buffers (4-4-13003). This chapter of the RMC also requires a tree
removal and land clearing plan when a land development is submitted (4-4-130H2).
June 12, 2013
Page 3 of 4
• RMC allows filling of the small wetlands with adequate mitigation. However, wetland
filling will require tree removal within the affected wetlands and buffers. The creation
of new wetland will also result in tree removal within the Wetland A buffer. As
mitigation, the new wetland and buffer area will receive a dense planting of native
trees and shrubs. (Conditions #2, #3, and #4 apply).
• Within the 25.430 sf wetland creation area the Applicant will remove 26 trees and
replace them with 141 trees. Once the mitigation area is constructed and the
planted trees mature, there will be more trees considered "significant" in this area
than currently exist. (Conditions #2, #3, and #4 apply).
• RMC 4-4-13H7.d allows the removal of all Populus species including cottonwood
and lombardy poplar; all Alnus species including red alder, black alder, and white
alder; and all Salix species including weeping willow. when these trees are located in
a critical area or buffer provided that enhancement activities are being performed.
These tree species are considered undesirable because of invasive root systems,
weak wood prone to breakage, or varieties that tend to harbor insect pests. The
following is a breakdown of tree removal by wetland area:
Within W.L. "A" and its buffer 26 trees will be removed. Of these, 18 trees are
alders and two trees are cottonwoods, which constitute 76% of the total removed
within this area. Additionally, six of the total removed trees are listed as
"dangerous."
Within W.L. "B" and its buffer five trees will be removed. Of these, four trees are
alders, which constitute 80% of the total removed within this area. Two of the
alders are listed as "dangerous". One fir to be removed within this area is listed
as "dead."
Within W.L. "C" and its buffer three trees will be removed. Two of these trees are
cottonwoods, which constitute 67% of the total within this area.
Within W.L. "D" and its buffer 79 trees will be removed. Of these, 20 trees are
listed as "dangerous," two as "diseased," and two as "dead." These trees
constitute 30% of the total within this area. Twenty-five removed trees are
cottonwoods and eight are alders.
Within W.L. "E" and its buffer 7 trees will be removed. Six of these are alders,
three of which are listed as "dangerous." These trees constitute 85% of the total
removed within this area. One maple tree to be removed within this area is also
listed as "dangerous."
Within W. L. "F" and its buffer 13 trees will be removed. All removed trees are
cottonwoods. Two removed trees are listed as "dangerous" and one as
"diseased."
(Conditions #2, #3, and #4 apply).
June 12, 2013
Page 4 of 4
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this variance request. If you should have any
questions or concerns regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc.
Maher A. Joudi, P.E.
Senior Project Engineer, Vice President
MAJ/lib
R:\2011 \0\ 11062\3\Documents\ Variance\ V130416_ 11062_renton. doc
Tree Variance Tree Removal List Date: May 24, 2013
Fieldbrook Commons
W.L. 11 F11 & Buffer
Tree No. Si;iecies CanoelllDia. Condition
1494 COT 15.11 Dangerous
1495 COT 15.13
1496 COT 8.8 Dangerous
1497 COT 8.80
1498 COT 8.90
1499 COT 15.15
1500 COT 15.16
1501 COT 15.16
1513 COT 8.8
1514 COT 12.10
1515 COT 12.13
1516 COT 10.10
1926 COT 10.9 Diseased
Total trees removed: 13
W.L. "D" & Buffer
Tree No. Si;iecies CanoelllDia. Condition
1725 A 12.8
1726 A 15.12
1709 AL 12.11 Dangerous
1722 AL 12.14 Dangerous
1975 AL 14.12
1994 AL 12.14 Dead
2014 AL 12.7
2441 CED 12.16
2446 CED 10.8 Dead
2084 CHERRY 16.8
1592 COT 12.18
1658 COT 10.14
1659 COT 10.13
1675 COT 10.11
1693 COT 12.18
1699 COT 12.24
1700 COT 12.20
1702 COT 10.14
1703 COT 8.10
1704 COT 8.10
1705 COT 8.7 Diseased
1707 COT 8.9
Page 1 of 4
1710 COT 12.22
1713 COT 12.15
1717 COT 20.15
1724 COT 15.15
1736 COT 14.18
1737 COT 10.10
2009 COT 16.30 Dangerous
2465 COT 14.14
1660 F 14.18
1661 F 12.11
1974 F 12.18
1733 H 10.12
2015 HEM 12.14 Dangerous
1701 M 8.9
1706 M 12.7
1708 M 6.30 Dangerous
1711 M 10.10 Dangerous
1712 M 16.8
1714 M 18.15
1715 M 18.11
1716 M 24.24
1719 M 14.10 Dangerous
1720 M 12.7
1721 M 20.16 Diseased
1727 M 16.10
1728 M 12.9
1735 M 14.10
1808 M 12.10
1976 M 14.10
1977 M 20.20 Dangerous
1978 M 12.18 Dangerous
1979 M 20.20 Dangerous
1985 M 12.22 Dangerous
1986 M 20.20
1987 M 20.14
1991 M 20.15
1992 M 18.14
1993 M 24.24 Dangerous
1995 M 14.20
1996 M 12.12
1997 M 16.7
1998 M 12.8
1999 M 14.13
2010 M 16.8
2011 M 16.8
2012 M 30.28 Dangerous
2036 M 12.10
Page2of4
2037 M 10.8 Dangerous
2040 M 28.20
2444 M 18.12
2450 M 16.10
2453 M 18.12 Dangerous
1723 MCLUSTER Dangerous
1732 MCLUSTER Dangerous
1734 MCLUSTER Dangerous
1990 MCLUSTER Dangerous
2443 MCLUSTER Dangerous
Total trees removed: 79
W.L. "E" & Buffer
Tree No. S(!ecies Cano11lllDia. Condition
1771 A 16.12
1763 AL 16.16 Dangerous
1764 COT 10.8 Dangerous
1765 COT 12.10
1766 COT 14.10 Dangerous
1770 COT 14.10
1952 M 10.8 Dangerous
Total trees removed: 7
W.L. "A" & Buffer
Tree No. S11ecies Cano11l1LDia. Condition
2354 A 14.12
2092 AL 10.6
2117 AL 14.12 Dangerous
2118 AL 14.12
2119 AL 16.18
2120 AL 14.12 Dangerous
2121 AL 12.10
2144 AL 16.14
2145 AL 16.14
2146 AL 14.12
2147 AL 14.12
2148 AL 22.16
2157 AL 18.14 Dangerous
2158 AL 18.14
2159 AL 10.8 Dangerous
2160 AL 10.8
2161 AL 24.22
2340 AL 14.16 Dangerous
2361 AL 14.80
2360 COT 10.34
Page 3 of4
2091 F 20.24
2351 F 16.12
2048 M 20.8
2343 M 16.16
2363 M 14.60
2108 WIL 16.12 Dangerous
Total trees removed: 26
W.L. "C" & Buffer
Tree No. SE!ecies CanoE!lllDia. Condition
2345 AL 16.16
2349 AL 16.12
2344 MCLUSTER
Total trees removed: 3
W.L. "B" & Buffer
Tree No. SE!ecies CanOE!JllDia. Condition
2186 AL 12.12 Dangerous
2301 AL 14.12
2399 AL 20.18 Dangerous
2400 CAS 6.6
2401 F 18.24 Dead
Total trees removed: 5
Page 4of4
Tree Variance Tree Removal List Date: May 24, 2013
Fieldbrook Commons
W.L. "F" & Buffer
Tree No. S11ecies Cano11l£LDia. Condition
1494 COT 15.11 Dangerous
1495 COT 15.13
1496 COT 8.8 Dangerous
1497 COT 8.80
1498 COT 8.90
1499 COT 15.15
1500 COT 15.16
1501 COT 15.16
1513 COT 8.8
1514 COT 12.10
1515 COT 12.13
1516 COT 10.10
1926 COT 10.9 Diseased
Total trees removed: 13
W.L. "D" & Buffer
Tree No. S11ecies Cano11l£LDia. Condition
1725 A 12.8
1726 A 15.12
1709 AL 12.11 Dangerous
1722 AL 12.14 Dangerous
1975 AL 14.12
1994 AL 12.14 Dead
2014 AL 12.7
2441 CED 12.16
2446 CED 10.8 Dead
2084 CHERRY 16.8
1592 COT 12.18
1658 COT 10.14
1659 COT 10.13
1675 COT 10.11
1693 COT 12.18
1699 COT 12.24
1700 COT 12.20
1702 COT 10.14
1703 COT 8.10
1704 COT 8.10
1705 COT 8.7 Diseased
1707 COT 8.9
Page 1 of 4
1710 COT 12.22
1713 COT 12.15
1717 COT 20.15
1724 COT 15.15
1736 COT 14.18
1737 COT 10.10
2009 COT 16.30 Dangerous
2465 COT 14.14
1660 F 14.18
1661 F 12.11
1974 F 12.18
1733 H 10.12
2015 HEM 12.14 Dangerous
1701 M 8.9
1706 M 12.7
1708 M 6.30 Dangerous
1711 M 10.10 Dangerous
1712 M 16.8
1714 M 18.15
1715 M 18.11
1716 M 24.24
1719 M 14.10 Dangerous
1720 M 12.7
1721 M 20.16 Diseased
1727 M 16.10
1728 M 12.9
1735 M 14.10
1808 M 12.10
1976 M 14.10
1977 M 20.20 Dangerous
1978 M 12.18 Dangerous
1979 M 20.20 Dangerous
1985 M 12.22 Dangerous
1986 M 20.20
1987 M 20.14
1991 M 20.15
1992 M 18.14
1993 M 24.24 Dangerous
1995 M 14.20
1996 M 12.12
1997 M 16.7
1998 M 12.8
1999 M 14.13
2010 M 16.8
2011 M 16.8
2012 M 30.28 Dangerous
2036 M 12.10
Page 2 of4
2037 M 10.8 Dangerous
2040 M 28.20
2444 M 18.12
2450 M 16.10
2453 M 18.12 Dangerous
1723 MCLUSTER Dangerous
1732 MCLUSTER Dangerous
1734 MCLUSTER Dangerous
1990 MCLUSTER Dangerous
2443 MCLUSTER Dangerous
Total trees removed: 79
W.L. "E" & Buffer
Tree No. S11ecies Cano11v/Dia. Condition
1771 A 16.12
1763 AL 16.16 Dangerous
1764 COT 10.8 Dangerous
1765 COT 12.10
1766 COT 14.10 Dangerous
1770 COT 14.10
1952 M 10.8 Dangerous
Total trees removed: 7
W.L. "A" & Buffer
Tree No. S11ecies Cano1111LDia. Condition
2354 A 14.12
2092 AL 10.6
2117 AL 14.12 Dangerous
2118 AL 14.12
2119 AL 16.18
2120 AL 14.12 Dangerous
2121 AL 12.10
2144 AL 16.14
2145 AL 16.14
2146 AL 14.12
2147 AL 14.12
2148 AL 22.16
2157 AL 18.14 Dangerous
2158 AL 18.14
2159 AL 10.8 Dangerous
2160 AL 10.8
2161 AL 24.22
2340 AL 14.16 Dangerous
2361 AL 14.80
2360 COT 10.34
Page 3 of 4
2091 F 20.24
2351 F 16.12
2048 M 20.8
2343 M 16.16
2363 M 14.60
2087 M 14.7
2108 WIL 16.12 Dangerous
Total trees removed: 27
W.L. "C" & Buffer
Tree No. S11ecies Cano11'1'LDia. Condition
2345 AL 16.16
2349 AL 16.12
2344 MCLUSTER
Total trees removed: 3
W.L. "B" & Buffer
Tree No. S11ecies Cano11','[Dia. Condition
2186 AL 12.12 Dangerous
2301 AL 14.12
2399 AL 20.18 Dangerous
2400 CAS 6.6
2401 F 18.24 Dead
Total trees removed: 5
Page 4 of4
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
June 7, 2013
Vanessa Dolbee -Senior Planner
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98057
RE: Fieldbrook Critical Areas -LUA12-001
swc Job#l l-121
Dear Vanessa,
27641 Qwingtm WaySE#2
Covington WA \0012
Phono: 253-&59--0515
Fax: 253--852-4Zl2
.!UN I :1 lO/J
Attached is our final revised (Revision date 5-30-13) mitigation plan taking into account
all of the comments from OTAK (see attached comment response letters), as well as the
hearing examiners report and subsequent comments from the US Army Corps of
Engineers.
This plan meets all the Hearing Examiners conditions, as well as all other requests from
the City as well as the Corps
If you have any questions or require any additional information please feel free to contact
me at (253) 859-0515 or at esewall@sewallwc.com.
Sincerely,
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
Ed Sewall
Senior Wetland Ecologist PWS #212
Attached: Revised Wetland Mitigation Plan 5-30-13
March 16, 2012 Review Response
April 10, 2012 Review Response
September 17, 2012 Review Response
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
March 16, 2012
Vanessa Dolbee -Senior Planner
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98057
27&11 Covington WayS'E#2
Covington WA 98042
RE: Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response
SWC Job#] 1-121
Dear Vanessa,
Phone: 253--859--0515
Fax: 253--852-4732
I have reviewed the OTAK February 29, 2012, "Critical Areas Review ofFieldbrook
Commons" letter. The following is our response to the Recommendations listed starting
on Page 7 of the OTAK memo;
2.a. Offsite Wetlands: According to the R.MC (4-3-0SOM3.a.i), "The applicant shall be
required to conduct a study to determine the classification of the wetland if the subject
property or project area is within one hundred fee/ of a we/land even if the wetland is not
located on the subject property but it is determined that alterations of the subject
property are likely to impact the wetland in questions or its buffer." If any portion of the
wetland or buffer is located onsite, the site plans will need to be revised accordingly.
As requested, we investigated the off-site wetland area identified by OT AK. It appears to
be a linear extension of Wetland B. We measured the distance of this wetland to the
eastern property line of the site and it was 55'. As this appears to be a part of Wetland B,
this would also be a Category 2 wetland with a 50' buffer. This buffer would not extend
onto the site.
2.b. Wetland and Buffer Punctions: provide an assessment and comparison of existing and
proposed wetland and buffer functions and values using the Ecology metl10dology
(http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0806009.pd!) to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation
will achieve functional equivalency or improvement on a per function basis (RMC 4-3-
0SOMl 1.d). Provide a table that compares existing and proposed wetland and buffer
functions and values, such as that provided in the above mentioned methodology.
_ 'ieldbrook Commonsll 1-121
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
March 16, 2012
Page 2 of 18
2.c. Maps: Future maps submitted should be printed at the appropriate scale and all
contours and map notes should be legible. Provide approprinte scale bars on all maps.
Maps contain scales and notes are legible in the copies provided to the City.
2.d. Wetland B Buffer Encroachment: If the buffer is being intruded upon from the
neighboring yard, the applicant will need to restore the degraded portion of the buffer and
include new fencing to pre,-ent future intrusion.
This area will be restored by removing the fence and replanting with native trees and
shrubs.
2.e. Tree Retention:
2.e. 1. Per Rl\1C 4-4-130 tree removal is an allowed activity under certain circumstances.
However, prohibited activities include tree removal from critical areas, including
wetlands and their buffers (4-4-130D3). This chapter of the R.c'v!C also requires a tree
removal and land clearing plan when a land development is submitted (4-4-130H2).
It is impossible to fill any wetland that has trees and not remove them. Trees within the
filled wetland will be removed. However, the proposed mitigation plantings replaces
these trees with many more trees than will be removed. The areas of clearing within
existing buffer of Wetland A for expansion of the wetland will also have trees removed.
However, all of the new wetland and buffer will be planted with a dense planting of
native trees and shrubs.
2 .f. Mitigation Memo and Mitigation Plan Sheets:
2. 1.1. Revise the mitigation memo and mitigation plan sheets to contain all of the clements
required by Rl\fC 4-3-0SOM and 4-8-120D23, and address the items listed in Section 1.f
above.
The following are the sections under Lf referred to;
1.f.1. The mitigation memo and associated plan sheets constitutes a conceptual mitigation
plan.
1.f.2. The project proposes to mitigate for the fill of existing wetlands D, E, and P by
removing existing high functioning wetland buffers in order to create additional
wetland. Wetland Buffer requirements per Rlv!C 4-3-050M6.a.iii states "All required
wetland buffer zones shall be retained in their natural condition."
The revised mitigation plan will not impact the buffer of Wetland B which is high
functioning. Instead the new plan proposed creating wetland between Wetlands A and C
and converting moderate function buffer to wetland, and then move the buffer to the edge
of the newly created wetland. No loss in buffer function will occur as the same 50'
buffer will be utilized on the new wetland creation area.
ieldbrook Commons/I 1-/ 2 I
Sewall Wetland Consulting. Inc.
March /6, 20/2
Page 3 of /8
1.f.3. The mitigation memo lacks many elements required by Rl\-!C 4-8-120D.23 and RMC
4-3-050!\L The most imponant lacking elements are: 1.f.3.1. Nati,-e Growth Protection
Areas: Requirements for placement of wetlands and buffers into a Native Growth Protection
Area (NGPA) (RMC 4-3-050E4 and 4-3-050M7); as well as, specifications for NGPA signs,
fencing, maintenance, and maintenance covenants (RMC 4-3-050E4);
The final mitigation plan will depict NGPA areas as well as specific locations of signs
and fencing.
1.f.3.2. Assessment and Comparison: Requirements to provide an assessment and
comparison of existing and proposed wetland and buffer functions and values using
an approved methodology to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation will achieve
functional
Using the WADOE Wetland rating systems which is based upon 3 major recognized
wetland functions, Wetland D scored a total of33 points, indicating a Category 3 we!land
which also indicates low-moderate overall functional value. Wetlands E & F scored 25
and 29 points, respectively. This indicates low function Category 4 wetlands.
As seen in Table I below, a substantial functional lift will be attained from the
connection of Wetlands A and C with 25,508sf of additional wetland over the existing
functions of the proposed fill wetlands.
Table 1. Functional Comoarison ofimoact wetlands and orooosed miti ation
Wetland Arca Flood Species Water Hydrologic Habitat
Storage Richness Qua!. Function Function
caoacitv Function
Wetland D 7671.ef 3800cufi 5 snecies 12nts 8vts 13vts
Wetland E 68.ef 34czd't 2 s1Jecies I lnts 4vts IOvts
WetlandF 159Jsf 500cuft 5 svecies IOD/s 8vts llvts
Provosed 25508sf 7600cuft 15 soecies 24ots 20nts 2lnts
Functional +16178sf +3266cuft +8species* +12pts +12pts avg +9pts
Lift ave ave
*only 7 different species were found (excluding exotic/invasives) in Wetlands D,E &F
The newly created wetland will connect to existing Category 3 wetlands (Wetlands A and
C) and provide enough lift that this wetland will now be considered a Category 2 wetland
under the W ADOE rating system. This is a substantial lift in function, surface water
storage and species richness over the proposed low value Category 3 and 4 fill wetlands.
Category
3
4
4
2
+I
Cateeorv
ie/dbrook Commons/11-121
Sewall Weiland Consul ling. Inc.
March 16, 2012
Page 4 of 18
1.f.3.3. Protecting Ruffer Functions: Specifications for locating and directing lighting
outside of and away from wetland and buffer areas (RMC 4-3-050/vIG.c.ii.b).
This will be noted on site plans for portions of the development abutting the wetland and
buffer areas.
1.f.3.4. Minimization: Requirements for minimizing wetland and buffer impacts is not
addressed (RMC 4-8-120D23.i);
1.f.3.5. Hydrology: There is no information to determine whether there will be sufficient
hydrology to establish and maintain wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and
hydric soils at the proposed elevations within the wetland creation area.
• There is no evidence to support the assumption that groundwater elevations in
the wetland creation area will be the same as in the existing wetlands. In tl1e wetland creation
area between Wetlands A and C, there is an approximate 2-foot difference in elevation and
in tl1e wetland creation area on the west side of Wetland B there is generally a 4-foot
difference, with as much as a 6-foot difference in elevation.
Currently we are monitoring groundwater within 6 wells within the new proposed
wetland creation area between wetlands A and C. Current readings indicate groundwater
is at a depth from J 6"-28" below the surface. We will continue to monitor these points
into April to develop an appropriate grading plan to create wetland conditions within the
mitigation area.
The 2' elevation difference between Wetlands A & C will be considered when we prepare a
final grading plan based upon groundwater elevations. Its possible that a small portion of
the created wetland may have slope wetland characteristics. We have employed this type of
grading in several wetland mitigation projects successfully. However, this will depend upon
our findings of our hydrology monitoring which is currently being conducted.
• There is no information that determines how the construction of the berm proposed
between the combined \Vetlands A and C will prevent water in this larger, combined wetland
from flowing out to Wetland R.
The use of a berm in this area if used, will be constructed of a soil material that will be an
impediment to water passing through the berm through the use of a barrier such as clay.
• There is no information to determine that excavating adjacent to \\i'etland B (Soos Creek
headwaters) will not harm and/or alter the existing wetland and stream hydrology and
vegetation.
No impacts or excavation in the area of Wetland Bare proposed at this time.
_ ieldhrookCornmonslll-/2/
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
March 16, 2012
!'age 5 of 18
1.f.3.6. Proposed Grasses: The specified planting of grass seeds in all disturbed portions of
the buffer and created wetland. Grass has been shown to compete with and inhibit
growth of installed woody plants, and tall grass can hide installed plants making
them more difficult to locate during monitoring visits, and increase the likelihood of
damage during maintenance activities.
Grass see will be eliminated from the planting plan. Use of chips or mulch will be
utilized instead.
2.f.6. Trails: the proposed trails in the mitigation wetland buffets must conform with RJvfC
4-3-0SOC7.a.i(2)., and the applicant must demonstrate that the construction and use of the
proposed trails will not degrade wetland or buffer functions and values.
The trail was a requested by the City. It has been removed from the plan so there will be
no trail impacts.
2.f.7. Grading Plans: provide clearing/grading plans in the wetland mitigation area that
demonstrates the proposed clearing/ grading in the buffers is the minimum necessary
for the project (Rlv!C 4-8-120D7).
The plan has been revised to eliminate any connection to Wetland B. The plan will
connect Wetlands A and C through the minimum grading required for the required
wetland creation area. This will be based upon the results of our hydrology monitoring
which started March 12, 2012. When we have sufficient early growing season hydrology
data the grading plans for the mitigation area will be prepared. We anticipate that to be
near the end of April-middle of May.
2.f.8. Storm Pond: Provide detailed plans regarding the storm water pond. Information that
specifically needs to be included:
• proposed outlet location and flow rate;
• specifications regarding emergency overflow
• information regarding how the adjacent wetlands and buffers will be protected from
potential impacts regarding the outlet location(s); and
• provide a planting plan for the storm water pond. The target community should
be similar to the existing vegetation onsite.
The storm pond has been eliminated from the project and a buried vault will be utilized
outside the wetland and associated buffers.
2.f.9. Permits: Provide documentation regarding the required permits from State and Federal
agencies including Ecology, USACE, and WDFW.
_ 'ieldbrook Commons/11-121
5,'ewall Wetland Consulting. Inc.
March 16, 2012
Page 6 of 18
When the City accepts the Conceptual Mitigation Plan, we can then prepare a Final
Detailed Plan which would be suitable for submittal for a Nationwide Permit from the
Army Corps of Engineers, as well as to W ADOE for 410 Water quality Certification. It
is premature to submit for these permits at this time as the required documents (Final
mitigation plan and reports) have not been prepared.
2. f.10. J ,ong Term Monit01'ing: Provide for ten years of monitoring and maintenance of the
mitigation area, including the entire wetland mitigation buffer.
• 'l'o be consistent with guidance from the USACE and Ecology, Section 5 Monitoring
Program should specify that Year 1 vegetation monitoring will occur in the at the end of
growing season after the plants have been installed for at least one calendar year.
• At a minimum, monitoring should occur in Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10.
• Include specifications for monitoring hydrology in the wetland creation area
from March through May in piezometers per guidance from USACE
(http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/ el pubs/ pdf / tnwrap00-2.pdf).
City of Renton Code requires monitoring and bonding of a wetland mitigation project for
five years. Although it is likely that the Corps and W ADOE may require IO years of
monitoring, the plan to be submitted to the City will meet the City Code of 5 years of
monitoring. Hydrology monitoring of the creation area will be a component.
2.g. Buffers:
2.g.1. City code requires impacts to critical areas and tl1eir buffers be avoided, minimized,
restored or compensated (R.MC 4-3-0SOMS). Because avoiding all impacts does not
appear possible, these impacts (permanent and temporary) must be MINIMIZED.
Extensive proposed grading in the existing buffers does not minimize impact to these
critical areas. In order to minimize impacts:
• Do not remove the existing functional wetland buffer in order to create new
wetland;
• Retaining walls should be used adjacent to proposed trails, the storm water pond,
and any other area where extensive grading would otherwise impact the buffer;
and
• Buffer slopes should not be any steeper than tliey are under existing conditions.
In order to minimize impacts to the wetlands and buffers, the formerly proposed storm
pond has been removed and replaced with a much more expensive vault outside the
wetland and buffers.
The trail has also been removed from the wetland and buffers.
The previous mitigation proposed in the high functioning, conifer dominated buffer of
Wetland B has been removed from the plan. Now all the mitigation/wetland creation is
to occur between Wetlands A and C. Both of these wetlands are isolated and not
associated with the larger Wetland B.
_ 'ieldbrook Commons! 11-121
Sev,,·all Wetland Consulting, Inc.
March 16, 2012
Page 7 of 18
The proposed area for the creation is deciduous forest comprised of scattered big leaf
maple, a single cottonwood, and understory of vine maple, elderberry, blackberry and
Indian plum. This area has had past disturbance from mining and contains existing
disturbed areas as well as some trash and debris. Portions also include a large man-made
berm that is comprised of peat and coal tailings. Preliminary hydrology monitoring
reveals groundwater at depths between 16"-28" of the surface within the proposed
creation area. Soils in this area are gravelly loams on the surface with tighter clay soils
beneath. Wetland creation in these types of soils is typically very successful. The
proposed work in the buffers of these wetland to create over 25,000sf of additional
wetland area will not remove pristine buffer. Additionally, the newly created wetland
edge will then have a 50' buffer of existing forest to protect the resource. Any buffer
area disturbed during the creation of the mitigation project will be restored with native
tree and shrub species. All the large trees removed from the buffer and the grading of the
wetland creation area will be utilized as habitat features (snags and large woody debris)
within the wetland and buffer mitigation area.
2.g.2. At a minimum, all disturbed and invasive-dominated buffer additions, as well as the
areas designated as "buffer restoralionfor lemporary impacl.1·" have to have an
enhancement plan that includes (at a minimum): invasive removal; installation of appropriate
native trees and shrubs; performance standards (less than 10% invasive cover, at least 80%
survival for the first 2 years, reasonable % desirable woody cover, reasonable diversity
of woody species); and monitoring, maintenance, and contingency plans.
All disturbed areas and the entire mitigation area will meet this goal.
lfyou have any questions or require any additional information please feel free to contact
me at (253) 859-0515 or at esewall@sewallwc.com.
Sincerely,
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
Ed Sewall
Senior Wetland Ecologist PWS #212
Attached: Revised Existing Conditions Map
Revised Conceptual Mitigation Plan
_ ieldbrook Commons!J J-121
Sn~'all Wetland Consulting, Inc.
March 16, 2012
Page 8 qf 18
1.0 CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PROJECT OVERVIEW
To compensate for the fill of a 9,334sf Category 2 &3 wetlands, it is proposed to
create 25,508sf of wetland between Wetlands A and C
2.0 MITIGATION CONCEPT AND GOALS
2.1 Mitigation Concept
The mitigation proposal is to connect Wetlands A and C with an area of 25,508sf
of wetland. The wetland creation areas will be densely planted with native
vegetation. The use of diverse native plantings are expected to significantly
improve the overall function of the wetland and buffer as it will remove dense
thickets of exotic blackberry as well as add emergent and shrub plant
communities into what is now, a single class forested wetland.
2.2 Mitigation Goals
2.2.1 Create 25,508sf of emergent, scrub shrub and forested wetland.
3.0 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
The construction sequence of this project will be implemented as follows:
3.1 Pre-construction meeting
3.2 Construction staking
3.3 Construction fencing and erosion control
3.4 Clearing and grading
3.5 Stabilization of mitigation area
3.6 Plant material installation
3.7 Construction inspection
3.8 Agency approval
3.9 Monitoring inspection and reporting
3.10 Silt fence removal
3.11 Project completion
3.1 Pre-construction Meeting
A pre-construction meeting will be held on-site prior to commencement of
construction, to include the biologist, the City, and the contractor. The approved
plans and specifications will be reviewed to ensure that all parties involved
_ ieldbrouk Cummons/11-121
Se1vall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
March 16, 2012
Page 9 of/8
understand the intent of the construction documents, specifications, site
environmental constraints, sequences, and inspection requirements.
3.2 Construction Staking
The limits of clearing and grading near the critical areas will be marked in the
field by a licensed professional land surveyor prior to commencement of
construction activities.
3.3 Construction Fencing & Erosion Control
All erosion control measures adjacent to the critical areas, including silt fencing
and orange construction fencing, will be installed. Erosion control fencing will
remain around the mitigation area until clearing, grading and mulch placement
are complete in upland areas outside the critical areas.
3.4 Clearing & Grading
Clearing and grading in and near the existing sensitive area will be per the
approved Final Mitigation Plans.
3.5 Stabilization of Mitigation Area
All graded areas in the wetland or buffer will be stabilized with mulch upon
completion of grading. Orange construction fencing and erosion control fences
will be restored (if necessary) and placed around the critical areas.
3.6 Plant Material Installation
All plant material will be planted by hand per detail and Construction and
Planting Notes. The Mitigation Plan specifies the required size, species, quantity,
and location of plant materials to be installed. The contractor will mulch areas
disturbed during the planting process. Upon completion of the planting, the
erosion control fencing will be restored and repaired. Plant substitutions or
modifications to locations shall be approved in writing by the Owner's biologist
prior to installation.
3.7 Construction Inspection
Upon completion of installation, the County's biologist will conduct an
inspection to confirm proper implementation of the Mitigation Plan. Any
corrections, substitutions or missing items will be identified in a "punch list" for
the landscape contractor. Items of particular importance will be soils in pits, pit
size, plant species, plant size, mulch around pits, and tree staking.
_. ieldbrook Commons!/ /-121
5)eirall Wetland Consult;ng, Inc.
March 16. 2012
Page JO of 18
Upon completion of planting, if installation or materials vary significantly from
the Mitigation Plan, the contractor will submit a reproducible "as-built" drawing
to the Owner,
3.8 Agency Approval
Following acceptance of the installation by the City, the County biologist should
prepare a letter granting approval of the installation.
3.9 Monitoring
The site will be monitored for 5 years to insure the success of the mitigation
project.
3.10 Silt Fence Removal
Erosion control fencing adjacent to the mitigation area will remain in place for at
least one year, and/ or until all areas adjacent to the mitigation area have been
stabilized. The County's Biologist may recommend that the fencing remain in
place for a longer duration.
4.0 CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING NOTES
4.1 Site Preparation & Grading
4.1.1 The Landscape Contractor will approve existing conditions of subgrade
prior to initiation of any mitigation installation work.
The Landscape Contractor will inform the Owner of any discrepancies between
the approved construction document and existing conditions.
4.1.2The General Contractor will flag the limits of clearing with orange
construction fencing and will observe these limits during construction. No
natural features or vegetation will be disturbed beyond the designated "limits of
clearing".
4.1.3 The Landscape Contractor will hand grub all blackberry varieties onsite.
Weed debris will be disposed of off site.
4.1.4 The wetland area will be excavated to the depths shown on the Final
Mitigation Grading Plan and brought to grade with 8" of topsoil. The biologist
will be on-site to confirm the grading is acceptable for planting.
4.2 Plant Materials
'ie/dbrook Commons/11-121
Sewall Welland Consulting, Inc.
March 16, 2012
Page 11 of 18
4.2,1 All plant materials will be as specified in the plant schedule. Only vigorous
plants free of defects, diseases and infestation are acceptable for installation.
4.2.2All plant materials will conform to the standards and size requirements of
ANSI Z60.1 "American Standard for Nursery Stock". All plant materials will be
native to the northwest, and preferably the Puget Sound Region. Plant materials
will be propagated from native stock; no cultivars or horticultural varieties will
be allowed. All plant materials will be grown from nursery stock unless
otherwise approved.
4.2.3 All nursery grown plant materials will be in containers or balled and
burlapped. Bare root plantings will be subject to approval.
4.2.4 All plant materials stored on-site longer than two (2) weeks will be
organized in rows and maintained by the contractor at no additional cost to the
owner. Plant materials temporarily stored will be subject to inspection and
approval prior to installation.
4.2.SSubstitution requests must be submitted in writing to the Owner and
approved by the Owner's biologist in writing prior to delivery to site.
4.2.6 All plant materials will be dug, packed, transported and handled with care
to ensure protection from injury. All plant materials to be stored on site more
than 24 hours will be heeled into topsoil or sawdust. Precautionary measures
shall be taken to ensure plant materials do not dry out before planting. Wetland
plants will be shaded and saturated until time of installation. Immediately after
installation the mitigation planting area will be saturated to avoid capillary
stress.
4.2.7The contractor will verify all plant materials, the quantities shown on the
planting plan, and the plant schedule. The quantity of plant materials shown on
the plan takes precedent over the quantity on the plant list.
4.3 Plant Installation
4.3.1 All plant materials must be inspected prior to installation to verify
conformance of the materials with the plant schedule including size, quality and
quantity. Any plant or habitat materials deemed unsatisfactory will be rejected.
ieldbrook Commons/ 11-121
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
March 16, 2012
!'age /2of/8
4.3.2 All plant materials delivered and accepted should be planted immediately
as depicted on the mitigation plan. Plant materials not planted within 24 hours
will be heeled-in per note 3.2.6. Plant materials stored under temporary
conditions will be the sole responsibility of the contractor. Plants will be
protected at all times to prevent the root ball from drying out before, during, or
after planting.
4.3.3 All planting pits will be circular with vertical sides, and will be sized per
detail on the mitigation plan and filled with pit soils approved by the Owner's
biologist. If native soils are determined to be unacceptable by the Owner's
biologist, pit soils will be amended with Cedar Grove mulch or equivalent.
4.3.4No fertilizers will be used within the wetland. In buffer areas only, install
"Agriform", or equal plant fertilizer to all planting pits as specified by
manufacturer. Fertilizers are allowed only below grade in the planting pits in
the buffer areas. No sewage sludge fertilizer ("SteerCo" or "Growco") is allowed
in the mitigation area.
4.3.5All containerized plant materials will be removed from their containers
carefully to prevent damage to the plant and its roots. Plants removed from their
containers will be planted immediately.
4.3.6All plant materials will be placed as shown on the approved mitigation
plan. If the final installation varies from the approved mitigation plan, the
contractor will provide a reproducible mylar as-built of the installed conditions.
All plant material will be flagged by the contractor.
4.4 Planting Schedule and Warranty
4.4.1 A fall-winter installation schedule (October 1st -March 15th) is preferred for
lower mortality rates of new plantings. If plant installation occurs during the
spring or summer (March 15th -Oct. 1st) a temporary irrigation system will be
required, unless the area can be sufficiently hand-watered.
4.4.2All disturbed areas will be mulched or seeded with native mixes as specified
on the plans, as soon as the mitigation area grading is complete. The seed must
be germinated and a grass cover established by October 1st. If the cover is not
adequately established by October 1st, exposed soils will be covered with
approved erosion control material and the contractor will notify the Owner in
writing of alternative soil stabilization method used.
'ieldbrook Commons/11-12 I
Sewall Weiland Consulting, Inc.
March 16, 2012
Page I 3 of 18
4,4,3 The installer will warrant all plant materials to remain healthy and alive for
a period of one year after final acceptance, The installer will replace all dead or
unhealthy plant materials per the approved plans and specifications,
4.5 Site Conditions
4,5,1 The installer will coordinate with the Owner and the Owner's biologist for
construction scheduling,
45,2Landscape installation will begin after the City acceptance of grading and
construction, The Owner will notify the Owner's biologist of acceptance of final
grading,
4,5,3Silt fences will be installed as shown on the approved mitigation grading
plans, The installer is responsible for repair and replacement of silt fences
disturbed during plant installation, No equipment or soils will be stored inside
the silt fences,
4S4After clearing and grading is complete in the mitigation area, exposed soils
will be seeded or mulched, Orange construction fence will be placed around the
mitigation area to prohibit equipment and personnel in the mitigation area,
455Final grading will be based upon soil conditions found during excavation of
the mitigation area,
45,6 All plant material will be planted with suitable soils per planting details,
Soils from planting holes will be spread and smoothed across the mitigation area,
5.0 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
This maintenance program outlines the program, procedures and goals for
mitigation of the stream and buffer impacts at the mitigation site, This
maintenance program will be the responsibility of the project owner through the
duration of its ownership of the mitigation area, or throughout the duration of
the monitoring period, whichever is longer, The maintenance contractor will
complete the work as outlined below,
5.1 Maintenance Work Scope
5,1,l To accomplish the mitigation goals, normal landscaping methods must be
modified to include:
ieldbrook Commons/11-121
S'elvall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
March 16, 2012
Page 14 of 18
a. No mowing or trimming of ground cover or vegetation in the
mitigation area.
b. No placement of fertilizers in the mitigation area.
c. No placement of bark mulch or equivalent in the mitigation area, except
as noted in the planting details.
d. No placement of grass clippings, landscape debris, fill or ornamental
plant materials in the mitigation area.
5.l.2Work to be included in each site visit:
a. Remove all litter including paper, plastic, bottles, construction debris,
yard debris, etc.
b. Remove all blackberry varieties and scotch broom within the mitigation
area. All debris is to be removed from site and disposed in an approved
landfill.
c. Repair silt and/ or permanent fencing and signage as needed.
5.1.3 Work to be completed on an annual basis includes:
a. Areas containing Himalayan blackberry should be controlled by hand
cutting the blackberry and treating the remaining cut stems only with a
glyphosphate herbicide such as Roundup or Rodeo (applied by hand,
not sprayed).
b. Replace dead or failed plant materials. Replacement plantings are to be
of same species, size and location as original plantings. Plantings are to
be installed during the dormant period.
c. Remove tree staking and guy wires from all trees after one year.
5.2 Maintenance Schedule
The Owner will conduct all items listed in the Maintenance Work Scope on an
annual basis. Additional work may be required per the Monitoring Report and
as approved by the City Biologist. Additional work may include removal of the
grasses around each shrub and tree, installation of wood chips at each shrub and
tree base, reseeding the mitigation area, re-staking existing trees and erosion
control protection.
5.3 Watering Requirements
5.3.1 If plantings are installed within the dormant period throughout the winter
months (October through March 15th ), watering is not required. However,
watering will be encouraged if plants mortality rises due to dry conditions.
1eldbrook Commons// 1-121
Sewall Wetland Consulting, inc.
March 16, 2012
Page 15 of/8
5.3.2If plantings are installed during the summer months (March through
October 1,1 ), a temporary irrigation system will be required, unless the area can
be sufficiently hand-watered. The temporary irrigation system may be removed
after the first year providing the plantings are established and acclimated to on-
site conditions.
5.4 Close-out of Five-Year Monitoring Program
Upon completion of the monitoring program and acceptance of the wetland
mitigation by the County Biologist, the maintenance of the project will be
reduced to include removal of litter and debris, repair of perimeter fencing and
signage, removal of noxious weeds and undesirable vegetation, and repair of
vandalized areas.
6.0 WETLAND AND BUFFER MONITORING PROGRAM
6.1 Sampling Methodology
The created wetlands and their associated buffers will be monitored once per
year over a five-year period, as required by the City. Monitoring will be
conducted using the techniques and procedures described below to quantify the
survival and relative health and growth of plant material. A monitoring report
submitted following each monitoring visit will describe and quantify the status
of the mitigation at that time. The monitoring schedule will be determined after
the plant installation has been completed. Typically, the first monitoring visit
occurs one year after the installation sign-off.
6.1.1 Hydrology
Wetland hydrology will be monitored using four (4) combination staff/ crest
gauges located within the restoration area to be placed at the time of the
installation sign-off by the biologist. Surface water level or ground water
saturation depths will be measured at these stations to determine if wetland
hydrology has been successfully attained. As is noted in the Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), wetland
hydrology is defined as inundation or soil saturation (usually within 12" of the
surface) during the growing season. The growing season for this area is
generally defined as the period between the middle of March and the middle of
November. However, plant growth often occurs earlier in the year and sound
professional judgment will be needed to determine when the growing season is
taking place at the site.
teldbrook Commons/11-121
S'ewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
March 16, 2012
Page 16 of/8
Wetland hydrology will be considered successfully created if wetland hydrology
is observed inundating or saturating the soil within 12 inches of the surface
during the growing season. Readings will be made early in the growing season
(@ March 15) to determine if wetland hydrology is present.
6.1.2 Vegetation
The vegetation monitoring consists of inspection of the planted material to
determine the health and vigor of the installation, as well as coverage estimates.
All the planted material in the wetland and buffer will be inspected during each
monitoring visit to determine the level of survival of the installation.
All plants will be inspected and recorded as to whether they area alive or dead
based upon the "as-built" in Years 1 & 2. In Years 3-5, coverage estimates will be
used to determine success of the vegetation component.
Two (2) transects will be established across the mitigation site within each plant
community for a total of 6 transects. Within the emergent plant community
coverage of vegetation will be measured with 0.25m rectangular plots. Estimates
of coverage percentages will be made within these plots. A total of 10 sample
points within the herbaceous/ emergent plant community will be randomly
located during the installation sign off. At each of these points four samples, one
in each quadrant will be taken.
Within the scrub-shrub and forested plant communities 1/100 acre, circular plots
will be used. A total of 10 randomly located plots along each transect will be
recorded. Within each plot coverage estimates for both emergent and woody
species will be recorded.
Photographs of the mitigation area will be taken from 6 photo points to be
located during the installation sign off. Photographs will be taken at each of the
monitoring and included with the monitoring report for each year from these
points.
6.2 ST AND ARDS OF SUCCESS
1.a Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an
100% survival for all planted woody vegetation at the end of year 1.
ieidbrook Commons! 11-121
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
March 16, 2012
Page 17of/8
1.b Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an
90% survival for all planted woody vegetation at the end of years 2.
1.c Years 3&5-Achieve at least 60% cover of woody species in shrub and
forested plant communities by Years 3&4 and 50% cover of emergent
species.
1.d Not more than 10%cover of non-native invasive species within mitigation
area after year 10.
2. The wetland mitigation project will create 25,SOSsf of wetland meeting at
least the vegetation and hydrology criteria for a wetland as described in
the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987).
3. Volunteer native, non-invasive species will be included as acceptable
components of the mitigation.
7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN
7.1 A contingency plan can be implemented if necessary. Contingency plans can
include regrading, additional plant installation, erosion control, modifications to
hydrology, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location.
7.2 Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not
arise. Should any of the site fail to meet tl1e success criteria, a contingency plan
will be developed and implemented with the County approval. Such plans are
prepared on a case-by-case basis to reflect the failed mitigation characteristics.
7.3 Contingency/ maintenance activities will include, but are not limited to:
-Replacing all plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary.
-Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate with fue
same species or similar species approved by the City Biologist.
-Irrigating the stream area only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear
to be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water.
ieldbrook Commons/ I 1-121
Sewall Wetland Consulling, Inc.
March 16, 2012
Page 18 of 18
-Reseeding stream and buffer areas with an approved grass mixture as necessary
if erosion/ sedimentation occurs.
-Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the wetland and buffer areas as
necessary.
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
April 10,2012
Vanessa Dolbee -Senior Planner
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98057
27641 Covington WaySE#2
Covington WA 980l2
RE: Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response -LUA12-001
swc Job#l l-121
Dear Vanessa,
Phone: 221-859-0515
Fax: 253--852-4732
This is a response to your March 30, 2012 email regarding the Fieldbrook Commons
project. Below in italics are the items you asked us to address. After each item we have
provided a response;
I. The Map was not drawn to a I to I 00 scale, it appears to be drawn to a I to 50 scale.
Please provide a map drawn to scale including a "drmvn" scale.
The plan is now shown with a ''drawn scale" and is at a scale of ]"~JOO'.
2. The buffer averaging square footage was not provided per area.
The areas of buffer reduction and buffer addition using buffer averaging are now shown on the
mitigation plan (see attached).
3. The new buffer distances were not provided in areas of reduced buffer.
Dimensions are now included in the areas ofreduced buffer as requested.
4. A grading and clearing plan for the wetland creation shall be provided, including the
total area of permanent impact and temporary impact.
At this point in time we are still monitoring groundwater levels within the proposed creation area.
So far monitoring has shown groundwater levels between 16"-28" below the existing surface of
the proposed creation area. However, we need to monitor the area for approximately I more
month to completely understand the hydrology of this area as it pertains to creating an appropriate
grading plan that will allow us a higher certainty on creating adequate wetland hydrology. At that
time we will prepare a grading plan which will depict the area to be graded and all areas to be
eldbrook Commons/11-12 I
SeH'all 1Yetland Consulting, Inc:.
April JO, 2012
Pa,;e 2 of II
replanted in the creation area and any area within the buffer that would be graded back and
require restoration,
5, RMC 4-8-120 D23, i, this was not addressed.
This section of Code states the following;
i. Altemative Methods of Development: If wetland changes are proposed, the applicant shall
evaluate alternative methods of developing the property using the following criteria in this order:
Avoid any disturbances to the wetland or buffer;
Minimize any wetland or bz{[fer impacts;
Compensate fhr any wetland or buffer impacts;
Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily;
Create new wetland\· and buffers for those lost; and
In addition to restoring a wetland or creating a wetland, enhance an existing
degraded wetland to compensate for lost fimctions and values,
This evaluation shall be submitted to the Department Administrator. Any proposed alteration of
wetlands shall be evaluated by the Department Administrator using the above hierarchy,
a. A void any disturbances to the wetland or buffer;
The site contains three small wetlands which the developer proposes to fill and mitigate
for through the creation of a new we!land area and enhanced buffer areas between
Wetlands A and C on the eastern third of the site. Wetland (F) located on the western side
of the site is Category 3 wetland measuring l 595sf. Due to the requirement to provide a
secondary fire access directly out to 108 1h Ave S.E. the developer is unable to avoid direct
impact to this wetland. Wetland (E) located in the center of the site and adjacent to S.E.
172nd St. measures 68sf and is rated as a Category 3 wetland. Due to the requirement to
dedicate and construct the other half of the S.E. 172nd St. ROW the developer is unable to
avoid direct impacts to this wetland, Wetland (D) is located generally in the center of the
project and is rated as a Category 2 wetland measuring 767lsf. This wetland is located in
the center of the site, and the preservation of this wetland with its associated buffer would
remove such a large portion of the property as to not be feasible to develop in any way.
b. Minimize any wetland or buffer impacts;
The developer previously attempted to plan roadways and improvements around Wetland
D, however the location and shape of the wetland impacted the vehicular circulation and
building locations to such an extent that the project would not be financially feasible to
• ieldbrook Commons/ll-121
Sewall Werland Consulting, Inc.
April 10, 2012
Page 3 o/8
construct. The project has minimized impacts by avoiding impacts to Wetlands A, Band
C and their associated buffers. These are the more valuable wetlands on the site, and
preserving these wetlands would be the priority.
c. Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily; and
No temporary impacts to wetlands are proposed except for along the edge of Wetlands A
and C wehre the newly created wetland area will be constrcuted. Some temporarly buffer
impacts will ccur from the construction of the storm water outfall and along the edge of
the buffers. These areas will be fully restoired following construction and replanted with
native trees and shrubs.
d. Compensate for any permanent wetland or buffer impacts by one of the following
methods:
i. Restoring a former wetland and provide buffers at a site once exhibiting wetland
characteristics to compensate for wetlands lost;
This is not applicable to this site as no historic wetlands are located on the property to
restore.
ii. Creating new wetlands and buffers for those lost; and
A total of 9334sf of wetland will be filled.
As described in Code; "Any applicant proposing to alter wetlands may propose to restore
wetlands or create new wetlands, with priority first for on-site restoration or creation and
then second, within the drainage basin, in order to compensate for wetland losses.
Restoration activities must include restoring lost hydrologic, water quality and biologic
functions". Additionally, Code states" Where feasible, created or restored wetlands shall be
a higher category than the altered wetland. In no cases shall they be lower".
Cd S 'fi h f II f 1 d ·mpacts; o e ,pec1 1es t e o owmg m1 l!gal!on ral!os or wet an 1
i. RATIOS FOR WETLANDS CREATION OR RESTORATION:
Wetland Category Vegetation Type Creation/Restoration Ratio
Category I Forested 6 times the area altered.
Scrub-shrub 3 times the area altered.
Emergent 2 times the area altered.
Category 2 Forested 3 times the area altered.
Scrub-shrub 2 times the area altered.
Emergent 1.5 times the area altered.
Category 3 Forested 1.5 times the area altered.
Scrub-shrub 1.5 times the area altered.
Emergent 1.5 times the area altered.
_ 'ieldhrook Commons/ l /-121
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
April JO, 2012
Page 4 o/8
The following table outlines the wetlands to be filled and the required wetland creation
using the City of Renton mitigation ratios:
Wetland Size Category Vegetation Ratio Required
Type Wetland
Creation
D 7671sf 2 Forested 3:1 23013sf
E 68sf 3 scrub-shrub 1.5:1 102sf
F 1595sf 3 scrub-shrub 1.5:1 2393sf
Total 25508sf
Creation
As required by Code, we are proposing to create 25,508sf of wetland. This wetland will all be
Category 2 wetland.
Proposed Wetland Mitigation location rationale.
Given the configuration, topography, hydrology and character of the site, the available wetland
mitigation areas are limited by
1. Where sufficient hydrology exists
2. Where enough area exists without extending a buffer onto off-site areas.
3. Where it makes the most sense to create a wetland that doesn't leave an isolated, low
function wetland.
If any area of the site except the eastern side of the site were selected we would be creating a
wetland that would be surrounded by development, and there fore isolated from other open space
areas. This creates a functionally isolated feature that will not provide suitable wildlife habitat or
support for many species. Additionally, there are no areas on the site, except along the eastern
portion near Wetlands A, B or C that have suitable groundwater elevations to support creation of
a wetland. For example, ifwe were to attempt to leave Wetland D intact, ad do creation around
this wetland, its likely there would not be suitable wetland hydrology to support this wetland.
Wetland Dis an isolated feature that appears to be perched on an impervious hardpan, that allows
water to sit long enough to create wetland conditions. This wetland, as well as Wetlands E and F
do not appear to be intersecting a surficial groundwater system as does Wetlands A-C. As a
result, creation in these areas in and around Wetlands D,E and F would most likely lead to areas
that would not successfully create wetland hydro logic conditions.
Ideally, as is typically done in most wetland mitigation projects that are successful, expansion of
an existing wetland with sufficient hydrology is utilized to create addition wetland. This consists
of taking the edge ofan existing wetland or wetlands, and by grading back from the edge of the
wetland and creating grades similar to the wetland, interception the surficial groundwater table
allows creation of wetland hydrologic conditions. This is what we are proposing to do in the area
between Wetlands A and C. Based upon our hydrologic monitoring, these wetlands appear to
have suitable hydrology for creation of wetland between them.
. ieldbrook Commons/11-121
Sewall Wetland Consulting. Inc.
April 10, 2012
Page 5 of8
As is typical in this type of creation, and also unavoidable, the excavation and creation must
occur within the existing buffer of the wetlands. However, as is shown on our plan, we now
move the buffer to the edge of the creation area, thus maintaining the required buffer on the new
enlarged wetland.
It should also be pointed out that most of the area between Wetland A and C proposed as a
mitigation area has been historically disturbed by past mining and clearing activities. We have
specifically tried to avoid the larger grove of conifers located in the buffer of Wetland B to
preserve this higher quality habitat.
6. Wetland Mitigation Plan shall included the following additional items:
a. Sufficient area for replacement ratios
As depicted in the Table above, and on the attached Conceptual Mitigation Plan, we are meeting
the ratios of mitigation required by Code.
b. Planting scheme for wetland recreation and buffer enhancement areas
At this point in time, it is premature to prepare a detailed planting scheme. Once the concept is
approved, and the grading plan completed, we will prepare a plan that depicts the location of the
native trees, shrubs and emergent plants to be installed, as well as the habitat features such as
large woody debris (LWD) and snags. However, we would expect to include the following
species within the created wetland and buffer areas; Douglas fir, western red cedar, sitka spruce,
big leaf maple, Pacific willow, cascara, western crabapple, red osier dogwood, sitka willow,
salmonbeny, nootka rose, clustered rose, twinbeny, Indian plum, hazelnut, black hawthorne, red
elderbeny, vine maple, slough sedge, small fruited bulrush, and other species.
c. A complete description ()(the structure and functional relationships sought in the
new wetland
As previously described, the new created wetland will create a larger combined Category 2
wetland by connecting Wetland A and C. This will result in a wetland that will include several
hydro logic regimes including seasonally flooded and saturated areas. In addition, several types of
plant communities will be present based upon hydrologic conditions. The created wetland will
have a mix ofhydrologic and vegetation characteristics which will provide a greater variety of
wildlife habitats and opportunities for wildlife. The placement ofLWD and snags will create
habitat features that do not currently exist within this area.
d A description of the author's experience in restoring or creating wetlands
I have worked on hundreds of wetland mitigation projects throughout Washington State and the
Pacific Northwest as well as in Ohio, New England and in Georgia since 1990. I have worked on
small projects as well as large complex projects and have designed wetlands with a variety of
hydrologic regimes, including numerous with slope type characteristics as presented here that
have been very successful. I am very aware of the criteria needed to successfully create wetlands
that replace and exceed the functions lost by the filling of the wetland they are meant to mitigate.
eldbrook Commonsll l-121
Sewall Wetland Consulting. Inc.
April JO, 2012
Page 6 o/8
I am highly confident the proposed Field brook Commons mitigation plan will be successful as we
have described it.
e. An analysis of the likelihood of success and persistence based on ground water
supply, flow patterns, etc.
As previously described above as well as described below, we have been monitoring the levels of
groundwater within the proposed creation areas. The monitoring results within the first month of
the growing season show the water table within 24" of the existing soil surface in the proposed
creation area. We are aware that currently, groundwater within Wetland A seeps subsurface in a
northerly direction through the upland area between Wetlands A and Cat a depth between 18"-
24". Our goal within this creation area is to maintain that same hydrologic contour within the soil
profile, but to remove enough of the surface soils to bring water within 12" of the surface to
create wetland hydrology conditions.
7. An analysis of impact on hydrology of the existing wetlands A and C after the additional
creation of a new wetland adjacent. Would the creation of the new wetland change the
categorization of the existing wetlands? In turn changing the buffer size?
As previously stated, we are currently monitoring the hydrology of the area between Wetlands A
and C to determine final grades of the creation area. It is probable, given the slight difference in
elevation between Wetland A and C (approximately 12"), a portion of the creation area will be a
"slope type" wetland. The grade between these two existing wetlands in the creation area will be
detennined based upon groundwater elevations we determine from our monitoring. Based upon
those findings, the sloping portion of the wetland creation area will be a portion of the wetland
that will have primarily saturated soils with no surface water. This will allow a slow migration of
water through the soil profile from the south to the north through the creation area. This is
currently occurring already in the upland area between Wetland A and C. However, it is at a
depth > 12" which differentiates it from an area that would be considered wetland. A portion of
the surface soils will be removed that will bring this saturated soil zone within 12" of the surface
meeting wetland hydrology criteria. This should have no impact on the wetland hydrology of
either Wetlands A or C. The water we will be intercepting exists within the soil profile in the
proposed creation area. We will be removing soil from this area to bring this hydrology closer to
the surface, and in portions on the surface of the creation area.
We will also be directing clean roof water from the proposed development within the contributing
basin, to the edge of the buffer in level spreaders to maintain the hydrologic patters of the site.
Connecting Wetland A, a Category 2 wetland, to Wetland C, a Category 3 wetland, will result in
Wetland C now being considered a Category 2 wetland. As a result a 50' standard buffer would e
required on Wetland C now, and that is what we are providing as depicted on the attached plan.
8. Address review criteria of 4-3-0j0M6f (i-vii) for buffer averaging.
i. That the wetland contains variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing physical
improvements in or near the wetland and buffer; and
• · ieldbrook Commons/11-121
Snvall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
April 10, 2012
Page 7 of8
The proposed buffer averaging in the reduced areas will be within areas that have sutlicicnt
dense, native vegetation to maintain the function of the wetlands and protect these welands. The
portions of the wetlands closest to these reduced areas are not unique or have any sensitive
characteristics that would make them susceptable to impact.
ii. That width averaging will not adversely impact the wetlandfunction and values; and
The proposed averaging will not impact the functions or character of these wetlands in this area.
The area of the reusltion is in low impact parking areas and will generally not have heavy use
such as living or recreational areas.
iii. That the total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is no less than that
contained within the required standard buffer prior to averaging; and
The proposed averaging will result in a reduction of 2, l 35sf of buffer, but with a subsuquent
addtioon of 4, 787sf of buffer, resulting in a net gain of 2,652sf of buffer.
iv. A site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon The Science of
Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the Management of Wetlands, McMillan 2000, or
similar approaches have been conducted The proposed btiffer standard is based on
consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there
is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed.
The proposed buffer averaging and buffer widths follow the City requirements as specified in the
code. The document cited above is a document that was put together to give jurisdictions some
guidance on determining standard buffer widths to include in their regulations. It does not appear
an appropriate citation or document to be using in this contex as standard buffer widths have been
decided and adopted as Code.
v. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than fifty percent (50%) ~(the
standard buffer or be less than twenty five feet (25') wide. Greater buf(er width reductions
require review as a variance per subsection N3 of this Sechon and RMC 4-9-250B; and
The standard buffer on the wetlands being averaged is 50' There are two areas of buffer
reduction within the averaging plan, onfthat reduces the width to 28.5', and a second to 34'.
Both! of these areas are >50% of the standard buffer widtha nd meet this criteria.
vi. Buffer enhancement in the areas where the buffer is reduced shall be required on a case-
by-case basis where appropriate to site conditions, wetland sensitivity, and proposed land
development characteristics.
. ieldbrook Commons/11-121
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
April JO, 2012
Page 8 of8
The buffer in the areas of the reduction is densly planted with native vegetation. There is no need
to enhance these buffer areas.
vii. Notification may be required pursuant to subsection F8 of this Section.
Notification, ifrequired will be done.
9. Please included the trial in the design addressing all portions ofOTAK's report on trail
impacts to the wetland,.
As required by the City, we have included a trail through the wetland buffer. This trail
will be a soft surface wood chip trail that passes through the middle of the buffer area
between Wetlands C and B. The
If you have any questions or require any additional information please feel free to contact
me at (253) 859-0515 or at csewall@sewallwc.com.
Sincerely,
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
Ed Sewall
Senior Wetland Ecologist PWS #212
Attached: Revised Conceptual Mitigation Plan
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
September I 7, 2012
Vanessa Dolbee -Senior Planner
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98057
27641 Covington WaySE#2
Covington WA 'Nl42
RE: Fieldbrook Critical Areas Review Response-LUA12-001
SWC Job#l l-121
Dear Vanessa,
Phone: 253-SS').()515
Pax: 25}.852-4Zl2
This is a response to the June 13, 2012 OTAK review regarding the Fieldbrook
Commons project. Below, listed with the page and paragraph from the OT AK report in
italics are the items that were underlined in the OT AK report that required further
response from us. After each item we have provided a response;
Page 5 paragraph I: "We recommend the applicant submit rating.forms in order.for the
City to concur with the analysis and verify functional lift,. we recommend that an explicit
assessment of existing proposed buffer functions to demonstrate that the proposed
mitigation will achieve.functional equivalency".
The rating form for the new wetland mitigation area, which includes Wetlands A and C
are attached to this report as requested.
The existing buffer of Wetlands A and C !hat will be impacted consists ofan open
deciduous forested canopy comprised of big leaf maple, some small western hemlock, as
well as an open understory of vine maple, indian plum, Himalayan blackberry and
scattered other small shrubs. Several trails, piles of trash and debris, several coal tailing
piles, and a small homeless camp is found in this area. This area currently provides some
thermal cover to the area around and along the edges of the wetland. It also provides a
source of organic material which contributes to the soil composition as well as a source
of food to invertebrates utilizing the wetland. The buffer provides some sound reduction
from the surrounding residential uses abutting the property. The buffer also provides
some barrier to human intrusion. However, the forest is relatively open and sound
reduction in this area is not that high. Additionally, the use of the area by local youth on
bikes etc. and on and off by homeless has further reduced this function as human use in
and around these wetlands appears to occur regularly.
_ ieldbrook Commons! 11-121
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc_
September 17, 2012
Page 2 of 15
Wetland buffers can also act as filters to runoff entering the wetland, acting to clean and
filter contaminants form sheet flow into the wetland, This function appears relatively
intact
The proposed wetland creation area will require some conversion of forested buffer to
wetland. It will also shift existing upland forest outside of the existing wetland buffers of
Wetlands A and C, into the buffer as the edge is expanded. In essence, the buffer remains
forested except for portions of the buffer that require grading to connect into the wetland
contours. The area to be merged into the buffer is of similar forested character as the
existing buffer. The portions that will be graded and be replanted as buffer will have a
temporary reduction in some buffer functions in the period (10+ years) it takes the
installed tree species to attain a height of approximately 20' or more.
Some of the functions that will increase will be the fact that the wetland and buffer area
will be fenced preventing the current type of human intrusion in this area from occurring.
The trash and debris within this area will be removed and non-native invasive Himalayan
blackberry will be removed and replaced with native species with high values for habitat,
thus increasing the species richness within the plant community.
Numerous pieces of large wood will be placed within the wetland and buffer to increase
buffer complexity and provide some habitat features currently not existing within this
area.
Page 3 paragraph 2: Future submittals shall include full scale maps with scale bars and
legible notes.
See attached Final Mitigation Plan
Page 4 paragraph 3: redundant to Page 3 paragraph I answered on page I of this report.
Page 4 paragraph 5: redundant question asking for rating form of new mitigation area.
See attached rating form.
Page 5 paragraph 2: The city will request review (){/he hydrology monitoring data and
analysis.
A series of 6 monitoring pits/wells were located within the proposed wetland mitigation
area (see attached wetland hydrology monitor point map). These were monitored with
weekly site visits from April of2012-August 2012. At each of these points soil
saturation and water table levels were measured to determine what surficial groundwater
elevations are, to facilitate designing grades for the new wetland creation area. What we
found was that within the proposed creation area, groundwater levels in the early growing
1e/dbrook Commonsll /-121
Sewall Wetland Consulting. Inc.
September I 7, 20 I 2
Page 3 of 15
season area between 14" -30" below the existing surface (sec table below). It is assumed
in the very early growing season February and March) the groundwater elevations are
shallower than the measurements we took, meaning the groundwater elevations are closer
to the soil surface.
As shown on the attached Final Mitigation Plan, we utilized these existing groundwater
contours to create the new grades for our mitigation site. As can be seen by the grades
and associated cross-sections, the grades will remove soil down to the existing
groundwater elevations to create wetland areas with soils saturated to the surface for the
early growing seasons, to also include flat areas that will hold some shallow 1 "-3" of
surface water to provide a variety of wetland hydrologic regimes from saturated, to
seasonally flooded.
Table I. Groundwater elevations below surface o 'hvdrolo, v monitorinf! points 2012
Monitor DATE
point&
elev.
4/13 4/27 5/11 5/24 6/7 6/28 7/12
A4I7.5' -15 -14 -15 -20 -26 dry dry
B418' -17 -16 -16 -22 -27 dry dry
C417' -20 -18 -17 -20 -25 dry dry
D416.5' -14 -14 -14 -16 -20 dry dry
E418.5' -27 -26 -24 -30 -36 dry dry
F418' -21 -22 -20 -28 -36 dry dry
Note: All elevations indicate the elevation of the saturated capillary fringe of soil
saturation observed in hydrology monitoring points.
8/12
dry
dry
drv
drv
dry
dry
Page 6 paragraph 1: We recommend a design realignment of the trail to the outer 25% of
the buffer to comply with Code.
The City has requested that a trail be run along the mitigation and wetland areas to create
additional public benefit. It is not possible to have a trail of any public value in the outer
25% of the buffer as it would essentially be a trail paralleling the development and within
12 feet of the development. In order to create a trail that will allow the public to walk
through and view the critical areas on the site, we will need to go closer to the critical
areas than the 25% Code allowance. As a compromise, the trail has been placed
approximately halfway between all of the wetland areas, essentially splitting the buffer
areas. This would allow a trail to pass around and along the majority of the wetland
areas. To compensate for the area of the trail in the buffer, additional area has been
added to the buffer as compensation.
Page 6 paragraph 3: Refers to the proposed stormwater outfall and its potential impacts
to Wetland B.
ieldbrook Commons! 11-121
Sewall Welland Consulting, inc.
Sept em her 17, 2012
Paxe 4 of 15
The current storm water outfall is release to a level spreader near the edge of wetland B.
This outfall will release water from the same basin matching closely with existing
drainage patterns on the undeveloped site. Wetland B already has a highly fluctuating
water table as a result of historic modifications off-site. As a result, fluctuations of
surface water (when present) up to 6" are seen in this wetland during storm events in
short periods of time. As a result, the plant community in Wetland B generally consists
of species tolerant of a highly fluctuating water table such as willows, hardhack and reed
canary grass. No change in hydrology or the character of Wetland Bis anticipated.
Page 7 paragraph 1: Iften years of monitoring are required (by WADOE&Corps) an
addendum to the mitigation plan will be prepared to address this change.
The Final Mitigation Plan will be submitted to the Corps and W ADOE using the City
required 5 years of monitoring. If the Corps requires additional monitoring years, this
will be changed to reflect this requirement. The revised Monitoring Plan notes are
attached at the end of this report.
Page 8 paragraph 1: redundant requirement to address buffer functions answered on
Pages 1 and 2 of this report.
Page 10 paragraph 2: Performance standards for cover will be addressed in review of the
final mitigation plan.
See Final Mitigation Plan attached.
If you have any questions or require any additional information please feel free to contact
me at (253) 859-0515 or at esewall@sewallwc.com.
Sincerely,
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
Ed Sewall
Senior Wetland Ecologist PWS #212
Attached: Revised Conceptual Mitigation Plan
1.0 MITIGATION PROTECT OVERVIEW
_ ieldbrook Commons/I 1-121
Snval/ Wetland Consulting, Inc.
September 17, 2012
Page 5 of 15
To compensate for the fill of a 9,334sf Category 2 &3 wetlands, it is proposed to
create 25,508sf of wetland between Wetlands A and C.
2.0 MITIGATION CONCEPT AND GOALS
2.1 Mitigation Concept
The mitigation proposal is to connect Wetlands A and C with an area of 25,508sf
of wetland. The wetland creation areas will be densely planted with native
vegetation. The use of diverse native plantings are expected to significantly
improve the overall function of the wetland and buffer as it will remove dense
thickets of exotic blackberry as well as add emergent and shrub plant
communities into what is now, a single class forested wetland.
2.2 Mitigation Goals
2.2.1 Create 25,508sf of emergent, scrub shrub and forested wetland.
3.0 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
The construction sequence of this project will be implemented as follows:
3.1 Pre-construction meeting
3.2 Construction staking
3.3 Construction fencing and erosion control
3.4 Clearing and grading
3.5 Stabilization of mitigation area
3.6 Plant material installation
3.7 Construction inspection
3.8 Agency approval
3.9 Monitoring inspection and reporting
3.10 Silt fence removal
3.11 Project completion
3.1 Pre-construction Meeting
A pre-construction meeting will be held on-site prior to commencement of
construction, to include the biologist, the City, and the contractor. The approved
plans and specifications will be reviewed to ensure that all parties involved
. ieldbrookCommonslll-121
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
September 17, 2012
!'age 6 of 15
understand the intent of the construction documents, specifications, site
environmental constraints, sequences, and inspection requirements.
3.2 Construction Staking
The limits of clearing and grading near the critical areas will be marked in the
field by a licensed professional land surveyor prior to commencement of
construction activities.
3.3 Construction Fencing & Erosion Control
All erosion control measures adjacent to the critical areas, including silt fencing
and orange construction fencing, will be installed. Erosion control fencing will
remain around the mitigation area until clearing, grading and mulch placement
are complete in upland areas outside the critical areas.
3.4 Clearing & Grading
Clearing and grading in and near the existing sensitive area will be per the
approved Final Mitigation Plans.
3.5 Stabilization of Mitigation Area
All graded areas in the wetland or buffer will be stabilized with mulch upon
completion of grading. Orange construction fencing and erosion control fences
will be restored (if necessary) and placed around the critical areas.
3.6 Plant Material Installation
All plant material will be planted by hand per detail and Construction and
Planting Notes. The Mitigation Plan specifies the required size, species, quantity,
and location of plant materials to be installed. The contractor will mulch areas
disturbed during the planting process. Upon completion of the planting, the
erosion control fencing will be restored and repaired. Plant substitutions or
modifications to locations shall be approved in writing by the Owner's biologist
prior to installation.
3.7 Construction Inspection
Upon completion of installation, the City's biologist will conduct an inspection to
confirm proper implementation of the Mitigation Plan. Any corrections,
substitutions or missing items will be identified in a "punch list" for the
landscape contractor. Items of particular importance will be soils in pits, pit size,
plant species, plant size, mulch around pits, and tree staking.
·ie/dbrook Commons// 1-121
Sewal/ Wet/and Consulting, Inc.
September 17, 2012
Page 7 of 15
Upon completion of planting, if installation or materials vary significantly from
the Mitigation Plan, the contractor will submit a reproducible "as-built" drawing
to the Owner.
3.8 Agency Approval
Following acceptance of the installation by the City, the City biologist should
prepare a letter granting approval of the installation.
3.9 Monitoring
The site will be monitored for 5 years to insure the success of the mitigation
project. If additional years of monitoring are required by the Corps or W ADOE,
the plan will be revised to reflect this change.
3.10 Silt Fence Removal
Erosion control fencing adjacent to the mitigation area will remain in place for at
least one year, and/ or until all areas adjacent to the mitigation area have been
stabilized. The City's Biologist may recommend that the fencing remain in place
for a longer duration.
4.0 CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING NOTES
4.1 Site Preparation & Grading
4.1.1 The Landscape Contractor will approve existing conditions of subgrade
prior to initiation of any mitigation installation work.
The Landscape Contractor will inform the Owner of any discrepancies between
the approved construction document and existing conditions.
4.1.2The General Contractor will flag the limits of clearing with orange
construction fencing and will observe these limits during construction. No
natural features or vegetation will be disturbed beyond the designated "limits of
clearing".
4.1.3 The Landscape Contractor will hand grub all non-native invasive plant
species including the removal of root crowns. These species may include, but are
not limited to Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry, English ivy, and
English holly. Weed debris will be disposed of off site.
_ ieldhrook Commons/ 11 -121
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
September 17, 2012
Page 8 o/15
4.1.4 The wetland area will be excavated to the depths shown on the Final
Mitigation Grading Plan and brought to final grade with 8" of topsoil. The
biologist will be on-site to confirm the grading is acceptable for planting.
4.2 Plant Materials
4.2.1 All plant materials will be as specified in the plant schedule. Only vigorous
plants free of defects, diseases and infestation are acceptable for installation.
4.2.2All plant materials will conform to the standards and size requirements of
ANSI Z60.l "American Standard for Nursery Stock". All plant materials will be
native to the northwest, and preferably the Puget Sound Region. Plant materials
will be propagated from native stock; no cultivars or horticultural varieties will
be allowed. All plant materials will be grown from nursery stock unless
otherwise approved.
4.2.3No balled and burlapped, or bare root plantings will be used. Container
stock only.
4.2.4All plant materials stored on-site longer than two (2) weeks will be
organized in rows and maintained by the contractor at no additional cost to the
owner. Plant materials temporarily stored will be subject to inspection and
approval prior to installation.
4.2.SSubstitution requests must be submitted in writing to the Owner and
approved by the Owner's biologist in writing prior to delivery to site.
4.2.6All plant materials will be dug, packed, transported and handled with care
to ensure protection from injury. All plant materials to be stored on site more
than 24 hours will be heeled into topsoil or sawdust. Precautionary measures
shall be taken to ensure plant materials do not dry out before planting. Wetland
plants will be shaded and saturated until time of installation. Immediately after
installation the mitigation planting area will be saturated to avoid capillary
stress.
4.2.7The contractor will verify all plant materials, the quantities shown on the
planting plan, and the plant schedule. The quantity of plant materials shown on
the plan takes precedent over the quantity on the plant list.
4.3 Plant Installation
_ ieldbrook Commons/11-121
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
September 17, 2012
Page 9 of 15
4.3.1 All plant materials must be inspected prior to installation to verify
conformance of the materials with the plant schedule including size, quality and
quantity. Any plant or habitat materials deemed unsatisfactory will be rejected.
4.3.2 All plant materials delivered and accepted should be planted immediately
as depicted on the mitigation plan. Plant materials not planted within 24 hours
will be heeled-in per note 3.2.6. Plant materials stored under temporary
conditions will be the sole responsibility of the contractor. Plants will be
protected at all times to prevent the root ball from drying out before, during, or
after planting.
4.3.3 All planting pits will be circular with vertical sides, and will be sized per
detail on the mitigation plan and filled with pit soils approved by the Owner's
biologist. Planting pits shall not be deeper than the root ball. If native soils are
determined to be unacceptable by the Owner's biologist, pit soils will be
amended with Cedar Grove mulch or equivalent.
4.3.4No fertilizers will be used within the wetland. In buffer areas only, install
"Agriform", or equal plant fertilizer to all planting pits as specified by
manufacturer. Fertilizers are allowed only below grade in the planting pits in
the buffer areas. No sewage sludge fertilizer ("SteerCo" or "Growco") is allowed
in the mitigation area.
4.3.5 All containerized plant materials will be removed from their containers
carefully to prevent damage to the plant and its roots. Plants removed from their
containers will be planted immediately.
4.3.6All plant materials will be placed as shown on the approved mitigation
plan. If the final installation varies from the approved mitigation plan, the
contractor will provide a reproducible mylar as-built of the installed conditions.
All plant material will be flagged by the contractor.
4.4 Planting Schedule and Warranty
4.4.1 A fall-winter installation schedule (October 1st -March 15u,) is preferred for
lower mortality rates of new plantings. If plant installation occurs during the
spring or summer (March 15th -Oct. 1st) a temporary irrigation system will be
required, unless the area can be sufficiently hand-watered.
_ ieldbrook Commonsll /-/2/
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
September 17, 2012
!'age JO of/ 5
4A.2All disturbed areas will be protected with an arborists mulch to a minimum
depth of six inches,
4.4,3 The installer will warrant all plant materials to remain healthy and alive for
a period of one year after final acceptance. The installer will replace all dead or
unhealthy plant materials per the approved plans and specifications.
4.5 Site Conditions
4.5.1 The installer will coordinate with the Owner and the Owner's biologist for
construction scheduling.
4.5,2 Landscape installation will begin after the City acceptance of grading and
construction. The Owner will notify the Owner's biologist of acceptance of final
grading.
4.5.3Silt fences will be installed as shown on the approved mitigation grading
plans. The installer is responsible for repair and replacement of silt fences
disturbed during plant installation. No equipment or soils will be stored inside
the silt fences.
4.5.4After clearing and grading is complete in the mitigation area, exposed soils
will be seeded or mulched. Orange construction fence will be placed around the
mitigation area to prohibit equipment and personnel in the mitigation area.
4.5.5Final grading will be based upon soil conditions found during excavation of
the mitigation area.
4.5.6 All plant material will be planted with suitable soils per planting details.
Soils from planting holes will be spread and smoothed across the mitigation area.
5.0 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
This maintenance program outlines the program, procedures and goals for
mitigation of the stream and buffer impacts at the mitigation site. This
maintenance program will be the responsibility of the project owner through the
duration of its ownership of the mitigation area, or throughout the duration of
the monitoring period, whichever is longer. The maintenance contractor will
complete the work as outlined below.
5.1 Maintenance Work Scope
. ieldbrook Commons/II-I 21
Seu·all Wetland Consulting, Inc.
September 17, 20 I 2
Page JJ of/5
5.1.1 To accomplish the mitigation goals, normal landscaping methods must be
modified to include:
a. No mowing or trimming of ground cover or vegetation in the
mitigation area.
b. No placement of fertilizers in the mitigation area.
c. No placement of bark mulch or equivalent in the mitigation area, except
as noted in the planting details.
d. No placement of grass clippings, landscape debris, fill or ornamental
plant materials in the mitigation area.
5.1.2Work to be included in each site visit:
a. Remove all litter including paper, plastic, bottles, construction debris,
yard debris, etc.
b. Remove all blackberry varieties and scotch broom within the mitigation
area. All debris is to be removed from site and disposed in an approved
landfill.
c. Repair silt and/ or permanent fencing and signage as needed.
5.1.3 Work to be completed on an annual basis includes:
a. Areas containing Himalayan blackberry should be controlled by hand
cutting the blackberry and removing the root crowns. As a last resort,
treating the remaining cut stems only with a glyphosphate herbicide
such as Roundup or Rodeo (applied by hand, not sprayed) by a licensed
applicator can be utilized.
b. Replace dead or failed plant materials. Replacement plantings are to be
of same species, size and location as original plantings. Plantings are to
be installed during the dormant period.
c. Remove tree staking and guy wires from all trees after one year.
5.2 Maintenance Schedule
The Owner will conduct all items listed in the Maintenance Work Scope on an
annual basis. Additional work may be required per the Monitoring Report and
as approved by the City Biologist. Additional work may include removal of the
grasses around each shrub and tree, installation of wood chips at each shrub and
tree base, reseeding the mitigation area, re-staking existing trees and erosion
control protection.
5.3 Watering Requirements
_ -ieldbrook Commons/11-121
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
September 17, 20/2
Page 12 of 15
5.3.lWaterwing with a temporary irrigation system will be required during the
first spring and summer after the installation. The temporary irrigation system
may be removed after the first year providing the plantings are established and
acclimated to on-site conditions.
5.4 Close-out of Five-Year Monitoring Program
Upon completion of the monitoring program and acceptance of the wetland
mitigation by the City Biologist, the maintenance of the project will be reduced to
include removal of litter and debris, repair of perimeter fencing and signage,
removal of noxious weeds and undesirable vegetation, and repair of vandalized
areas,
6.0 WETLAND AND BUFFER MONITORING PROGRAM
6.1 Sampling Methodology
The created wetlands and their associated buffers will be monitored once per
year over a five-year period, starting with the first year after the plants have been
installed,and as required by the City. Monitoring will be conducted using the
techniques and procedures described below to quantify the survival and relative
health and growth of plant material. A monitoring report submitted following
each monitoring visit will describe and quantify the status of the mitigation at
that time. The monitoring schedule will be determined after the plant
installation has been completed. Typically, the first monitoring visit occurs one
year after the installation sign-off
6.1.1 Hydrology
Wetland hydrology will be monitored using four (4) combination staff/crest
gauges as well as four hydrology monitoring holes dug each sampling period
near the piezometer. These will be located within the restoration area to be
placed at the time of the installation sign-off by the biologist Surface water level
or ground water saturation depths will be measured at these stations to
determine if wetland hydrology has been successfully attained. As is noted in
the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory,
1987), wetland hydrology is defined as inundation or soil saturation (usually
within 12" of the surface) during the growing season. The growing season for
this area is generally defined as the period between the middle of March and the
middle of November. However, plant growth often occurs earlier in the year
. ieldbrook Commons!l /-/21
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
September 17, 2012
!'age 13 of 15
and sound professional judgment will be needed to determine when the growing
season is taking place at the site. Hydrology will be monitored twice a month
from March 1st through May 3ou, of each year.
Wetland hydrology will be considered successfully created if wetland hydrology
is observed inundating or saturating the soil within 12 inches of the surface
during the growing season
6.1.2 Vegetation
The vegetation monitoring consists of inspection of the planted material in late
summer or early fall (August-September) to determine the health and vigor of
the installation, as well as coverage estimates. All the planted material in the
wetland and buffer will be inspected during each monitoring visit to determine
the level of survival of the installation.
All plants will be inspected and recorded as to whether they area alive or dead
based upon the "as-built" in Years 1 & 2. In Years 3-5, coverage estimates will be
used to determine success of the vegetation component.
Two (2) transects will be established across the mitigation site within each plant
community for a total of 6 transects. Within the emergent plant community
coverage of vegetation will be measured with 0.25m rectangular plots. Estimates
of coverage percentages will be made within these plots. A total of 10 sample
points within the herbaceous/ emergent plant community will be randomly
located during the installation sign off. At each of these points four samples, one
in each quadrant will be taken.
Within the scrub-shrub and forested plant communities 1/100 acre, circular plots
will be used. A total of 10 randomly located plots along each transect will be
recorded. Within each plot coverage estimates for both emergent and woody
species will be recorded.
Photographs of the mitigation area will be taken from 6 photo points to be
located during the installation sign off as well as at each permanent monitoring
plot. Photographs will be taken at each of the monitoring and included with the
monitoring report for each year from these points.
During years I & 2 of the monitoring, replacement plants as well as dead plants will be
flagged with distinctive flagging to distinguish what plants these are.
6.2 STANDARDS OF SUCCESS
ieldbrook Commons! 11-121
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
September 17, 2012
Page 14 o/15
1.a Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an
100% survival for all installed planted woody vegetation at the end of year
1.
l.b Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an
90% survival for all planted woody vegetation at the end of years 2.
1.c Years 3&5-Achieve at least 60% cover of woody species in shrub and
forested plant communities by Years 3&4 and 50% cover of emergent
species.
1.d Not more than 10%cover of non-native invasive species within mitigation
area at any time.
2. The wetland mitigation project will create 25,508sf of wetland meeting at
least the vegetation and hydrology criteria for a wetland as described in
the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987). The new wetland area will be delineated in Year 5 to
establish and insure adequate wetland has been created.
3. Volunteer native, non-invasive species will be included as acceptable
components of the mitigation for percent coverage measurements.
7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN
7.1 A contingency plan can be implemented if necessary. Contingency plans can
include regrading, additional plant installation, erosion control, modifications to
hydrology, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location.
7.2 Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not
arise. Should any of the site fail to meet the success criteria, a contingency plan
will be developed and implemented with the City approval. Such plans are
prepared on a case-by-case basis to reflect the failed mitigation characteristics.
7.3 Contingency /maintenance activities will include, but are not limited to:
-Replacing all plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary.
ieldbrook Commons/ I 1-121
Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.
September 17, 2012
!'age 15 of 15
-Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate with the
same species or similar species approved by the City Biologist.
-Irrigating the mitigation area only as necessary during dry weather if plants
appear to be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water.
-Reseeding wetland and buffer areas with an approved grass mixture as
necessary if erosion/ sedimentation occurs.
-Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the wetland and buffer areas as
necessary.
RECEIPT EG00009532
BILLING CONTACT
IMPORT IMPORT
IMPORT CASHIER CONTACT
PO BOX6127
BELLEVUE, WA 98008
REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME
LUA12-001 PLAN -Variance
Technology Fee
Printed On: 6/13/2013 Prepared By: Vanessa Dolbee
TRANSACTION
TYPE
Fee Payment
Fee Payment
Transaction Date: June 13, 2013
PAYMENT
METHOD -
Check #10258
'.::heck #10258
SUB TOTAL
TOTAL
AMOUNT PAID
N<>m~~-,a,·""'
$1,200.00
$36.00
$1,236.00
$1,236.00
Page 1 of 1