No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc• ' Project Engineer: Prepared by: Date: Core No.: PRELIMINARY STORM DRAINAGE REPORT FOR RENTON KIDDIE ACADEMY RENTON, WASHINGTON David E. Cayton, P.E. Preston J. Longoni, E.I. T. January 9, 2015 14074P 31 RECEIVED JAN 1 5 2015 Cll'Y OF REN1'0N PLANNING DIVISION January 9, 2015 Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager Planning Department City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Subject: Dear Mr. Lee: Renton Kiddie Academy (a.k.a. Key Plaza Short Plat (LUA-12-012- SHPL-A) -Developed Drainage for Lot 2 This letter is prepared to serve as a "Drainage Memo" outlining how the proposed Key Plaza Lot 2 development complies with the 2009 King County Surface Water Drainage Manual (SWDM) by utilizing the existing stormwater detention/water quality vault. The 1.45 acre Key Plaza Development was partially completed a few years ago which consisted of a Key Bank building, parking, stormwater detention/water quality vault and water/sewer/storm utilities. The south half of the site remains vacant, cleared and graded with stubbed utilities. Had the development been fully constructed the site would have approximately 1.27 acres of impervious surface (buildings and parking area) and 0.18 acres pervious area (landscaping) (see attached Storm Drainage Analysis for Key Plaza dated October 7, 2008 prepared by Core Design, Inc.). The total proposed impervious area including what is existing on Lot 1, and what is proposed on Lot 2, is 0.98 acres. Therefore, the proposed site has 0.29 acres less impervious area than the original design. The Key Plaza Short Plat Report and Decision requires that the project comply with the 2009 King County Storm Water Design Manual. The constructed detention/water quality vault was sized per the 2005 King County Storm Water Design Manual for the runoff from the completely developed site. Additional analysis is not recommended because the existing vault will provide the necessary storage, flow control and water quality for Lot 2 to meet the 2009 standard, as long as the combined land use areas (Lots 1 and 2) do not exceed the approved developed areas for the Key Plaza Development. The developed Lot 2 would not add additional impervious area to what was used to size the existing detention vault in the approved Key Plaza Development Drainage Report and it is recommended that the City of Renton approve the existing storm drainage facilities for the Key Plaza Short Plat -Lot 2. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, CORE DESIGN, INC. ,/)~7~ David E. Cayton, P.E. Project Manager Project Manager: Project Engineer: Prepared by: Date: Revised: Core No.: . -' STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FOR KEY PLAZA RENTON, WASHINGTON (LUA 08-013) David E. Cayton, P .E. Brennan P. Taylor, P.E. Jason Toba, E.I.T. August2008 October 7, 2008 07069 ii KEY PLAZA TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Project Overview II. Preliminary Conditions and Core Requirements III. Off-Site Analysis IV. Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design A. Hydraulic Analysis B. Detention Routing Calculations C. Water Quality Volume V. Conveyance System Analysis and Design VI. Erosion Control Calculations APPENDIX I. PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed comme~cial development is named "Key Plaza of Renton Highlands" and will consist of two buildings located on the southwest comer of 4th St NE and Bremerton Ave NE. The 1.40 acre site is currently undeveloped and is located in the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23, Range 5 in Renton Washington. The site is currently zoned for commercial use and is bordered by 4th St NE to the north, Bremerton Ave NE to the east, a new residential development (Ridgeview Court) to the south, and a single- family residence to the west. The anchor tenant in this development will be Key Bank with a 4,081 square foot building. The other structure will be a 11,119 square foot three- story office/retail building with a parking garage and retail on the main floor and office on the 2"d and 3rd floors. The existing ground coverage over the site is thick with vegetation and forested with evergreen trees. The existing onsite topography forms a high point in the southern portion of the site. The site does not receive any flow from offsite and no wetlands are located on or within the vicinity of the site. The design of the onsite stormwater facilities is per the 2005 King County Surface Water Manual (KCSWM). The Key Plaza of Renton Highlands project will provide detention to the Level II standard and water quality from the Basic Water Quality menu. • 4 ~ GRE6'IIIOOO i CS'IE1ER1" ~ Ii& !i !J! 2 ~ 91 10 t II i! !j ~ NE 4TH. &T. (&E 12&TM &TJ ' MAPLl3lXlOD GOLF COUR55 f w d z I!; !J! 14 VICINITIY MAP KEY PLAZA OF RENTON HIGHLANDS CORE PROJECT NO. 07069 TenaServer Image Courtesy of the USGS Send To Printer • • • • • • • • •• •a . ; . • • • Page 1 of I Change to Landscape i • •• • Image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey © 2004 Mlcroso~ Corporation. Terms of Use Privacy Statement http://terraserver.microsoft.com/Printimage.aspx?T=2&S=12, USGS QUADRANGLE MAP KEY PLAZA 01<' RENTON HIGHLANDS CORE PROJECT NO. 07069 II. PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS AND CORE REQUIREMENTS PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS: The following is a list of the design requirements issued by the City of Renton in a March 24, 2008 memo and how these comments were addressed in the final design. Water: • Per the City Fire Marshall, the preliminary fire flow for this site is 4,000 GPM Any new construction must have one fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of/, 000 GP Mand shall be located within 150 feet of the structure and additional hydrants (also capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM) within 300 feet of the structure. This distance is measured along the travel route. The number of additional hydrants required is dependent on the calculatedfirejlow of the new commercial building, if it remains at 4000 GPM then 4 fire hydrants will be required. Existing fire hydrants shall be retrofitted with a quick disconnect Stortz fitting. Per the City of Renton code when the required fire flow is over 2,500 GPM the fire hydrants shall be served by a main which loops around the building or complex of buildings and reconnects back into a distribution supply main. Construction of a commercial building will trigger a separate review. • In order to achieve 4,000 GPM this project will need to install a new 12" watermain connected to the existing 10" watermain (not the 8 ''), extend it to the east in NE 4th St, then (in a 15' wide easement prepared by a PE or PLS) loop around the buildings and connect back to the existing 8" watermain in Bremerton Ave NE. The project will also need to extend this new 12" watermain to the west property line, also in a 15' easement. The designed watermain is a 12" loop connecting to the existing IO" in NE 41 \ looping through the site and connecting to the existing 8" main in Bremerton, The proposed 12" watermain is stubbed to the west property line as well. Four fire hydrants are proposed to address the required fireflow for the three story building • The proposal needs to show a DDCVA. Internal DDCVA for fire service must be designed per City of Renton water standards and detail requirements. A 6" DDCV A is proposed for the three story office building. Sizing should be verified by the sprinkler engineer. The Key Bank building is proposed with no fire sprinklers. • The Fire Service fee amount is based on the size of the fire service water line. Noted • Buildings that exceed 30 feet in height shall install backpressure devices. A 6" DDCV A/backflow preventer is proposed for the three story office building. • The Water System Development Charge fees are based on the Iota/ number and size of all domestic water meters. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. Noted Sanitary Sewer: • The applicant needs lo show how to provide this private site with a private commercial side sewer with sanitary sewer to either the sewer main on the south side or the sewer Ml{ on the north side with a commercial side sewer. An 8" sewer main extension is proposed to serve the office building and Key Bank. Each building will be served by a separate side sewer. • This site is located in the East Renton Special Assessment District (SAD). This fee is 13. 7 cents per square foot of land and shall be paid prior to issuance of a construction permit. Understood • The Sanitary Sewer SDC fees are based on the size of any and all domestic water meters. Understood Street Improvements: • Per City of Renton code property corners at intersection in commercial blocks all lot corners at inlerseclions of dedicated public rights-of-way shall have a minimum radius of25 feet. The new right of way line at the NE corner of the site is designed with a 25' radius. • Additional right-of-way (minimum I foot) along NE 4th ST will be required to be dedicated I foot of right-of way is shown to be dedicated along NE 4th St. • Per City of Renton code, commercial projects that are 10,000 sq ft and more in size shall provide full pavement widlh per standard, curb, gutter and sidewalks along the full frontages of the parcel being developed on the project side. Unless existing, new curb, gutter and sidewalk will be constructed along NE 4th and Bremerton. • Street lighting is required for a project lhis size alung the frontages of the parcel being developed. All street lighting shall be per City of Renton standards and specifications. Private street lighting is not allowed Street lighting will be designed by others per city requirements. • The project will need lo design and install a new traffic curb and channelization to prevent left-turns onto the site on NE 4th St. The channelization plan shows a continuation of the existing type C block traffic curb to prevent left turns onto NE 4th St. • The driveway approach from NE 4th St will be required to be a right in right out only. The channelization plan shows a continuation of the existing type C block traffic curb to prevent left turns onto NE 4th St. • Per the NE 3rd/NE 4th St Corridor Plan the proposal needs to revise the typical street section to show a five foot sidewalk separated from the roadway curb with a planting strip including street trees on NE 4th St. The required frontage improvements are shown on the plans. • Existing channelization on Bremerton will need to be revised to accommodate the proposed development project's new driveway. The channelization on Bremerton is shown to be revised to allow for ingress/egress from site driveway on Bremerton. • The project design will need to incorporate a pedestrian access to Bremerton Ave NE. The plan incorporates a pedestrian access to Bremerton just south of the driveway on Bremerton. • A Traffic Study has been submitted and it has been determined by the Transportation staff that the Traffic Impact Analysis is acceptable. Noted • Traffic Mitigationfees will apply. This fee is $52,500. Noted Storm: • A conceptual drainage plan and report was submitted with the formal application for a commercial project. The drainage control submitted states that the project will be designed per the 2005 King County Surface Water Manual as required. The final drainage design is per King County SWM 2005 edition. • The Surface Water SDC fees are $0.405 per square foot (but not less than $10/2) of new impervious area. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued Noted Aquifer: • The site is located in Aquifer Protection Zone 2 and may be subject to additional requirements per City code. Constructed secondary containment may be required if more than 20 gallons of regulated hazardous materials will be present at the new facility (RMC 4- 3-050H2d(i)). A fill source statement (RMC 4-4-060L4) is required if more than I 00 cubic yards of fill material will be imported to the project site. Construction Activity Standards (RMC 4-4-030C7) shall be followed if during construction, more than 20 gallons of hazardous materials will be stored on site or vehicles will be faeled on site. Surface Water Management Standards (RMC 4-6-030E2 and 3)--Biofilters, stormwater conveyance, and water quality ponds may require a groundwater protection liner. Impervious surfaces shall be provided for areas subject to vehicular use or storage of chemicals. This is not intended lo be a complete list of the APA requirements nor does this information substitute for the full ordinance, it is only intended to guide the applicant to the City of Renton code book. At this time, the proposed use does not include the presence of a "regulated hazardous material." In addition, it should be noted these soils are Aldeiwood type soils (glacial till) and are not pervious type soils. General: • All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submillals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. • All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two of the City of Renton Horizontal and Vertical Control Network. Two control points and benchmarks are noted on the Title Sheet -Cl .01 • Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. Noted. CORE REQUIREMENTS: The following list outlines the 8 Core Requirements per the 2005 KCSWM and provides the details of how they were fulfilled by this design: Core Requirement #1: Discharge at the Natural Location In the developed condition, surface water from the site will be released from the site at natural discharge location which is to the existing storm system on NE 4th St. Core Requiremeut #2: Offsite Analysis A Level I downstream analysis was conducted (see "Offsite Analysis" section of tltis report) to satisfy tltis requirement. Core Requirements #3: Flow Control Level 2 Flow Control (Conservation FC Areas) is required for tltis development. The onsite detention vault was designed to match existing durations for 50% of2-year through 50-yr peaks as well as the existing 2-and IO-year peaks. Core Requirement #4: Conveyance Systems The conveyance system has been designed to contain and convey up to the 25-year storm per Core Requirement #4. Core Requirement #5: Erosion and Sediment Control Erosion and sedimentation caused by clearing, grading, and other disturbing activities will be controlled by standard erosion control measures. Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operations All onsite drainage facilities will be privately maintained in accordance with Appendix A and Chapter 6 of the 2005 KCSWDM. Core Requirement #7: Financial Guarantees and Liability The applicant will post a drainage facilities restoration and site stabilization financial guarantee in order to cover the cost of any required corrective work. Core Requirement #8: Water Quality Basic Water Quality treatment is required and will be provided with 3' of dead storage within the proposed vault. In addition to the 8 Core Requirements listed above, the 2005 KCSWDM requires that the following Special Requirements are met: • Special Requirement # 1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements • Special Requirement #2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation • Special Requirement #3: Flood Protection Facilities • Special Requirement #4: Source Controls • Special Requirement #5: Oil Control Of these Special Requirements, only Special Requirement #4 is applicable to this project. In order to fulfill this requirement, the King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual and King County Code 9 .12 will be adhered to. III. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS: Upstream Tributary Area The existing topography of the site is higher than the surrounding areas. Therefore, no upstream areas contribute runoff to this property. See below for a detailed narrative of the downstream system. Downstream Analysis See "Downstream Drainage Map" attached in appendix as an aid in the following discussion. On July 25, 2007 a site visit was conducted. The purpose of this site visit was to determine the surface water flow characteristics of this site and assess the locations of surface water running off of this property. The weather was warm with clear skies and the temperature was around 80 degrees. Heavy rain occurred over the past weekend (July 21- 22). Besides the weekend rainfall, no substantial precipitation had occurred within the past few weeks. The site is bordered by NE 4th Street to the north, Bremerton Ave NE to the east, the Ridgeview Court development to the south, and a single-family residence to the west. The existing topography of the site forms a u-shaped ridge which traverses the site running roughly parallel to the west, south and _east property lines (Point I). During rainfall events, the majority of the resulting on-site surface water sheet flows off of the northern boundary of the site. Smaller amounts of surface water sheet flows off the site along the west, south, and east property lines. The downstream investigation began along the eastern boundary of the site near Bremerton Ave NE. Two catch basins are located in Bremerton Ave NE near the southeast property comer (Point 2). A high point in Bremerton Ave NE is located approximately 80 feet south of the northern property line. The portion of Bremerton Ave NE located south of the high point is tributary to these catch basins. Currently, a small area of the eastern portion of the site is also tributary to the catch basin located in the western side of Bremerton Ave NE. Stormwater flows out of this catch basin in a 12" pipe, to the east. A detention pipe located on the southern property line of the neighboring property to the east receives flow from the Bremerton Ave catch basins as well as from the developed property in which it is located. A control structure located in the southeastern comer of this property receives flows from the detention pipe and releases attenuated flows to a vegetated area to the southeast. This vegetated area is a low area without any outlet (Point 3). Historically this area flowed to the west but has been blocked by the fill used to construct Bremerton Ave NE. Stormwater which currently flows off the site to the east is tributary to the flows released into this low area. The developed conditions of the site will remove some of the flow from the eastern portion of the site to the north, thus improving the existing situation by reducing the amount of runoff that is released into the low area. Surface water which sheet flows to the north currently enters an existing 12" storm pipe system located along the southern side of NE 4th Street. Two catch basins ( one located at the southwest comer of the intersection of NE 4th Street and Bremerton Ave NE and another located just west of the northwest property corner) intercept stormwater which currently flows off the site as well as from portions of Bremerton Ave NE and NE 4th Street. The existing 12" storm system conveys the collected stormwater in a westerly direction along the south side of NE 4th Street. Near the northwest comer of the USPS site (located two parcels to the west of the subject property) a Type II catch basin located in a gravel walk area receives flows from the existing 12" pipe system (Point 4). Stormwater from the USPS site drains into this catch basin from the south via a 12" storm pipe. A catch basin located in the curb line of NE 4th Street (approximately 3 feet north of the Type II catch basin) contributes flow to the Type II catch basin from the north via an 8" storm pipe. From this point, the storm system increases from 12" pipe to 18" pipe and continues to the west. The 18" pipe flows into a Type II catch basin with a solid lid located in the gravel walk area on the south side of NE 4th Street approximately 183 feet west of the northwest comer of the USPS site (Point 5). Tributary to this catch basin is a 36" pipe from the north and an 8" pipe from the northeast ( connected to a catch basin located 2-3 feet northeast of the Type II catch basin). At the time of the investigation, the ground surrounding the Type II catch basin was dark colored from recent water flow. From this point, the storm system increases from 18" to 36" and continues to convey stormwater to the west. Approximately 115 feet farther west, the 36" storm pipe enters a Type II catch basin which is located approximately 20 feet south of NE 4th Street (Point 6). This catch basin has a solid lid. Stormwater entering this Type II catch basin is directed to the south and is discharged into a pond which is approximately 20 feet wide by 30 feet long with 3 feet of freeboard above standing water. No erosion was observed within the pond. At the time of the investigation, a standing pool of water (approximately 1 foot deep) was contained within the pond. At the southern end of the pond a riprap weir provides an outfall into a stream channel which extends towards the south (Point 7). The stream traverses a heavily vegetated area for approximately 500 feet between Points 7 and 8. Overall this area is flat with no clearly defined stream channel except for an 18" wide, 6" deep channel appearing near Point 8. At this point, the downstream investigation had been carried out past Y. of a mile downstream from the site. It was noted that the overall channel was approximately 30 feet in width between Points 7 and 8. Any water flowing through this length of the stream occurs intermittently. At Point 8, the stream turns towards the east and connects with a manrnade ditch at Point 9. The manrnade ditch also receives stormwater runoff from a vault in the Ridgeview Court Development to the east. The ditch continues towards the south from Point 9 to Point IO where it crosses Bremerton Pl. NE. A Type II catch basin with a "bird cage" top is located on the northwest side of Bremerton Pl NE. It receives water from the stream via a 12" pipe and discharges water via a 36" pipe that crosses Bremerton Pl NE and outfalls on the southeast side of Bremerton Pl NE where the stream channel continues towards the south. It appears this catch basin has been designed to detain upstream flows by allowing water to pool upstream of the catch basin before being released through the 36" pipe. There was no water flowing in the charmel at this point. From Point I 0, the stream continues towards the south and meanders though a residential area before entering a deep ravine. Flowing water was observed in the stream from the top of the ravine at Point 11. At this location, the downstream path had been observed for approximately I mile. It should be noted that this stream is called Maplewood Creek and that no flowing water was observed between Points 7 and I 0. IV. FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN: A. Hydraulic Analysis The drainage analysis was modeled using the King County Runoff Time Series (version 5.0) software. The site soils are Alderwood (AgC), KCRTS group Till. See attached soils map. The site is located in the Sea-Tac rainfall region with a location scale factor of 1.0. EXISTING CONDITIONS The 1.46 acre site is undeveloped and is forested with evergreen trees. The following information was used for generating time series and flow frequencies. EXISTING CONDITIONS Total Area= 1.46 acres ( nredev. tsf) GROUND COVER AREA(acre) Till-Forest 1.46 DEVELOPED CONDITIONS The developed site will consist of two commercial buildings with associated parking areas and utilities. Frontage improvements will be constructed along 4th St NE. Offsite flows will be added to the vault to mitigate for onsite flows that will not be tributary to the site. The input used for the KCRTS analysis is summarized in the table below: DEVELOPED CONDITIONS Total Area~ 1.45 acre (dev.tsf) GROUND COVER AREA(acre) Till-Grass (Landscaoin") 0.18 Imoervious 1.27 Roadwav/Parkinl! 0.79 Roof 0.26 Sidewalk 0.10 Offsite Area 0.12 B. Detention Routing Calculations The City of Renton requires Level 2 Flow Control to be applied to the subject site. The Level II standard requires matching the predeveloped release rate for the 2 and I 0-year events while matching the predeveloped frequency and duration between Y, of the 2-year to the 50-year storm with no more than a +10% excursion. A 38'xl24' detention/wetvault with a structural wall down the center will be used for flow control. Since the wall down the center will be approximately IO" thick, the nominal dimension for detention calculation will be 37.16'x124'. See attached KCRTS printouts for vault sizing design. Required Live Storage in Vault: 22,901 cf Provided Live Storage in Vault: 22,901 cf The detention/wet vault will contain a structural support wall longitudinally down the middle which separates the vault into two cells. The east cell is the 1st cell and will be designed as detention only per section 5.3.3 of the KCSWDM. This cell will have sediment storage and a small amount of dead storage as a result of the minimum inside height requirement of 7'. The west cell is the 2nd cell and will be designed as a detention/wet vault per section 6.4.2 of the KCSWDM. ~ 1 " u. "' w 0 w 1! liJ N " ~i > 1 11 e-0" w w 1! 0 J w 3 I " V) C 1:, 0 Q :i <! a -=i~~' }-z ~ 1 LJ a ,,, ~ z 7 y w 0 ' j ~ " < < w " 0 0 0 ' - SHEET NO. 11 KING COUNTY ARRA, WASHIJ\"GTON (RENTON QUADRANGLE) /',;£ --l!!e.&1:-·- 4 •:, .I 180 000 FEET 27'30" 2&--SOILS MAP KEY PLAZA OF RENTON HIGHLANDS CORE PROJECT NO. 07069 '\. ., CREATING A TIME SERIES FILE (EXAMPLE) TABLE 111-1 EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN SOIL TYPES CLASSIFIED BY U.S. SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE AND KING COUNTY RUNOFF TIME SERIES scs KCRTS Soll SCS Soll Type Hydrologic Group Notes Soll Group . Alderwood (AuB, A2C. A~m C Till Arents, Alderwood Material (AmB, AmC\ C Till Areuts, Everett Material /An\ B Outwash I Beausitc IBeC, BeD, Be"' . C Till 2 Bellin•h•m 1Hh) D Till 3 Brisco! /Br\ D Till 3 Bucklev (Bu) D Till 4 Earlmont (Ea) D Till 3 Ed2ewick llU\ C Till 3 Everett <EvB, EvC, EvD, EwC\ A/B Outwash I Indianola <Inc, InA, InD\ A Outwash I Kitsao ITC nB, KoC, KoDl C Till Klaus/KsC\ C Outwash I Neilton/Ne A Outwash I Newber2 IN B Till 3 Nooksackf1 ' C Till 3 Nonna/No) D Till 3 Orcas /Or\ D Wetland Oridia(Osl D Till 3 Ovall /OvC, OvD. OvF\ C Till 2 Pilchuck /Pc C Till 3 Pwret (Pu) D Till 3 '/Pvl B Till 3 Ra1marfRaC,RaD,RaC,RaE\ B Outwash I Renton/Re\ D Till 3 Salal(Sa) C Till 3 Sammamish /Sh\ D Till 3 Seattle (Skl D Wetland Shalcar (Sm) D Till 3 SHSn) C Till 3 Snohomish /So, Sr) D Till 3 Sultan /Su\ C Till 3 Tukwila (Tu) D Till 3 Woodinville /Wo\ D Till . 3 Key to Notes: I. Where outwash soils arc saturated or underlain at shallow depth ( <5 feet) by glacial till, they should be treated as till soils. 2. These are bedrock soils, but calibration of HSPF (Hydrological Simulation Program-Fortran) by King County Surface Water Management shows bedrock soils to have similar hydrologic response to till soils. 3. These are alluvial soils, some of which are underlain by glacial till or have a seasonally high water table. In the absence of detailed study, these soils should be treated as till soils. 4. Buckley soils are fonned on the low permeability Osceola mudflow. Hydrologic response is assumed to be similar to that for till soils. December IS, 1995 SOILS TYPE KEY PLAZA OF RENTON HIGHLANDS CORE PROJECT NO. 07069 ::I II • SCALE: 1· -50' 0 12.5 25 50 LEGEND ... FLOW Al/ROW WS11NG (¥WQ(11QN$ ~ P£Rl,f{){JS AR£4 (TIU. ~1J -l.46A= EXISTING SITE HYDROLOGY r_. " t l SCAl..£: 1· • 50• 0 12.5 25 so --------, I r ' I ii I I ~ t _. I • I ·, I ; I . I ~, . I • I . I •, I ·11 :'.. ·' .. :ii ' ' LEGEND ..... Fl.OW ARROW 1RJBUTARY W VAIA T FZa ~ JIIPElM{)IJS --1.27 ACRES PERIMJIJS AR64 {71ll CRASS} -0.18 AOi'ES NQT 1RIRfUMY lP YAW T ~ 10TN. N/£A --12.10 AQli'E.S' • tS5 Aa.ES' DEVELOPED SITE HYDROLOGY .,._ 6.4.1 WETPONDS -BASIC AND LARGE --METHODS OF ANALYSIS FIGURF: 6.4.1.A PRECIPITATION FOR MEAN ANNUAL STORM IN INCHES (FEET) ST 1.1 i 0.54" (0.045') fZZl Incorporated Area .....©:::) River/Lake Major Road 0.47" (0.039') 0.47" (0.039') NOTE: Areas east of the easternmost isopluviaJ should use 0.65 inches unless rainfall data is avallable for the location of interest 24 TIie mean annual s1orm Is a conceptual storm found by dlv!dlng the annual precfpi!atlon by Ille total number of storm events per year 0.52" (0.043') LA 1.0 LA 1.2 •1N(I COVl<l IJ result, generates large amounts of runoff. For this application, till soil types include Buckley and bedrock soils, and alluvial and outwash soils that have a seasonally high water table or are underlain at a shallow depth (less than 5 feet) by glacial till. U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) hydrologic soil groups that are classified as till soils include a few B, most C, and all D soils. See Chapter 3 for classification of specific SCS soil types. 2005 Surl'ace Water Design Manual 6-71 PRECIPITATION GRAPH KEY PLAZA OF RENTON HIGHLANDS CORE PROJECT NO. 07069 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:predev.tsf Project LOcation:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak -Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.092 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.118 1 100.00 0.990 0.025 7 1/06/02 3:00 0.092 2 25.00 0. 960 0.068 4 2/28/03 3:00 0.071 3 10.00 0. 900 0.003 8 3/24/04 20:00 0. 068 4 5.00 0.800 0.040 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.060 5 3.00 0. 667 0. 071 3 1/18/06 21:00 0.040 6 2.00 0.500 0.060 5 11/24/06 4:00 0.025 7 1. 30 0.231 0.118 1 1/09/08 9:00 o. 003 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.109 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:dev.tsf Prolect Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.324 6 2/09/01 2:00 0.280 8 1/05/02 16: 00 0.391 3 12/08/02 18:00 0.320 7 8/26/04 2:00 0. 381 4 10/28/04 16:00 0.346 5 1/18/06 16:00 0. 466 2 10/26/06 0:00 0. 638 1 1/09/08 6:00 Computed Peaks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.638 1 100.00 0.466 2 25.00 0.391 3 10.00 0.381 4 5.00 0.346 5 3.00 0.324 6 2.00 0.320 7 1.30 0.280 8 1.10 0.581 50.00 0.990 0.960 0. 900 0.800 0. 667 0.500 0.231 0.091 0. 980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:dev15.tGf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak ICES) 0.605 6 8/27 /01 18:00 0. 422 8 9/17/02 17:45 1.18 2 12/08/02 17:15 0.487 7 8/23/04 14:30 0.652 5 10/28/04 16:00 0.688 4 10/27 /05 10:45 0.827 3 10/25/06 22:45 1. 59 1 1/09/08 6:30 Computed Peaks -----Flow Frequency Analysis---------Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 1. 59 1 100.00 0.990 1.18 2 25.00 0. 960 0.827 3 10.00 0.900 0.688 4 5.00 0.800 0.652 5 3.00 0.667 0.605 6 2.00 0.500 0. 4 87 7 1. 30 0.231 0. 422 8 1.10 0. 091 1. 45 50.00 0.980 Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Facility Length: Facility Width: Facility Area: Effective Storage Depth: Stage O Elevation: Storage Volume: Riser Head: Riser Diameter: Number of orifices: Detention Vault 124.00 ft 37.16 ft 4608. sq. ft 4. 97 ft 401.49 ft 22901. cu. ft 4. 97 ft 12.00 inches 3 Pipe Orifice # Height (ft) Diameter (in) Full Head Discharge (CE'S) 0.026 0.045 0.013 Diameter (in) 1 0.00 2 2. 95 3 3. 90 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None 0. 65 1. 08 0. 68 Stage Elevation Storage (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac-ft) 0.00 401. 4 9 0. 0.000 0.01 401.50 46. 0.001 0.02 401.51 92. 0.002 0.03 401.52 138. 0.003 0.04 401.53 184. 0.004 0.05 401.54 230. 0.005 0.15 401.64 691. 0.016 0.25 401.74 1152. 0.026 0.35 401.84 1613. 0.037 0.45 401. 94 2074. 0.048 0.55 402.04 2534. 0.058 0.65 402.14 2995. 0.069 0.75 402.24 3456. 0.079 0.85 402.34 3917. 0.090 0.95 402.44 4377. 0.100 1. 05 402.54 4838. 0.111 1.15 402.64 5299. 0.122 1. 25 402.74 5760. 0.132 1 , 3.'i 402.84 6221. 0.143 1. 45 402.94 6681. 0.153 1. 55 403.04 7142. 0.164 1. 65 4 03 .14 7603. 0.175 1. 75 403.24 8064. 0.185 1. 85 403.34 8525. 0.196 1. 95 403.44 8985. 0.206 2.05 403.54 9446. 0.217 2.15 403.64 9907. 0.227 2.25 403.74 10368. 0. 238 2.35 103.84 10828. a. 24 9 2.45 403.94 11289. 0. 259 2 • .:;15 404.04 11750. 0.270 4.0 4.0 Discharge (cfs) 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.009 0.010 0. 011 0. 011 0.012 0.012 o. 013 0.013 0.014 0.014 0.015 0.015 0.016 0.016 0.016 0. 017 0.017 0.018 0.018 0.018 Percolation (cfs) o.oo 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2. 65 404.14 12211. 0.280 0.019 0.00 2.75 404.24 12 672. 0. 291 0.019 0.00 2.85 404.34 13132. 0.301 0.019 0.00 2.95 404.44 13593. 0.312 0.020 0.00 2. 96 404. 45 13639. 0.313 8.020 0.00 2.97 404.46 13685. 0.314 0.021 0.00 2. 98 404.47 13731. 0.315 8.022 0.00 3.00 404.49 13824. 0.317 0.024 o.oo 3.01 404.50 13870. 0.318 0.026 0.00 3.02 404.51 13916. 0.319 0.028 0.00 3.03 404.52 13962. 0.321 0.029 0.00 3.04 404.53 14008. 0.322 0.029 0.00 3.14 404.63 14469. 0.332 0.034 0.00 3.24 404.73 14929. 0.343 0.038 0.00 3.34 404.83 15390. 0.353 0.041 0.00 3.44 404.93 15851. 0.364 0.043 0.00 3.54 405.03 16312. 0.374 0.046 0.00 3.64 405.13 16773. 0.385 0.048 0.00 3.74 405.23 17233. 0. 396 0.050 0.00 3.84 405.33 17 694. 0.106 0.052 0.00 3.90 405.39 17 971. 0. 413 0.053 0.00 3. 91 405.40 18017. 0. 414 0.054 0.00 3. 92 405.41 18063. o. 415 0.055 0.00 3.93 405.42 18109. 0. 416 0.055 0.00 3. 94 405.43 18155. 0.117 0.057 0.00 3.95 405.44 18201. 0. 418 0.057 0.00 3. 96 405.45 18247. 0. 419 0.058 0.00 4.06 405.55 18708. 0.429 0.061 0.00 4 .16 405.65 19169. 0.440 0.064 0.00 4.26 405.75 19629. 0.451 0. 067 0.00 4.36 405.85 20090. 0.461 0.070 0.00 4.46 405.95 20551. 0.472 0.07? 0.00 4.56 406.05 21012. 0.482 0.075 0.00 4.66 406.15 21473. 0. 493 0.077 0.00 4.76 406.25 21933. 0.504 0.079 0.00 4.86 406.35 22394. 0.514 0.081 0.00 4.96 406.45 22855. 0.525 0.083 0.00 4.97 406.46 22901. 0.526 0.083 0.00 5.07 406.56 23362. 0.536 0.393 0.00 5.17 406.66 23823. 0.547 0.958 0.00 5.27 406.76 24283. 0.557 1. 690 0. 00 5.37 406.86 24744. 0. 568 2.480 0.00 5.47 406. 96 25205. 0.579 2. 770 0.00 5.57 407.06 25666. 0.589 3.020 0.00 5.67 407.16 26126. 0.600 3. 260 0. 00 5.77 407.26 26587. o. 610 3.480 0.00 5.87 407.36 27048. 0. 621 3.690 0.00 5.97 407.46 27509. 0.632 3.880 0.00 6.07 407.56 27 970. 0.642 4.070 0.00 6.17 407.66 28430. 0. 653 4.250 0.00 6.27 407.76 28891. 0.663 4.420 0.00 6.37 407.86 29352. 0.674 4.580 0.00 6. 4'I 407.96 29813. 0. 684 4.740 o.oo 6.57 408.06 30274. 0.695 4.890 0.00 6.67 408.16 30734. 0.106 5.040 0.00 6.77 408.26 31195. 0.716 5.190 0.00 6.87 408.36 31656. 0.721 ~.330 0.00 6.97 408.46 32117. 0.737 5.4GO 0.00 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Cale Stage Elev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft I 1 0.64 *1<***** 0.33 5.05 406.51 23275. 0.534 2 0.47 0. 09 0. 02 2. 84 404.33 13089. 0.300 3 0.39 ******* 0.01 1. 69 403.18 7789. 0 .179 4 0.38 ******* 0.01 1. 46 402.95 6718. 0.154 5 0.35 ******* 0.04 3. 4 6 401.95 15931. 0.366 6 0.32 ******* 0.08 4.78 406.27 22004. 0.505 7 0.32 ******* 0.02 2 .22 403.71 10216. 0.235 8 0.28 ******* 0.02 3.00 404.19 13840. 0. 318 ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series ~'ile: dev. tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.638 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.334 CFS at 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage: 5.05 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 406.54 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 23275. Cu-Ft 0.534 Ac-Ft Flow Duration from Time Series File:rdout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence Probability CFS % % % 0.002 26638 43.441 43.441 56.559 0.566E+OO 0.004 9384 15.303 58.744 41. 256 0.413E+D0 0. 007 5936 9.680 68.425 31. 57 5 0.316E+OO 0.010 7251 11. 825 80.250 19.750 0.198E+OO 0.013 5333 8. 697 88.947 11. 053 0. llllc+OO 0.015 3010 4.909 93.855 6.145 0.614E-01 0.018 2440 3.979 97. 834 2.166 0. 217E-01 0.021 878 1. 432 99.266 0.734 0.734E-02 0.024 49 0.080 99.346 0.654 0.654E-02 0.026 15 0.024 99. 371 0. 629 0. 629E-02 0.029 24 0.039 99.410 0.590 0.590E-02 0.032 43 0.070 99.480 0.520 0.520E-02 0.035 41 O. 067 99.547 0.453 0.453E-02 0.037 44 0. 072 99.618 0.382 0.382E-02 0.040 40 0.065 99.684 0.316 0.316E-02 0.043 41 0. 067 99. 7 50 0.250 0.250E-02 0. 04 6 27 0.044 99.795 0.205 0.205E-D2 0.048 17 0.028 99.822 0.178 0. l 78E-02 0.051 18 0.029 99.852 0 .148 0.148E-02 0.054 13 0.021 99. 873 0.127 0.127E-02 0.057 5 0.008 99.881 0.119 0. ll 9E-02 0.059 7 0. 011 99. 8 92 0.108 0.108E-02 0. 062 8 0. 0)3 99.905 0.095 0.946E-03 0.065 9 0.015 99.920 0.080 0. 799E-03 0.068 n 0.028 99.948 0.052 0. 5J2E-D3 0. 071 12 0.020 99. 967 0.033 0.326E-03 0.073 4 0.007 99.974 0. 026 C. 261E-03 0.076 3 0.005 99.979 0.021 0.212E-03 0. 079 3 0.005 99.984 0.816 0. l 63E-03 0.082 5 C.008 99.992 0.008 0.815E-04 0.084 4 0.007 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 0.087 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 0.090 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0 .163F.-04 0.093 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 0.095 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 0.098 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: predev.tsf New File: rdout.tsf Cutoff Un::its: Discharge in CFS -----Fraction of Time--------------Check of Tolerance------- Cutoff Base New %Change Prob;:ibility 0.020 0. 96E-02 0.80E-02 -17.3 I 0. 96E-02 0.025 0.64E-02 0.64E-02 -0. 8 I 0. 64E-02 0.031 0.50E-02 0.54E-02 8. 6 I 0.50E-02 0.037 0.38E-02 0. 40E-02 7.4 I 0.38E-02 0.042 0.29E-02 0.27E-02 -6. 2 I 0.29E-02 0.048 0. 22E-02 0.19E-02 -15.6 I 0.22E-02 0.053 0.15E-02 0.13E-02 -13.3 I O.lSE-02 0.059 O.lOE-02 0 .11E-02 7. 9 I O.lOE-02 0.064 0.62E-03 0.82E-03 31. 6 I 0.62E-03 0.070 0.34E-03 0.39E-03 14.3 I 0.34E-03 0.075 0.21E-03 0.23E-03 7.7 I 0.21E-03 0.081 0.16E-03 0.82E-04 -50.0 I 0.16E-03 0.087 0.98E-04 0.16E-04 -83.3 I 0. 98E-04 0. 092 0.16E-04 0.16E-04 0.0 I 0.16E-04 Maxirnwn positive excursion= 0.008 cfs ( 9.0%) <10 occurring at 0.091 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf and at 0.099 cfs on the New Data:rdout.tsf Maximum negative excursion= 0.003 cfs (-12.3%) occurring at 0.023 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf and at 0.020 cfs on the New Data:rdout.tsf Base New %Change 0.020 0. 019 -3.5 0.025 0.025 -2.7 0.031 0.033 6.1 0.037 0. 038 3.5 0.042 0.042 -1. 5 0.048 0.044 -7.0 0.053 0.051 -3.4 0.059 0. 060 2.7 0.064 0. 067 4.0 0.070 0.070 0.4 0.075 0.077 1. 8 0.081 0. 079 -2.8 0.087 0.081 -6.7 o. 092 0.099 7.5 ,,/ so ,,/ • L s ::J C) " =, ~ 0 o, " L .!,! • I ! ; I I Ii I I I Q'. ·' oi·o 10·0 ~ 8 90'0 tO'O to·o <s::10) t11Ja4,s10 Q C ~ i' / I .i I ,, ., 0 - "I .., C - ~ oo·o ~ I f C. Water Quality Calculations The water quality volume for Key Plaza was calculated using the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), 2005 Edition, pages 6-68 to 6-7 I. Vb= f"(0.9A; + 0.25A,g + O.JOAtf+ O.JOAc)*(R/12) Where, Vi = wetpool volume (cf) required f = volume factor A; = area of impervious surface (sf) A,g = area of till soil covered with grass (sf) Aif = area of till soil covered with forest (sf) Ao = area of outwash soil covered with grass or forest R = rainfall from mean annual storm (inches) (refer to the attached precipitation graph) Vr = 0.90*Ai + 0.25*Ag x R/12 Vr = [0.90*(1.27*43560) + 0.25*(0. 18*43560)] x 0.47 I 12 Vr = [0.90*(55,321) + 0.25*(7,841)] x 0.47 I 12 Vr = (49,789+ 1,960) x 0.47 I 12 Vr =2,027 Vb= 3 x Vr Vb= 3 * 2,027 Vb= 6,081 cf The water quality volume will be provided in the western half of the detention/wetvault. The western half of the vault is 18.5'xl24' and the wetpool depth is 4 feet. Hence the amount of dead storage provided is 18.5'x 124' x 4' = 9,176 cf which exceeds the 6,081 cf required. In addition, the eastern half of the vault includes 1.74 feet of dead storage or 3,992 cf of dead storage. V. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The smallest capacity conveyance pipe on this project site is a 12" pipe sloped at 0.6%. The flowing full capacity of a 12" smooth wall pipe sloped at 0.6% is 2.99 cfs. Since the peak I 00-year flow with a I 5-minute time step into the detention vault is less than 1.6 cfs, there are no pipe capacity issues. ., ' ·1·, ' ' • __ I, J -----'-.. I • I Nfl'IJ !JNJawJ!J rzr'l,I ,f.3JI NO.LNHH ~ .rn ..ur.J fiil'V :·~ --.i.~~ ~· ".J' < :;i. I 11 t I ••• . ' ' 111 .. , g§" • ~t rt ~ It I; . ' 0 ~ d /i il ;j~:! tii?l ~d I ' -· ~1 __ /_ I I I I! ~ 1 ~ ~ t 'I ~·· 111 Ii ~1 §ji ~I~ ~ ( ~ if ~ ~ '·1 II J d~ . -. ' Lu !I ~ ~. I • ;~ "' lll. -. ~ ! ! ,,, ~ ,1d! iril il!i! Nl"Td Jl.'JYN/Vd(f Pl30J,S :P fJV02! ---~,~-I '"'3z71 T, ... ,_ • I --f ,1 'I -i-l I ' I L ,_:_ ,t--....,---s----!. ---'~.;;-~-7 --'--L:.:Y ---·-i':L.1 __ ___1 [ !' . ·-"' . lit ~- SY.lON (l/Jflf SNOI.L'J3S 'S7/Y,l,J(J J1/Jrtl VZY!d .!.JD! ' ' ' .. : i i ; i ! ~ :--i-----; I : ii : l, ' i ' I /: ,11 . : : •---,-. N:OJ.N:rn ~ .rn ;u.IJ an ,-•• ,. I I I I! 111 • ~ ... ' ;s $ § i! !. ' ;;; a I • ~ I " II • I 1I : f I j{ I I Fi~! I ,. I . I i , i 'I',, , "m_-L ""'-'lq: I I , I j\ I t. i!. ~ i' :: l l· I~ ' I ~ ~-, ~,\_ l I ~' ~ ,, ,,, ) ',:, ' i· "'ii, ( -'1 ...... ,., f. ~';I I I l .;;a.iii !j I fl I 1 J I\ 1· .ii i ;a u ....... .- 1 ,,, I 1 • I , JI: I ~ I Y, ij I I 1: (: , 1 I r': Ii :, I I I ,- l I 'I I : : :,t : 1: I I '~ I 11 I :I I : Ii: : \ [ ';i, \:, 'f IJ j • b --- VI. EROSION CONTROL CALCULATIONS: Design of the ESC plan was completed in conformance with Core Requirement #5 per the 2005 KCS WDM. Compliance with the 9 minimum requirements is summarized below. I. 2. 3. 4. 5. Clearing Limits: Clearing limits have been delineated on sheet C2.01 of the civil plans. The clearing limits extend only to those areas that will be disturbed during construction of the subject project. Cover Measures: The Erosion/Sedimentation Control Notes listed on sheet C2.3 l of the civil plans specify specific times at which temporary and permanent cover measures will be installed. Perimeter Protection: Per sheet C2.0l of the civil plans, silt fence will be used for perimeter protection. Silt fence will be installed along the perimeters of those areas that will be receiving silt-laden runoff. A construction entrance will be installed at the See sheets C2.01 and C2.3 l for location of Traffic Area Stabilization: entrance to the project site. construction entrance and detail. Sediment Retention: The proposed detention/water quality vault will be used for sediment retention. Sediment retention will be designed per the 2005 KCSWDM AppendixD. Surface Area: Q2(DEV15.tsf) = 0.83 cfs (See attached KCRTS Flow Frequency Analysis in Section 4 B of this Report) SA = 2080 sf/cfs * Qz SA= 2080 sf/cfs * 0.83 cfs = 1,726 SF SA Provided= 4,588SF > 1,726 SF:::> OK Riser Diameter: The 12" riser on the control structure will be used for the principle spillway. The riser was sized to accommodate the developed 100-year, 15-minute return period storm. See Section 4B of this Report for sizing calculation. Emergency Overflow Spillway: The 12" riser on the control structure will be used for emergency overflow. The riser was sized to accommodate the developed 100-year, 15-minute return period storm. See Section 4B of this Report for sizing calculation. 6. Surface Water Collection: Interceptor swales will be used to direct all sediment- laden runoff to the sedimentation pond. See sheets C2.0l and C2.31 for location of swales and details. 7. Dewatering Control: A note on sheet C2.0l addresses the procedure for discharge/treatment of runoff from dewatering. Dewatering Orifice Sizing As (2h)0 ' Ao 0.6x3600Tg 0 ·' 4,588(2x 3.5)5 Ao 294166 Ao =0.041 D=24xf!i D = 24x~ 0 -~ 41 D=2.74" 8. Dust Control: A note on sheet C2.0J addresses the procedure for dust control should soils become too dry. 9. Flow Control: The proposed detention/water quality facility will be used for sediment retention therefore, discharge from the facility will be per the Conservation (Level Two) Flow Control standard. Design of the SWPPS plan was completed in conformance with Section 2.3.1.4 in the 2005 KCSWDM. The ESC and SWPPS plan contains notes establishing what materials will not be allowed on the site along with notes describing BMPs for treatment of materials that will be on the site. Since no storage of liquids including fuel will be allowed on the site, no spill prevention report and/or clean up report is required. Vehicle maintenance will not be allowed on the site. Storage of construction materials and wastes will be stored within the "potential stockpile area" delineated on the ESC and SWPPS plan. Any concrete waste or waste from sawcutting or surfacing will be discharged to formed areas awaiting installation of concrete or asphalt and/or to a lined sump as specified in the notes and shown on the ESC and SWPPS plan. The contractor shall designate a person as the responsible representative in charge of erosion control and maintenance of all erosion control and stormwater pollution prevention facilities. APPENDIX • Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet (5 pages) • KCRTS Input File (1 page) KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Project Owner Amber Properties, Ph 206-391-7104 LLC. Project Name Key Plaza DDES Permit# PRE-023 of Renton Highlinds one------------- Address p .o. Box 3015 Renton, WA 98056 Project Engineer David Cayton Core Design, Inc. Company----------- Phone 425-885-7877 Ga Landuse Services Subdivlson / Short Subd. I UPD Q Buildlng Services M/F / Commerical / SFR Q Clearing and Grading 0 Right-of-Way Use 0 Other ---------- Location Township _2_3 ___ _ Range 5 Section __ 1_5 ___ _ Site Addres~ _4_s_o_o _B_l_o_c_k_o_f_N_E_4_t_h Renton. WA 98059 t·w·+~t1~11Mr~~tBi~§~:&rr~,i~,ll'r~,\~~ r ,,.~~2stJ -~ ";--~~.ni~f'Y.,t-?/i. ~'.<:;l!-'..!-.. ~··· .. < :.A.·1·~·.-;,. ~~,11r-Wfad.:t .. 1 d~; 0 DFW HPA O Shoreline 0 COE 404 Management D DOE Dam Safety a Structural D Rockery Nault/ __ FEMA Floodplain 0 D ESA Section 7 COE Wetlands 0 Other __ _ fjll':§~;'~iJA·~·t.,,.:,Nt·13~Ri,·;i~aiff.·?1N;rl)g~R.tMrn:x-T:·~~,·o~~~;,N~~1\~' ·:_!-'.):~.t~~~=)tt:-;t~t.~%ff)t;?,l}l~{~t~}f{~ff!.i'..W~r~Jrr1i,11}1I1 :r,,:.1:..:;.~·s.tti~--.. '}ii~8J:·:.r;·.~:·)\-~~:---iP-tti.{~;i-t)t)-~~c:~.',;:m:;{,·:~~ ... :,.\.:\\~~r;tt.'i~~f~1~J,:~rt..;\:M~1.~·tft~~:.1t4~;r:"~,t!i1l#tfr.t.t:~./fif4zlt:. Technical Information Report Sita Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type of Drainage Review ~ / Targeted I Type (circle one): (Fuii) / Modified / (circle): Large Site ~ii Site Date (include revision 8 / 1 4 IO 7 Date (include revision 8 / 1 4 / 0 7 dates): Rel'ised 8/4/08 dates): _R_e_v_i_s_e_d~8~/-4~/-0·1-1 Date ofFlnai: Date of Final: Type (circle one): Standard I Complex I Preapplicatlon / Experimental/ Blanket Description: (Include conditions in TfR Section 2) Date of AMrovai: 2005 Sutface Water Design Manual 1/1/05 l t. KlNG COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Monitoring Required: Yes i@ Start Date: Completion Date: Community Plan: ____________ _ Special District Overlays: _______________________ _ Drainage Basin: _L_o_w_e_r_c~e=d"""'a'-r_R~i'"'v--'e:.;;r;:-.-~--- Stormwater Requirements: --'-K;;..;i_n_.g'---'C'-'o'-'u=-n:..:t"'y'--'2:..:0:..:0:..:5:;..._ ____________ _ :}•:iJ:t~.:....,_:r:t:·.:, ,'i'..\i}~';f/:j'~-~ r:\i~i-~-~1-~~·:,·.~;:,R,;~·~..c.\·:.:".1-.fi?\:r~fT:)1/~\,;"..~~Jtt\~'{\1)'i~:J:o .. v_h:.,~ .. f't::.,,_r... ·:,r:H ';r,:t,-.t.~~',./'~··11wtfi'"~t:..-.• \1i.J:'·;' : f/arr,9 Si ONS.n E AND: l\DJi,l\0E"1 ,/,:,ENS 11'1Vtt•At-<EA$.'hh\k,;-:1{,,; 'i.c·-' :,;,;.'1S.'I;'i0,~f Y;i?lh/:~d~, ··'1%%"'1i!lf'.i.<:;!!,,;,, · },;3·i?~:l~ ~~:;:] ~,ifi;1, i.,:\·V;L~·.'f t~!-..'."':', ;~; ;,~',. it1 .::~;. :, ·Z-t/f\;:} . .:::·:-·:::e..~·1, ·,I?rt; ~t,r,1:..,~1~i·,:~\ F1:,\<~\t,;}-~i¥~;.~-.• ~l{, :1:;.. ~·-ft.·:~;;';~:~ ~ \t&iftte.it:.:t; D River/Stream O Steep Slope 0 Lake O Erosion Hazard D Wetlands D Landslide Hazard------- 0 Closed Depression D Coal Mine Hazard------- 0 Floodplain D Seismic Hazard --------- 0 Other D Habitat Protection-------0 _________ _ Soil Type Alderwood Slopes 6 -15% D High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) la Other Aquifer;" Zone 2 D Sole Source Aquifer D Seeps/Springs D Additional Sheets Attached 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 2 Erosion Potential Slight 1/1/05 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET REFERENCE lfil Core 2 -Offslte Analysis 0 Sensitive/Critical Areas ~ SEPA D Other o __________ _ D Additional Sheets Attached LIMITATION/ SITE CONSTRAINT none N/A none 'j,''-·.' -~--·· .. -·~-:·-.... '.·_ . ,:·· '."-•·' .. ·, ··-1-"-? ,, •• ,.. • •.•• ~·'. ._. ··--.-, . ,._ •. -... '. . ·•l·,•· ··< .... i#a'rt Ai ti'iR /§fiMMA'~Y:,sB E'i:f;i~\:i~i;;U&]ii~h-1~·. sJrn;;;a.v' i11e,;1 J.Ff i\?isi\~YJ t11}M'$foJ;j{;t1frt,/~.; 'i\ Threshold Discharge Area: 1. 4 (name or description) acres (onsite) Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Discharae at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharcra Locations: 2 Offsite Analysis Level: C)l2/3 dated: 1/i':>/UI Flow Control level: · 1 'Ws' 3 or Exemption Number /Incl. facllltv summary sheetl Small Site BM s Conveyance System Splll containment located at: vault Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Sita Supervisor: TBD Contact Phone:TBD After Hours Phone: 'l'BD Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: Private I Public If Private, Maintena;e Loa Required: r:;;;;.;/ No Financial Guarantees and Provided: ~/No - Liabilitv -Water Quality Type: )=.' Sens. Lake I Enhanced Basicm I Bog (include facility summary sheet) or Exempt o. Landscaoe Manaaement Plan: (Ye.;')/ No Soeclal Reau!rements las annlfcablel - Area Specific Drainage Type: CDA I SDO I MOP I BP/ LMP / Shared Fae. I Nona Reaulrements Name: >,nr,T==~ "Ane 2 Floodp/aln/Floodway Delineation Type: Major / Minor I Exemption / e 100-year Baso Flood Elevation (or range): Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: N/A Source Control Describe landuse: Commercial (comm.llndustrial landuse) Describe any structural controls:water quality vault 2005 S11rface Water Design Manual 3 1/1/05 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET - OIi Control High-use Site: Yes~ Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: Yes (9 with whom? Other Dralnaae Structures Describe: N/A ''RatM ~\:ER0SION AND·.SEDIMENT.Cl:)NTRQL REQt)lREMENTS ,;,.,:\:\:'\;,;:_: : .. {:-: c:·:, . ':\,t/'. '.:· ?, ,t ,,?ii MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION ~ Clearing Limits ~ Stabilize Exposed Surfaces [El Cover Measures !ill Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities [lSi Perimeter Protection 8 Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris Ensure 123 Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities el Sediment Retention 0 Flag Limits of SAO and open space t:!I Surface Water Control preservaijon areas 0 Other el Dust Control l33 Construction Seouence '!B,iJ'l't'J4':'STGRMWATER'FAGILIT,YiOESD.81PXIONS:1Nofe:Jriliftlde,F.i16111tV:SUri'iitfli"'·and.'SkefoliYj':'ii :,k•. Flow Control Tvoe/Descrintlon Water Qualitv T vne/Descri otfo n GI Detention vault 0 8 lofiltratlon -- D Infiltration (33 Wetpool vault 0 Regional Facllfty 0 Media FIitration 0 Shared Facfllty 0 Oil Control 0 Small Site BMPs 0 Spill Control D Other D Small Site BMPs D Other 2005 Surface Waler Design Manual 1/1/05 4 KJNG COUNTY, WASHJNGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUA.L TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET r:~(tJ~: .. ;~~~M,-~~i~eft~f9;ts: '.': :,. · : . -. ' . ·'. '' ·_ ·, :· . . . . . : . ' . '·.·· Pi!~W·· ·. STRUCTURAL ·ANAL YSI~. , . ·, :1 ' ... = .• ' ' ... ,, ~' . -. . -. ... . -. .. .. ~ Drainage Easement ~ Cast In Place Vault 0 Access Easement D Retaining Wall D Native Growth Protection Covenant 0 Rockery> 4' High D Tract 0 Structural on Steep Slope D Other D Other :.P,irtitz-',S!i4NATf:198.'.(1P:PR(:)fE$SI/Jti1ALBNGINE;ER .· : <'· · · .. ·-.-: .. ;:_,.,_ ·.; 1.:·,:;;,_;, : . ..::r:,.-·..;' ·/· ''°'.} ·,/'. ... {,/\'{} ' ' I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were Incorporated Into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my knowledge the Information provided here Is accurate. Stoned/Dale 2005 Su1face Water Design Manual 5 ]/1/05 KCRTS Program ... File Directory: C:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\ [c] CREATE a new Time series ST 1.46 0.00 0.000000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 o.oo 0.00 0.000000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 predev. tsf T 1.00000 T [T] Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module [P] Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies predev.tsf predev.pks [R] RETURN to Previous Menu [c] CREATE a new Time series ST o.oo 0.00 0.000000 o.oo 0.00 0.000000 0.18 0.00 0.000000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 o.oo o.oo 0.000000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 1.27 0.00 0.000000 dev.tsf T 1.00000 T [C] CREATE a new Time Seri es ST 0.00 0.00 0.000000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 0.18 0.00 0.000000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 o.oo 0.00 0.000000 o.oo 0.00 0.000000 0.00 0.00 0.000000 1.27 0.00 0.000000 devlS.tsf T 1.00000 F [T] Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module [P] Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies devlS.tsf devlS.pks [P] compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies dev.tsf dev. pks [R] RETURN to Previous Menu .exc Till Forest Till Pasture Till Grass outwash Forest outwash Pasture outwash Grass Wetland Impervious Till Forest Till Pasture Till Grass outwash Forest Outwash Pasture outwash Grass Wetland Impervious Till Forest Till Pasture Till Grass outwash Forest outwash Pasture outwash Grass Wetland Impervious [F] Size a Retention/Detention FACILITY Manual Design vault.rdf 5 Route Time Series 0 Return to Main Menu [X] exit KCRTS Program Page 1 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 PLANNING DIVISION DESIGN DISTRICT CHECKLIST City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: ''D'' Ensure compliance with design review regulations located in the Renton Municipal Code in order to: a. Maintain and protect property values; b. Enhance the general appearance of the City; c. Encourage creativity in building and site design; d. Achieve predictability, balanced with flexibility; and e. Consider the individual merits of proposals. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This design district checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. The City will use this checklist to determine whether the your proposal complies with the Urban Design Regulations in the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-3-100). Answer the questions briefly,' with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. There are two categories that have been established: (a) "minimum standards" that must be met, and (b) "guidelines" that, while not mandatory, are considered by the Planning Director in determining if the proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION: Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high- density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district. 1. Site Design and Street Pattern: Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts that are organized for effi~(i:'Hii''q'ED Page I of 47 JAN 1 ii 2015 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide service to businesses. Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to public arterials. Project Proposal: The site has frontage on Bremerton Avenue NE which is classified as a local public street. Bremerton A venue NE provides vehicular and pedestrian access to NE 4th Street, which is classified as a arterial. The project complies with the minimum stadards of the Site Design and Street Pattern requirements. Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest): (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function. (b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan. (c) Pedestrian-Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on-street parking, and wide sidewalks. (d) Internal or local roads (public or private). Project Proposal: The site has frontage on Bremerton Avenue NE which is classified as a local public street. Bremerton Avenue NE provides vehicular and pedestrian access to NE 4 1" Street, which is classified as a arterial. The project complies with the minimum standards of the Site Design and Street Pattern requirements. Page 2 of47 l • ' 1 i i ' i Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 2. Building Location and Orientation: Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. Minimum Standard: Orient buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk. Project Proposal: The building main entrance is located on the north far;ade facing a pedestrian entry plaza and is connected by sidewalk to the public sidewalk on Bremerton Avenue NE. The entrance is located to provide parents of the students visual communication with the entrance to insure that their children are safely delivered and picked up underthe supervision of Kiddie Academy staff. The pedestrian plaza area at the entrance provides a safe location for children, staff and parents to interact and transition safe custody and is visible from Bremerton Avenue NE and partly from NE 4th Street on the north. The project complies with the intent of the minimum standards of Building Location and Orientation requirements. The applicant requests administrative approval of the proposed main building entrance as noted herein. Minimum Standard: The front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive aisle, but instead a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian-only courtyard. Project Proposal: The building main entrance is located on the north far;ade facing a pedestrian entry plaza and is connected by sidewalk to the public sidewalk on Bremerton Avenue NE. The entrance is located to provide parents of the students visual communication with the entrance to insure that their children are safely delivered and picked up underthe supervision of Kiddie Academy staff. The pedestrian plaza area at the entrance provides a safe location for children, staff and parents to interact and transition safe custody and is visible from Bremerton Avenue NE and partly from NE 4th Street on the north. The project complies with the intent of the minimum standards of Building Location and Orientation requirements. The applicant requests administrative approval of the proposed main building entrance as noted herein. Page 3 of47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Guideline: Ground floor residential uses located near the street should be raised above street level for residents' privacy. Project Proposal: The proposed day care a commercial building without any residential units. The requirement is not applicable to the proposed commercial project. 3. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. Minimum Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing a street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human-scale elements. Project Proposal: The building main entrance is located on the north fa<;ade facing a pedestrian entry plaza and is connected by sidewalk to the public sidewalak on Bremerton Avenue NE. The entrance is located to provide parents of the students visual communication with the entrance to insure that their children are safely delivered and picked up underthe supervision of Kiddie Academy staff. The pedestrian plaza area at the entrance provides a safe location for children, staff and parents to interact and transition safe custody and is visible from Bremerton Avenue NE and partly from NE 4th Street on the north. The project complies with the intent of the minimum standards of Building Entries requirements. The applicant requests administrative approval of the proposed main building entrance as noted herein. Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site shall provide a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. Project Proposal: The proposed day care building is the only building on the site. New and existing sidewalks connect to the street and the existing adjacent Key Bank. The project complies with the minimum standards of Building Entries requirements. Page 4 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Minimum Standard: Ground floor units shall be directly accessible from the street or an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. Project Proposal: The proposed day care a commercial building without any residential units. The requirement is not applicable to the proposed commercial project. Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) shall have weather protection at least 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. Project Proposal: Secondary building entrances wil be provided with weather protection at least 4'-6" wide. The project complies with the minimum standards of Building Entries requirements. Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access shall be building from property edges, adjacent lots, intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. provided to the abutting street Project Proposal: The proposed day care building is the only building on the site. New and existing sidewalks connect to Bremerton Avenue NE. The project complies with the minimum standards of Building Entries requirements. Guideline Standard: For projects that include residential uses, entries should provide transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, common area, lobby, or similar feature. Project Proposal: The proposed day care a commercial building without any residential units. The requirement is not applicable to the proposed commercial project. Guideline Standard: Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows should be oriented to a street; otherwise, screening or art features such as trellises, artwork, murals, landscaping, or combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street-oriented facade. Page 5 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Project Proposal: The east fa,;ade facing Bremerton Avenue NE will have windows from classrooms on both floors, doors and sidewalks. The project complies with the minimum standards of Building Entries requirements. Guideline Standard: Entries from the street should be clearly marked with canopies, architectural elements, ornamental lighting, or landscaping. Entries from parking lots should be subordinate to those related to the street for buildings within District 'A'. Project Proposal: The main entrance will be clearly idenitfied by a weather protecting overhang, windows and glazed entrance doors, ornamental lighting and plaza landscaping. The project complies with the minimum standards of Building Entries requirements. The property is located within Urban Design District 'D' overlay and is not required to comply with the District "A" requirements. 4. Transition to Surrounding Development: Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing neighborhoods are preserved. Minimum Standard: Careful siting and design treatment are necessary to achieve a compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses: a. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing Official in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent yards; b. Building proportions, including step-backs on upper levels; c. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or d. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. Project Proposal: The existing Key Bank located on the site to the north of the subject property is a single story flat-roof commercial building located adjacent to the NE 4"' Street frontage with parking and landscaping separating it from the proposed Kiddie Academy building. The proposed Kiddie Academy building is proosed to have a similar roof design and height. The scale of both are similar and compatible. Page 6 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Existing single-family residences are located on the properties to the south of the subject site and are two-stories as it the proposed project. The scale of both are similar and compatible. Ten-feet of screening landscaping is proposed along the south boundary of the site and building far;ade. The building far;ade will be articulated to divide it into smaller architectural elements. The project complies with the minimum standards of Transition to Surrounding Development requirements. 5. Service Element Location and Design: Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. Minimum Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where they are Page 7 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see illustration, RMC 4-3-lOQE?e). Project Proposal: There are no visible service elements proposed on the exterior of the building including outdoor storage, vehicle storage, outdoor loading, repair or maintenance and work areas. The garbage and recycling area is proposed to be enclosed to screen it from view. The project complies with the minimum standards of Service Element Location and Design requirements. Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed, consistent with RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095, Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations. Project Proposal: The garbage and recycling collection area will be enclosed, roofed and of suffcient dimension to containers for refuse and recyclables, and to allow easy access and as required by RMC 4-4-090- E.4. The enclosure is proposed to be location near the north west corner of the property where there are no setback or landscaping requirements that otherwise dictate its location. The enclosure will have masonry walls. The project complies with the minimum standards of Service Element Location and Design requirements. Minimum Standard: In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self-closing doors (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7f). Project Proposal: There are no visible utility areas proposed. The project complies with the minimum standards of Service Element Location and Design requirements. Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited. Project Proposal: Fencing is proposed to enclose the playground areas and will be or approved materials other than chain link, plastic or Page 8 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 wire fencing. The project complies with the minimum standards of Service Element Location and Design requirements. Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian-oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides of such facility. Project Proposal: There are no visible utility or services areas proposed. The project complies with the minimum standards of Service Element Location and Design requirements. Guideline: Service enclosure fences should be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some combination of the three. Project Proposal: There are no visible utility or services areas proposed. The project complies with the minimum standards of Service Element Location and Design requirements. 6. Gateways: Intent: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City; provide special design features and architectural elements at gateways; and ensure that gateways, while they are distinctive within the context of the district, are compatible with the district in form and scale. Minimum Standard: Developments located at district gateways shall be marked with visually prominent features (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.E7g). Project Proposal: The site is a mid-block site and is not located at a district gateway and therefore is not required to comply with the Gateway requirements. Minimum Standard: Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and scaled for both pedestrians and vehicles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.Elh). Project Proposal: The site is a mid-block site and is not located at a district gateway and therefore is not required to comply with the Gateway requirements. Page 9 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Minimum Standard: Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two or more of the following: a. Public art; b. Monuments; c. Special landscape treatment; d. Open space/plaza; e. Identifying building form; f. Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards; g. Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo); h. Signage, displaying neighborhood or district entry identification (commercial signs are not allowed). Project Proposal: The site is a mid-block site and is not located at a district gateway and therefore is not required to comply with the Gateway requirements. B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. Location of Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Minimum Standard: No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front property line or the building and side property line on the street side of a corner lot. Project Proposal: There is no surface parking located between the building and the front property line on Bremerton Avenue NE and it is not a corner lot. The project complies with the minimum standards of Parking and Vehicular Access requirements. Page IO of47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Guideline: In areas of mixed use development, shared parking is recommended. Project Proposal: Parking for the proposed Kiddie Academy shares parking with the adjacent Key Bank site under the provisions of an easement. The existing Key Bank is approximately 4,076 sq. ft. with 18 parking spaces on Lot 1 for the exclusive use of Key Bank. The project complies with the minimum standards of Parking and Vehicular Access requirements. RMC 4-4-080 E 3. Joint Use Parking Facilities: a. When Permitted: Joint use of parking facilities may be authorized for those uses that have dissimilar peak-hour demands or when it can be demonstrated that the parking facilities to be shared are underutilized. b. Agreement Required: A parking agreement ensuring that joint use parking is available for the duration of the uses shall be approved by the Community and Economic Development Administrator, following review by the City Attorney. RMC 4-4-080 F. PARKING LOT DESIGN STANDARDS: 10. Number of Parking Spaces Required: d. Modification: The Department of Community and Economic Development may authorize a modification from either the minimum or maximum parking requirements for a specific development should conditions warrant as described in RMC 4-9-25002. When seeking a modification from the minimum or maximum parking requirements, the developer or building occupant shall provide the Department of Community and Economic Development with written justification for the proposed modification. RMC 4-4-080 10 e. Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Use. Mixed occupancies: (2 or 3 different uses in the same building or sharing a lot.: The total requirements for off-street parking facilities shall be the sum of the requirements for the several uses computed separately, unless the building is classified as a "shopping center" as defined in RMC 4-11-190. Banks: A minimum of 2.5 per 1,000 square feet of net floor area and a maximum of 5.0 per 1,000 square feet of net floor area except when part of a shopping center. Page 11 of47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 4,076 sq. ft. I 1000 x 2.5 = 10.19 parking spaces minimum. 4,076 sq. ft./ 1000 x 5.0 = 20.38 parking spaces maximum 18 parking spaces are provided Day Care Centers: A minimum and maximum of 1 for each employee and 2 drop- off!pick-up spaces within 100 feet of the main entrance for every 25 clients of the program. 170 students I 25 x 2 = 19 employees Minimum and maximum 13.6 parking spaces 19 parking spaces 33 parking spaces 2. Design of Surface Parking: Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking lots wherever possible. Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.FSb). Project Proposal: Parking lot lighting will illuminate only the parking lot and be designed and located so as to avoid undue glare or reflection of light pursuant to RMC 4-4-075 except for the driveway areas shared with Key Bank by easment agreement. The project complies with the minimum standards of Design of Surface Parking requirements. Minimum Standard: reduce their visual Requirements). All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to impact (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscape Project Proposal: Perimeter parking lot landscaping is not aplicable because the parkign areas area setback from the street and generally located to the side and in back of the building. 15 sq. ft. of interior parking lot landscaping will be provided for each parking space a minimum of 5 feet in width. The project complies with the minimum standards of Design of Surface Parking requirements. Guideline: Wherever possible, parking should be configured into small units, connected by landscaped areas to provide on-site buffering from visual impacts. Project Proposal: The parking lot is designed to be comproised of small number of parking spaces separated by landscaping and Page 12 of47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 sidewalks. The project complies with the minimum standards of Design of Surface Parking requirements. Guideline: Access to parking modules should be provided by public or private local streets with sidewalks on both sides where possible, rather than internal drive aisles. Project Proposal: The parking lot accessed by a shared driveway on Bremerton Avenue NE and NE 4th Street by easement agreement. The project complies with the minimum standards of Design of Surface Parking requirements. Guideline: Where multiple driveways cannot be avoided, provide landscaping to separate and minimize their impact on the streetscape. Project Proposal: The parking lot accessed by an existing shared driveway on Bremerton Avenue NE and NE 4 11' Street by easement agreement. Multiple driveways are not proposed. The project complies with the minimum standards of Design of Surface Parking requirements. 3. Structured Parking Garages: Intent: To more efficiently use land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of structured parking throughout the Urban Center and the Center Village; physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the overall impact of parking garages when they are located in proximity to the designated pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Designated Pedestrian-Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses along street frontages at a minimum of 75% of the frontage width (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.FSc). (b) The entire facade must feature a pedestrian-oriented facade. Project Proposal: The parking areas are proposed to be surface not structured. The is not requireed to comply with the Structured Parking Garage requirements. Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Non-Pedestrian- Oriented Streets: \i.,;\, ·ge 13 of 4 7 ;if4~r~_,.v,.: .. , '· Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 (a) Parking structures fronting non-pedestrian-oriented streets and not featuring a pedestrian-oriented facade shall be set back at least 6 feet from the sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping. This includes a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This setback shall be increased to 10 feet adjacent to high visibility streets. (b) The Director may allow a red.uced setback where the applicant can successfully demonstrate that the landscaped area and/or other design treatment meets the intent of these standards and guidelines. Possible treatments to reduce the setback include landscaping components plus one or more of the following integrated with the architectural design of the building: (1) Ornamental grillwork (other than vertical bars); (2) Decorative artwork; (3) Display windows; (4) Brick, tile, or stone; (5) Pre-cast decorative panels; (6) Vine-covered trellis; (7) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; or (8) Other treatments that meet the intent of this standard. (c) Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a human scale and to avoid a solid wall. Vehicular entrances to nonresidential or mixed use parking structures shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements and/or materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5d). Minimum Standard: Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses along street frontages at a minimum of 75 percent of the frontage width (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3- 100.F5c). Project Proposal: The parking areas are proposed to be surface not structured. The is not requireed to comply with the Structured Parking Garage requirements. Minimum Standard: The entire facade must feature a pedestrian- oriented facade. Page 14 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Project Proposal: The parking areas are proposed to be surface not structured. The is not requireed to comply with the Structured Parking Garage requirements. Minimum Standard: Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a human scale and to avoid a solid wall. Vehicular entrances to nonresidential or mixed use parking structures shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements and/or materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.FSd). Project Proposal: The parking areas are proposed to be surface not structured. The is not requireed to comply with the Structured Parking Garage requirements. Guideline: Parking garage entries should be designed and sited to complement, not subordinate, the pedestrian entry. If possible, locate the parking entry away from the primary street, to either the side or rear of the building. Project Proposal: The parking areas are proposed to be surface not structured. The is not requireed to comply with the Structured Parking Garage requirements. Guideline: Parking garage entries should not dominate the streetscape. Project Proposal: The parking areas are proposed to be surface not structured. The is not requireed to comply with the Structured Parking Garage requirements. Guideline: The design of structured parking at finished grade under a building should minimize the apparent width of garage entries. Project Proposal: The parking areas are proposed to be surface not structured. The is not requireed to comply with the Structured Parking Garage requirements. Page 15 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Guideline: Parking within the building should be enclosed or screened through any combination of walls, decorative grilles, or trellis work with landscaping. Project Proposal: The parking areas are proposed to be surface not structured. The is not requireed to comply with the Structured Parking Garage requirements. Guideline: Parking garages should be designed to be complementary with adjacent buildings. Use similar forms, materials, and/or details to enhance garages. Project Proposal: The parking areas are proposed to be surface not structured. The is not requireed to comply with the Structured Parking Garage requirements. Guideline: Parking service and storage functions should be located away from the street edge and generally not be visible from the street or sidewalks. Project Proposal: The parking areas are proposed to be surface not structured. The is not requireed to comply with the Structured Parking Garage requirements. 4. Vehicular Access: Intent: To maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by min1m1z1ng, consolidating and/or eliminating vehicular access off streets within pedestrian environments and/or designated pedestrian-oriented streets. Guideline: Parking lots and garages should be accessed from alleys or side streets. Project Proposal: The parking lot accessed by an existing shared driveway on Bremerton Avenue NE and NE 4th Street by easement agreement. Bremerton Avenue NE is the primary driveway access and is a side street. The project complies with the minimum standards of Vehicular requirements. Page16of47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Guideline: Driveways should be located to be visible from the right-of- way, but not impede pedestrian circulation on-site or to adjoining properties. Where possible, minimize the number of driveways and curb cuts. Project Proposal: The parking lot accessed by an existing shared driveway on Bremerton Avenue NE and NE 4th Street by easement agreement and does not impede pedestrian circulation on-site or to the adjointing property. The project complies with the minimum standards of Vehicular requirements. C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi-modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. 1. Pathways through Parking Lots: Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots. Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking areas. Project Proposal: Concrete sidewalks are proposed along the parking area to provide clearly delineated pedestrian ways. The project complies with the minimum standards for pathways through parking lots requirements. Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart (see illustration, subsection RMC 4- 3-100.G4a). Project Proposal: Concrete sidewalks are proposed perpendicular to the building far;ade at the building entrance and the building far;ade is less than 150 feet in length, therefore only one such sidewalk is required. The project complies with the minimum standards for pathways through parking lots requirements. Page 17 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 2. Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4b). Project Proposal: Concrete sidewalks are proposed that connect the site to the public sidewalk along Bremerton Avenue NE. The project complies with the minimum standards for pedestrian circulation requirements. Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel. Project Proposal: Concrete sidewalks are proposed to be raised approximately 6-inches above the parking lot paving. The project complies with the minimum standards for pedestrian circulation requirements. Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3- 100.G4c). Project Proposal: Concrete sidewalks are proposed and asphalt paving is proposed for the parking area. The project complies with the minimum standards for pedestrian circulation requirements. Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically: (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings 100 or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width. The walkway shall include an Page 18 of47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street trees (see illustration, subsection RMC-4-3-100.G4d). (b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to major building entries shall be allowed. (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. A 10 - 12 foot pathway, for example, can accommodate groups of persons walking four abreast, or two couples passing one another. An 8 foot pathway will accommodate three individuals walking abreast, whereas a smaller 5 -6 foot pathway will accommodate two individuals. Project Proposal: Concrete sidewalks are proposed to be 8-feet in width along the front of the building with a larger plaza area at the entrance. The project complies with the minimum standards for pedestrian circulation requirements. Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries. Project Proposal: Concrete sidewalks are proposed to be located with clear sight lines. The project complies with the minimum standards for pedestrian circulation requirements. Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all- weather walking surface unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. Project Proposal: Concrete sidewalks are proposed that are al/- weather, safe and durable. The project complies with the minimum standards for pedestrian circulation requirements. Guideline: Delineation of pathways may be through the use of architectural features, such as trellises, railings, low seat walls, or similar treatment. Pagel9of47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Guideline: Mid-block connections are desirable where a strong linkage between uses can be established. Project Proposal: There are not opportunities for mid-block connections. The project complies with the minimum standards for pedestrian circulation requirements. Guideline: Decorative fences, with the exception of chain link fences, may be allowed when appropriate to the situation. Project Proposal: A decorative metal fence is proposed to fully enclose the children's play areas and exit doors from all ground level classrooms and building exits except the main entrance doors. The project complies with the minimum standards for pedestrian circulation requirements. 3. Pedestrian Amenities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15 feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level. Project Proposal: Awnings and roof overhang for pedestrian overhead weather protection is proposed at the main entrance and the ground floor classroom and exit doors projecting a minimum of 4'-6" and extending a minimum of 75% of the length of the far;ade and maximum height of 15 feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level. The project complies with the minimum standards for pedestrian amenities requirements. Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal-and weather-resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. Page 20 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Project Proposal: Benches are proposed to be located at the pedestrian plaza area adjacent to the main entrance to provide a place for children, staff and parents to sit, wait and interact. The project complies with the minimum standards for pedestrian amenities requirements. Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. Project Proposal: Benches, bike racks, and trash receptacles are proposed to be located at the pedestrian plaza area adjacent to the main entrance and do not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances The project complies with the minimum standards for pedestrian amenities requirements. Guideline: Transit shelters, bicycle racks, benches, trash receptacles, and other street furniture should be provided. Project Proposal: Benches, bike racks, and trash receptacles are proposed to be located at the pedestrian plaza area adjacent to the main entrance to provide a place for children, staff and parents to sit, wait and interact. The project complies with the minimum standards for pedestrian amenities requirements. Guideline: Street amenities such as outdoor group seating, kiosks, fountains, and public art should be provided. Project Proposal: Benches, bike racks, and trash receptacles are proposed to be located at the pedestrian plaza area adjacent to the main entrance to provide a place for children, staff and parents to sit, wait and interact. The pedestrian plaza is accessible and visible from the site parkign areas and the public sidewalk along Bremerton Avenue NE. The project complies with the minimum standards for pedestrian amenities requirements. Guideline: Architectural elements that incorporate plants, such as facade-mounted planting boxes or trellises or ground-related or hanging containers are encouraged, particularly at building entrances, in publicly Page2lof47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 accessible spaces, and at facades along pedestrian-oriented streets (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4f). Project Proposal: The project complies with the minimum standards for pedestrian amenities requirements. D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE: Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. 1. Landscaping: Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. Minimum Standard: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070, Landscaping). Project Proposal: All pervious areas are proposed to be landscaped. The project complies with the minimum standards for landscaping requirements. Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and building, as determined by the City of Renton. Project Proposal: Four existng trees located adjacent to Bremerton Avenue NE will be retained and preserved. The project complies with the minimum standards for landscaping requirements. Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian-oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3a). Page 22 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Project Proposal: Bremerton Avenue NE is not a pedestrian oriented street. Four existng trees located adjacent to Bremerton Avenue NE will be retained and preserved. The project complies with the minimum standards for landscaping requirements. Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and program of the building, the site, and use. Project Proposal: Landscaping will include materials and design that are complementary to the building and provide visual surveillence for the safety of the children, staff and parents. The project complies with the minimum standards for landscaping requirements. Minimum Standard: The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping, through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or concept of the development. Project Proposal: The project complies with the minimum standards for landscaping requirements by proposing required and general landscape types (street frontage, sight-obscuring landscaped visual barrier, foundation and parking) that is consistent to existing plantings to the adjacent development north and the proposed architecture and program. Minimum Standard: Surface parking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to reduce views of parked cars from streets (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscape Requirements). Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3b). Project Proposal: Surface parking is located on the side and in back of the building. Landscape screening is therfore not applicable. The project complies with the minimum standards for landscaping requirements. Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at Page 23 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. Project Proposal: Bremerton Avenue NE is not a pedestrian oriented street. Four existing trees located adjacent to Bremerton Avenue NE will be removed and replaced to accommodate sewer construction. The project complies with the minimum standards for landscaping requirements. Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped area. Shrubs shall be at least 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. Project Proposal: All proposed planting areas shall contain shrubs placed at least 1/20 sf and at least 12 inches in height upon installation with provisions to reach full mature height of 3-4 ft. The project complies with the minimum standards for landscaping requirements. Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least 90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation. Project Proposal: groundcover along project complies requirements. The landscape plan proposes 695 sf of sodded lawn Bremerton Ave installed at 100% coverage. The with the minimum standards for landscaping Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation. Project Proposal: Landscaping shall be maintained by the owner. Plantings are to be maintained in a healthy, growing condition and those dead or dying shall be replaced. Property owners shall keep the planting areas reasonably free of weeds and fitter. Maintenance by owner after substantial completion is subject to inspection by Department of Community and Economic Development. Pursuant to City of Renton RMC 4-4-070 The Department of Community and Economic Development is Page 24 of47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 authorized to notify the owner that any required landscaping is not being adequately maintained and the specific nature of the failure to maintain. The Department shall send the property owner written notice, specifying what corrections shall be made. The project complies with the minimum standards for landscaping requirements. Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows: ·11 Required Amount: Total Number of Minimum Required Landscape Area* Spaces 15 to 50 15 square feet/parking space 51 to 99 25 square feet/parking space 100 or more 35 square feet/parking space * Landscape area calculations above and planting requirements below exclude perimeter parking lot landscaping areas. Project Proposal: Proposed interior parking lot landscaping Proposed parking stalls Proposed Landscaping Total Number of Parking Stalls 15 to 50 25 Minimum Minimum Landscape Area Landscape Area 15 sf/parking space 15 sf 375 sf 422 sf The project complies with the minimum standards for landscaping requirements. (2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot landscape areas. Project Proposal: Landscape plan proposes 422 sf of landscaped interior parking lot which totals to 112% of required landscaping with trees shrubs and groundcover in the parking lot interior. The project exceeds the minimum standards for landscaping requirements. Page 25 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 (3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet . Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. Project Proposal: Four trees (Fraxinus Oxycarpa 'Raywood') are proposed for the parking lot interior landscape areas installed at a ratio of 1 tree per 6 parking stalls. Said trees are capable of reaching a mature height of 35 ft. 8' height and 2" caliper size are required at time of installation. The project complies with the minimum standards for landscaping requirements. ( 4) Plant shrubs at a rate of five per 100 square feet of landscape area. Shrubs shall be at least 16 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. Project Proposal: Shrub planting is proposed for interior parking lot landscape area to be 5 plants at 16" minimum height planted every 1 OOsf. Proposed shrubs to achieve a mature height of 3-4 ft. The project complies with the minimum standards for landscaping requirements. (5) Up to SO percent of shrubs may be deciduous. Project Proposal: All proposed shrubs to be evergreen with the exception of perennial grasses. 57% percent of shrubs to be broadleaf evergreen and 43% percent to be perennial grasses. The project complies with the minimum standards for landscaping requirements. (6) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three years of planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete. Project Proposal: All proposed plant ground cover can be expected to reach 90% maturity within 3 yrs. 2" mulch layer to be applied upon installation. Landscape Architect recommends an addition of a 2" mulch annually. The project complies with the minimum standards for landscaping requirements. Page 26 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 (7) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area. Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced. Project Proposal: Landscaping shall be maintained by the owner. Plantings are to be maintained in a healthy, growing condition and those dead or dying shall be replaced. Property owners shall keep the planting areas reasonably free of weeds and litter. Maintenance by owner after substantial completion is subject to inspection by Department of Community and Economic Development. Pursuant to City of Renton RMC 4-4-070 The Department of Community and Economic Development is authorized to notify the owner that any required landscaping is not being adequately maintained and the specific nature of the failure to maintain. The Department shall send the property owner written notice, specifying what corrections shall be made. Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas. Project Proposal: An underground automatic irrigation system is proposed to cover all landscaped areas. The project complies with the minimum standards for landscaping requirements. Guideline: Landscaping should be used to soften and integrate the bulk of buildings. Project Proposal: Evergreen trees and shrubs with varying texture and color are proposed adjacent to the exterior of the building(s) to soften and integrate the structure to the site. The project complies with the minimum standards for landscaping requirements. Guideline: Landscaping should be provided that appropriately provides either screening of unwanted views or focuses attention to preferred views. Page 27 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Project Proposal: A ten-foot wide sight-obscuring landscaped visual barrier, is proposed along the southern property line where the site abuts an existing residential development. A 1 O' buffer along the eastern street frontage at Bremerton Ave. is proposed consisting of a mix of evergreen and perennial shrubs, groundcover and 4 existing street trees, with the exception of the driveway. Guideline: Use of low maintenance, drought-resistant landscape material is encouraged. Project Proposal: The plants proposed consist of low maintenance and drought resistant varieties of locally adapted and available variety. The project complies with the minimum standards for landscaping requirements. Guideline: Choice of materials should reflect the level of maintenance that will be available. Project Proposal The plants proposed consist of low maintenance and drought resistant varieties of locally adapted and available variety. The project complies with the minimum standards for landscaping requirements. Guideline: Seasonal landscaping encouraged, particularly at building spaces. and container plantings are entries and in publicly accessible Project Proposal:The plants proposed consist of a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs and grasses to provide contrast and seasonal interest. The project complies with the minimum standards for landscaping requirements. Guideline: Window boxes, containers for plantings, hanging baskets, or other planting feature elements should be made of weather-resistant materials that can be reasonably maintained. Page 28 of47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Project Proposal: Window boxes, containers for plantings, hanging baskets are not proposed. The project complies with the minimum standards for landscaping requirements. Guideline: Landscaping should be used to screen parking lots from adjacent or neighboring properties. Project Proposal: Landscaping is proposed on the west property boundary to screen the parking from the property to the west. All other parking is located on the interior of the site. The project complies with the minimum standards for landscaping requirements. 2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Intent: To ensure that districts have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient locations; create usable, accessible, and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and promote pedestrian activity on pedestrian-oriented streets particularly at street corners. Minimum Standard: Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten or more dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area equal to 50 square feet per unit. The common space area shall be aggregated to provide usable area(s) for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Director. The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Director may require more than one of the following elements for developments having more than 100 units. (a) Courtyards, plazas, or multi-purpose open spaces; (b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and are provided as an asset to the development; (c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street system; (d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to, tennis/sports courts, swimming pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or (e) Children's play spaces. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, required landscaping, driveways, parking, or other vehicular Page 29 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 use areas shall not be counted toward the common space requirement or be located in dedicated outdoor recreation or common use areas. Project Proposal: The project is a commercial building, not a mixed- use residential or attached residential project. The requirements of Recreation Areas and Common Open Space are not applicable to this project. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects required yard setback areas shall not count toward outdoor recreation and common space unless such areas are developed as private or semi-private (from abutting or adjacent properties) courtyards, plazas or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to create a fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3c). Project Proposal: The project is a commercial building, not a mixed- use residential or attached residential project. The requirements of Recreation Areas and Common Open Space are not applicable to this project. Minimum Standard: Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not count toward the common space/recreation area requirement. Project Proposal: The project is a commercial building, not a mixed- use residential or attached residential project. The requirements of Recreation Areas and Common Open Space are not applicable to this project. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, other required landscaping and sensitive area buffers without common access links, such as pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the required recreation and common space requirement. Project Proposal: The project is a commercial building, not a mixed- use residential or attached residential project. The requirements of Recreation Areas and Common Open Space are not applicable to this project. Page 30 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Minimum Standard: All buildings and developments with over 30,000 square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian-oriented space (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3d) according to the following formula: 1 % of the lot area + 1 % of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian-oriented space Project Proposal: The project is a commercial building of approximately 11,961 square feet which is less than 30,000 square feet. The requirements of Recreation Areas and Common Open Space are not applicable to this project Minimum Standard: To qualify as pedestrian-oriented space, the following must be included: (a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier-free access) to the abutting structures from the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard; Project Proposal: The project proposes a pedestrian-oriented plaza at the main building entrance to provide a space for students, parents and staff to visit, enter the building and wait to be picked up by parents in an area that is visible from the street, parking lot, building entry and administrative offices. The project complies with the minimum standards for pedstrian-oriented space. (b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving; Project Proposal: The proposed pedestrian-oriented plaza at the main building entrance is concrete paving. The project complies with the minimum standards for pedstrian-oriented space. (c) On-site or building-mounted lighting providing at least four foot- candles (average) on the ground; and Project Proposal: Building and site lighting fixtures are proposed at pedestrian-oriented plaza at the main building entrance . The project complies with the minimum standards for pedstrian-oriented space. Page 31 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 (d) At least three feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per 60 square feet of plaza area or open space. Project Proposal: The proposed pedestrian-oriented plaza at the main building entrance is approximatley 707 square feet. Seating required: 707 s.f. / 60 = 12 individual bench seats or 36 lineal feet. (3) benches 5' long are proposed to provide 15' or 6 seating spaces. A concrete seating wall located along the south border of the pedestrian plaza provide (4) seating sections of 6 ft. providing 24' or 12 seating spaces. A total of 39 feet or 18 seating spaces are proposed. The project complies with the minimum standards for pedstrian-oriented space. Minimum Standard: The following features are encouraged in pedestrian-oriented space (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3- 100.H3e) and may be required by the Director: (a) Provide pedestrian-oriented uses on the building facade facing the pedestrian-oriented space. (b) Spaces should be positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide interest and security -such as adjacent to a building entry. (c) Provide pedestrian-oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space. (d) Provide movable public seating. Project Proposal: The project proposes a pedestrian-oriented plaza at the main building entrance to provide a space for students, parents and staff to visit, enter the building and wait to be picked up by parents in an area that is visible from the street, parking lot, building entry and administrative offices. The space provides the following: (a) Building facade facing the pedestrian-oriented space. (b) The pedestrian-oriented space is positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide interest and security and adjacent to a building entry. (c) The pedestrian-oriented facades are provided on the north building fa,;;ade at the main entrance. The project complies with the minimum standards for pedstrian-oriented space. Page 32 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Minimum Standard: The following are prohibited within pedestrian- oriented space: (a) Adjacent unscreened parking lots; (b) Adjacent chain link fences; (c) Adjacent blank walls; (d) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas; and (e) Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.) that do not contribute to the pedestrian environment. Project Proposal: The project proposes a pedestrian-oriented plaza at the main building entrance to provide a space for students, parents and staff to visit, enter the building and wait to be picked up by parents in an area that is visible from the street, parking lot, building entry and administrative offices. It does not contain any of the listed prohibited items. The project complies with the minimum standards for pedstrian- oriented space. Minimum Standard: The minimum required walkway areas shall not count as pedestrian-oriented space. However, where walkways are widened or enhanced beyond minimum requirements, the area may count as pedestrian-oriented space if the Director determines such space meets the definition of pedestrian-oriented space. Project Proposal: The proposed pedestrian-oriented plaza at the main building entrance does include the sidewalks to the building entrance, street and parking area so that it is al/ways used and occupied. The project complies with the minimum standards for pedstrian-oriented space. Minimum Standard: Commercial Arterial Zone Public Plazas. At each corner of the intersections listed below, there shall be provision of a public plaza of no less than 1,000 square feet with a minimum dimension of 20 feet on one side abutting the sidewalk. The public plaza must be landscaped consistent with RMC 4-4-070, including at minimum street trees, decorative paving, pedestrian-scaled lighting, and seating. These public plazas are to be provided at all of the following intersections: i. Benson Area: Benson Drive S./108th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 176th. ii. Bronson Area: Intersections with Bronson Way North at: (a) Factory Avenue N. / Houser Way S.; (b) Garden Avenue N.; and (c) Park Avenue N. and N. First Street. Page 33 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 iii. Cascade Area: Intersection of 116th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 168th Street. iv. Northeast Fourth Area: Intersections with N.E. Fourth at: (a) Duvall Avenue N.E.; (b) Monroe Avenue N.E.; and (c) Union Avenue N.E. v. Grady Area: Intersections with Grady Way at: (a) Lind Avenue S.W.; (b) Rainier Avenue S.; (c) Shattuck Avenue S.; and (d) Talbot Road S. vi. Puget Area: Intersection of S. Puget Drive and Benson Road S. vii. Rainier Avenue Area: Intersections with Rainier Avenue S. at: (a) Airport Way/ Renton Avenue S.; (b) S. Second Street; (c) S. Third Street/ S.W. Sunset Boulevard; (d) S. Fourth Street; and (e) S. Seventh Street. viii. North Renton Area: Intersections with Park Avenue N. at: (a) N. Fourth Street; and (b) N. Fifth Street. ix. Northeast Sunset Area: Intersections with N.E. Sunset Boulevard at: (a) Duvall Avenue N.E.; and (b) Union Avenue N.E. Project Proposal: The project not located at any of the listed intersections or at the corner of any street intersection. The requirements of Commercial Arterial Zone Public Plazas are not applicable to this project Guideline: Common space areas in mixed use residential and attached residential projects should be centrally located so they are near a majority of dwelling units, accessible and usable to residents, and visible from surrounding units. Project Proposal: The project is a commercial building, not a mixed- use residential or attached residential project. The requirements of Recreation Areas and Common Open Space are not applicable to this project. Page 34 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Guideline: Common space areas should be located to take advantage of surrounding features such as building entrances, significant landscaping, unique topography or architecture, and solar exposure. Project Proposal: The project proposes a pedestrian-oriented plaza at the main building entrance to provide a space for students, parents and staff to visit, enter the building and wait to be picked up by parents in an area that is visible from the street, parking lot, building entry and administrative offices. The project complies with the minimum standards for pedstrian-oriented space. Guideline: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects children's play space should be centrally located, visible from the dwellings, and away from hazardous areas like garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, streets, and parking areas. Project Proposal: The project proposes a pedestrian-oriented plaza at the main building entrance to provide a space for students, parents and staff to visit, enter the building and wait to be picked up by parents in an area that is visible from the street, parking lot, building entry and administrative offices. It does not contain any of the listed prohibited items. The project complies with the minimum standards for pedstrian- oriented space. E. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise retail architecture. 1. Building Character and Massing: Intent:. To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting. Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet (40'). Project Proposal: The proposed building facade includes modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet ( 40'). The project complies with the minimum standards for Building Architectural Design. Page 35 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Guideline: Building facades should be modulated and/or articulated with architectural elements to reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. Project Proposal: The proposed building facade includes modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet ( 40'). The project complies with the minimum standards for Building Architectural Design. Guideline: Articulation, modulation, and their intervals should create a sense of scale important to residential buildings. Project Proposal: The proposed building is a commecial building, not a residential building. The requirements of this guideline are not applicable to commercial buildings. Guideline: A variety of modulations and articulations should be employed to add visual interest and to reduce the bulk and scale of large projects. Project Proposal: The proposed building facade includes modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet ( 40'). The project complies with the minimum standards for Building Architectural Design. Guideline: Building modulations should be a minimum of two feet deep, 16 feet in height, and eight feet in width. Project Proposal: The proposed building facade includes modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet (40') and a minimum of two feet deep, 16 feet in height, and eight feet in width. The project complies with the minimum standards for Building Architectural Design. Guideline: Alternative methods to shape a building such as angled or curved facade elements, off-set planes, wing walls, and terracing will be considered; provided, that the intent of this Section is met. Page 36 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Project Proposal: The proposed building facade proposes some terracing of the far;ade. The project complies with the minimum standards for Building Architectural Design. 2. Ground-Level Details: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human-scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if: (a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet in height, has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or (b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. Project Proposal: The proposed building facade complies with the requirements for walls at the ground-level. The project complies with the minimum standards for Ground-Level Details. Minimum Standard: Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the following (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.!Sd): (a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall; (b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; (c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; ( d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or (e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. Project Proposal: The proposed building facade complies with the requirements for walls at the ground-level. The project complies with the minimum standards for Ground-Level Details. Page 37 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Minimum Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall. Project Proposal: The proposed building facade complies with the requirements for walls at the ground-level. The project complies with the minimum standards for Ground-Level Details. Minimum Standard: Provide human-scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature along the facade's ground floor. Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian-oriented streets shall have at least 75 percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian-oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. Project Proposal: Bremerton Avenue N.E. is not a desiganted pedestrian-oriented street. The project complies with the minimum standards for Ground-Level Details. Minimum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the following: (a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50 percent. Project Proposal: Glazing will be lightly tinted as required to meet the minimum requirements of the 2012 Washingtion State Energy Code. The project complies with the minimum standards for Ground-Level Details. (b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. Page 38 of47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Project Proposal: The project does not propose any display windows. The project complies with the minimum standards for Ground-Level Details. ( c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing. Project Proposal: Glazing will be lightly tinted as required to meet the minimum requirements of the 2012 Washingtion State Energy Code. The project complies with the minimum standards for Ground-Leve/ Details. (d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror-type) glass and film are prohibited. Project Proposal: Glazing will be lightly tinted as required to meet the minimum requirements of the 2012 Washingtion State Energy Code. The project complies with · the minimum standards for Ground-Level Details. Guideline: The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by incorporating a minimum of one of the following architectural features from each category listed (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.!Se): (a) Facade Features: (1) Recess; (2) Overhang; (3) Canopy; (4) Trellis; (5) Portico; (6) Porch; (7) Clerestory. (b) Doorway Features: (1) Transom windows; (2) Glass windows flanking door; (3) Large entry doors; (4) Ornamental lighting; (5) Lighted displays. (c) Detail Features: Page 39 of 47 (1) Decorative entry paving; (2) Ornamental building name and address; (3) Planted containers; Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 (4) Street furniture (benches, etc.). Project Proposal: The building entrance includes the floowing features from the list above: (a) Facade Features: (1) Recess; (2) Overhang; (3) Canopy; (4) Trellis; (5) Portico; (b) Doorway Features: (3) Large entry doors; (4) Ornamental lighting; (c) Detail Features: (1) Decorative entry paving; (4) Street furniture (benches, etc.). The project complies with the minimum standards for Ground-Level Details. Guideline: Artwork or building ornamentation (such as mosaics, murals, grillwork, sculptures, relief, etc.) should be used to provide ground-level detail. Project Proposal: Artwork or building ornamentation are not proposed. Guideline: Elevated or terraced planting beds between the walkway and long building walls are encouraged. Project Proposal: Elevated or terraced planting beds are not proposed. 3. Building Roof Lines: Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district. Page 40 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.!Sf): (a) Extended parapets; (b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; (c) Projected cornices; ( d) Pitched or sloped roofs. Project Proposal: The building proposes projected cornices to create varied and interesting roof profiles. The project complies with the minimum standards for Building Roof Lines. Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof-mounted mechanical equipment so that the equipment is not visible within 150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level. Project Proposal: The building proposes to screen all roof-mounted mechanical equipment. The project complies with the minimum standards for Building Roof Lines. Minimum Standard: Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the building, consistent with RMC 4-4-095E, Roof-Top Equipment. Project Proposal: The building proposes to screen all roof-mounted mechanical equipment designed to blend with the architectural character of the building. The project complies with the minimum standards for Building Roof Lines. Minimum Standard: Match color of roof-mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations. Project Proposal: The building proposes to paint all roof-top mounted equipment to match the roofing material color. The project complies with the minimum standards for Building Roof Lines. 4. Building Materials: Page 41 of47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality. Project Proposal: All sides of the proposed building visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space are proposed to be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme. The project complies with the minimum standards for Building Materials. Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades. Project Proposal: The proposed materials, individually or in combination, are proposed to have an attractive texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades. The project complies with the minimum standards for Building Materials. Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained. Project Proposal: The proposed materials are proposed to be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained. The project complies with the minimum standards for Building Materials. Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. Project Proposal: The proposed materials provide variations in color, pattern and textural changes. The project complies with the minimum standards for Building Materials. Page 42 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Guideline: Building materials should be attractive, durable, and consistent with more traditional urban development. Appropriate examples would include brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre- finished metal, stone, steel, glass, and cast-in-place concrete. Project Proposal: The proposed materials are attractive, durable and consistent with an urban commercial building. The project complies with the minimum standards for Building Materials. Siding is proposed to be fiber-cement lap siding and trim. Guideline: Concrete walls should be enhanced by texturing, reveals, snap-tie patterns, coloring with a concrete coating or admixture, or by incorporating embossed or sculpted surfaces, mosaics, or artwork. Project Proposal: The proposed building does not include concrete walls. The project complies with the minimum standards for Building Materials. Guideline: Concrete block walls should be enhanced with integral color, textured blocks and colored mortar, decorative bond pattern and/or incorporate other masonry materials. Project Proposal: The proposed building does not include concrete block walls. The project complies with the minimum standards for Building Materials. Guideline: Stucco and similar troweled finishes should be used in combination with other more highly textured finishes or accents. They should not be used at the base of buildings between the finished floor elevation and four feet (4') above. Project Proposal: The proposed building does not include stucco or similar products for exterior wall finishes. The project complies with the minimum standards for Building Materials. F. SIGNAGE: Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and of Page 43 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create color and interest. Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building. Project Proposal: The proposed building signage is an integral part fothe building fa<;ade. The project complies with the minimum standards for Signage. Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location. Project Proposal: The proposed building signage includes a Corporate logo is proposed to be sized appropriately for their location. The project complies with the minimum standards for Signage. Minimum Standard: Prohibited signs include (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.Ba): i. Pole signs; ii. Roof signs; iii. Back-lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back-lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back-lit. Project Proposal: The proposed building signage does not include any of the listed prohibited signs. The project complies with the minimum standards for Signage. Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi-use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design. Project Proposal: The proposed building is a commerical building and not a mixed-use or multi-use building. The project complies with the minimum standards for Signage. Page 44 of47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground-related monument signs, with the exception of primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above finished grade, including support structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director. Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development. Project Proposal; The proposed signage does not include development entry signs. The project complies with the minimum standards for Signage. Guideline: Alteration of trademarks notwithstanding, corporate signage should not be garish in color nor overly lit, although creative design, strong accent colors, and interesting surface materials and lighting techniques are encouraged. Project Proposal: The proposed signage is interesting and appropriate. The project complies with the minimum standards for Signage. Guideline: Front-lit, ground-mounted monument signs are the preferred type of freestanding sign. Project Proposal: The proposed ground-mounted signage is proposed to be front-illuminated. The project complies with the minimum standards for Signage. Guideline: Blade type signs, proportional to the building facade on which they are mounted, are encouraged on pedestrian-oriented streets. Project Proposal: The proposed building signage does not include blade signs. The project complies with the minimum standards for Signage. Page 45 of47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 G. LIGHTING: Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night. Minimum Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior lighting regulations located in RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On-Site. Project Proposal: lighting is provided at the pedestrian-oriented plaza. The project complies with the minimum standards for lighting requirements. Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be allowed to directly project off-site. Project Proposal: Site lighting is provided at the parking area and pedestrian-oriented plaza. The project complies with the minimum standards for lighting requirements. Minimum Standard: Pedestrian-scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades, and at pedestrian-oriented spaces. Project Proposal: Pedestrian scale building mounted lighting fixture are proposed. The project complies with the minimum standards for lighting requirements. Guideline: Accent lighting should be provided at focal points such as gateways, public art, and significant landscape features such as specimen trees. Project Proposal: Accesnt lighting is propsoed at the building entry and general fat;ade. The project complies with the minimum standards for lighting requirements. Page 46 of 47 Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE, Renton, WA 98503 Guideline: Additional lighting to provide interest in the pedestrian environment may include sconces on building facades, awnings with down-lighting, decorative street lighting, etc. Project Proposal: Pedestrian scale building mounted lighting fixture are proposed. The project complies with the minimum standards for lighting requirements. Page 47 of47 ' () ·) .. Parametrix EffGINEeRING • PLANNING • l!NVIRONMENTAL SCIENCEII 1231 FRYAR AVENUE SUMNER, WA 98390-1516 T. 253.863,5128 F. 253.863.2873 www.paramctrix.com TECHNICAL MEMORAII Date: January 14, 2015 To: Bob Mahn and Jan Illian, City ofReoton From: Cindy Clark, PE Subject: Signal Warrant Analysis at 4th & Bremerton cc: Howard Fan, Kiddie Academy Project Number: 214-7364-00I Project Name: Kiddie Academy INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 32 This technical memorandum summarizes the traffic operations and signal warrant analysis conducted for Northeast (NE) 411i Street at Bremerton Avenue, in the City of Renton. This analysis was prepared for the Kiddie Academy development which is planned to be constructed at 353 Bremerton Avenue. This site is currently vacant and is located at the southwest comer of NE 411, Street and Bremerton Avenue. This site has two access points to the City Streets: one driveway connecting directly to NE 411i Street and another driveway connected to the south leg of Bremerton Avenue, approximately 100 feet south of the intersection at NE 411i Street. Please refer to the Vicinity Map at the end of this memorandum. This technical memorandum supplements a signal warrant analysis that was included in a Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared for the Key Plaza development by Traffic Consulting Northwest, dated August 9, 2007. This report will herein be referred to as tlte Key Plau. TIA. In the Key Plaza TIA, tlte proposed development was a new drive-in bank, a general office building, and a specialty retail center. Since that time, the bank has been constructed, but the office space and specialty retail were not built. The unused land will now be used for tlte proposed Kiddie Center Academy. This technical memorandum uses new count data, therefore, the development of the bank and removal of the planned construction oftlte office building and specialty retail center is now considered part of the existing condition. This memorandum supersedes the memorandum issued to the City for review on January 9, 2015. DATA COLLECTION To obtain accurate traffic volumes for existing conditions, turning movement counts were gathered at the intersection of NE 411i Street and Bremerton Avenue, on Tuesday, January 6, 2015. The counts were conducted between 7:00 am and 9:00 am (AM Peale) and between 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm (PM Peak). The traffic counts are shown in Figure I and the raw data counts are included at the end of this memorandum. ') TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME The year of opening is 2016. Therefore, an annual growth factor of3% was applied to the traffic count, which is consistent with the Key Plaza TIA assumptions. The Y ear-2016 traffic baseline volumes are shown in Figure 2. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The proposed Kiddie Academy consists of a new daycare center. The building size will be 12,548 square feet, and is anticipated to have up to 180 students, and 21 employees. To determine trip generation, we were given trip generation estimates by Kiddie Academy, a nationwide daycare franchise. The Kiddie Academy data was based on other similar sites. For comparison purposes, we also used the !TE Trip Generation Manual, 8"' Edition, Land Use Code 565 -Day Care Center based on number of students, building square footage and number of employees to estimate trip generation. We provided these additional estimates to ensure that the data provided by the Kiddie Academy is consistent with nationwide studies. These estimates are shown in Table 1 . . d" Ce Table I. Trip Generation Estimates -Kid 1e Daycare nter AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour (one hour between 7 am and 9 am) (one hour between 4 pm and 6 pm) Data Based On: Total Enterin2 Exitin2 Total Enterinir Exitin2 Similar Sites provided 122 65 57 126 59 67 by Kiddie Academy 180 Students (1) 137 73 64 126 59 67 12,548 square feet (1) 154 82 72 156 73 83 21 Employees (1) 103 55 48 101 47 54 10ata taken from ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8111 Edition, for Land Use Code 585-0ay Care Center As shown in the above table, the data provided by the Kiddie Academy falls within the ITE Trip Generation Manual estimates, therefore, it will be used for analysis. We understand that the Kiddie Academy representative has met with the City of Renton, and discussed pass-by and trip distribution. Based on these discussions, it is anticipated that 50 to 60 percent of the daycare students reside in the large network of neighborhoods located to the south ofNE 4th Street. Therefore, we assume that 50 percent of the above trips are considered pass-by in nature, meaning that these pass-by vehicles were already utilizing the 4"' & Bremerton intersection, and would simply stop by the daycare on their way to and from work without diverting from their original travelled way. Therefore, we have decreased the number of net new trips by 50 percent. Net new trips were distributed in accordance with existing traffic patterns on the street system. These traffic patterns were calculated based on the eastbound versus westbound volumes taken from the turning movement counts. For example, the AM peak hour had a total of646 (16 lefts +610 throughs +17 rights) eastbound volumes and 1,124 (8 lefts+ l 089 throughs +27 rights) westbound volumes approaching the 4th & Bremerton intersection. This equates to a 36o/o/64o/o-east/west volume distribution. Although there are two access points to the Kiddie Academy site, to be conservative for the signal warrant analysis we have assumed that all new trips will access the driveway connecting to Bremerton Avenue. These distributed volumes are shown in Table 2. Kiddie Academy Signal Warrant Analysis 2 214-7 364-()() I January U, 20/5 ) Tl!!CHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) T bl 2 N N T . D" "b . E . a e et ew no 1stn u!Ion stimates-Kidd" D 1e avcare C enter AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour (one hour between 7 am and 9 am) (one hour between 4 pm and 6 pm) Data Based On: Total Enterinl! Exitine Total Enterine Exitine Similar Sites provided 61 33 28 63 30 33 by Kiddie Academy, less 50% pass-by Heading Eastbound (1) 22 12 10 33 17 19 Heading Westbound (1) 39 21 18 30 13 14 Dlrectf0nal dlslributlon baMa on t:Klckgrollld traffic volumes ahown on Figure 1. AM background VOiumes had a 36%164% Eastbound/Westbound split and PM background vokJmes had a 57%143% EastboundfYVestbound split. The net new trip traffic distribution in terms of percentage of total site generated traffic is shown in Figure 3, and the net new trips assigned to the existing street network as shown in Figure 4. Figure 5 shows the total volume (2016 background plus net new trips). SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS A signal warrant analysis was conducted for the intersection of NE 4th Street at Bremerton Avenue for the year 20 16, assuming the development has been constructed. The signal warrant analysis was based on the criteria from the 2009 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The signal w111TIU1t analysis was conducted for Warrant 3, Peak Hour. For the AM peak, the major street (NE 4th Street approach volumes) will have 1,856 vehicles in 2016. This was derived by adding all eastbound and westbound approach volumes as shown in Figure 5 (20+628+3o+29+ 1122+28 = 1,856 vehicles). The higher volume minor street (south leg of Bremerton Avenue) will have 94 vehicles (59+ !+34=94 vehicles). Per the requirements in the MUTCD, the minor street volume must be ISO vehicles or greater. Therefore, W111TIU1t 3 is not met during the AM Peak hour. For the PM peak, the major street (NE 4th Street approach volumes) will have 2,593 vehicles in 2016. This was derived by adding all eastbound and westbound approach volumes as shown in Figure 5 (5+59+ 1313+ I 03+45+ 1053+ 15 = 2,593). The high volume minor street (south leg of Bremerton Avenue) will have 83 vehicles (45+38=83). Per the requirements in the MUTCD, the minor street volume must be 150 vehicles or greater. Therefore, Warrant 3 is also not met during the PM Peak hour. Therefore, the installation of a traffic signal at NE 4th Street and Bremerton Avenue is not warranted. AM and PM Peak hour count data plotted on the MUTCD peak hour warrant graph is included at the end of this memorandum. SUMMARY The addition of the Kiddie Academy development on the southwest comer of NE 4th Street and Bremerton Avenue will not result in the need for a traffic signal. Kiddie Academy Signal Warrant Analysis 3 }/4-7364-(/()/ January 14, 2015 DNC Parametrix ~ 'DIRECTIONAL PATIERN WILL BE USED TO ASSIGN NET NEW SITE TRIPS TO THE ROADWAY NETWORK N.E. 4 TH STREET ~LL -1 ~ _j (5) 0 .'.:) (57) 19 _J (1,275)610- (83) 11, ---j c G!/U//ID 1111111·1·11 ' . 64% AM 36% <DIRECTIONALPATIERN"> 43% PM 57% 11, zW Oz f--- 0::: w w =:) ~z ~~ co <'.( L21(15) - -1,089(1,022) ,8(31) ------~h LEGEND XX AM PEAK HOUR (XX) PM PEAK HOUR DNC DID NOT COUNT Figure 1 2015 Existing Counts Kiddie Academy Renton, Washington N.E. 4 TH STREET DNC =i ' ~ I n ~ --1 ,---J 1--~ Ito ' 9 --1 --1 (5) 0 .:=> (59)20 _j (1,313) 628- (85) 1e 1 -i --1 C 0//U//ID -------f.-..... !-,- I '-...... 1- Ll_ ------~ Parametrix DAT£: Jamay 1,4,20115 Fil£: PS7311C001F-01 ~ LEGEND XX AM PEAK HOUR (XX) PM PEAK HOUR DNC DID NOT COUNT 11, zW oz f- 0::: w w :::::) LZ WW 0::: > m <C Figure 2 L2a(15) -1,122(1.0S3) 1 e(31l 2016 Without Project Kiddie Academy Renton, Washington _) I L N.E. 4TH STREET 0//U//ID F,;:.;,;:: --------------1--4 ---------1-. Parametrix DA'Je .111m-.y 14, 2016 FILE: P87364D01F--01 ~ LEGEND XX AM PEAK HOUR (XX) PM PEAK HOUR DNC DID NOT COUNT I ,,.. ~ ,i "' ::!, z l..L! oz f- 0:::: w w ::J LZ WW 0:::: > (I] <( ' ~ "' ,i ... e Figure 3 L 164%(43%) Site Generated Traffic Distribution Kiddie Academy Renton, Washington NOTES: 1. ALL NET NEW TRIPS ARE ASSIGNED TO THE BREMERTON DRIVEWAY TO PROVIDE A WORSE-CASE SCENEROAT 4TH & BREMERTON. 2. PASS BY TRIPS COUNTS TO/FROM NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE SOUTH ARE NOT SHOWN. ------·---- N. E. 4TH STREET DNC~ r ~ I r: .. LL .. __ J _.J L_~ ~. I c=:1 ____ I -I ___ .J ___ J c (+17) +12") 01/U//ID --------1---J, _J I L ' "' -+ ... !. ~ "' M + I I zW oz f-a::: w w ::) 2Z WW O:::'. > m <( L I +21 (+13) i 0 + 0, -:t, -------1-, Parametrix DATE: Jamal)' HI, 2016 FI..E: PST.384001F-01 4} LEGEND XX AM PEAK HOUR (XX) PM PEAK HOUR DNC DID NOT COUNT Figure 4 Net New Project Trips Kiddie Academy Renton, Washington N.E. 4TH STREET (5)0 =, (59)20_) (1,313) 628- _______ DNc_~ -f'.':---·-----(103)30! ··---·--··· ---------~Lt, ---j ---1 ~ 9 -=-1 ---1 c CJ 01/U//ID --------- 111111 tl'I I L,------------4-. Parametrix DATE: Jalmary 14. 201!ii Fl.E; P8730i4001F.ot ~ LEGEND XX AM PEAK HOUR (XX) PM PEAK HOUR DNC DID NOT COUNT zW oz I- D::: w w ::i LZ WW O'.'. > m <C Figure 5 L2sc15> -1,122 (1,053) 129(45) 2016 With Project Kiddie Academy Renton, Washington (~.' c7 /) Vicinity Map VICINITY MAP 9 RENTON NE llH. Sl CITY OF RENTr:w CONll?OI. POINT NO. 1503 10 N£ 2NO s~ L......;;S£;..;./_Jfil/f Sl 15 CITY OF RENlfJN CONll?OI. POINT NO. -178 MAPi.EIKXXJ car COi/RS£ If 14 Raw Count Data WWW idaxdata com , - BREMERTON AVE NE icm NE4TH ST : __ A Date; Tue, Jan 06, 2015 N w Peak Hour Count Period; 7:00AM to 9:00AM z Peak Hour: 7:00AM to 8:00AM ~ ~1 r~ ~ Jo w ::; w J~rnD,b 15 -... C, co Fr t., NE4TH ST V ··r 1,180 27 1,124 ~ 6 6 1 ( 19 , .. J' TEV: 1,891 ·1-'1,089 ( = * = :l' 610 ~"*"~4· PHF: 0.93 8 :;II> Jo ~f-648 17 639 •A -000200 i Ntc41M<>I g V i -.., ~w HY%: PHF N <z EB 2.8% 0.93 0 z ~1 1i ~ WB 1.7% 0.93 ~ w NB 0.0% 0.76 ::; ! SB 1.B% 0.75 TOTAL 2.0% 0.93 Two-Hour Count Summaries NE4THST NE4THST BREMERTON AVE NE BREMERTON AVE NE Interval Eastbound Southbound 15-mln Rolling S1art Westbound Northbound Total One Hour LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 7:00AM 4 188 3 1 283 9 5 0 5 4 0 8 488 {~J{tif i,N;]/ -•" "'"'"--~ " """""·"· ... ... ... --. __ ,_~, .-:"r:\ ---... (,02!''.1-j? ... -c:;;.•-• "" • " ~_>i ~ ;:-: --.,·. _,,, 2''i., .. . .. >> .,.,,,,_, ,,, . 7:30AM 5 149 3 1 271 7 8 0 8 1 0 15 484 7:45AM 4 139 8 4 238 7 13 1 7 1 0 9 429 1,891 8:00AM 13 164 5 5 237 4 8 0 5 a 0 10 451 1,854 8:15AM 6 155 5 4 249 3 8 0 3 1 0 17 451 1,795 8:30AM 7 186 7 5 268 4 5 0 2 1 0 6 491 1,822 8:45AM 5 140 5 6 202 4 B 1 7 0 0 4 382 1,775 Count Total 50 1,255 39 28 2,045 42 69 2 40 8 0 88 3,668 Paak Hr 19 810 17 8 1,089 X1 40 1 23 8 0 61 1,881 Note: Two-hour count summa,y volumes include heavy vehicles but exc/Ude bicycles in overall count. ln1arval Heaw Vehicle Total• Bl.,vdea Pedastrlana ICrossina Lenl S1art EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 7:00AM 4 4 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 .. 111,•:• I·,.-,-~ • ll' . o·· 10 . ;, Q or e. ,;/ . , <<• 11· l j 0 . .. ,, ... .. 7:30AM 5 3 0 0 B 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 7:45AM 5 6 0 1 12 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 2 1 3 8:00AM 3 4 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 6 8:15AM 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 8:30AM 6 4 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 5 8:45AM 5 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Count Total 32 34 1 1 68 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 19 8 25 Peak Hr 18 18 0 1 38 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 8 2 10 Mark Skaggs: 425. 250. 0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com '} (' BREMERTON AVE NE ~-NE4TH ST ,., A Date: Tue, Jan 06, 2015 N w Peak HQur Count Period: 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM z Peak Hour: 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM w ;,; ~1 1~ z Jo ~ w ::; w ~' ~ N ID st 0 ... ~ i::" ~ i· NE 4TH ST ,, &,T.,,;,. ~094 l~# 15 1,068 o\,• 62 TEV: 2,582 -~·-· 0 1,022 ( = ~ = ) 1,275~ PHF: 0.94 31 ) Jo ~§ Bo ~o c:;:, 1,420 83 1,297 ·~~ .;, . NC41M<)I I 0 0 ... ~w HY%: PHF ... ~ ,( z EB 0.4% 0.87 0 z :l i~ ~ WB 0.7% 0.95 o1J w NB 0.0% 0.88 ::; w SB 0.0% 0.75 ~ ID TOTAL 0.5% 0.94 Two-Hour Count Summaries NE4THST NE4TH ST BREMERTON AVE NE BREMERTON AVE NE Interval Northbound Southbound 15-mln Rolllng Start Eastbound Westbound Total One Hour LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 4:00PM 8 259 27 13 254 2 10 0 5 2 0 7 587 4:15 PM 7 304 21 8 225 5 7 0 6 2 0 15 600 4:30 PM 15 332 24 9 270 3 7 0 7 0 0 11 678 4:46PM 13 284 21 7 282 4 7 0 4 1 0 11 814 2,479 '?:~~f;Jr '.'.''4'0',,>-\-·-------, ,, .. ..... ••· .... i!li: 2,579 'O'H' ' ... .. ., .•.. ' 5:15PM 18 280 18 8 252 1 9 0 4 0 0 7 603 2,582 5:30PM 23 338 13 15 240 6 8 0 1 0 0 7 651 2,555 5:45 PM 14 270 16 12 279 6 7 0 6 1 0 6 617 2,558 Count Total 114 2,446 160 79 2,020 34 62 0 37 8 0 77 5,037 Peak Hr 82 1,275 83 31 1,022 15 30 0 19 3 0 42 2,582 Note:, Two--hour count summary ""1umss ina/ude heavy vehicles but exa/ude bicycles in <NOfB/1 counl. Interval H"""" Vehicle Totals Blr.vcl• "-lane (Croulna Lea) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 4:00 PM 1 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4:15 PM 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 3 4,30 1'1111 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 4:45PM s 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 ·s·IIO'i>V''' . ·-" . _,,.,:/,.: I !f 1 O:i 0, .,,,, _-_ : . o 0 0 • o,, '"'' "" •.. Q,, ' 2 ., 5:15PM 1 2 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 3 5:30 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 5:45 PM 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 9 15 0 1 25 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 20 4 25 Peak Hr 8 8 0 0 14 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 12 3 111 Marte Skaggs: 425 -250 -0777 mark.skaggs@idaxdata.com Peak Hour Signal Warrant 2009 Edition Page 441 Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour 600 500 11~1iti!i1~;1&riAAi~,1+'Mltwk . I I I I :...) MINOR STREET 400 HIGHER- VOLUME 300 APPROACH-1 LANE & 1 LANE VPH 200 15.0" 100 [)oe. s re+ 400 500 mect wa.t'Thd. 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Pl--\ fe.a. k. q'i. veh _/ . MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: ~'itpl;t;a~~rewe~ll1'Velume·ft>r.a-mirier•stre'et ~f~hi~~ii!illE!!~"t§nes and 100 vph applies as the lower All 'f'ttlJL. threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. IV\. 83 ve.h Earth Solutions NWLLC Geotechnical Engineering Geology Fnvironmental Scientists Construction Monitoring \~ECEIVED JAN 1 5 Z015 Gl'TY OF RENTON ~1 :_i\Nl\ltt·,JG 1)1\IISION • . GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUD PROPOSED CHILDCARE FACILITY 353 BREMERTON AVENUE RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-1020.04 PREPARED FOR Highlands Estate, LLC December 19, 2014 c/? ~·~-~ ,,/_.,,, Yott s e1, L.G. L-,----Project Manager Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED CHILDCARE FACILITY 353 BREMERTON AVENUE RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-1020.04 Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805-1361h Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Ph: 425-449-4704 FAX: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 subsurtace conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations 1f that engineer does not perform construct,on observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences. and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions. the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geolechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors thatthe report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient lime to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read .Respoosibility Provisions CloselY Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments. claims, and disputes. To help reauce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers· responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment. techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoonvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous pro1ect /allures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen- v1ronmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Proresslonal Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction. operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention. integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations. a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in-this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with ths geotechnlca/ engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold pl'8ven- tion. Proper implementation of the 1'8t:ommendations conveyed in this 1'8port will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. RelJ on Your ASFE-Membar Gaotechncial Engmeer for Addltional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE Ill 1111 P11,11 •• Earlll 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MO 2D910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 3011589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe urg wwwasle.org Copyright 2004 IJy ASFE. fnc. Duplication. reproduction, or copying at this documenr, in whole or in part, by any means whatsae'ler. is strfi;/fy prohibited, except with ASFE's specific wriffen permissio". Excerptif1(J, quotiw;, or otnerwisB extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and o"ly for vurposes of scholarfy research or book nwiBw. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement ro or as an element of a ()eotechnical engineering report. Any ulll!!r firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member wu/d !Je committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER06045.0M December 19, 2014 ES-1020.04 Highlands Estate, LLC 1616 -1981h Place Southeast Sammamish, Washington 98075 Attention: Mr. Howard Fan Dear Mr. Fan: Earth Solutions NW LLC • Ceolechnicdl Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environmental '.::icicnccs Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Childcare Facility, 353 Bremerton Avenue, Renton, Washington." Subsurface conditions throughout the proposed development areas of the site are comprised largely of a surficial layer of fill over medium dense to very dense native glacial till deposits. Groundwater seepage was not encountered at the test pit locations. In our opinion, provided the recommendations in this study are incorporated into the final design, the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The proposed building structure can be supported on conventional foundations bearing on competent native soils or suitable structural fill material. Recommendations for earthwork, site preparation, foundations, pavement sections, and other pertinent geotechnical recommendations are provided in this study. The opportunity to be of service to you is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding the content of this geotechnical engineering study, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC ) ~~~-. -L G / . ' .. / /~nager 180.1 -rn,th 1'1,icc N.c., Suite 201 • Bellevue, WA 9Bll05 • t42o) 449-470•1 • F1\X (425i H'H71 I INTRODUCTION Table of Contents ES-1020.04 PAGE 1 General........................................................................... 1 Project Description .. . .. .. . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . . .. .. . . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . 1 SITE CONDITIONS...................................................................... 2 Surface ........................................................................... . Subsurface .................................................................... . Groundwater .................................................................... . 2 2 3 DISCUSSION ANO RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 3 General...................................................................... ...... 3 Site Preparation and Earthwork........................................... 3 Structural Fill........................................................... 4 Erosion Control....................................................... 4 Foundations..................................................................... 4 Slab-on-Grade Floors......................................................... 5 Retaining Walls . .. . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . 5 Excavations and Slopes .. . .. .. .. . . .. .. . . . . .. . .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. . .. . .. .. .. ... 6 Seismic Considerations . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. ... . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. 6 Drainage......................................................................... 6 Utility Trench Backfill .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. ... 7 Pavement Sections............................................................. 7 LIMITATIONS.............................................................................. 8 Additional Services ............................................................ 8 GRAPHICS Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Vicinity Map Test Pit Location Plan Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Footing Drain Detail Subsurface Exploration Test Pit Logs ESNW2007 ESNW 2014 Laboratory Test Results Grain Size Distribution Earth Solutions NW, LLC General GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED CHILDCARE FACILITY 353 BREMERTON AVENUE NORTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-1020.04 INTRODUCTION This geotechnical engineering study was prepared for the proposed Kiddie Academy© childcare facility to be constructed at 353 Bremerton Avenue Northeast in Renton, Washington. The purpose of this study was to provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. Our scope of services for completing this geotechnical engineering study included the following: • Characterization of the soil and groundwater conditions throughout the development areas of the site based on conditions encountered at test pit locations; • Review of current drawings with respect to the planned site layout and grading activities; • Preparation of this geotechnical engineering study with recommendations for the currently proposed project. The following documents were reviewed as part of the preparation of this geotechnical engineering study: • Site Development Plan, Sheet A-2 prepared by Paul Franks Architecture, dated December 1, 2014. • Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by ESNW, project ES-1020, dated October 2, 2007. Proiect Description We understand construction of a two-story childcare building and related infrastructure improvements is planned for lot 2 of the overall subject property. The structure will have a footprint of about 6,000 square feet. Based on the current topography, grading activities will likely be limited to cuts and fills on the order of four feet or less to achieve finish grades throughout the building and roadway areas. The building structure will consist of relatively light weight wood framing and slab-on-grade floors. Parking will be provided off the north and west sides of the new building. Perimeter wall loading of 2 to 3 kips per foot is estimated, with slab-on-grade loading on the order of 150 psf. Stormwater will be collected and conveyed to the onsite detention/water quality facility located on Lot 1. Highlands Estate, LLC December 19, 2014 ES-1020.04 Page2 If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review the recommendations in this report. ESNW should review the final plans to confirm that our geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated into the final design. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The subject property is comprised of two adjoining tax parcels, designated Lot 1 (developed~ and Lot 2 (subject lot) located in the southwestern corner of the intersection of Northeast 41 Street and Bremerton Avenue Northeast in Renton, Washington. The approximate location of the subject property is depicted on the Vicinity Map (Plate 1 ). Vegetation on Lot 2 is comprised primarily of field grasses and general groundcover. Topography throughout the development areas of the property is relatively level. Subsurface An ESNW representative was onsite December 9, 2014 to conduct a subsurface exploration at the subject property. A representative of ESNW observed, logged, and sampled soils two locations throughout the accessible areas of the site. The 2014 test pits were advanced to a maximum exploration depth of two and one-half feet below existing grade where refusal on dense native soil was encountered. Soil samples collected at the test pit locations were analyzed in the laboratory for the purposes of characterizing and classifying the site soils. We also reviewed subsurface conditions provided in the referenced geotechnical engineering study prepared by ESNW which included test pits TP-2 and TP-3. Please refer to the test pit logs provided in Appendix A and laboratory sieve analysis in Appendix B for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions. The approximate test pit locations are illustrated on the Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2). Topsoil was encountered at all test pit locations. The topsoil and/or duff were characterized as a dark brown organic rich surficial layer typically six inches in thickness. The topsoil/duff is not suitable for foundation support, or for use as structural fill. However, the topsoil is suitable for use in landscaping areas, if desired. Fill was not encountered at the test pit locations completed during the 2007 study; however, about 6 to 12 inches of fill was encountered at the test pit locations explored during the December 2014 fieldwork. It appears that minor fill was placed during construction of Lot 1 and was likely placed to provide staging or construction traffic surfacing. Underlying the topsoil, native soil deposits consisting primarily of dense to very dense silty sand with gravel (Unified Soil Classification SM) glacial till was encountered. The glacial till soil unit is generally characterized by a poorly sorted soil matrix of silt, sand and gravel and is generally in a compact or dense to very dense condition, due primarily to the consolidation by the overriding ice sheets during deposition. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Highlands Estate, LLC December 19, 2014 ES-1020.04 Page 3 The geologic map of the Renton Quadrangle, Washington identifies Vashon Glacial Till (Qvt) deposits throughout the site and surrounding area. The soil survey (National Resource Conservation Service -USDA) indentifies the site to be underlain by Alderwood series soils (AgB) with 2 to 8 percent slopes. Based on the conditions observed at the test pit locations, site soil conditions correlate with the geologic map and soil survey characterizations. Groundwater Groundwater was not observed at the test pits during our fieldwork (October 2007 and December 2014). It should be noted that groundwater elevations fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater levels are generally higher during the wetter, winter months. With respect to the proposed development activities, groundwater seepage should be expected in underground utility excavations. Extensive measures for controlling groundwater and temporary dewatering is not anticipated. However, temporary dewatering of excavations should be expected throughout some areas of the site. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our study, construction of the proposed childcare facility is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical considerations associated with the proposed development include structural fill placement and compaction, pavement and foundation subgrade preparation, and underground utility installations. In our opinion, the proposed structure can be supported on conventional foundations bearing on competent native soils or suitable structural fill material. Suitable onsite soils can generally be considered for use as structural fill provided the soil moisture content is at or near its optimum level at the time of placement and compaction. Recommendations for site preparation, structural fill placement, retaining wall design, foundations, and other pertinent geotechnical recommendations are provided in the following sections of this study. This geotechnical engineering study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Highlands Estate, LLC. and their representatives. The study has been prepared specifically for the subject project. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This study has been prepared in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. Site Preparation and Earthwork The primary geotechnical considerations with respect to site preparation activities are related to structural fill placement and pavement and foundation subgrade preparation. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Highlands Estate, LLC December 19, 2014 ES-1020.04 Page 4 Grading activities and preparation of building and pavement subgade areas will likely be limited to cutting grades to foundation subgrade elevation and minor areas of cuts and fills. Prior to the mass grading activities, stripping of surface vegetation and organic rich topsoil deposits will be necessary. In general, stripping depths are expected to range from roughly two to four inches, but may be more extensive and deep at some locations. Areas of organic rich topsoil and existing fill debris may also be encountered and require removal, particularly near the existing structural improvements. During the site stripping activities, the geotechnical engineer should observe subgrade areas where fill placement is proposed. Loose or unstable areas of subgrade exposed during the site stripping activities may require overexcavation. Structural fill material should consist of a suitable granular soil compacted to structural fill specifications (described in the following section of the study). Structural Fill In general, areas to receive structural fill should be stripped of organic matter and other deleterious material. ESNW should observe cleared and stripped areas of the site prior to structural fill placement. Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation, slab-on-grade, and roadway areas. Fills placed to construct permanent slopes and throughout retaining wall, and utility trench backfill areas are also considered structural fill. Soils placed in structural areas should be placed in maximum 12 inch lifts and compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent, based on the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D-1557-02). The upper 12 inches of structural fill in pavement and utility trench areas should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 95 percent. Erosion Control During construction, surface water runoff will need to be controlled around the site perimeter and topographically lower margins of the site. In general, erosion control measures for the site should incorporate silt fencing, swales, temporary ponds, and plastic sheeting, as necessary. Additionally, exposed earth surfaces should be protected during construction to help reduce the potential for erosion and sediment transport. Construction entrances should consist of quarry spalls underlain by a non-woven filter fabric. Quarry spall thickness will depend on subgrade stability at the entrance, but should typically be at least 12 inches. The temporary erosion control elements specified on the approved plans (and applicable state and county stormwater permits) should be implemented, as necessary, prior to mass grading activities. Foundations Based on the results of our study, the proposed building structure can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on competent, undisturbed native soils or granular structural fill. Where loose or unsuitable soils are exposed at the building pad subgrade elevation, the soil should be compacted to structural fill specifications or overexcavated and replaced with a suitable granular structural fill material. Earth Solutions rm, LLC Highlands Estate, LLC December 19, 2014 ES-1020.04 Page 5 Assuming the foundations are supported on competent, undisturbed native soils or granular structural fill, the following parameters should be used for foundation design: • Allowable Bearing Capacity • Friction • Passive Resistance 3,000 psf 0.40 350 pcf (equivalent fluid)* • Assumes foundations backfilled with structural fill or poured neat against competent soils. For short term wind and seismic loading, a one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing capacity can be assumed. A factor-of-safety of 1.5 has been applied to the friction and passive resistance values. With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch is anticipated, with differential settlement of about one-half inch or less over a typical building width. The majority of the settlements should occur during construction, as dead loads are applied. Slab-On-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors for the proposed building structure should be supported on competent native soil or at least 12 inches of compacted structural fill. Unstable or yielding areas of the subgrade should be recompacted or overexcavated and replaced with suitable structural fill prior to construction of the slab. A capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free draining crushed rock or gravel should be placed below the slab. The free draining material should have a fines content of 5 percent or less (percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction). A vapor retarder should be installed below the slabs. The vapor retarder should consist of a material specifically designed for that use and be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Retaining Walls Retaining walls should be designed to resist earth pressures and any applicable surcharge loads. The following values should be used for concrete retaining and foundation wall design: • Active earth pressure (unrestrained) • At-rest earth pressure (restrained) • Traffic surcharge (passenger vehicles) • Passive pressure (structural fill) • Allowable soil bearing capacity • Coefficient of friction • Seismic surcharge (unrestrained condition) • Seismic surcharge (restrained condition) *where H equals retained height 35 pcf (equivalent fluid) 55 pcf 70 psf (rectangular distribution) 350 pcf 3,000 psf 0.40 6H* 10H* Earth Solutions tfN, LLC Highlands Estate, LLC December 19, 2014 ES-1020.04 Page6 Additional surcharge loading from foundations, sloped backfill, or other loading should be included in the retaining wall design, if applicable. Drainage should be provided behind retaining walls such that hydrostatic pressures do not develop. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design. The geotechnical engineer should review retaining wall designs to confirm the recommended earth pressure values have been incorporated into the design and to provide additional recommendations. Retaining walls should be backfilled with free draining material that extends along the height of the wall, and a distance of at least 18 inches behind the wall. The upper one foot of the wall backfill can consist of a less permeable soil, if desired. In lieu of free draining backfill, use of an approved sheet drain material can also be considered, based on the observed subsurface and groundwater conditions. The geotechnical engineer should review conditions at the time of construction and provide recommendations for a sheet drain. A perforated drain pipe should be placed along the base of the wall, and connected to an approved discharge location. The retaining wall and drainage detail illustrated on Plate 3 should be used. Excavations and Slopes The Federal and state Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA/WISHA) classifies soils in terms of minimum safe slope inclinations. Based on the soil conditions observed at the test pit locations, the existing fill soil and native soils where seepage is exposed would generally be classified by OSHA/WISHA as Type C. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type C soils should be sloped no steeper than 1.5H:1V (horizontal:vertical), respectively. Dense native glacial till soils, where no groundwater is exposed, would generally be characterized as Type A. In general, excavations in Type A soils should be sloped no steeper than 0.75H:1V. The geotechnical engineer should observe the excavations to confirm the appropriate allowable temporary slope inclination and soil type exposed. Seismic Considerations The 2012 IBC recognizes ASCE for seismic site class definitions. If the project will be permitted under the 2012 IBC, in accordance with Table 20.3-1 of ASCE, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Site Class D, should be used for design. In our opinion, liquefaction susceptibility at this site is low. The relative density of the site soils and the absence of a uniform, shallow groundwater table is the primary basis for this designation. Drainage In our opinion, the presence of groundwater seepage should be expected within the deeper site excavations depending on the time of year grading takes place. Where localized zones of groundwater seepage are encountered, temporary passive measures to control groundwater seepage may be needed. In our opinion, perimeter drains should be installed at or below the invert of the building footing foundations. A typical footing drain detail is provided on Plate 4 of this report. Earth Solutions ~. LLC Highlands Estate, LLC December 19, 2014 Utility Trench Backfill ES-1020.04 Page 7 In our opinion, the soils observed at the test sites are generally suitable for support of utilities. Loose, unstable, or organic soil conditions encountered in the trench excavations should not be used for supporting utilities. Areas of existing fill should be re-compacted or overexcavated, as necessary. In general, suitable onsite till and existing fill reported and observed at the test sites should be suitable for use as structural backfill in the utility trench excavations, provided they are at or near the optimum moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. Moisture conditioning of the soils may be necessary at some locations prior to use as structural fill. Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted to the specifications of structural fill provided in this report, or to the applicable specifications of the city or county jurisdictions, as appropriate. Pavement Sections The performance of site pavements is largely related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To ensure adequate pavement performance, the subgrade should be in a firm and unyielding condition when subjected to proofrolling with a loaded dump truck. Structural fill in pavement areas should be compacted to the specifications detailed in the Site Preparation and Earlhwork section of this report. In addition, the upper one foot of pavement subgrade should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 95 percent. It is possible that soft, wet, or otherwise unsuitable subgrade areas may still exist after base grading activities. Areas containing unsuitable or yielding subgrade conditions may require remedial measures such as overexcavation and thicker crushed rock or structural fill sections prior to pavement. For relatively lightly loaded pavements subjected to automobiles and occasional truck traffic, the following sections can be considered: • Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) placed over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB), or; • Two inches of AC placed over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB). Heavier traffic areas (such as access drives) generally require thicker pavement sections depending on site usage, pavement life expectancy, and site traffic. For preliminary design purposes, the following pavement sections for heavy traffic areas can be considered: • Three inches of asphalt concrete (AC) placed over six inches of crushed rock base (CRB), or; • Three inches of AC placed over four and one-half inches of asphalt treated base (ATB). The AC, ATB and CRB materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Highlands Estate, LLC December 19, 2014 ES-1020.04 Page 8 ESNW can provide pavement section design recommendations for truck traffic areas and right- of-way improvements, upon request. Additionally, city or Renton pavement standards may supersede the recommendations provided in this report, where applicable. LIMITATIONS The recommendations and conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test pit locations may exist, and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions in this geotechnical engineering study if variations are encountered. Additional Services ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services during construction. Earth Solutions NW, LLC er., :t~ Reference: King County, Washington Map 656 By The Thomas Guide Rand McNally 32nd Edition NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. • Vicinity Map Kiddie Academy Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date12/17/2014 Proj. No. 1020.04 Checked SSR Date Dec. 2014 Plate N.L 4TH STRfFT . Peirkiil_g._ Lot 2. . I -•- ITP-102 ! l j I ·1 J I l L1.l z LI..l :J z LI..l ~ z 0 ~ LI..l ~ ex:: co i ·) .·· ) ... -. -------·-·------·-·-. --· ·-----... -·1 LEGEND -l 1 -Approximate Location of TP-101 ESNW Test Pit, Proj. No. ES-1020.04, Dec. 2014 TPZJ 1 -Approximate Location of -ESNW Test Pit, Proj. No. I ES-1020, Sept. 2007 Subject Site Proposed Building Existing Building 1 NOTE: The graphics shown on this plate are not inlended for design I purposes or precise scale measurements, but only to illustrate the ; approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of existing and/ or proposed site features. The information illustrated is largely based on data provided by lhe client al the time of our 1 study. ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes or interpretation of the data by others. 1 NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information : _ _r<Jsulting from black & white reproductions_ofthis plate. __ _ 1 "=60' • Drwn. GLS Checked SSR Test Pit Location Plan Kiddie Academy Renton, Washington Date12/17/2014 Proj. No. 1020.04 Date Dec. 2014 Plate 2 111 111 111 NOTES: .. 1811 Min. ~1 00000000<:> O" o Q"'' CJ i JJ O oO 0 0 0 0 0 0 o()o o"'o O O 00€)000 (j 0 0 ° o O o o O 0 o o'\, Oo oO 0 0 Q o O Q OQo 0 0 C 00 0 0 o o Q o o A o Q o oi:() o 0:. o c Cl V o "'0 0 0 0 0 "'g o 0 o O 0° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-Q 0 0 o 0 oocQOo0° 0 Q O C QooO 0()0° o <:> o Oo oo Q,, o g QOOoO oOcOor:,OO o oO o O 0 o O 0 0 0 Q o Oo "' "' "' "o o o"' "'o "'O 0 o 000°0 O CJ Q O c, o.,, Q o ~ 0 O O ~ 0 -o .. c, 0 0°00 0°':,"' .. o o <:> 0 °0 % 0 "' 0 "'.,,"o"o"'Ooni o 0 o o .,.-0 00 0 0 0 0 0 o 00 oQ 0 o o O oQ o o o 0~ 0 o 0 00~ 00 0 0 o Oo O o Q r9 'o"' 0 S o O Oo"'o o 0: o • Free Draining Backfill should consist of soil having less than 5 percent fines. Percent passing #4 should be 25 to 75 percent. Structural Fill • Sheet Drain may be feasible in lieu of Free Draining Backfill, per ESNW recommendations. SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING • Drain Pipe should consist of perforated, rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1" Drain Rock. LEGEND: Free Draining Structural Backfill 1 inch Drain Rock .. •' RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL Kiddie Academy Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 12/17/2014 Proj. No. 1020.04 Checked SSR Date Dec. 2014 Plate 3 Slope ... : : : : ' :. ..... :18!':(ri,Ji~:): . . . . : . ' 2" (Min.) Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround with 1" Rock) NOTES: • Do NOT tie roof downspouts to Footing Drain. • Surface Seal to consist of 12" of less permeable, suitable soil. Slope away from building. LEGEND: Surface Seal; native soil or other low permeability material. 1" Drain Rock SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING .. •. ·.-) Drwn. GLS FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL Kiddie Academy Renton, Washington Date12/17/2014 Proj. No. 1020.04 Checked SSR Date Dec. 2014 Plate 4 Appendix A Subsurface Exploration ES-1020.04 The subsurface exploration at the site was conducted by Earth Solutions NW, LLC for the purpose of evaluating and characterizing the onsite soils. The approximate locations of the test pits are illustrated on Plate 2 of this report. The test pit logs are provided in this Appendix. The subsurface exploration was completed on October 2, 2007 and December 9, 2014. The test pits were excavated to a maximum depth of six feet below existing grades. Logs of the test pit observations by ESNW are presented in this Appendix. The final logs represent the interpretations of the field logs and the results of laboratory analyses. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Earth Solutions NWLLc SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS LETIER TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE TiiAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER n1AN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOILS MORE TiiAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINEO ON NO. 4 Sl~VE SAND AND SANDY SOILS CLEAN GRAVELS GRAVELS WITH FINES (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) CLEAN SANDS {LITnE OR NO FINES) SANDS WITH MORE THAN 50% Fl NES OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE SILTS AND CLAYS SILTS AND CLAYS AMOUNT OF FINES) LlQU\O LIMIT LESS THAN SO uau10 LIMIT GREATER Tl-lAN 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL· SAND MIXTURES, UTILE OR NO FINES POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SANO MIXTURES, UTILE OR NO FINES S1L1Y GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND- SILTMIXTURES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SANO- CLAY MIXTURES WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANO, UTILE OR NO FINES SILTY SANDS, SANO-SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY SANOS, SAND-C~Y MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS ANO VERY FINE SANOS, ROCK FLOUR. SIL TY OR Ct.A YEY FINE SANOS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANlC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PlASTlClTY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SFLTY CLAYS, LEAN CI.AYS ORGANIC SILTS ANO ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SIL TS, MICACEOUS OR OIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLJ1i.STIC1TY ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PlAST1Cl1Y, ORGANIC SILTS PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. ~ iii ~ w z w - • Earth Solutions NW 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Hjglll-_nds Estate - PROJECT NUMBER _j02p_,Q4 ---_-_-_--------~--=---=-:.c-- DATE STARTED J2i!l/14 COMPLETED 12/9/14 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR ESNW R§) ___________ _ EXCAVATION METHOD ___ _ LOGGED BY DAM_________ CHECKED BY SSR _________ _ NOTES _Depth ofTopsoil & Sod 1"-2": small shrubs_ w Q. () :,: ~ffi ui fug wee ti :i: (!I n.o _J::. ui ~_J 0 Q.:, ;j ::. z (!I ;Ji 0 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-101 PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECT NAME Kid_die_A,ademy_ P~~ECT LOCATI_ON_. ___ fuH!!P_t\_~~s_hLn_g!Qri _____ -=------------~------ GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE GROUND WATER LEVELS: ATTIMEOFEXCAVATION - AT END OF EXCAVATION _'.:"'. ____ _ ····---------- AFTER EXCAVATION - MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SM 0.5 Grayish brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) ,.<)Cl-"-'--=~~~~~---'-:=.==:=~=---'----'-___:_ ________ ----------- Brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist . SM 2.0 -refusal on dense native soil Test pit terminated at 2.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 2. O feet. "'---'---....J'---'---'----------------------------------------' § "' => ... z i3 le ili i w • Earth Solutions NW 1805 -136th Place N.E .. Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT !:1/ghlands E~.ta.!~ --- PROJECT NUMBER 1020.04 ___ ____ __ __ _ DATE STARTED J,2{9/14 COMPLETED _12/9/14 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-102 PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECT NAME _Kiddi~_Ac~demy PROJECT LOCATION _ R~_nton_,_ Washjng(Qfl__ _ -=c:-=.'.:"-'-==-------- GROUND ELEVATION __ TEST PlT SIZE __ EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR ESNW Re!L_ _______________ GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD-------------_ ATTIMEOFEXCAVATION =-------_ ------------ LOGGED BY _.,,OAc,M'-"------CHECKED BY _i_;SIL .. __ _ AT END OF EXCAVATION -,-__ _ NOTES Depth ofTQP:SOil & $od 1" -2": gravel SUrf?J~" AFTER EXCAVATION UJ 0.. :,: ~ffi fus UJ a, _J :a Cl a.:, :a z ~ 0 . 0 ui :i:c, <..i a.o ui ~_J ::i (!) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SM Grayish brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) 1.0 --·-----------··--~---· -------- SM Brown silty SANO with gravel, dense, moist 2.o -refusal on dense native soil 1--+....C-r'"-·-~~=-,-',==~~~-=-~~---,-~--,--~----,,-------l Test pit terminated at 2.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 2.0 feet. "''---'---'---'--'---------------------------------------' ~ e- a, ~ w ffi 1-- L • Earth Solutions NW 1805 -1361h Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Amber_Prq__perties,_LLC __________ _ PROJECT NUMBER 1020 DATE STARTED __ 9/12/07 ______ _ COMPLETED 9/12/0L __ _ EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR -~_e_l>!)ort Dozing EXCAVATION METHOD __________ ----------- LOGGED BY __,J ... N.,.C.__ ____ _ CHECKED BY ~J~N~C ___ _ NOTES Depth of Topsoil~ Sod 6": brambles and trees w a. Q I /: ffi ui t~ wm <.i I(!) ---' ::; TESTS ui a.o w-a.:, ~---' 0 ~z ::i (!) (/) 0 TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 PROJECT NAME K~laza ____ _ PROJECT LOCATION __ Rentql!.,_ Wa_shi_n.Q!Qn. ----- GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE GROUND WATER LEVELS: ATTIMEOFEXCAVATION --=----------- PAGE 1 OF 1 AT END OF EXCAVATION -=--------______ _ AFTER EXCAVATION ~-=---------------- MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist . MC= 5.10% . . MC= 3.30% MC= 3.60% SM -becomes gray, very dense /----c>-"-~a~'--~ --------------------------~------- Test pit terminated at 5.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom or test pit at 5.0 feet. "L---'-----'--------....L.-....L.-....L. ________________________________ __J ~ I m ~ w z w >- >- >- • Earth Solutions NW 1605 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Amber Properties, LLC PROJECT NUMBER 1020 DATE STARTED ~9~11=2~/0~7 ___ _ COMPLETED ~9~/1~2~10~7 __ _ EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR 0 S~e~a~po=rt~D=o~z,~·n~g _______ _ EXCAVATION METHOD _______ _ LOGGED BY 2 J~N=C~--_____ _ CHECKED BY _ JNC __ . ___ _ NOTES Depth ofTopsoil & Sod 6": bramb_les _ w :c ~ffi <Ji () t:~ w<D (.) :i:0 TESTS "-o w-.. ::;; <Ji ~-' Cl "-::, :j :;; z C) <( 0 en TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECT NAME 0K_-,ec,y2 P_,lae,Z,eac_ ________________ 1 PROJECT LOCATION Renton, Washington GROUND ELEVATION ____ _ TEST PIT SIZE ------I GROUND WATER LEVELS: ATTIME OF EXCAVATION -::__ _ ----------·----- AT END OF EXCAVATION --------____ _ AFTER EXCAVATION . -,- MATERIAL DESCRIPTION light brown SILT with sand, dense. moist MC:; 16.90% ML - MC= 8.30% ~~·"··. ,.,_.,._~2~-·~--Gray "Silty SAND with gravei, very dense, rtloist SM 1---;i- >-MC= 11.50% ~o __ _ Test--Pit temifnated al-6.tfil!eTbe[OweXiStiOQ Qrade. NO·g·roundW8ter encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 6.0 feet. "'--j_--'------....l--'--..l.-------------------------------' Appendix B Laboratory Test Results ES-1020.04 Earth Solutions NW, LLC • Earth Solutions NW, LLC GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 2881 152nd Avenue N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 . Telephone: (425) 284-3300 Fax: (425) 284-2855 CLIENT Amber Pro~erties 1 LLC PROJECT NAME Ke" Plaza PROJECT NUMBER ES-1020 PROJECT LOCATION Renton US. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYOROMETE:YI 6 4 3 2 1 14-i/23/B 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200 100 I I \' : I I I I I I ... -~ 95 \ ----: ~ 90 \ : \ ------85 : " : \ : \ : 80 \ 75 "' \ 70 : >-65 \ I : CJ 60 ill ~ s : >-55 : CD " a: : w 50 z : : u: : >-45 z w () 40 a: : ' w : 0. : 35 \ : : 30 : \ 25 ' 20 : 15 : : ! : 10 ; 5 : : 0 : 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND I SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine I Specimen Identification Classification LL PL Pl Cc Cu -~-• TP-01 3.0ft. Olive brown silty SAND with gravel, SM Ill TP-01 8.0ft. Gray silty SAND with gravel, SM ... TP-03 2.5ft. Light brown SILT with sand, ML Specimen Identification D100 060 030 010 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay •• TP-01 3.0ft. 19 2.443 0.205 30.7 50.8 18.5 Ill TP-01 8.0ft. 37.5 3.051 0.206 36.5 44.2 19.3 ... TP-03 2.5ft. 19 2.0 27.0 70.9 • E;:uth Solutions NW. Lc..C GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 2!J8i 152nd Aver.ue N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 Telephone: (425) 284-3300 Fax: (425) 284 2856 CLIENT Amber Progerties1 U.C PROJECT NAME Kev Plaza ------- PROJECT NUMBER ES·1020 PROJECT LOCATION Renton -------· U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN 1NCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYOROMETEP. 6 4 3 2 1 • 112318 " ' • 810 1416 20 30 40 50 !jQ 10U 148200 100 I I \ ' -1,.-:_ I I I I 'II I ! I \ I "'---95 \ ·--i - 90 I\ I i !' ,. -1-- l 1 ~'.\ I' ,i ', ' +' ' ' I : l. 85 1--~--1-·-\ ! ( I I \ I -! ! I ' ' ea ' . ---\ l c-·- 75 .. "-I\ ll 70 ~----·· ~-. -. -----. ' ,:' \! ,! ! p· " J! I 65 --f---I\ I I ! ! "' ' 60 --~ :: I~ j'. ; ; ! ! ' >-ss -~··t· ~--~ ' "' i a: ' w 50 ----,_ z ' rr:: I ' !z 45 ~-t--- w i 11 I u a: 40 ---f---.. r-------, . '' i w I ' ; ! .. I ( I ' 'I ' 35 \ i 1 1 ! I ! ' 30 J.L_ I I ' :1 ' I : ' ' '\ ! 2& ~:---, ' --- ' : I l ' ! 20 ' _.i, ! I' I i ' I 15 --~-~ 10 -- I I ; ---11 j ~--5 ----I ; ' f. ii j I ; i ' ' 0 l ! l too 10 1 0,1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS -----r l COBBLES ~ GRAVEL I SAND SILT OR CLAY arse I line I coarse_L_ medium I •-¥-- hne ------·-· ---- Specimen Identification Classification LL PL Pl Cc Cu -·--· • TP-01 3.0ft. Olive brown silty SAND with gravel, SM 11:1 TP-01 8.0ft. Gray silty SAND with gravel, SM --·---------------... TP-03 2.5ft. Light brown SILT with sand, ML -. ---------------···------· ----- ----· -·----·----. ~·~~--------· --,_ -·------------ Specimen ldentificat,on 0100 060 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay , ------------. ·----------• TP-01 3.0ft. 19 2.443 0.205 30,7 50.8 18.5 -. --- 11:1 TP-01 8.0ft. 37.5 3.051 0.206 36.5 44.2 19.3 -... TP-03 2.5ft. 19 2.0 27.0 70.9 ---1------------------------ --··--------··----------·----·-r ---. ----·----------------- EMAIL ONLY Report Distribution ES-1020.04 Highlands Estate, LLC 1616 -198th Place Southeast Sammamish, Washington 98075 Attention: Mr. Howard Fan Paul Franks Architecture 14711 Northeast 29th Place, Suite 118 Bellevue, Washington 98007 Attention: Mr. Paul Franks, AIA Earth Solutions NW, LLC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST 1607 E. Main Street Auburn, WA 98002 Phone: 253-931-0506 Fax: 253-333-2340 E-Mail: tmiller@tcninc.com \NWW tcninc.com Traffic Impact Analysis Key Plaza Prepared by: Timothy Miller, PE Washington #27048 Member, ITE #11026 August 9, 2007 Renton, Washington Prepared For: City of Renton At the Request of: Amber Properties TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . . . . . . . .... . .. ... ... ..... . . . . .... .. . ....... ........ ........ ..... .. .. .. .. ... ... . ............ 2 I. Project Identification, Street Inventory.............................................. 3 II. Trip Generation ...................................................................... _.. ..... .... ... 3 Ill. Traffic Assignment ................................................................................ 4 IV. Level of Service .. . .. ..... .. ...... .. ............ ...... ..... .. ... .... ... ...... .. .... . . .... .. ......... 5 V. Safety Analysis ..................................................................................... 7 VI. Signal Warrant Analysis .. .. ...... ... .. .. .. . .. .. . . ........................... ......... 7 VII. Mitigation .............................................................................................. , 8 Figures ................................................................................................. 9 Appendix .. .. . . .. .. . . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. ... 16 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table I: Trip Generation .................................................................................. 4 Table 2: Unsignalized Intersection Leve] of Service Cr,teria ..................... .... 5 Table 3: Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Summary ..................... 6 Table 4: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria .............. ....... ....... 6 Table 5: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Summary ........................ 7 Figure I: Site Vicinity.................................................................................... 10 Figure 2: Site Plan ....................................................................... 11 Figure 3: 2006 PM Peak Hour Volumes .............................................. 12 Figure 3a:2008 PM Peak Hour Volumes w/o Project .................................... 13 Figure 4: PM Peak Hour Site Generated Trips ...................................... 14 Figure 5: 2008 PM Peak Hour w/ Project .............................................. 15 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page I Key Plaza TIA August 9, 2007 Introduction This rep01t analyzes the traffic access (TIA) for the proposed Key Plaza development on the SW comer of NE 4th St & Bremerton Ave KE in Renton, WA. According to the preliminary site plan, the development consists of a 3,900 SF bank with 2 drive- through lanes, 6,200 SF specialty retail and 4,000 SF of general office space. There will be one driveway access onto NE 4th Street and one onto Bremerton Avenue NE. From the proposed office/retail building there will be two pedestrian connections to adjacent properties: one to the west and one to the south. Study Area Level of Service (LOS) analysis for the PM Peak Hour is required by the City of Renton for the following intersection: • NE 4th Street & Breme1ton Ave NE The Synchro 6 computer software program was used to perform the LOS analyses. Existing Conditions Without Project An inventory of the street and intersection characteristics in the project vicinity was conducted and is summarized in the report. 200~ PM peak hour traffic volumes at the srudy intersection were gathered. Future Conditions Without Project To be conservative, for current traffic volumes a 3.0% background traffic growth factor was used to project traffic volumes that will exist in 2008 for the without project condition. PM peak hour Level of Service (LOS) analyses at the study area intersections were completed for the 2008 without project condition. Future Conditions With Project The following items were evaluated: • AM & PM Peak hour trip generation • PM Peak hour trip distribution and assignment • LOS analyses at the study area intersection • Site access requirements and improvement needs • Safety analysis for the intersection of NE 4th Street & Bremerton Ave NE • Traffic signal wan·ant analyses for the following warrants: Warrant 3, Peak Hour Warrant 7, Crash Experience TRANSPORTATION CONSUL TING NORTHWEST Page 2 Key Plaza TIA August 9, 2007 • Measures to mitigate the development's impact on the transportation facilities in the study area • Mitigation fee calculated based on an impact fee of$75 per daily trip I. Project Identification, Street Inventory Project Identification The development consists of a 3,900 SF bank with 2 drive-through Janes, 6,200 SF specialty retail and 4,000 SF of general office space. There will be one driveway access onto NE 4th Street and one onto Bremerton Avenue NE, The development is located in Renton, Washington as shown in Figure !, Site Vicinity, The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2. Street Inventory NE 4th Street is classified as an E-W principal arterial fronting the north edge of the site. It is 5 lanes wide (two lanes in each direction plus a two-way left turn lane) along the site frontage. For the most part in the project vicinity it has curb, gutter, and sidewalks. It connects the site to 1-405 and downtown Renton. Bremerton Ave NE is a N-S 2 lane Collector Street intersecting NE 4th Street and the NE comer of the site. It serves adjacent residential uses. j II. Trip Generation Trip generation for the site is estimated using data from the seventh eJi!ion of Trip Generation. 1n this document the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) compiles measured trip generation data from different land use types from locations across the US, A copy of the relevant pages from Trip Generation is attached. Land Use Code (LUC) 912, Drive-Jn Bank, was chosen as the correct land use for the bank in this development. Land Use Code (LUC) 710, General Office Building, was chosen as the correct land use for the proposed office space. Land Use Code (LUC) 814, Specialty Retail Center, was chosen as the correct land use for the proposed retail space. The pass-by rate for the Drive-ln Bank was found in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. LUC 912, Drive-Jn Bank, was used and the PM peak hour pass-by rate was found to be 47%. A copy of the relevant page from Trip Generation Handbook is attached. Note that there is no ITE published pass-by trip rate for Specialty Retail at this time so we used a conservative (low) rate of20%. Tbis 20% pass-by rate has been allowed by the Cities of Renton and Covington. A higher rate of 25% has been allowed by Snohomish County. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 3 Key Plaza TIA August 9, 2007 As shown in Table I, the project wiJJ generate 125 PM peak hour trips, of which 74 are net PM peak hour trips, with 34 entering and 40 exiting. There are 87 AM peak hour trips, of which 61 are net AM peak hour trips, with 34 entering and 27 exiting. AM peak hour figures represent a worst-case scenario as the peak hour varied with each land use as indicated in the footnotes of Table 1. There are also I, 141 daily trips, of which 700 are net daily trips. '·;i ·.~-. . ,. : . ' ' :-:···-: ... · . Net Tri"" Enterino-Exitin!!: PM Peak Hour .. !a~ s_-~y 1 . -~-~t,_ >-'='.'-!:""---1--'=:="--l ... Gross . _ _,., .. ~ ... Size Units Rate Trips Rate Trine % Trios % Trine Drive-In Bank (LUC 912) General Office Buildin, (LUC 710) Scecialty Retail Center(LUC 8141 PM Peak Hour Trip Totals AM Peak Hour Drive-In Bank (LUC 9121 1 General Office Build in• /LUC 7!0)' Snecialtv Retail Center (LUC 814)3 AM Peak Hour Trip Totals Daily Trips Drive-In Bank (LUC 912) General Office Buildine (LUC 7101 Soecialtv Retail Center /LUC 814) Dai Iv Trio Totals 1 A.M. Peak Hour 3A.M. Peak Hour of Generator .... 2 LANES 51.08 102 47% 54 4.000 KSF 1.49 6 6 6.200 KSF 2.71 17 20% 14 125 74 ,.,.-••• ---•--·-•--•--•---• m -·--·•-·-•~ '"·-· ··---•·------ Pass-by Net Gross '"'' ·-·--·--··------·-------~-"· ---~-~-~- Size Units Rate TriM Rate 4 Trim 2 LANES 19.38 39 47% 21 4.000 KSF 1.55 6 6 6.200 KSF 6.84 42 20% 34 87 61 .... __ ._ __ -~------~·--w, Gross ~S!-El'.. Net Size Units Rate TriTK Rate 4 Trin<- 2 LANES 411.17 822 47% 436 4.000 KSF 11.01 44 44 6.200 KSF 44.32 275 20% 220 1141 700 'Pass-by rate data not avai)able for this tin~e period. Pa~s-by rate~ fo_r !M Peak H~w were ~ed. 50% 27 50% 27 17% 1 83% 5 44% 6 56% 8 46% 34 54% 40 Net Trim Eoterin!! Exitin!?: % Trin.< % Trh1<, 58% 12 42% 9 88% 5 12% I 48% 16 .S2% 18 55% 34 45% 27 Fee Mitigation Rate Fee $75 $32,700 $75 $3,300 $75 $16,500 $75 $52,500 A spreadsheet computing the PM peak hour new site generated entering, exiting and total trips for percentages of trip generation from 1 % to 100% was prepared and is included in the Appendix. [ III. Traffic Assignment Traffic Volume Data To be conservative, turning movement data was adjusted by a 3.0% annual traffic growth factor to account for general background growth. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 4 Key Plaza TIA August 9, 2007 The horizon year for this analysis will be 2008. Figure 3 shows the 2006 PM Peak Hour turning movements w/o project at the study intersections. Figure 3a shows the adjusted 2008 PM Peak Hour turning movements w/o project. New trips generated by the site were distributed in accordance with existing traffic patterns and the street system configuration as well as probable customer places of residence. The site generated trip % assignments are shown in Figure 4 along with PM peak hour site generated trip assignments. Note that to be conservative, we elected to assign all site generated trips to the Bremerton Ave NE driveway. Some trips will likely use the NE 4th Street driveway. Finally the site generated trips of Figure 4 were added to the 2008 w/o project volumes to establish the 2008 PM Peak Hour w/ project data shown in Figure 5. I IV. Level of Service Capacity computations of the signalized study intersection were performed using the Synchro 6.0 software package. This computer program was developed by Traffic Ware as an accurate representation of the Special Report 209 "Highway Capacity Manual" methodology. Outputs from the program are included in the Appendix. Level of Service (LOS) was calculated for the study area intersections noted above. Unsignalized Intersections For the case ofunsignalized intersections, the LOS of the driveway exiting movements and entering left tum movements are calculated. The delay value established for each LOS criteria from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual is listed in Table 2. Level of Delay per Vehicle Service sec. A s]O B >10 and ~15 C > 15 and s25 D >25 and s35 E >35 and s50 F >50 The results of the unsignalized intersection analyses are summarized in Table 3 below. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 5 Key Plaza TIA August ?, 2007 ~;':l\,~~ii~~\11~- 2006 w/o Proiect 2008 w/o Project 2008 w/ Project NE 4th & Bremerton LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay (A-F) (Sec.) (A-F) (Sec.) (A-F) (Sec.) EBL B 11.4 B 12.0 B 12.0 WBL B 13 .2 B 14.0 B 14.5 NBT/L E 44.9 F 53.3 F 67.7 NBR C 15.0 C 15.8 C 16.6 SB T/L C 24.6 D 27.1 E 36.4 SB R B 13.3 B 13.9 B 13.9 NB Aonroach D 30.9 E 36.6 E 43.1 SB Approach C 15.4 C 16.4 C 19.0 The NB Approach currently operates at LOS D and will increase to LOS E in 2008 with or without the project The SB Approach remains at LOS C with or without the project. Signalized Intersections The study intersection has been proposed by the City for future signalization. Therefore we also provided a signalized LOS analysis. For the case of signalized intersections the LOS of each movement, and the intersection as a whole, is computed in seconds of delay per vehicle. The delay value established for each LOS criteria from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual is listed in Table 4. Table 4 Signalized· Intersection Level of Service Criteria Level of Service Control Delay per Vehicle A S: 10.0 B IO.I to 20.0 C 20.1 to 35.0 D 35.1 to 55.0 E 55.1 to 80.0 --¥---- F > 80.0 TRANSPORTATION C01'SULTING NORTHWEST Page 6 Key Plaza TIA August 9, 2007 A summary of the capacity calculations performed for this study is contained in Table 5. Synchro computer output sheets for each signalized intersection LOS calculation are included in the Appendix. NE 4th & Bremerton B :slate that the proposed signal at the intersection would operate at LOS B without or with the project. Delay will increase to 16.3 seconds with the project from 15.6 seconds of delay without it. I V. Safety Analysis Crash history data from 7/1/03 through 6130106 for the identified location was provided by the City. A detailed crash history analysis is below. NE 4th Street & Bremerton Ave NE intersection had a total of 6 collisions in the period from 711/03 to 6/30/06, or an average of 1.5 coJlisions per year. Using the 2006 volumes this equals a crash rate of 6 x 106/(2,651 x 4 x 365 x 10) = 0.16 crashes/million entering vehicles. There were no fatal accidents, 5 injury crashes (causing 11 injuries) and I property damage only crash. The highest frequency type was right angle collisions at 2 or 33%. Of the 2 right angle collisions, 2 involved EB vehicles (100%), I involved a NB vehicle (50%), and 1 involved a SB vehicle (50%). There was also a-sideswipe collision, a rear end collision, an approach turn collisions, and a fixed object/parked vehicle collisions. I VI. Signal Warrant Analysis An analysis of signal warrants was conducted for the intersection of NE 4th Street and Bremerton Avenue NE nsing the following warrants: • Warrant 3, Peak Hour (2008 PM Peak Hour with Project built out) • Warrant 7, Crash Experience TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 7 Key Plaza TIA August 9, 2007 Warrant 3 -Peak Hour (2008 PM with Project) This Peak Hour analysis was conducted using the 2003 MUTCD Figure 4C-3, Warrant 3 -Peak Hour. The peak hour signal warrant for this intersection is shown in the Appendix. The major street (NE 4<h Street) will have 2,763 vehicles in 2008. The high volume approach of the minor street (north leg of Bremerton Ave NE) will have 66 vehicles in 2008. As seen on the Figure, the warrant is not met as the minimum VPH for a minor street with two or more Janes is 150, well above the 66 that will be there in 2008. Warrant 7-Crash Experience This Peak Hour analysis was conducted using the 2003 MUTCD Section 4C.08, Warrant 7 - Crash Experience. A copy of the qualifications from these pages is attached in the Appendix. According to the warrant a signal shall be considered if all three of the criteria are met. One of these criteria state that there must be, "Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occurred within a 12-monthperiod ....... " As seen above in Section V. Safety Analysis there have been only 6 crashes in a 4-year period for an average of only 1.5 per year, well below the required five in one year let alone correctable crashes from a traffic signal. Therefore this warrant is not met. Both the Peak Hour and Crash Experience signal warrants are not met. This warrant analysis shows no justification for a signal at the intersection of NE 4th Street and Bremerton Ave NE. I VII. Mitigation The constrnction of the Key Plaza development results in one minor letter grade change for the SB R movement at the intersection of NE 4tl' Street and Bremerton Ave NE. However, the NB T/L lane will operate at LOS F in 2008 with or without the project and currently operates at LOS E. A signal at the intersection of NE 4<h Street and Bremerton Ave NE is not warranted due to PM peak hour volumes or crash history. However if the signal was constrncted, it would operate at LOS grade of "B" with only 16.3 seconds of delay, whether or not the project is constrncted. To compute the transportation impact fee the following equation from the City of Renton was used: Fee= $75.00 x (#Daily Trips). As shown in Table l the amount of daily trips is 1,141. However this does not take into account pass-by trips. With a pass-by rate of 47% for the bank and 20% for the retail space, there are actually only 700 new daily trips created by the site. This calculates to a transportation impact fee of $52,500. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 8 FIGURES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 9 Figure 1 Site Vicinity Key Plaza TIA .... N tE 4Tt-t ITllllll!T ·.·. _·,_..:.:-:.-·.-:·,::·:i'itlk ""1'1:IIT'rlH: _J Figure 2 Site Plan Key Plaza TIA .A N • TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING r' N O .~~:-~,:,~ S T 740 c:7-0,<;::i 1381¢ 43', ~ 2J ¢::, 1037 '1 17 . . Figure 3 '' ! i, 1~/~~~t~ 2006 PM Peak Hour Volumes .. N ',! .. ! -.:1~ -JU,,( !-,_.h 12in,-sr ] ~, Key Plaza TIA "" 1465=:> 46s, o.a.'\:l'024 Cl 1100 '2 16 Figure 3a 2008 PM Peak Hour Volumes without Project Key Plaza TIA ... N OMO • TRANSPORTATION r/4 N O ~,.: •. :,~,,.E S T CONSULTING Figure 4 PM Peak Hour Site Generated Trips Key Plaza TIA 791) 1465.:::> 60,;, -N ~M- "~~ ~ 24 ¢:i 1100 0 35 ~~" m...-~ N N . Figure 5 2008 PM Peak Hour Volumes with Project .. N Key Plaza TIA APPENDIX TRANSPORTATION CONSULTlNG NORTHWEST Page 16 General Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: Number of Studies: Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: Directional Distribution: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Weekday 78 199 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 11.01 3.58 -28.80 6.13 ~------ Data Plot and Equation 15,000 14,000 ·_ ..... : ...... X. 13,000 12,{100 ,1,000 - w TI 10,000 -C w C. ~ 9,000 " Q 8,000 "" <l) > 7,000 <l) °' I" " 6,000 > <i II 5,000 f-- 4,000 - 3,000 2,000 1,000 o o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 ~200 1300 X ~ 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Dala Points ---Fitted Curve ------AverageRate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.77 Ln(X) + 3.65 R2 = 0.80 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1158 Institute of T.·ansportatlon Engineers General Office Building (710) ------------------------------------ Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, A.M. Peak Hour Number of Studies: 217 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 223 Directional Distribution: 88% entering, 12% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.55 0.60 5.98 1.39 Data Plot and Equation 4,000 -,------------------------------------ 3,000 "' " C w a. j:: (I) :§ ,c (I) 2,000 > "' "' ~ "' ~ II X f- 1,000 - 0 X Actual Data Points X X ·/ ................. ~~,>r'·· , ... ---,-... moo 2000 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area ---Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T); 0.80 Ln(X) + 1.55 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1159 3000 ------Average Rate R2 ; 0.83 Institute of Transportation Engineers General Office Building (710) __ _:_ __ :_ _________________ _ Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour Number of Studies: 235 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 216 Directional Distribution: 17% entering, 83% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area ----- Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.49 0.49 6.39 1.37 Data Plot and Equation 4,000 ~------------------------------------ 3,000 "' -0 C w Q. i'= " :"Q .c a, 2,000 > a, "' I': " > <( II I- 1,000 0 0 X Actual Data Points X ' , ............. ,·/, .. _;/ _,:/ ' xxx ·X---x'-X ,• "" :;j/ X X X 1000 2000 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area --Fitted curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 1.12(X) + 78.81 Trip Generation, 7:h Edition 1160 X / 3000 ------AverageRale R2 = 0.82 Institute of Transportation Engine.ers Specialty Retail Center (814) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: 1 ODO Sq. Feet Gross leasable Area Weekday Number of Studies: 4 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GLA: 25 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area Ave rage Rate 44.32 Data Plot and Equation w cl C w D. ~ " 13 :c " > "' "' !:! " > <( II f--- 2,100 2,000 1,900 1,800 1,700 1,600 1,500 1,400 1,300 - 1,200 1,100 1,000 - 900 - 800 - 700 600 -- 500 10 X Actual Data Points 20 Range of Rates 21.30 -64.21 Standard Deviation 15.52 Caution ~ Use Carefully -Small Sample Size . . . . . . . . . . . . ;"·<~;/' X 30 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area ---F!tted Curve .. -_X -.. ,.. .. ,· ' . 40 . . . . . . ! 50 · Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 42.78(X) + 37.66 R2 = 0.69 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 133B Institute of Transportation Engineers Specialty Retail Center (814) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feel Gross Leasable Area On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 5 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GLA: 69 Directional Distribution: 44% entering, 56% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area Ave rage Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation c_ _______ 2-7.""1 ________ _-,2"".0.-c3 __ -"-5'--'.1"-6 ________ 1-c.Bcc3,____ ___ ___, Data Plot and Equation 500 "' ~ 400 w n j': " 0 :c m 300 > " ~ ID ;;_ II >-200 -1 · 100 _, · 0 X Actual Data Points X Caution -Use Carefully-Small Sample Size 100 200 X ~ 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area ---Fitted Curve X 300 ------AverageAa1e Fitted Curve Equation: Te 2.40(X) + 21.48 R2 e 0.98 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1339 ln5titute of Transportation Engineers Specialty Retail Center (814) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area On a: Weekday, A.M. Peak Hour of Generator Number of Studies: 4 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GLA: 60 Directional Distribution: 48% entering, 52% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area Average Rate Range ol Rates Standard Deviation 6.84 5.33 -14.08 3.55 Data Plot and Equation Caution -Use Carefully-Small Sample Size "' D C w n. ;: a, TI E a, > <D 0, I" I II >- 1,100 ------------------------------~ 1,000 900 800 X / 700 ... ~ ,". . _..-:-- 600 500 400 . . . . . . . . . . I I ~, 200 · ,y, . ,' . . 300 100 X 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 X Actual Data Points X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 4.91(X) + 115.59 ------Average Rate R 2 = 0.90 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1340 Institute of Transportation Engineers Drive-in Bank (912) -------------------------- Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs; On a: Number of Studies: Avg. Number of Drive-In Lanes: Drive-In Lanes Weekday 6 3 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Drive-In Lane ------------------------------- Aver age Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 411.17 207.00 -802.75 228.21 Data Plot and Equation 4,000 ~------------------------------·- 3,000 - 2.000 • 0 +--------~--------,----- 2 3 4 X = Number of Drive-In Lanes X Actual Data Points ---Fitted Curve ------AverageAate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 1.33 Ln(X) + 5.52 R2 = 0.52 Trip GenBration, 7th Edition 1694 Institute of Transportation Engineers Drive-in Bank (912) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Drive-In Lanes On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 14 Avg. Number of Drive-In Lanes: 3 Directional Distribution: 58% entering, 42% exiting Trip Generation per Drive-In Lane Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 19.38 4.50 · 53.00 14.85 Data Plot and Equation 140 130 120 110 x 100 i "' sol "O C w .e. ,= 80 -· " Q .c " > 70 -· · " 0, 60 rn ;;; C> <,: II 50 . ~-. f--- 40 30 ...... ... ·------- 20 X . ....... ·"'. 10 -. ~-. 0 2 3 X = Number of Drive-In Lanes X Actual Data Points ------Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not given 4 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1695 lnslitute of Transportation Engineers Drive-in Bank (912) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Ona: Number of Studies: Avg. Number of Drive-In Lanes: Directional Distribution: Trip Generation per Drive-In Lane Drive-In Lanes Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. 34 3 50% entering, 50% exiting Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation ----"-----------------------·-· 51.08 3.00 126.00 33.71 Data Plot and Equation 500 ~------------------------~--------~ 400 300 - 200 -· } * 100 ·x x 0 X I 2 X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: Not given Tn'P Generation, 7th Edltion X ~ X - .{ ~ * x X ' 3 X.:.: Number of Drive-In Lanes 1696 X X I 4 ------Average Rate s Jr:stilute of Transportation Engineers ... _______ _ ----u g -----~ llll Ill ------ cal '6' f ol ~- § I Ill g J- ~ ~ g- " 9 ·l'l ~ "' • ;;I a, (J> ..... _ .., __ _ Table 5.20 Pass-By Trips and Diverted Linked Trips Weekday, p.m. Peak Period Land Use 912-Drive-in Bank DIVEF.TEO --..... &j! ADJ. STREET SIZE p,000 SQ. FT. GFA) WEEKDAY NO. OF TIME PERIOD PRIMARY NON-PASS-LINKED PASS-BY PEAK HOUi=I LOCATION SURVEY DATE INTERVIEWS rn,p (%) BY lRIP {%) TRIP(%) lRIP (%) VOLUME SOURCE 16.0 Ovorland Park, KS Dae. 1988 3.3 Louisville area, KY Jul. 1993 3.4 Louisville area, KY Jul. 1993 3.4 Louisville area, KY Jul. 1993 3.5 Louisville area. KY Jun. 1993 6.4 Louisville area, KY Jun. 1993 Average Pass-Ay Trip rercentage: 47 SIZE (1,000 SQ. SEATS FT. GFA) LOCATIOI\ 240 12 Louisville area, KY n/a 8 Orlando, FL n/a 8.8 Orlando, FL n/a 6.5 Orlando, Fl Average Pase-By Trip Percentage: 44 20 n/a n/e 75 53 66 4:3D-6:30 p.m. 55 -30 4:0D-6:00 p.m. 22 -30 4:00-6:00 p.m. 22 -14 4:0D-6:00 p.m. 11 -32 4:0D-6:00 p.m. 32 -21 4:0D-6:00 p.m. 20 -27 Table 5.21 Pass-By Trips and Diverted Linked Trips Weekday, p.m. Peak Period Land Use 931-Quality Restaurant 15 48 64 57 47 53 DIVERTED WEEKDAY NO. OF SURVEY DATE INTERVIEWS Jul: 1993 38 1992 168 1992 84 1995 173 TIME PERIOD 4:0D-6:00 p.m. 4:0G-8:00 p.m. 2:0D-6:00 p.m. 2:01)-6:00 D.m. PRIMARY NON-PASS-LINKED TRIP(%) BY TRIP [%) 'TRIP(%) 36 38 -55 - 40 -16 -38 - n/a n/a 2,570 Barton-Aschman Assoc. 2,266 Barton-Aschrnan Assoc. 1,955 Barton-Aschman Assoc. 2,785 Barton-Ascr'man Assoc. 2,610 Barton-Ac;chman Assoc. ADJ. SfREET PASS~BY PEAK HOUR TRIP {%) VOLUME SOURCE 26 4,145 Barton-Aschman Asscc. ·----45 n/a TPD Inc. 44 n/a TPD Inc. 62 n/a TPD Inc. RENTON, WASHINGTON BREMERTON AVE NE NE 4TH STREET LOC# 01 TCN06293M BREMERTON AVE NE From North Start Time Right . TIUU . Lett App. TO'!al Peak Hour From (l4:00 PM to 05:45 f'M • Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 04;45 PM ~olume 48 0 11 59 ''"'"'' 81.4 0.0 18.6 04:45 ilolume 13 0 2 15 Peak Factor lligh Int 05:15PM Volume 14 19 : Peak Factor 0.776 : _;C\I •• ~ll!31 1;::,t:: ' : fj 1~1 i;;l 2 £~I ' !<'lJ;;. ,~ ,q .. w :~11: ,z I~ -~ ' ~ :,o; I icr: ..:_.. G:.-: TRAFFICOUNT, INC. P.O. BOX 2508 OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98507 (360) 491-8116 NE4TH ST From East BREMERTON AVE NE From South Right Thru ~eft App. Tota! Right , '1iru : left App. Total , Right 23 1037 17 1077 8 0 17 43 2.1 95.3 ,., 47.1 0.0 52,9 2.9 3 '10 8 281 ' 1 0 2 9 04:4SFM , 05:15f'M 04:4SPM 3 270 8 281 3 0 3 6 0.%8; 0.708 Oot '" Total 97: S9i 156 .. OI 111 Righi Thru ,,, ' ' .. .... ::ol j Nor1h '~1f.J· '.! 10!25/2006 4:45:00 PM h OJ2512006 5:30:00 PM !PRIMARY ~1 ~ ' > Left Thru Righ~ s: D 6 SO 17. 77 Out !n Total SREMERTON AVE NE File Name Site Code Start Date Page No : TCN29801P . 00000010 : 10/25/2006 :2 NE 4TH ST From West Tnru Left ApJl. T~tal Int Total 1381 74 1498 2651 92.2 4.9 "' 25 383 : 681 0.973 I 349 25 383 O.'i!78 ; l,:lo jgS ~ 1~1,· i~1c1 I~ bf r·"1- HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE 4th Street & Bremerton Ave NE 8/2/2007 -- Lane Configurations $ign Control t'f+ 4' S\op 0% '(' 4' '(' Grade Yof~me.(veh/h) Peak Hour Factor Ho~rly flbW r~te .(vph) Pedestrians b~1Ie Wid!h {ft) . Walking Speed (ft/s) p'e(centB16i:kage · .'",•-,··c, ". a -:, , • , Right turn flare (veh) lv1ed iantype Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vG;ccinfiiCtir:ig volurne vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, ~tage ,2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol !Cl,s)rigle{s) . ' tC, 2 stage (s) tf(s) pO queue free % cful c,ap~c1ty (yeh/h) ' ' 74 0.97 76 10.93 1093 · · 4,1 2,2. 88 6$4' Fr~e 0% 1)~1 0.97 1424. .43 0.97 44 0% ,JI 10~7 0.97 0.97 1!3' 1()'69 ·14~8, 1468 /AT tt 96 , "\56 23 0.97 24 ' .9; \.Q . 0.97 0.97 . '9 . ' ·o. · TWLTL 5 8 0.97 8 · · Stop. n 0.97 11 0% ,,O': 0.97 0 TWLTL· 5 . 221a 2I?6 734 1989 T!S7 • 1598 1598 1116 1116 e19. 1.1ia 873 1621 ·. 2218 2726 734 1989 2737 • 7,5 6.,5 6'.9 .. · 7.5 f5 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 C3'./F J;q · t3 , :i:$ ·· 4.o 91 100 98 94 100 ·.·,,99 .. · ... ·.·. i.··.3.9 ...••.. 367' :19$/ ,122 .. ··. , ... ,·., , .. , 48 0.97 49 546 546 6.9 3.3 90 481 e~:~:1+~!f~:#,)'":1,'.;[Jk~~'.~~~;,.:~~:1~y~'.~:;~~·t~~ls'f~~1~~f~s3~~~~~~~:rj~~1\~~{~~;~~k$~~~~~~~;~.%/:~· Volume Left 76 O O 18 O O 9 0 11 O \/<iJurne,Rlght . o., · O,, .. ,44.,.• \/0, r,o.· 24 o, r/l · o· .,49··. cSH 634 1700 1700 456 1700 1700 99 367 195 481 V9luIT)etoC~pacity .0.12:. ,0,$6 Q,31' O,Q~<' {/;42 ' :Cl.22 . :0:09 : 0,02 0,06 Q.'jOO, Queue Length (ft) 10 0 0 3 0 0 8 2 5 9 (;or1tro1oe1~y(s) 11.4 o.o o.Q· 13;f · o.o o.o. 44.!i,' 1;iJJ 24,6. 13:3 Lane LOS B B E C C B A1Jproa~hDel~y (s) . o:e· , .0.2i ·30.Q'•: · 154 Approach LOS D C Average Uelay lhtllrs~ctiqn. Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) . 0.9 60.2% 15 'iCW Level of Service Key Plaza TIA 4:45 pm 10/25/2006 2006 PM Peak w/o Project (Stop Control) TCN, Inc. B Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE 4th Street & Bremerton Ave NE 8/6/2007 --t J. .; Mii'felii\itit''l'i}J',),;i'ii\~{E];jlii'. .J:.B;'.;J;\E;Bf{''/WBl)?W':iSJ\\'}&'.BR/?':NS.L\1.'1t~EJ;i:{;';\'f'JBB,:);i;f!rsl)tJlh~~li\fj'j'J\~liR Lane Configurations "I +t> §j!J:ri Control · Grade Yoiu)nf(veh/~) Peak Hour Factor 89\ii1Y fio~rat~(vpH) · .. Pedestrians k'.~n,a.)NJd!~ (m .• Walking Speed (ft/s) P~t~eh\E![i,cl<age' . Right turn flare (veh) ry,fdia11ty~e ·· · Free 0% 79 . 146§ 0.97 0.97 ·. · )31' :1}fb . 60 0.97 )l2 Free 0% '35 11.Q9 . 0.97 0.97 i·36 '113.4 4 cltpp 0% .24 26• 4 0.97 0.97 0.97 )15 . 27 ,,., ' :;4. -: ·TWLTh 5 4 S\dp 0% '28. ·' •. 1.2: ;3 ·. 51 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 J:j_g ; \J2:: <~~ JWLTL 5 Median storage veh) Upstr<Jarn 5igqal (fO pX, platoon unblocked v<::, con~idticigvpluine 11(;9 1572 · 2,397/29~5 7~6;i'21;§? 2~54 . '579 vc 1, siage 1 confvol 1704 1704 1219 12i 9 v¢.'2. ilt~g'eZ qonfvo1 · . , 693 , 1,2,g1 , ''. ;i; \.~4~ \ Yt~~))e · vCu, unblocked vol 1159 1572 2397 2935 786 2168 2954 579 le, sjnglf{s) ' 4'-1 •. '4,1, . ts:· '$is.>:6i9 . J.s:::' ~-5'' 69 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 tF(sF' . _ -2.2·, 2.2, 3'5. ·AJL .,3,G.;. l}: :4;q · 3.i~ pO queue free% 86 91 68 96 91 92 96 89 crvic~8~~if\!.(veh/hJ , .p9t 415 . a4 ,1jil '-~_all: i1$0 , ;:~$:\ .. 4.$$ ~~~~~~~!~~f~'~:~fo,~~~t~~f:~~~t:.J;:lfi0;~~'~[~l~~f&~~ii~~~~~:~~~~1~~~~~~~~ Volume Left 81 O O 36 O O 27 0 12 0 Vp_lyrn~,Rig~t• •. · .. {9.'/ ,,:Q;,efj2;· •·· .. '·0 ·· • o ·~5··· '0 ·:;2~·.·o.::,•·9~,t': cSH 599 1700 1700 415 1700 1700 87 339 130 458 Voluflleto C~paqityS · O;H Q:l5g' 0.33 ,di:oe 0.44 0:24 6.$6.', Q;pf QJ2 / o.n .. , Queue Length (ft) 12 0 0 7 O O 35 7 10 10 (::ontrolJJel~Y (s) '12.0 O,O 0,1') . 14.5 o.o o,o 67,1 16.6 • ,36:4 ' 13,~ Lane LOS B B F C E B AppfoachD~jay(~) Q.6 . 0.4 .43;-1 ' <19,Q . Approach LOS E C Average Delay 1.ntersection, C~p~~ity Utilization. Analysis Period (min) 1.8 64 f"/o 15 IGU Levei o\Service Key Plaza TIA 4:45 pm 10/25/2006 2008 PM Peak with Project {Stop Control} TCN, Inc. Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE 4th Street & Bremerton Ave NE Lane Configurations ideal Flo,w.(vp,h'pl) Total Lost time (s) Lari e Util. F atto'r Frt Fl(P,ro(f'\Cted 'i tf. 'i 1900 1900 1900 190Q 4.0 4.0 4.0 1 ,QQ · Q,95 (per tf. 1gql) 4.0 Cl.el§ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 LOO q:95 J,99 1770 3523 1770 3528 1900 Satd. Flow (prot) Flt Pemiitted satd. Fi~~{perm) 0,95 t:dQ · d)5 . · iiQQ; .. · V"cilUrr,e'.(.vptiJi · · Peak-hour factor, PHF t,di. Flow.(yph) RTOR Reduction (vph) LcjfoaiGroup flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles (%) furn type· Protected Phases P,\,rtnitted Phases Actuated Green, G {s) $ft.El~\ive. c,.re(ln. r:i M Actuated g/C Ratio ¢1f~r~H~_e\rimftsl Vehicle Extension (s) @b~'9rri c,~#'(vp~) · vis Ratio Prot ~1s:11~tio F?ertn :.· •· 1770 3523 1770 3528 s:z.:9 . 146.s · 4it. ' .. ?.1.:a_ ·" ·1 100 '",,~" ... 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 81 1510 47 · 1_9 1134 · 0 2 0 0 1 81 15.55 · o. 19 . usil •,2.4 0.97 25 0 0 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Prat 7 4 4.8 38.8 · 4 .. 8 ~8.8 0.07 0.57 A:o: 4.0· 3.0 3.0 . · 1".21l>>;202:; co.o's df44 'Prof 3 8 0.7 34.7 0,7 >34f 0.01 0.51 .. \J.O ' ')\cO: .. 3.0 3.0 ·;,1s: Tf.li>J: ·· .. , 0.01 0.33 '. 'I.,,·-:;' vie Ratio 0.64 1.66 0.64 8/2/2007 190d 1 !'JQt 1 QOO 190J T~Ot.: 190~ 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 1. 99 ·. 1,90 1 .. oo 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 . Q;~.li j;QQ .o:~tf ' J;OQ 1805 1615 1770 1583 ' R!@§ Cj;QQ. .·q,~,5> · 1.bb 1805 1615 1770 1583 ··. ,10·· •·'•··•o: .,:~,e::,::t,I?::'G'\:9, ':·,-.·•s1 o.rr ·a.ii+' o.97 o.97 o.97 o.97 .1 o. . O 8 · 12.,. · .()' . 5:3 0 7 0 0 048 •/1,0 .1 a jz,, · .. o s 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% SpU/ SRlif ' . Perrri 2 2 6 6 6.0 6.0 ·. ii"Oi llJo . ·· 0.09 0.09 ·.,4,0· ·,. )"'.:4· 'Q , -·,,,,;. -·• '. :"-'. -· -: 3.0 3.0 .16d''··w;r c0.01 d.ob ., 0.06 0.00 6.0 . 6,g ; 0.09 · 'y, 0<4,Q:.!)}', 3.0 6 6.0 .6.0 0.09 4,0 3.0 .Q.g~ 0.03 Qrji(qrm p<!lay, 91 :id,s 0.77 10/9 . 1.00 ;1j · 3.3.4. · 1:00 '.:2.~ti;,~ 264.2 .::F ff.$ . · .28'.2 ' 28,6' · 1.00 · roo _g.g, §1":i:U 28.3 28.0 re: ... ii¢. ····c:.:.-::.:.·:-: 0.08 ·2~:'f J28J 1.00 d:l 28.2 Progression Factor . 1°.00 fobremer1t<11 p~1,w. d2. ••.. 1Qg Delay {s) . . 41.2 Leivel:of Service . :D. Appro~ch Delay (sl App(o~c11Lb$' ' 12.7 ' B ' 14:1 ' l3 1.00 'iJ:j:•.·· <' L".'~ 12.6 Ei'· .. , . .,,. 16.7 . l3 28.2 .'\¢.'.·>.> 1.00 · ' 9'2,: " 28.4 /.·.>l:>J•· 28.2 ·:c::: C :J6t~~~~:q(tC?~.:$:µmtn·gti~;~'i.-,t~~-iM~S:·K:;µ~~&itS~~:.tb.~-*}g~Ji~~~~t:..~~~i~~T:~~j~;;,;j_; '.',_,:)~;·:'~:;:~f0;~~;.~~~·{f;~;i,;~~~~~\;::~,;.f~;~;~Nfl7~t~~t~Zi¥~;t~~;~~S\i\;':\{~ H.bM Avefoge Cptj.trpl Qeliiy.. · · . . .. 15:5 : . . : HCMt~yel ~fSeriic~ ,, i', : < . : ·s HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Lengtfr(s) 67.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 6Z:6o/, Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group . Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service Key Plaza TIA 4:45 pm 10/25/2006 2008 PM Peak w/o Project (with Signal) TCN, Inc. 12:0 B Synchro 6 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE 4th Street & Bremerton Ave NE / -·\<;,i;ll!/ 1;cat· 'i tf. 'i tr. 8/2/2007 'i f. 'i t ~ L8ne Configurations . lcle~I Flow (vphpl) Total Lost time {s) Lanfl Utii. FacJor 1900 1900 1900 . 19.0.0 1900 1900 19iJl) . 1900 1900 1900" 1900 1900 4.0 4.0 1,QO 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.99 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 1,po 1.00 0.87 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.QI} 1 0.0 1.Q6 fJ!.f'f<l\ected Satd. Flow (prot) fcl\.Pefinitti;,ct q:95 1770 1.op 3518 1;()() 0.9:, 1.00 1.00 pjit • •· JIPP 1770 3528 '!&,\ls\ :j!oo ·. 1770 3528 0:9~: .· l;QQ ,• :i. . 1805 1650 1.00 1.00 0.85 ·9]5 J,QO· · J,oo 1770 1863 1583 Said. Flow (perm) v6iume (vptiJ · · Peak-hour factor, PHF /1,oj. Flow (vph) RTOR Reduction (vph} ~ane Group Flow (vph) Heavy Vehicles(%} i'drri Type Protected Phases f'ern,it\ed Phases Actuated Green, G (s) gi'fecuve .Green, 9 (s) Actuated g/C Ratio C)~aranci,Time (s)_· .. Vehicle Extension (s) Line G/p Cap.(vpo)··. vis Ratio Prat vfs.-RaUoPerfh . vie Ratio q(l!fprrn Delay, d.1 Progression Factor TM~reinental Delay: d2 · Delay (s). .. 1.,e~el of S_ervice. Approactl Delay (s) Approach LOS ·'0:95 1:00 1770 3518 79·· '1465 0.97 0.97 81 1510 0 3 81 1569 2% 2% ·prot 7 4 4.7 38.3 . 4.7 . 38.3. 0.07 0.55 4.Q 3.0 . 4.'0 · 3.0 cCJ.05 coAs 0.68 0.81 '3J.7 12:7 1.66 1.00 . •l4'0 'i.i · 45} 154 D S 16.9 B . 60 0.97 62 0 0 2% '.'35'.:'.1100. ,· 0.97 0.97 3'6 . 1134 0 1 36 1158 2% 2% erot 3 8 2.3 35.9 . •. 2.3 ·. 3$.9 .·· · . 0.03 0.52 4.Q · -,4:0 3.0 3.0 58 ')~2(), I 0.02 0.33 ·24 0.97 25 0 0 2% · 'll;i)5• '1:.00 i iaos · 1iiso 2{l-"'' .'4': 0.97 0.97 27 .4 0 26 27 7 0% 0% Split' 2 2 6.6 6.6 • _6.6\. ~;(;; 0.09 0.09 4:0: · 4:0,. 3.0 3.0 •171. \1q\f··· O.D1 c0.02 ., ... ;• ::-::;;: 0.16 0.04 b:;,r· a.64 )~r,t ._1t1 1.00 1.00 ·· ··. ·. ·. '2s:9 E't/l;e\' 1.00 1.00 · · ·---1 a:a :,. · :C>'.t · 521 12)1 . . ['.i; · . B. 14.1 B · d:,v. d:1 29.4 28.7 .C C, 29.0 q . )019s Jop ,1,.09 1770 1863 1583 . : .2'8.' . : ·:1-2•1: ,:; '/(f 0.97 0.97 0.97 . 29 :1_2 '3 0 0 0 Q . 12 . 3 . 51 0.97 :53 48 5 0% 2% 2% 2% ., ),plit; 6 -• · Perin 6 6 6.4 6.4 6.4 . aA .. :.6.4' ti) 0.09 0.09 0.09 . 4.0 , 4.0 · 4;0 3.0 3.0 3.0 '."l~t 471 14~ 0.01 0.00 ._: ; .. iJ.Q} o.iff 0.02 o.o3 ·· :$~:g\ ~?Jr 2s .. i:1 1.00 1.00 1.00 .}Q'? . ;q:p .. A:J 29.1 28.8 28.9 ··ac:; cc 28.9 _··c HCM Average Gmitrc:>I Delay.• HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cyclc1 Length (s} · Intersection Capacity Lltiiization f,ria.1Ysis Period (min) .· .16.3: • 0.65 69 .. 6 HCr,ii ~evel <>/_Service -S~& of-losrtirne.(s) ·• · ICU Level of Service -1:2:0:: c Critical Lane Group 63.8% 15 Key Plaza TIA 4:45 pm 10/25/2006 2008 PM Peak with Project (with Signal) TCN, Inc. B Synchro 6 Report Page 1 () DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use "not applicable" or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision-making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. INSTRUCTIONS FOR LEAD AGENCIES: Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: RECEIVED JAN I !> 2015 1 Paul Franks HD:Users:Paul:Documents:Current Projects:2014-07 Renton Kiddie Academy 10 30 14:2014-07 Site Des~41:!r:tS~J!~tf]QtJ Review Exhibits:2014-07 Exhibit 5 Environmental Checklist:2014-07 SEPA checklist Kiddie Academy Renton.doc LANNING DIVISI0~/14 For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B even though questions may be answered "does not apply". In addition the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON PROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project", "applicant", and "property or site" should be read as "proposal", "proponent", and "affected geographic area" respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects) questions in Part B -Environmental Elements -that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Kiddie Academy 353 Bremerton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 2. Name of applicant: Honggang (Howard )Fan representing Highlands Estates LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 1616 198th Pl SE Sammamish, WA 98075 Telephone 425-270-3535 4. Date checklist prepared: December 3, 2014 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton, Washington 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Land Use Permit Master Application January 2015 Building Permit application March 2015 Construction May 2015 to January 2016 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 2 Paul Franks HD:Users:Paul Documenis:Current Projects:2014-07 Renton Kiddie Academy 10 30 14:2014-07 Site Design Rev1ew·2014-07 Site Plan Review Exhibits:2014-07 Exhibit 5 Environmental Checklist:2014-07 SEPA checklist Kiddie Academy Renton.doc 05/14 • Zoning designation of the site and adjacent properties o Site zoned CA Commercial Arterial o Adjacent site north: CA Commercial Arterial o Adjacent site east: Public street (Bremerton Avenue NE) o Adjacent site south: CA Commercial Arterial with residential uses o Adjacent site west: CA Commercial Arterial • Current use of the site and any existing improvements o Current use: vacant undeveloped land o Existing improvements: some parking and driveway paving, storm water systems and other site utilities previously installed. • Proposed use of the property and scope of the proposed development: Child day care facility for 170 children ages infant to 12 years and operated as licensed by the State of Washington Department of Early Learning. The proposed structure will be two-stories and approximately 6,274 sq. ft. on the first floor, and 6,274 sq. ft. on the second floor for a total of 12,578 sq. ft. Parking is proposed to include on-site surface parking and parking spaces on the adjacent commercial site allocated for use by this property by easement. Children's play areas are located adjacent to the building and located to the rear of the building. • Access is proposed from the existing driveways on Bremerton Avenue NE and NE 41 h Street by joint access easement. • Proposed off-site improvements: none 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 353 Bremerton Avenue NE Renton, WA 98059 Lot 2 King County Short Plat 1079069 Assessor's Property Tax Parcel #518210-0041 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other _____ _ The site is generally flat. 4 Paul Franks HD:Users.Paul:Documents:Current Projects:2014-07 Renton Kiddie Academy 10 30 14:2014-07 Site Design Review-2014-07 Site Plan Review Exhibits.2014-07 Exhibit 5 Environmental Checklist:2014-07 SEPA checklist Kiddie Academy Renton.doc 05/14 b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Approximately 1% slope c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. The site is underlain primarily by native soils consisting of medium dense to very dense silty sand and silty sand with gravel till deposits. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Estimated quantities and type of materials involved if any fill or excavation is proposed: Excavation for the foundation and finish grading ±150 cubic yards. Fill material will consist of suitable on-site soils and commercially available processed rock and sand products. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion could occur as a result of clearing, grading and construction of the proposed development. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 58% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion will be controlled by implementation of approved erosion control measures. A temporary erosion control plan will be provided as part of the construction phase for the improvements per City of Renton standards including silt fencing, on-site earth moisture control to minimize dust, storm water catch basins with silt settlement ponds. s Paul Franks HD·Users:Paul:Documents:Current Projects:2014-07 Renton Kiddie Academy 10 30 14:2014-07 Site Design Review:2014-07 Site Plan Review Exhibits:2014-07 Exhibit 5 Environmental Checklist:2014-07 SEPA checklist Kiddie Academy Renton.doc 05/14 ) 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction of the improvements there will be minor emissions and exhaust from utility and construction equipment on site for a short time. Also, dust may be generated which will be kept to a minimum with water trucks as required. Applicant will comply with Puget Sound Regional Air Quality Agency regulations and City of Renton codes, ordinances and regulations. The completed project will contribute emissions from vehicles as a result of traffic generated by patrons of this proposed development. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: 3. WATER The site will be watered as required to keep the dust to a minimum during the construction of the improvements. a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. None. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No. 6 Paul Franks HD:Users·Paul:Documents:Current Pro1ects·2014-07 Renion Kiddie Academy 10 30 14·2014-07 Site Design Review:2014-07 Site Plan Review Exhibits:2014-07 Exhibit 5 Environmental Checklist:2014-07 SEPA checklist Kiddie Academy Renton.doc 05/14 () /--. .. . )I 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. Effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map: None mapped 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground Water: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals.; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. 7 Paul Franks HD:Users Paul:Oocuments:Current Projects:2014-07 Renton Kiddie Academy 10 30 14:2014-07 Site Design Review:2014-07 Site Plan Review Exhibits:2014-07 Exhibit 5 Environmental Checklist:2014-07 SEPA checklist Kiddie Academy Renton doc 05114 () .·, The source of runoff will be from rainfall only. Surface water drainage from the paved parking, roofs, driveways and sidewalks will be collected and piped to an existing detention/wet vault located on the adjacent Lot 1 and is a shared facility by easement. This combined drainage system has been designed to handle all the stormwater run-off that will be generated by the developed site, including future paving and a building on Lot 2 (subject site) There is 12,284 sq. ft. of new impervious area including the proposed building roof area and 6,296 sq. ft. of existing impervious area. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: A temporary erosion control plan will be implemented during the construction of the improvements per the City of Renton standards to reduce and control surface volume impacts. 4. PLANTS a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: __ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other __ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other __ shrubs x grass __ pasture __ crop or grain __ orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. __ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other __ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other __ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? 8 Paul Franks HD:Users:Paul:Documents:Current Pro1ects·2014-07 Renton Kiddie Academy 10 30 14:2014-07 Site Design Review:2014-07 Site Plan Review Exhibits:2014-07 Exhibit 5 Environmental Checklist:2014-07 SEPA checklist Kiddie Academy Renton.doc 05/14 1) Grass, brambles and small vegetation. All existing vegetation on the site will be removed. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: All existing vegetation on the site will be removed and new landscaping materials installed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Renton. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. None. 5. ANIMALS a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: Birds: None Mammals: None Fish: None b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. None. 9 Paul Franks HD Users:Paul:Documents:Current Projects:2014-07 Renton Kiddie Academy 1 O 30 14:2014-07 Site Design Review 2014-07 Site Pian Review Exh1b1ts 2014-07 Exhibit 5 Environmental Checklist:2014-07 SEPA checklist Kiddie Academy Renton.doc 05/14 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The energy requirements for the proposed uses will be typical of similar commercial developments. Lighting will utilize electric energy, heating will utilize gas or electric energy, and cooling will utilize electric energy. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of.energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The proposed project will comply with the Washington State Energy Code. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. None known. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. None known. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. 10 Paul Franks HD·Users:Paul:Documents:Current Projects:2014-07 Renton Kiddie Academy 10 30 14.2014-07 Site Design Review:2014-07 S1te Plan Review Exh1bits·2014-07 Exhibit 5 Environmental Checklist:2014-07 SEPA checklist Kiddie Academy Renton doc 05/14 None known. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Emergency services required for the proposed construction and operation of the completed project include fire, medical and police services as provided by the City of Renton. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. On a short-term basis, construction will be during normal working hours from 7 a.m. to 7 pm or other limits as may be reasonably established by the City of Renton. On a long-term basis, the proposed project will generate noise from traffic and building HVAC systems that are similar to other similar developments. Children in the outdoor play ground will generate normal noises of children at play. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Compliance with the noise requirements of the City of Renton. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. The site is zoned CA Commercial Arterial. Vacant undeveloped land and some parking and driveway paving, storm water systems and other site utilities previously installed. o Adjacent site north: CA Commercial Arterial with a commercial building occupied by Key Bank. 11 Paul Franks HD·Users.Paul·Documents:Current Projects:2014-07 Renton Kiddie Academy 10 30 14·2014-07 Site Design Review-2014-07 Site Plan Review Exhibits:2014-07 Exhibit 5 Environmental Checklist:2014-07 SEPA checklist Kiddie Academy Renton.doc 05114 o Adjacent site east: Public street (Bremerton Avenue NE) c:i Adjacent site south: CA Commercial Arterial with single-family residential uses constructed. c:i Adjacent site west: CA Commercial Arterial with a commercial building occupied by Van's Auto Repair. The proposed development will not affect the current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or non-forest use? No. 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: No. c. Describe any structures on the site. None. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? None. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The site is zoned CA Commercial Arterial. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The site is zoned Commercial Corridor land use on the City of Renton Comprehensive Planning map. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. 12 Paul Franks HD:Users·Paul:Documents:Current Projects:2014-07 Renton Kiddie Academy 10 30 14·2014-07 Site Design Review:2014-07 Site Plan Review Exhrbits:2014-07 Exhibit 5 Environmental Checklist:2014-07 SEPA cheddist Kiddie Academy Renton.doc 05114 h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. Aquifer Protection Zone 2. Coal Mining Hazard: None mapped Erosion Hazard: None mapped Effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map: None mapped Land Slide Hazard: None mapped Steep Slopes Hazard: None mapped i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Employees with include 19 teachers, 2 staff and a maximum of 170 children. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. I. L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The existing Key Bank located on the site to the north of the subject property is a single story flat-roof commercial building located adjacent to the NE 4th Street frontage with parking and landscaping separating it from the proposed Kiddie Academy building. The proposed Kiddie Academy building is proosed to have a similar roof design and height. The scale of both are similar and compatible. Existing single-family residences are located on the properties to the south of the subject site and are two-stories as it the proposed project. The scale of both are similar and compatible. Ten-feet of screening landscaping is proposed along the south boundary of the site and building fa,ade. The building ta,ade will be articulated to divide it into smaller architectural elements. The project complies with the minimum standards of Transition to Surrounding Development requirements. m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: None. 13 Paul Franks HD:Users:Pau/:Documents:Current Projects:2014-07 Renton Kiddie Academy 10 30 14:2014-07 Site Design Review:2014-07 Site Plan Review Exhibits:2014-07 Exh1b1t 5 Environmental Checklist:2014-07 SEPA checklist Kiddie Academy Renton.doc 05/14 ''1 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The building is proposed to be two-stories and approximately 30-feet above finish grade. The principal exterior materials proposed are metal and panel siding. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Existing single-family residences are located on the properties to the south of the subject site and are two-stories as it the proposed project. The scale of both are similar and compatible. Ten-feet of screening landscaping is proposed along the south boundary of the site and building fa~ade. The building fa~ade will be articulated to divide it into smaller architectural elements. The project complies with the minimum standards of Transition to Surrounding Development requirements. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? 14 Paul Franks HD:Users:Paul.Oocuments:Current Projects:2014-07 Renton Kiddie Academy 10 30 14·2014-07 Site Design Review:2014-07 Site Plan Review Exhibits:2014-07 Exhibit 5 Environmental Checklist:2014-07 SEPA cheddist Kiddie Academy Renton doc 05/14 Existing single-family residences are located on the properties to the south of the subject site and are two-stories as is the proposed project. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Parking lot lighting will illuminate only the parking lot and be designed and located so as to avoid undue glare or reflection of light pursuant to Renton Municipal Code 4-4- 075 except for the driveway areas shared with Key Bank by easement agreement. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Bike lane on Duvall Avenue NE north of NE 4th Street. Heather Downs Park 1 mile west of the site Cedar River to Lake Sammamish Trail Site about 2 miles east of the site at 1060 N. Nishiwaki Lane b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Installation of bike racks. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe. 15 Paul Franks HD:Users:Paul:Documents:Current Projects:2014"07 Renton Kiddie Academy 10 30 14.2014-07 Site Design Review:2014-07 Site Plan Review Exhibits:2014-07 Exhibit 5 Environmental Checklist:2014-07 SEPA checklist Kiddie Academy Renton.doc 05114 None. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. ls there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. None. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. None. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. None. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Access is proposed from the existing driveways on Bremerton Avenue NE and NE 4th Street by joint access easement. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Public Transportation is a good option for visitors to Renton with regional and local buses, commuter trains, and Amtrak service available. Renton has a hub-based transit system. The service makes it easier to make both regional and local suburban bus connections and provides significant additional service to Renton. A downtown transit center and 150-space park and ride were completed in 2001, providing a central hub for bus activity. Both Metro and Sound Transit ST Express busses provide frequent and convenient connections from Renton to Seattle, Bellevue, South King County, and beyond. Locally, Renton's shuttle service, RUSH (Renton Urban Shuttle), transports commuters from downtown Renton to the City's major employment sites. 16 Paul Franks HD:Users:Paul Documents·Current Projects:2014-07 Renton Kiddie Academy 10 30 14:2014-07 Site Design Review:2014-07 Site Plan Revrew Exhibits:2014-07 Exh1b1t 5 Environmental Checklist:2014-07 SEPA checklist Kiddie Academy Renton.doc 05114 Sounder Commuter Rail offers commuter rail service between Tacoma and downtown Seattle with stops in Puyallup, Sumner, Auburn, Kent, and Tukwila/Renton. Amtrak offers service via the Tukwila train depot. Adjacent to the Renton City limits, this stop provides daily trains to Vancouver, B.C., Seattle, Portland, and Eugene, OR. It also provides an easy connection to additional trains at Seattle's King Street Station. Metro bus route 908 DART Renton Highlands to Renton TC provides service on NE Union Avenue and NE Duvall Avenue. Route 105 Renton Highlands to Renton provides service at NE 4th Street and Union Avenue NE. Route 111 Lake Kathleen to Downtown Seattle provides service on NE 4th Street. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? A total of 35 parking spaces are proposed including 11 existing, 14 new and 10 existing shared per Granting of Easement for Parking; King County Recording # 20121221001617. Non-exclusive easement for vehicular parking on the Parking Area of each Lot depicted on Exhibit C. 10 parking spaces are depicted. No existing parking spaces will be eliminated. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). None. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and non-passenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? Table 1. Trip Generation Estimates -Kiddie Daycare Center AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour (one hour between 7 am and 9 am) (one hour between 4 pm and 6 pm) Data Based On: 'I'otal I Entering I Exiting Total I Entering -r Exiting 17 Paul Franks HD:Users:Paul:Documents Current Projects:2014-07 Renton Kiddie Academy 10 30 14:2014-07 Site Design Review 2014-07 Site Plan Review Exhibits:2014-07 Exh1b1t S Environmental Checklist:2014-07 SEPA checklist Kiddie Academy Renton.doc 05114 Similar Sites provided 122 65 57 126 59 67 by Owner 180 Students (1) 137 73 64 126 59 67 12,548 square feet (1) 154 82 72 156 73 83 21 Employees (1) 103 55 48 101 47 54 -" Data taken from ITE Tnp Generation Manual, 8 Ed1t1on, for Land Use Code 565 -Day Care Center As shown in the above table, the data provided by the Owner falls within the ITE Trip Generation Manual estimates, therefore, it will be used for analysis. We understand that the Owner has met with the City of Renton, and discussed pass-by and trip distribution. Based on these discussions, it is anticipated that 50 to 60 percent of the daycare students reside in the large network of neighborhoods located to the south of NE 4th Street. Therefore, we assume that 50% of the above trips are considered pass-by in nature, meaning that these pass-by vehicles were already utilizing the 4th & Bremerton intersection, and would simply stop by the daycare on their way to and from work without diverting from their original travelled way. Therefore, we have decreased the number of net new trips by 50%. Table 2. Net New Trip Distribution Estimates -Kiddie Daycare Center AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour (one hour between 7 am and 9 am) (one hour between 4 pm and 6 pm) Data Based On: 'l'otal Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Similar Sites provided 61 33 28 63 30 33 by Owner, less pass-by Heading Eastbound (1) 22 12 10 33 16 17 Heading Westbound (1) 39 21 18 30 14 16 D1rect1onal d1stnbut1on based on background traffic volumes. AM background volumes had a 37%/63% Eastbound/Westbound spht, and PM background volumes had a 55%/45% Eastbound/Westbound split. The addition of the Kiddie Academy development on the southwest corner of NE 4th Street and Bremerton Avenue will not result in the need for a traffic signal. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. No. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES 18 Paul Franks HO·Users:Paul:Oocuments:Current Projects:2014-07 Renton Kiddie Academy 10 30 14:2014-07 Site Design Review 2014-07 Site Plan Review Exhibits-2014-07 Exhib115 Envrronmental Checklist:2014-07 SEPA checklist K1dd1e Academy Renton.doc 05114 a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Emergency services required for the proposed construction and operation of the completed project include fire, medical and police services as provided by the City of Renton. Public transportation service needs would be related to the number of employees electing to use such transportation. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Fire sprinklers are proposed to reduce the risk of fire. No other measures are proposed. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer are all available to the site. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electrical service will be required to be installed to serve the proposed building and site. Electrical service will be provided by Puget Sound Energy. Water is provided by the City of Renton and was previously installed on the site. A water meter will be installed for the proposed development. One existing on-site fire hydrants will remain to provide fire service to the project. Refuse service is provided by Waste Management. Telephone service will be required to be installed to serve the proposed building and site. Sanitary sewer is provided by the City of Renton and was previously installed on the site. A portion of the existing line will be required to be relocated to avoid conflict with the proposed building location. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. 19 Paul Franks HD:Users:Paul-Oacuments.Current Projects-2014-07 Renton Kiddie Academy 10 30 14:2014-07 Site Design Review:2014-07 Site Plan Review Exhibits:2014-07 Exhibit 5 Environmental Checklist.2014-07 SEPA checklist Kiddie Academy Renton.doc 05/14 / ........ 'fjl Proponent Signature: Name of Signee (printed): Paul Franks ') Position and Agency/Organization: Project Architect, Paul Franks Architecture Date Submitted: January 13, 2015 20 Paul Franks HD:Users:Paul.Documents:Current Projecis.2014-07 Renton Kiddie Academy 10 30 14·2014-07 S1te Design Review:2014-07 Site Plan Review Exhibits:2014-07 Exhibit 5 Environmental Checklist:2014-07 SEPA checklist K1dd1e Academy Renton.doc 05/14 0. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (These sheets should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and ro rams. You do not need to fill out these sheets for ro·ect actions. Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list ofthe elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent of the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? 21 Paul Franks HD:Users Paul:Documents.Current Projects.2014-07 Renton Kiddie Academy 10 30 14:2014-07 Site Design Review.2014-07 Site Plan Review Exh1b1ts 2014-07 Exhibit 5 Environmental Checklist:2014-07 SEPA checklist Kiddie Academy Renton.doc 05114 .·~ Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. 22 Paul Franks HD:Users:Paul:Documents:Current Projects:2014-07 Renton Kiddie Academy 10 30 14·2014-07 Site Design Review:2014-07 Site Plan Review Exhrbits:2014-07 Exhibit 5 Environmental Checklist 2014-07 SEPA checklist Kiddie Academy Renton doc 05/14