No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 1PARTIES OF RECORD SUNSET HIGHLANDS MIXED USE LUA08-028, SA-H, ECF, CU-A Brett Lindsay Jon Graves Architects & Planners, PLLC 3110 Ruston Way ste: #D Tacoma, WA 98402 tel: (253) 272-4214 (applicant / contact) ADF Properties LLC 15007 Woodinville Redmond Road ste: #A Woodinville, WA 98072 tel: (206) 799-3247 (owner) Updated: 04/11/08 (Page 1 of 1) ATLAS OF SEATTLE LE6FR0+ l�u; le xxx KRMAP COMPANY, INC. SEATTLE I i — xou xx!! bTdLE: I IN.- 20 204 FT fT. C9ITR IUX1 !ROLL MRI COY IRMY, IN[. � ooxxie � � ""' p'•••'v 1 [] 31 � F M �v ~ z �'.E F' t)AlB 136NfY6 3N 6011 i � � ; SbaNn�d s��=�iH��v 35n a3XIW ^OAl9 13SNns NOUVOIlddtl 35n IVNO111UNOD IV-LLIWSnS M31A38 NWId 311S i, sy)'� �s #� «' F _ S t�� e�i ti •. oC f _, i x � �f 5 Y 3 Y [ �. � ��c � 111f�ri� _.i�5 9 +kY Y Y - Ai + l 3 + 11 e Vi' qq xe ___..�-� ,.ter ��..� I - t �.' i�• � t �. ' FAA _ (fJ .a - s, +.I i ., 0 SUNSET BLVD. MIXED USE LauchHn R. Bethune A..oclatM Inc. Oil 4401 NE BUNBET BLVD. •0. My IMl p— OM[�/11a+Rn R i NENTON, WA •w..,— _(� ps�rn 11 . .....r5w . .� o, PPP—SS—TTTT � ..� _...:., SUNSET HICHLANC)S _ REMON, WA _ °"�. UTILITY PLAN E C4.i i s ' CD 1 \i& 4�l .,, �\" l:) At IV..- 1 a� �e —777 717 �! �C e a �n o O z MA � �©Y, i l yy � AHBL JOB NO. 207383.10 UTLIFY PLAN SUNBBT HKO"NDS LOCATION 440 NNE Sunset BHd. Renton, WaehkgtoR 98059 OWNER W. Dale FoN[ S anal de, HUN&r LLC 15007 Waodnvkle-Flech*nd Rd iA Woodlnrie, WaanixAon 9W72 PPP—SS—TTTT SUNSET HIGHLANDS RENYON, WA � �, h•f cy- •ram uF y-� GRADING k DRAINAGE PLAN C3.1: S F n x �v sg n S$rd A to H s f M� z loom n AHBL JOB NO. 207=10 � i a GRADING AND DRANAGE PLAN SUNSET HK14-AN S a LOCATION 4409 NE S� t BNd. nt Reon, Wa**Oom 98OW OWNM W. Deb Fonk &a t F%�landa, LLC 15007 W00dfnvle-Redmond Rd *A n wov*w", wa**KA 98072 DAY i°vOFA PLANNING O MAC, 7�.: ATLAS OF SEATTLE _ �.:sr ., L` KRl)LL YRP ooYPRhI, kNC., SEATTLE itaLl.1111.• f06 tt, pp,y1111Mi YYOLI RYY COM�411'I.IF4. _. — owin• iv a x Q Z 6 F; O N1 LA 0 (1 0 IJ fi b� M" NMI SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION ON GRAVES SUNSET BLVD. MIXED USE F- PLAN14r=Q5 RENTM WA 98059 53 E H m co --i r- m D 1 O z pv n � gla o� ply s s Ppa�� e�$ ga��g5g a _- Ya @� a' A €€ i : 3 ag e�uM €Q 'E �4�E aRp^ g�Fel SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION R , n ti a JON GRAVE5 � — .,,.SUNSET aVdA—MoIXED USE__-- AoGH-�7EGT5 PLaN�=RS 4409 IInIL. W�IIjjII pc[ $l I kt L�-J G S 0E NE SUNSET 9}Y ••Rlr+ MF`• fy ,. (fit, .T'?Rjf ---4 Legend: . - Ibn—t Im . e 5 —. , I5, 1998 [nl - x19n IeM 13..• Wd — v°1.f]]. pp'e 01-p3 1[I - Ge I[.lelea 1I .ra is � r f sn 9vv ■ 91pne] ... IMI BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY A portion of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 3, Township 23 N., Range 5 E., W.M. City of Renton, King County, , Washington ° r Easement Notes: v1 u. [en 1 . " ee nt. rasa untlir lec. M19. x.ns]v. �� in far°r`oinnne rt�[�ii[ ie le°n°n. •ne vreRn o.:uenr 5,� �,••;. ��, tn1. 1 n e1 "°w re Se"t 1er.r.,ii." f9 en9. m ' � 1M1ir. ro°i"c�:.x"r4eppan.°ntr}ilia 9n •;;wn";n .°p°'": ":a Oi ' � � ' �� �'E ........ to ew.e v . 9 n ow seiia ie'd e°ctj N i. t b esn:ne°"e :r:oirtlSn"9P "�n.�mlrBS$uy Tn1. / f t ]v.e�• noun" ca, Lea t. 111•p pnp.r ti •25 / '� .N IAe Ie�r Wc. 1lo�M./1131+9 . p W Np Scale: 1" = 100, .3i. s'a nY uw m N pq tll,'1g��or Pry'`=r^ R 4 I a v 2 e "+' SITE�. { as 16R y Iv e.xn t.« m 1v 1 arpt �# ' Ace � - ��• � 1 i e r % I• 'y*� �X i Scale: 1f1 = 20s Basis of Bearing: true .Iprm. a p.. ¢1[en nneltioneno orat.n ICp41 Leep.rt tretl IlaeM1lne Son 9[.[. 1"etv.. ....... ..° °Otte°°'ssiix �mewM1fp 23�Ib�tn�eRipilS et e•c.1[..°vlli°a.ette Ibr�tllan. r'°.n p.lu• .e f 3C109,, M B9p , Vprn�l c..rtllnatea xe . iwn[ tp 1 131W9] ]N a^ oepelrrt In.ere..f �.tM1 tlly e•e level rt�r .r 0 9999011pp pPie tc ecter9r; Ip p ..nd dletentee. RRf leant.°l.. Sd c.ortl lne Nf Ipr[u ..xn Surveyor's Notes: 11 TM nt omtr.i n. tar naa it xaa a¢papume[ Betoe 1°:e[ir°gp01 °ns Reel�lw"Nina:.°<it' e�,k� tGir G1°el] Poe1`n.nl�erR°en wve�t 11:e if"norroid°i"xicert lr 332 13C-09p. • xl �ttlftso. aM1v ton :iaiei°nn°one '"n•° ° :vei.°M1ii °nee' .r ie:ir in;taiieiin •r. p.n .o - • °• 31 r..a a rvet�r prafenia pnYye 1 I.prteeeent co altlpea ee nrr • veYp:at A xpp]�ttne tlete a} tole fl.la n Eui� 11 r r IrIN— al eeecr ... ens .......77 ee I I c r l_um -el.^i r er cn nes veer et Lcm°tec sl iolo .pe-R"i i..a et".,. .[."� er- °ea]urea perp.ne uu].r Vertical Datum: .,r:. [.enter .er11t., -.— Benchmark: spy f99n0 cwnu e['�e.k Snt[.'ae[tl°n.1 11 .h ° s""inee.e ma �.tnn�et vxtn svu[. nma m 59rve11Cpntr�a]p']nieet. " y mere .n see. 1 E lent l." .ap .e}e.i �t GI[ null n .., .,t- tcnee.l 9f .n9M11 sten.erp. E levat- 396. )T rue etle.f nee' rcipn• 1 Description: 1"`ox.ot[snorElicve vo'�oa s qt.nt.r5E 11..'..°1n nlnp Cp°nev reentnpt.n- Eeet. Renton control monuments: [e�y °} R.nt°n Control e1 [ Ce"[r°1 °°oro ne9e • t° .. Leejert w'tl]M.r[M1 Zpn. [p 1 .+ 1911a C. 6+3 ft, /i116)la.are Clte .} Rent.n Cen`riaep�er�[gr�tl5lbrt M1n2one coots lniee [r°IEfi1]p. E5]nf t. /131663).8+3 [° c�rrtS INT.E im �. .erlh - list .t 9.a5' LW �9-1001 mtl. f�BL4-IM Y. L we... s Ilppa. pet. zs. xw] SW -SW 3, T23N, R5E, WM epr Pr.pO°d1n a lit 1•AO] rl l l• xea�na r„. s,e . e99a,nr,11.. a. �9n KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON SHEET 1 OF I PPP-ss-TTTT SUNSET HIGHLANDS ,n,ns RENTON. WA _ Rom: t TREE CLEARING & DEMOLITION PLAN C1.1 map � Lo VA op� �m 00 �6 gib G ,r3ier � s r � � soovaay pans 9 �' '��� y � • �- lll aco As Y, T. y �{ `6• : 8b'0 ozrw,111 �m WL b ¢ - {3� $ mm i R 4 m a m , 5 , a w C$ 77 ■ 0 i to TITLE: —. L0CAT10N, 4409 NE Sunet BNd s! S TREE CL FAR NO AND bEMOLMN PLAN Renton. Wad*vorl 9905a N I xwoo OWNER. Mr. Dab Fork 1 E Sane! 1-14*m* LLC jSUNSET FrOFd.Af•D9 15007 waodhvu&-Redmond Rd iA I wood nYlle, WuNngton 98072 AHBL JOB NO. 2073M)O tx. CIO :. L:) ADF PROPERTIES, LLC January 15, 2013 RE: Request for Status of Maintenance and Monitoring The City of Renton C1tY Of Renton Dept of Community Development F--'j 1111inq omsh'111 Attn: Rocale Timmons 1055 So. Grady Way JAN 18 Zoe Renton, WA 98057 Dear Rocale, I apologize for not getting reports to you over the past few years. Frankly, I either did not know or I forgot that I was supposed to. The status is as follows: All mitigation per plan was done around 2009. The landscape maintenance company on contract has been keeping things reasonably cleaned up in the mitigated area at the back of the lot. The split rail fence we built has been robbed of some of the rails but the posts are fine. As you probably know, we have not been able to move forward yet on construction of the apartment project. The natural native growth (weeds) has grown profusely on the portion of the lot where the construction will ultimately take place but we have kept that explosion of weeds etc... out of the mitigated area. While I may not have provided regular updates to your office, I believe we have kept with the spirit of the goal of maintaining the mitigated area pretty well. Kids do go back there and hang out but we go in at least quarterly and clean up behind them. I had hoped that with the reconstruction of the McDonalds, they would extend the fence on their west boundary sufficiently to close off the access, but so far they have not. In the future, all you need to do is call me and I will whatever you need. Thank You, / d YL- Dale Fonk Managing Member U P Properties, LLC 15007 Woodinville -Redmond Rd. Suite A Woodinville, WA 98072 Tel: 206-799-3247 Email: dalefonk@cs.com Denis Law 1 Of , MayorS� f� Ah Department of Community and Economic Development December 28, 2012 C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Brett Lindsay Jon Graves Architects & Planners, PLLC 3110 Ruston Way Ste: #D Tacoma, WA 98402 Subject: Request for Status of Maintenance and Monitoring Sunset Highland Mixed Use Mitigation Project City of RentonA08-028 Dear W. Lindsay: City of Renton Municipal Code requires that maintenance and monitoring reports be received annually for your mitigation project over_a five-year term: Our records indicate that the -City has yet to receive your 15t 2nd and 3rd annual reports which were due on June 12th of 2010, 2011, and 2012. . This letter serves as notice that you have 30 days upon receipt of this letter to submit the status of the mitigation project, .or the matter will be turned over to the Code Compliance Section. Please submit this and all subsequent materials relating to the wetland mitigation project to my attention. I can be reached at 425-430-7219 with any questions. Sincerely, Rocale Timmons Associate Planner cc: City of Renton File LUAOB-028 ADFProperties LLC Sewell wetland Consulting, Inc. Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Donna Locher, Code Compliance Inspector Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way . Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Penis Law_ C1 O Mayor --Mont City -Clerk - Bonnie ,I.Walton. October 4, 2012 Talis Abohns Campbell -Dille Barnett & Smith, PLLC 317 South Meridian ' Puyallup, WA. 98371 Re: Galloway at the Highlands Appeal; LUA-07-128, FP . Dear Mr. Abolins: At the regular Council meeting of October 1, 2012, the Renton City Council adopted the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee and -affirmed the; decision of the Hearing Examiner regarding the referenced appeal. If you have questions on next steps, feel free to contact the Development Services Department staff, or referto Renton Municipal Code available via the City web site at www.rentonwa:gov. If Ican provide further.information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton Enclosure cc: Mayar.Denis Law Nell Watts 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 •. (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law City Of, Mayor _ _ i� -tip A...y Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator September 9, 2010 Dale Fonk ADF Properties, LLC 15007 Woodinville -Redmond Road #A Woodinville, WA 98072 SUBJECT, Sunset Highlands Mixed Use Short Plat LUA08-028 Dear Mr. Fonk: This office has reviewed your request (dated September 8, 2010) to extend an approved site plan (Sunset Highlands Mixed Use Project - LUA08-028) that will expire on September 8, 2010. Pursuant to RMC-4-9-200L.2, the original approving body is allowed to issue a single two (2) year extension. Therefore, your site plan extension request is approved. The site plan will expire on September 8, 2012. You should be aware this office is empowered to issue only one such extension. -If the mixed use project has not been completed by the new expiration date, it will expire and cannot be extended again. Please feel free to contact me. at (425) 430-7219 should you have any further questions or comments. regarding this extension. Sincerely, C.E. "Chip" Vincent Planning Director cc: Jennifer Henning, Planning Kayren Kittrick, Plan Review Cit of Renton File No. LUA08-028 Renton City Hall .s 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov ep 08 10 02:3 (p Uale Fonk 42b-466- ,,, &b p.1 ADF PROPERTIES, LLC City of Renton Planning Division SiP -- 8 2010 Citv of Renton Attu: Rocale Timmons Jennifer Henning 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W°. 98057 FAX: 42.5-430-7300 Dear \4s. Henning and 'Timmons, September 8, 2010 RF: Permit #'s LUA 08-028 B 080541 Per our telephone conversation yesterday, I am writing today to request a 1 year extension of the above referenced permits. As his happemed to so many developments all over the nation, we have been caught in the credit squeeze and have not been able to obtain financing for the project. We own the property free-aad- ciear, we have paid every cost to date for eugineering and ardritectare etc... plus, as you Leann, use have paid significant sums to the Ciry of Renton. We have a substantial cash reserve to put toward the project and stil , lenders are not giving us a favorable response at this time_ We arc seeing and hearing indications that things may be loosening up soracwhat and are hopeful that at some time in the upcoming year we will be able to rave forward. Your consideration of the economy and financial markets in this situation is very much appreciated. Please advise me at your eatiiest convtnic rtce Sincerely; Dale Fonk Member 9DF Properdes, LLC 15007 Woodinville -Redmond Rd. Suite A Waodi rvMe, SPA 98072 Tel: 206-799-3247 Fam 425-398-1006 Denis Law Mayor July 7, 2009 Brett Lindsay Jon Graves Architects & Planners, PLLC 3110 Ruston Way Ste, #D Tacoma, WA 98402 I LTy A c_ L Department of Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Start of Monitoring and Receipt of Surety Sunset Highlands Mixed Use Building City of Renton File LUA08-028 Dear Mr. Lindsay: Monitoring and Maintenance Period Start Date: On July 6, 2009 the Certificate of Installation, for the Sunset Highlands Stream mitigation project, from Sewall Wetland Consulting was received. Therefore, the date of this letter marks the beginning of your minimum 5-year maintenance and monitoring period. As a reminder, reports are due annually thereafter. Your first quarterly monitoring report is due to the City on June 12, 2010. Please send three copies of the report to my attention. This letter is also confirming the City has received a surety device (cash) in the amount of $7,875.00 to cover the cost of a minimum five years successful maintenance and monitoring. In order to assure the quickest possible release of your surety device, please ensure prompt monitoring and maintenance are performed for the duration of your monitoring period. If at any time during your minimum five-year monitoring period the mitigation project fails below performance standards, the monitoring period will be placed on hold. Once the mitigation project regains compliance with approved performance standards, the maintenance and monitoring timeframe will restart for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met. I look forward to receiving your first quarterly maintenance and monitoring report, which was due on June 12, 2010. Sincerely, «Li3c�L�� Ro le Timmons, Planner Current Planning Division cc: Amber Hoffman, Secretary II Sewell wetland Consulting, Inc. ADF Properties, LLC Yellow File Renton City Hall 0 1055 South Grady Way 9 Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Prin . 07-01-2009 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA08-028 07/01/2009 01.22 PM Receipt Number: R0902743 Total Payment: 7,875.00 Payee: ADF I LLC #20948 Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount 3954 650.237.00.00.0000 Special Deposits 7,875.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount ----------- -------- ---------------------------- Payment Check #20948 --------------- 7,875.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due --3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee .00 3954 650.237.00.00.0000 Special Deposits .00 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees .00 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers .00 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat .00 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees .00 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review .00 5011 000.345.81-00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat .00 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat .00 5013 000-345.81.00.0010 PUD .00 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees .00 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment .00 5016 000.345.81,00.0013 Mobile Home Parks .00 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone .00 5018 000-345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt .00 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev .00 5020 000.345.81.00,0017 Site Plan Approval .00 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence .00 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees .00 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee .00 5036 000.345.81-00,0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend .00 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies .00 '46 000-341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) .00 650,237.00.00.0000 DO NOT USE - USE .3954 .00 000.05.519.90,42.1 Postage .00 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax .00 Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 ECIAL DEPOSIT TRANSMITT PAYEE: _A 12 e LL , _�EFUNDING ADDRESS: •jTQQ7 lFtr6.'AaA.vJie CITY: r-- d ,ny . �TATE: A ZIP: Cl g PROJECT NAME: 1 414, 4, �R ADDRESS LOCATION: PERMIT #: 1- !A A e') X -• Q- a DEPT. CONTACT: 101�� � EXTN: SPECIAL DEPOSIT CONDITIOIk DM810M.610E4EL0P.8ER%DW& lM.M *=DEPT. FOMIBVASC- BUWNG OOWTEFPWWSPEc. �PUS;T WHTE ANDYELLOW TO FINANCE, RETAN PINK FOR PSPW RECORDS DATE: 4-1 f 1 .1 Cj2 RECEIPT # : I� FINANCE REC. #: AMOUNT: $_ 19 71-,, WO#: FUNCTION #: TYPE OF DEPOSIT: BUILDING 13,90 DAY TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY PERMIT © LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE ❑ SIGN DEPOSIT ❑ STREET CLEANING PUBLIC WORKS ❑PW CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PROPERTY SERVICES 11 LATE COMER FEE (TO BE RETURNED TO LCS HOLDER) ❑ STVAC (APPRAISAL FEE DUE APPRAISER) BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS ❑ BPWDEF (BPW DEFFERAL) (WO# 89150 FN# 5190 T NS CODE #7054) C� ER:5, t Juno 12, .?t- ) 1. yak: l'orlk ADP 1'nMoC1kc UT 1500 W,,arliravok lt.i'Gbaaiind NO 4P Woodi€Iville- W A 981;r7 2 R�:: Imit41Imion ,`Ii n-ofl, As- bttilr `,1. 3:::3 <:.. 11Lans, Mr. In)n k_ 1kr your i-equcst wc Sm'c insjwett d Lk' Al i 1'r., a nos [ i igildon si(v lt)cakt :d o)1 i11G 5trrillt ":I(i of Starrset Boulcvard (1:1�v,y 900), to 11,;. , .'�.Ilacortcs Av and to the 4� rst �wl`���I�;fitarrll Court N E. in Hw C)q ofRltatc: L Wrks;1On, a . Por our iraVeca on tho Blozi-native Am , vwv 44 We heen ckarcd from than mitiguiion which nc11 dcd l lini alp yan 13l<ackb �r�_ z :'��r�. t. ��fii>r�a��r�:�ff.�). ,l�tl��ri�. � �riot����e€i f llo?�v,l�,r0Arrrr,>: cii.zjntiirl.ru'it, and Fng1kh Ivy (.%W; At n Dn; to tiaa large arrtiums non-iiativ s-pcciz:s removed, additional 1hants yvem a alp to r. Th�l t-Qf WC, SCWll �V tl2rirl Consclltin , inc. has provided an ta' lamk & kw mtt gatkm ovea_ Aldwaagh rwt prewni during the 1W ofm ske B1'1.vesli atilt€:) . wo hav Ko m a' -rned dnt €iw s:'d`ibmi. gA'mG.: gns Ono Sul installed- `l~ircr f'kr�!, it is mr proNsWal jvmm that the r 0i"',tiara =arch"inmalled per approve d mitigation pl,arr Wed FlnLWP ;r:.d as sc.alascr Iwr lly aredsecl by IN il.mllmon as hNIt plans. It is cram rekcalnaa'ra•raclm5n 1 k, o k Pa€.NH a : a lie si geld off" -as rrrstalkd the j yi-a 1T783p'li'torin.,, pC'i` od AgN The 3i1 ' ' _ n m aj is Ri be monitorcd i:mc-s over is 5 ',ear period, monitoring "M ho re>rmrit;wd the first W years "AM one miarr waWg rquml and one a ymr WQ one nwnWwNg ic,q, A, =:ill«wra1e9 two ye,r.rs, Tits is Aist IlacnAloring WH N i.miduc:ted in the ftill of`20_09 with u ku, dq -- p PwAnitorin visit in die 2010 Wh a inan4orin, rpm-t Collowing the stsing nin ii r3 im! �m If you have any gpestians or need crrij, ajjnmml iratcarnn ation Please Co[It"c" our office at Merely, sr;'wall J:Vetland Cony initing�' lrrc°. V m T K � R a DALE FONKPROPERTY C, " K $ STREAM DELINEATION AND BUFFER REDUCTION MAP - 1 F, OO y II 1� x c0 y b �- n jpr-i. YPz #�"� ��.��iyy��%� `..III. ? ➢�� ' L � a ADF-SUNSET HIGHLANDS PROPERTY 0 REVI3IDN5 t ` ` FINAL BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLAN v AS-BUIL T PLANTING PLAN `' Ll E. 77 51 7 t7 f En ADF-SUNSET HIGHLANDS PROPERTY FINAL BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLAN NO TFS 9 7 V 131 ONS .;RE Q Pr A 425-398-1006 p•2 Jun 29 09 05:41p Dale Fonk WAM—c2C) Relur"j 40 4D F Fro Pzri«s i RETURN ADDRE55: ADF Properties, LLC 15007 Woodinville -Redmond Rd. Suite A Woodinville, WA 98072 11 ! II �I �I � I I 111�1 20090621 001fi00 ADF PROPERTIES EAS 44.00 PAGE:001 OF aea 06/29/2009 15:54 KING COUNTY, WA pCGf rY "Cl r !may' NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTIVE EASEMENT GRANTOR GRANTEE ADF Properties, LLC ASSESSOR'S PROPERTY TAX PARCEL_ # 032305-9093-04 Legal Description: Lot 2, City of Renton Short Plat No. 345-79 as recorded under King County Recording No. 7908179008; Being a portion of: The Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 5 Fast, W.M. in King county, Washington AS set forth herein and as delineated on Exhibit A attached, Grantor establishes a Native Growth Protective Easement ("Easement Area" herein), This easement shall be a permanent and irrevocable easement on the property title and shall run with the land and be binding on any future property owners. This Easement is a correction / revision of that certain Easement document recorded under the King County Auditors recording No. 20090508000578. The correction is to change the title of the document from 'Wetland Sensitive Area Protective Easement' to 'Native Growth Protective Easement'. Within the area protected by this easement, all development, alteration or disturbance, except for the purposes of habitat maintenance or enhancement, is prohibited. EXCISE T,'kv nTc�`t;€1TltED Page 1 of 3 Native Growth Protective Ease�..�.._ Jun 29 09 05A1 p Dale Fonk 425-398-1006 p.3 DATED this / day of i 2009. GRANTOR. ADF Properties, LLC, By. Dale Fonk, Managing Member Limited Liability Company Acknowledgment State of Washington) . SS. County of King ) On thisZ?�ay of June_ 2009, Dale Fonk, to me Down to be the Managing Member of the ADF Properties, LLC, the Washington State Limited Liability Company that executed the within and foregoing instrument, personally appeared before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said company, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he is authorized to execute said instrument. IN Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, the day and year first above written. Name (printed) Notary Public in a d f-or the State o Washington Residing at M � !V p expires ,at18L1�.. - - Page V'0 ii'th Protective Easement ":. ©f j Jun 29 09 05:41 p Dale Fonk 425-398-1006 p.4 Exhibit A Page 3 of 3 Native Growth Protective Easement Denis Law CityOf Mayor � - _ �.., r..-� G� 0� erg 1 Department of Community & Economic Development June 18, 2009 Brett Lindsay Jon Graves Architects & Planners, PLLC 3110 Ruston Way Ste: #D Tacoma, WA 98402 SUBJECT: Surety Device Amount Sunset Highlands Mixed l Jse Building City of Renton File LUA08-028 Dear Mr. Lindsay: Based on the two contracts (attached) I received for maintenance and monitoring for the Sunset Highlands Mixed Use mitigation project, the total amount of your surety device is $7,875.00. The specific breakdown is as follows: Monitoring $3,300 Plant Replacement / Maintenance $3,000 TOTAL $6.300 @125% $7,875.00 This amount is deemed sufficient to guarantee that structures, improvements, and mitigation required by permit condition will perform satisfactorily for a minimum of five (5) years after they have been completed. Please.come to the 6"' Floor of Renton City Hall to pay the surety device, and as a reminder, the City does not accept bonds. Remaininu Steps Mitigation Installation and Approval: Once the mitigation project has been installed (plants, signage, fencing, etc.) pursuant to the approved plan, please have your wetlands specialist provide me with written verification that the installation is in conformance with the approved plan. The date the City receives this written confirmation of the installation along with the maintenance and monitoring surety device it will constitute the beginning of the minimum 5-year maintenance and monitoring period. Protective Easement: You have opted to place the stream buffer in a Native Growth Protection Easement.. Due to language in the recorded casement a revision will need to be made to omit references to a wetland as there is not wetland on site. A copy of the revised easement document must be provided prior to building permit approval. As Built Plans for the Mitigation Area: A copy of the as -built plans of the approved mitigation plan shall be provided prior to building permit approval Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way 9 Renton, Washington 98057 * rentonwa.gov June 18, 2009 Page 2 Thank you for your diligent work in protecting Renton's critical areas. Once I have received a receipt for the surety device and the remaining steps mentioned above have been completed, I will issue a letter signaling the start your five-year monitoring program. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, 4Gf7t.IiL!?Z� Roc c Ti ns, Planner Cu enPlanning Division cc: Sewell Wetland Consulting, Inc, ADF Properties, LLC Yellow File 425-398-1006 p.2 Jun 15 09 04:43p Dale Fork B. A Diff lei' Landscaping & Irrigation 29288 — 219'r` PL. SE Black Diamond, WA 98010 Tel: 253-797-2320 Fax:360-886-8886 Landscape Maintenance Agreement THIS AGREEMENT made the 1 Ith day of May, 2009 by and between B. 3_ Diffley Landscaping & Irrigation, hereafter called the Contractor and ADF Properties, LLC, hereinafter called the Owner WITNESSETH that the Contractor and the Owner, for the considerations named, agree as follows: Jobsite Address: 4409 Sunset Blvd, Renton, WA Terms of Agreement: a period of 5 years, commencing on the date that Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. (Sewall hereafter) has confirmed that the installation of the plants, structures and improvements at The Jobsite have been completed per The Plan. Scope of Work: contractor to maintain the Sensitive Area WetIand (The Area) at the above Jobsite Address. The Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc plan SWC Job 499-247 (The Plan), as approved by the City of Renton, and The Plan is herein made a part of this agreement and is incorporated by reference. The coat wtor agrees to follow the instructions and specifications as described in The Plan as well as the maintenance and monitoring standards of the City of Renton Municipal Code. The contractor shall perform the following: • Visit the site not less than monthly during the term of this agreement During the contractor visits contractor shall remove all debris, litter and non-native and/or invasive plant species, including weeds from The Area. Cause the desired native plants within The Area to be watered as needed to facilitate that they,4%ill survive and thrive. • Replace plants, structures and improvements in The Area as needed to comply with plant sunival rates as specified in The Plan. Contractors Guarantee: For the term of this agreement contractor guarantees that the structures, improvements and mitigation nicasures will perform satisfactorily. Additionally, contractor guarantees that The Area will be kept free of unwanted plant species including weeds and that the wanted plant species will be maintained Jun 15 09 04:43p Dale Fonk 425-398-1006 p.3 Contract Price The Owner shall pay the Contractor for material and labor to be performed under the sum of $50.00 paid monthly for regular site visits_ In addition, The Owner shall pay Contractor the cost for plant materials as needed for replacement, labor and materials for repair/replacement of structures and improvements in The Area. {� ,TunP Signed this `f day of Mmy, 2009 Owner: ADF Propert' , LLC ale Fonk , Member Con B. I. i y dscape and Irrigation Brett iffIey, p for P 1 ' y - i Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. 27641 Covington Way SE #2 Phone: 253-859•0515 -- _ Covington WA 98042 Fax:253.852-4732 �rrroF C��V 4pR o fi 2009 PROJECT AGREEMENT BU�La1tVG D1V1S1C . THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on March 13, 2009, by SEWALL WETLAND CONSULTING, INC. (SWC), 27641 Covington Way SE #2, Covington WA 98042, (Phone 253- 859-0515)and ADF Properties LLC 15007 Woodinville Redmond Rd. Suite A Woodinville WA 98072 Project Name. ADF - Jiffy Lube Renton Jurisdiction: City of Renton Location: 4409 Sunset Hwy 1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES: 1.1.1 Provide mitigation monitoring as required by the agency. Extreme events affecting the mitigation area may require additional site visits, reports, and/or agency coordination. 1.1.2 Assist client with bond releases. 1.1.3 Monitoring as required by the City of Renton , once a year for five years. Year One: One site visit and one monitoring report Year Two: One site visit and one monitoring report Year Three: One site visit and one monitoring report Year Four: One site visit and one monitoring report Year Five: One site visit and one monitoring report 2-0 PAYMENT 2.1 All work will be billed on an hourly basis according to the standard hourly rates in effect at the time the work is performed, plus expenses. Fees identified below are estimates and do not imply a "not to exceed" fee. 2.1.1 Estimated Fees: 1.1 MONITORING ESTIMATED PROJECT FEE: Hourly PIus Expenses RE: ADF- Jiffy Lube Renton Sewall Wetland Consulting. hu March 13, 2009 Page 2 of 4 YR #1: $700 - 900 YR #2: $500 - 600 YR #3: $500 - 600 YR #4: $500 - 600 YR #5: $500 - 600 2.1.2 Payment is due with semi-monthly, progress invoices. Retainer, if any, will be applied to first invoice. All payments shall be due on receipt of invoice. A late payment fee of 15% per annum will be charged on the balance more than 30 days past due calculated from the date of invoice. 2.1.3 This Project Agreement is with the client: payment is not dependent upon fee payment by others or other financial agreements between the client and another party. 2.1.4 In the event that the client suspends or terminates work prior to completion of this agreement, client shall pay Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. for work performed through the date of written notification of suspension or termination of work at the standard hourly rates in effect at the time the work was performed. 2.1.5 If the Client does not provide payment for services in 90 days, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. will be forced to take legal action. CIient will reimburse SWC for any legal expenses procured in the collection of monies past due. 3.0 EXTRA SERVICES Services, which will be performed on an hourly basis, include: Additional meetings with agency or with client, including on -site meetings to discuss findings, methodology or approach to project design beyond the initial review with client or agent. Revision of the report due to client's alteration of scope of work. Additional work as required by client and not covered under separate contract. Sewall Wetland Consulting is available for additional services including: Coordination with client or client's agent regarding site design. Coordination with the COE to determine development feasibility. Preparation of permits, mitigation plans or other wetland permits. 4.0 ADDITIONAL AGREEMENTS 4.1 Sewall Wetland Consulting does not guarantee approval of the determination or delineation by any governmental agency. Wetland delineations are performed in accordance with the information and agency criteria and policies in place at the time of the study. Professional interpretation may vary depending on field indicators, time of year, long-term climatic conditions, RE: ADF- Jiffy Lube Renton Sewall Wetland Consulting, hic March 13, 2009 Page 3 of 4 and accuracy of supporting technical data from other professions (soils, engineering, survey, etc.). The delineation will be performed in accordance with Federal guidelines and local agency guidelines in effect at the time the work is performed. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the local agency will certify the accepted wetland edge according to its interpretation of its criteria. 4.2 The agency requires that Sewall Wetland Consulting confirm that it has seen the entire property proposed for development by the Client in his development application. This Project Agreement assumes that the property identified for investigation by the client encompasses the entire property proposed for development by the Client. Further, this Agreement assumes that the Client can clearly identify the project boundaries to Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. If the property boundaries have not been surveyed or are not clearly apparent by fences, ditches, roads or adjacent developments, SWC makes no warrant as to the accuracy or completeness of its field investigation. 4.3 The agency requires that off -site wetlands or streams whose buffers may extend onto the project site be identified and classified. If the Client supplies SWC with written or verbal permission from off -site landowners to investigate their property, SWC will conduct an investigation of the off -site property, documenting findings for the distance required by the agency. Data will be collected to establish the probable rating of the off -site wetland or stream. No flagging or permanent marking will be placed on the off -site property. The off -site stream investigation will be limited to a single site observation and a review of publicly available agency information. If permission to enter the off -site properties is not gained by the client, SWC will make visual observations from the client's property and any other public access points, which may be available to SWC. Sewall WetIand Consulting, Inc. will document its methods for off -site wetlands or streams, the probable rating acid buffer width of the wetland or stream, and the possible impact of buffer on the client's property. SWC makes no warrant as to the accuracy or completeness of determinations made without being physically present on the off -site properties. 4.4 The Client is responsible for providing Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. a description of the property, its locations, and site conditions, which could impact our work. The Client also must advise Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. of the location and nature of any known or suspected hazards that may exist on the property. The Client must advise Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., prior to commencement of our work, of any special requirements for site entry or any other required permission. If the Client does not own the property, the Client will obtain permission for right -of -entry for the purpose of accomplishing our services. Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. will take reasonable precautions to minimize damage to the property. In the normal course of exploratory work some surface or vegetation disruption may occur. Restoration of the site is not part of this agreement, unless specifically indicated in the scope of services for our work. The Client will notify SWC at the time of contract agreement of any livestock or pets, which may be at the project site. The livestock or pets will be removed from the study area, or securely controlled by the Client. Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. will provide the Client twenty-four hours advance notice of fieldwork to enable the Client to control the animals. RE: ADF- Jiffy Lube Renton Sewafi Wetland Consulting. Inc March 13, 2009 Page 4 of 4 4.5 SWC does not guarantee approval of the mitigation plan by any governmental agency. Mitigation design standards have not been adopted by the reviewing agency (ies), therefore mitigation design plans are developed in accordance with the information and agency policies as they are available at the time of the design. Individual agency plan reviewers may apply personal standards for approval over which SWC has no control. 4.6 The Client shall indemnify and hold harmless SWC Wetland Consulting, Inc. and its officers, directors, employees, and subcontractors from and against all claims and actions, including reasonable attorney's fees, based on or arising out of damages or injuries to persons or property caused by error, omission, or negligent act of the Client or any of its agents, subcontractors, and employees in the performance of services hereunder, subject to any limitations, other indemnifications, or other provisions to which the client and Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. have agreed. 4.7 Neither party shall be responsible or be held liable to the other for consequential damages, including but not limited to Ioss of profit, loss of investment, Ioss of product, or business interruption. The liability of Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. to the Client shall be limited to SWC's fee or to $50,000, whichever is less. 4.8 SWC will not provide services with regard to the detection, removal, or disposal of hazardous substances. The Owner shall have the sole responsibility for investigating the existence and location of hazardous substances at the project site and will furnish all tests, inspections, reports, warnings, notices, or postings required by law regarding hazardous substances. 49 There are no other understandings or agreements between Client and Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. except as herein expressly stated. SEWALL WETLAND CONSULTING, INC. EDGAR K. SEWALL III President File: Jean/PAs March 2009/ADF -Jiffy Lube PA.doc ADF Properties LLC DATE: Denis Law Mayor April 23, 2009 Brett Lindsay Jon Graves Architects & Planners, PLLC 3110 Ruston Way Ste: #D Tacoma, WA 98402 ® C,I Y O cY o As— r FVO Department of Community & Economic Development Subject: Remaining steps for proceeding with Sunset Highlands Mixed Use building File No. LUA08-028 Dear Mr. Lindsay: I'm writing in response to the 4/7/09 submittal of the draft contract for the Sunset Highlands mitigation project. Monitoring and Maintenance Surety Amount: Please revise the draft (followed by a final) maintenance and monitoring contract (or contracts), submitted April 7, 2009, for our review prior to execution of the contract. The draft contract language must ensure compliance with all of the performance standards of mitigation plan as well the maintenance and monitoring standards of the Renton Municipal Code. The scope of the contract must clearly cover the cost of plant maintenance and replacement as well. The language in the contract must also guarantee that "structures, improvements and mitigation perform satisfactorily for a period of 5 years" (e.. add provisions forrvlant replacement and weed removal_referencine compliance with the survival rates noted in the final approved wetland mitigation plan. The draft contract must be followed up with a final signed contract once the City approves the draft version. Once the City approves the contract proposal, the applicant will need to provide a maintenance surety device (a letter of credit or irrevocable set aside letter) set at an amount totaling 125% of the cost to guarantee satisfactory performance for a minimum of five years. As a note, the building permit will not be signed off on until the following items have been accomplished: Mitigation Installation and Approval: Once the mitigation project has been installed (plants, signage, fencing, etc.) pursuant to the approved plan, please have your wetlands specialist provide me with written verification that the installation is in conformance with the approved plan. You may be planning on installing the mitigation project after you begin construction; in order to provide you with the amount of security necessary for the installation of the stream mitigation plantings, signage, and fencing; we will need a copy of the signed installation contract for this work. Once the City approves the contract proposal, you will need to provide an installation surety device (a letter of credit or irrevocable set aside letter) set at an amount totaling 125% of the cost to guarantee the installation of the mitigation project, The date the City receives this written confirmation of the installation along with the maintenance and monitoring surety device it will constitute the beginning of the minimum 5-year maintenance and monitoring period. Renton City Flail 0 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Protective Easement: You have opted to place the stream buffer in a Native Growth Protection Easement. Section 4-3-OSOE4 of the Renton Municipal Codes states: "The permit holder shall establish and record a permanent and irrevocable easement on the property title of a parcel or tract of land containing a critical area and/or its buffer created as a condition of a permit. Such protective easement shall be held by the current and future property owner, shall run with the land, and shall prohibit development, alteration, or disturbance within the easement except for purposes of habitat enhancement as part of an enhancement project which has received prior written approval from the City, and from any other agency with jurisdiction over such activity." A copy of the easement document must be provided prior to building permit approval. Monitoring and Maintenance Period Start Date: Once the mitigation project has been installed, please provide me with the wetland consultant's written confirmation of installation pursuant to the final approved mitigation plan. In addition, as Built Plans for the Mitigation Area: A copy of the as -built plans of the approved mitigation plan shall be provided prior to building permit approval unless you intend on providing a surety device for the installation of the project; then a copy of the as -built plans shall be provided prior to temporary of final C of D. Please send all mitigation -related information to my attention. Feel free to contact meat 425- 430-7219 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Roe e Timmons Associate Planner cc: Sewell Wetland Consulting, Inc. ADF Properties, LLC Yellow File SewaN&wid� 27641 C.a+rington Way SE 02 Phone: 253-8594)515 Cavlqtan, WA "N2 Fax: 253 L%24732 ry OF RE+CEIV ly APR 0 7 200.9 Sunset Higblands Approved Mitigation Plan Notes lLpjNG D1V151CN 1.0 WETLANO MMGATION CONCEPT' AND GOALS MITIGATION CONCEPT The proposed AUF-Sunset Highlands Mixed l jse Developmew includes the construction of 21 residential units and 2,209sf commercial space with 58 parking stalls, 21 of which will be located within surface parking, As part of the proposed development, the Class 4-Stream buffer will be reduced and the remaining portions of the onsite buffer enhanced with native tree and shrub species. Specifically, the stream buffer will be reduced from the standard 35-foot buffer to 25-feet, resulting in 1,400sf of buffer reduction in return for 2,248sfof boiler enhancement. As pert of the proposed enhancement, all invasive species will be removed from the buffer and the entire stream azW reduced buffer will be placed within a native growth protection easement bordered by fencing and sensitive area signage. The mitigation area will be monitored for 5 years as required by the City of Renton 1.2.0 MITIGATION GOALS 1.2.1 Enhancement of 2,248sf of Class 4 stream but%r. 2.0 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE The construction sequence of this project will be implemented "follows: 2.1 Pre -construction meeting 2.2 Construction staking 2.3 Construction fencing mW erosion control 2.4 Clearing and grading 2.5 Stabilization of mitigation area 2.6 Plant material installation 2.7 Permanent sign installation 2.7 Consbuction inspection 2.8 Agency approval 2.9 Monitoring inspection and reporting 2.10 Silt fence removal 2.11 Project oornpletion 2.1 Pre -construction Meeting A pre -construction sheeting will be held on -site prior to commencement of construction, to include the Owner's biologist, the contraetor, the Owner and the City Biologist_ The approved plans and specifications will be reviewed to ensure that all parties involved understand the intent of the construction documents, specifications, site environmental cohstmints, sequences, and inspection requirements. 2.2 Construction Staking The limits of clearing and grading will be marked in the field by a licensed professional land surveyor prior to commetwtment of construction activities Sunset Highlands _ —oved Mitigation Plan Notes SWC Job #99-247 Page 2 of 7 2.3 Construction Fencing & Erosion Control All erosion control measures adjacent to the mitigation area, including silt fencing and orange construction fencing will be installed. Erosion control fencing will remain around the mitigation area until clearing is complete. 2.4 Clearing & Grading No grading is to take place within the stream buffer. Clearing will be limited to the removal of invasive species. All material removed from the buffer will be stored and or disposed of outside of critical areas and their buffers on or off -site at an approved facility/property. 2.5 Stabilization of Mitigation Area All areas disturbed as part of the clearing process will be stabilized with mulch per 3.4.2. 2.6 Plant Material Installation All plant material will be planted by hand per detail and Construction and Planting Notes. The Mitigation Plan specifies the required size, species, quantity, and location of plant materials to be installed. The contractor will re -seed or over -seed all hydroseeded areas disturbed during the planting process. Upon completion of the planting, the erosion control fencing will be restored and repaired. Plant substitutions or modifications to locations shall be approved in writing, by the Owner's biologist prior to installation. 2.7 Permanent sign installation Upon acceptance of the plant material installation by the Owner's biologist, Critical Area signs will be placed on -posts as noted on the ADF-Sunset Highlands Final Mitigation Plan. 2.8 Construction Inspection Upon completion of installation, the Owner's biologist will conduct an inspection to confirm proper implementation of the Mitigation Plan. Any corrections, substitutions or missing items will be identified in a "punch list". Items of particular importance will be soils in pits, pit size, plant species, plant size, mulch around pits, and tree staking. Upon completion of planting, if installation or materials vary significantly from the Mitigation Plan, the contractor will submit a reproducible "as -built" drawing to the Owner. 2.9 Agency Approval Following acceptance of the installation by the Owner's biologist, a letter will be prepared for the City Biologist requesting approval of the installation. 2.14 Monitoring Inspection and Reporting The monitoring program will begin in the first growing season (approximately one year) following installation sign -off and approval by the City Biologist. The subsequent monitoring inspections will be conducted in accordance with the approved Monitoring Program. 2.11 Silt Fence Removal Erosion control fencing adjacent to the mitigation area will remain in place until all areas adjacent to the mitigation area have been stabilized. 2.12 Project Completion If, after the final year of monitoring, the project has satisfied the objectives and goals of the approved Mitigation Plan, the Owner's biologist will prepare a letter to the City requesting final approval & closure of the mitigation plan. Sunset Highlands A,,roved Mitigation Plan Notes SWC Job #99-247 Page 3 of 7 3.0 CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING NOTES 3.1 SITE PREPARATION 3.1.1 The Landscape Contractor will approve existing conditions of subgrade prior to initiation of any mitigation installation work. The Landscape Contractor will inform the Owner of any discrepancies between the approved construction document and existing conditions. 3.12 The General Contractor will flag the limits of clearing with orange construction fencing and will observe these limits during construction_ No natural features or vegetation will be disturbed beyond the designated "limits of clearing". 3.1.3 The Landscape Contractor will hand grub all invasive species and blackberry varieties as specified in Section 4.13 of the approved Wetland Mitigation plan. Weed debris will be disposed of off site. 3.2 PLANT MATERIALS 3.2.1 All plant materials will be as specified in the plant schedule. Only vigorous plants free of defects, diseases and infestation are acceptable for installation. 3.2.2 All plant materials will conform to the standards and size requirements of ANSI 260,1 "American Standard for Nursery Stock". All plant materials will be native to the northwest, and preferably the Puget Sound Region. Plant materials will be propagated from native stock; no cultivators or horticultural varieties will be allowed. All plant materials will be grown from nursery stock unless otherwise approved. 3.2.3 All nursery grown plant materials will be in containers or balled and burlapped. Bare root plantings will be subject to approval. 3.2.4 All plant materials stored on -site longer than two (2) weeks will be organized in rows and maintained by the contractor at no additional cost to the owner. Plant materials temporarily stored will be subject to inspection and approval prior to installation. 3.2.5 Substitution requests must be submitted in writing to the Owner and approved by the Owner's biologist in writing prior to delivery to site_ 3.2.6 All plant materials will be dug, packed, transported and handled with care to ensure protection from injury. All plant materials to be stored on site more than 24 hours will be heeled into topsoil or sawdust. Precautionary measures shall be taken to ensure plant materials do not dry out before planting. Wetland plants will be shaded and saturated until time of installation. Immediately after installation the mitigation planting area will be saturated to avoid capillary stress. 3.2.7 The contractor will verify all plant materials, the quantities shown on the planting plan, and the plant schedule. The quantity of plant materials shown on the plan takes precedent over the quantity on the plant list. 3.3 PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION 3.3.1 All plant materials must be inspected prior to installation to verify conformance of the materials with the plant schedule including size, quality and quantity, Any plant materials deemed unsatisfactory will be rejected. 3.3.2 All plant materials delivered and accepted should be planted immediately, as depicted on the plan. Plant materials not planted within 24 hours will be heeled -in per note 3.2.6. Plant materials stored under Sunset Highlands AYNroved Mitigation Plan Notes SWC Job ##99-247 Page 4 of 7 temporary conditions will be the sole responsibility of the contractor. Plants will be protected at all times to prevent the root ball from drying out before, during, or after planting. 3.3.3 All planting pits will be circular with vertical sides, and will be sized per detail on the mitigation plan and filled with pit soils approved by the Owner's biologist. if native soils are determined to be unacceptable by the Owner's biologist, pit soils will be amended with Cedar Grove mulch or equivalent. 3.3.4 No Fertilizers to be used in mitigation area. 3.3.5 All containerized plant materials will be removed from their containers carefully to prevent damage to the plant and its roots. Plants removed from their containers will be planted immediately. 3.3.6 All plant materials will be placed as shown on the approved mitigation plan. If the final installation varies from the approved mitigation plan, the contractor will provide a reproducible as -built of the installed conditions. All plant material will be flagged by the contractor. 3.4 PLANTING SCHEDULE AND WARRANTY 3.4.1 A fall -winter installation schedule (October 1 st - March 15th ) is preferred for lower mortality rates of new plantings. If plant installation occurs during the spring or summer (March 15th - Oct. 1st ) the plantings will be irrigated by hand, with water from a watering truck, for 15 minutes every day until fall rains can provide adequate moisture to support plant materials. 3.4.2 All disturbed areas will be mulched or seeded with mixes as specified on the plans as soon as the mitigation area grading is complete. The seed must be germinated and a grass cover established by October 1st. If the cover is not adequately established by October 1st, exposed soils will be covered with approved erosion control material and the contractor will notify the Owner in writing of alternative soil stabilization method used. 3.4.3 The installer will warrant all plant materials to remain healthy and alive for a period of one year after final acceptance. The installer will replace all dead or unhealthy plant materials per the approved plans and specifications. 3.5 SITE CONDITIONS 3.5.1 The installer will coordinate with the Owner and the Owner's biologist for construction scheduling. 3.5.2 Landscape installation will begin after the City acceptance of grading and construction. The Owner will notify the Owner's biologist of acceptance of final grading. 3.5.3 Silt fences will be installed as shown on the approved mitigation grading plans. The installer is responsible for repair and replacement of silt fences disturbed during plant installation. No equipment or soils will be stored inside the silt fences. 3.5.4 After clearing is complete in the mitigation area, exposed soils will be mulched. Orange construction fence will be placed around the mitigation area to prohibit equipment and personnel in the mitigation area. 3.5.5. Final grading will be based upon soil conditions found during excavation of the fill material and will be verified by the owners biologist on -site prior to planting. 3.5.6 All plant material will be planted with suitable soils per planting details Sunset Highlands, ,proved Mitigation Plan Notes SWC Job #99-247 Page 5 of 7 4.4 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM INTRODUCTION This maintenance program outlines the program, procedures and goals for mitigation of the wetland impacts at the mitigation site. This maintenance program will be the responsibility of the project owner through the duration of its ownership of the mitigation area, or throughout the duration of the monitoring period, whichever is longer. The maintenance contractor will complete the work as outlined below. 4.1 MAINTENANCE WORK SCOPE 4.1.1 The primary goal of the mitigation plan is to enhance 2,248sf of Class 4 Stream Buffer. To accomplish this goal, normal landscaping methods must be modified to include: a. No mowing or trimming of ground cover or vegetation in the mitigation area except for control of reed canary grass and other tall growing grasses in and around plantings. Reed canary grass as well as other tall grasses such as fescue, quackgrass etc. shall be cut away from base of installed plant to avoid overgrowth of the native planting. Alternatively, a water permeable fabric or cardboard disk 12"-18" in diameter may be placed around base of plant to block tall grass growth from competing with planting. b. No placement of fertilizers in the mitigation area. c. No placement of bark mulch or equivalent in the mitigation area, except as noted in the planting details. d_ No placement of grass clippings, landscape debris, fill or ornamental plant materials in the mitigation area. 4.1.2 Work to be included in each site visit: a. Remove all litter including paper, plastic, bottles, construction debris, yard debris, etc. b. Remove all blackberry varieties, scotch broom, and Japanese knotweed within the mitigation area. All debris is to be removed from site and disposed in an approved landfill. C. Repair silt and/or permanent fencing and signage as needed. 4.1.3 Work to be completed on an annual basis includes: a. Areas containing Himalayan blackberry should be controlled by hand cutting the blackberry and treating the remaining cut stems only with an herbicide approved for use in aquatic ecosystems by the Washington Department of Ecology. Herbicides shall be applied per manufacturer specifications and used in conformance with all applicable laws and regulations. b. Replace dead or failed plant materials. Replacement plantings are to be of same species, size and location as original plantings. Plantings are to be installed during the dormant period. c. Remove tree staking and guy wires from all trees after one year. 4.2 MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE The Owner will conduct all items listed in the Maintenance Work Scope on an annual basis. Additional work may be required per the Monitoring Report and as approved by the City Biologist. Additional work Sunset Highlands —,,,,roved Mitigation Plan Notes SWC Job #99-247 Page 6 of 7 may include removal of the grasses around each shrub and tree, installation of wood chips at each shrub and tree base, reseeding the mitigation area, re -staking existing trees and erosion control protection. 4.3 WATERING REQUIREMENTS 4.3.1 if plantings are installed within the dormant period throughout the winter months (October through March 15th) watering is not required. 4.3.2 if plantings are installed during the summer months (March through October 1st ) a temporary irrigation system will be required. The temporary irrigation system may be removed after the first year providing the plantings are established and acclimated to on -site conditions per Construction and Plantings Notes See. 4.0. 4.3.3 Irrigation will continue from initiation through October 1 st , or between June 1 st and Oct. 1 st for any subsequent year. Irrigation, if required, wilt provide head to head coverage. for 15 minutes per day every day. 4.4 CLOSEOUT OF FIVE YEAR MONITORING PROGRAM Upon completion of the monitoring program and acceptance of the wetland mitigation by the City Biologist, the maintenance of the project will be reduced to include removal of litter and debris, repair of perimeter fencing and signage, removal of noxious weeds and undesirable vegetation, and repair of vandalized areas. 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 5.1 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY The enhanced buffer will be monitored eight times over a 5-year period as required by the City of Renton. Monitoring will be conducted using the techniques and procedures described below to quantify the survival, relative health and growth of plant material as well as the successful creation of an area meeting wetland vegetation and hydrology criteria. A monitoring report submitted following each monitoring visit will describe and quantify the status of the mitigation at that time. 5.1.1 Vegetation The vegetation monitoring consists of inspection of the planted material to determine the health and vigor of the installation. All the planted material in the wetland and buffer will be inspected during each monitoring visit to determine the level of survival of the installation. 5.2 STANDARDS OF SUCCESS 5.2.1 Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an 80% survival of all planted woody vegetation at the end of Year 3. 5.2.2 By Year 5, there should be 80% cover by woody plants including installed species and desirable, native species. By Year 5, no single woody species (installed or desirable volunteer) should have more than 30% cover. Additionally, both of the 2 original tree speciest and at least 4 of the original 6 shrub species should be present at the closeout of the 5-year monitoring period. 5.2.3 Volunteer native, non-invasive species will be included as acceptable components of the mitigation. Sunset Highlands Approved Mitigation Plan Notes SWC Job #99-247 Page 7 of 7 5.2.4 Not more than 10% non-native invasive species within the mitigation area at all times during the monitoring period. Japanese Knotweed and Morning Glory (field bindweed) are to have 0% cover at all times during the monitoring period. 5.3 CONTINGENCY PLAN A contingency plan can be implemented if necessary to include replacement of dead or missing plants, additional plant installation, erosion control, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location. If the monitoring results indicate that any of the performance standards are not being met, it may be necessary to implement all or part of the contingency plan. Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not arise. Should any of the site fail to meet the success criteria, a contingency plan will be developed and implemented with the City approval. Such plans are prepared on a case -by -case basis to reflect the failed mitigation characteristics. Contingency/maintenance activities will include, but are not limited to; • Replacing all plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary. • Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate with the same species or similar species approved by the City Biologist. • irritating the enhancement area only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water. • Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the wetland and buffer areas as necessary per 4.0 Maintenance Program. �N Denis Law, Mayor February 25, 2009 Brett Lindsay Jon Graves Architects & Planners, PLLC 3110 Ruston Way Ste: #D Tacoma, WA 98402 CITY IF RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Subject: Approval of Final Mitigation Plan/Proposed Maintenance & Monitoring and remaining steps for proceeding with Sunset Highlands Mixed Use building, File No. LUAOS-028 Dear Mr. Lindsay: Mitigation Plan Approval: We have reviewed and approved the final revised wetland mitigation plan/monitoring proposal for Sunset Highlands Mixed Use building dated 6/08; received by the City on 2/13/09. The mitigation project shall be installed in conformance with the approved plan prior to building permit approval or a separate surety device for installation shall be provided along with a maintenance and monitoring surety device. Next Steps: Begin work on wetland mitigation installation consistent with the approved plan. Mitigation Installation and Approval: Once the mitigation project has been installed (plants, signage, fencing, etc.) pursuant to the approved plan, please have your wetlands specialist provide me with written verification that the installation is in conformance with the approved plan. You may be planning on installing the mitigation project after you begin construction; in order to provide you with the amount of security necessary for the installation of the stream mitigation plantings, signage, and fencing; we will need a copy of the signed installation contract for this work. Once the City approves the contract proposal, you will need to provide an installation surety device (a letter of credit or irrevocable set aside letter) set at an amount totaling 125% of the cost to guarantee the installation of the mitigation project. The date the City receives this written confirmation of the installation along with the maintenance and monitoring surety device it will constitute the beginning of the minimum 5-year maintenance and monitoring period. As Built Plans for the Mitigation Area: A copy of the as -built plans of the approved mitigation plan shall be provided prior to building permit approval unless you intend on providing a surety device for the installation of the project; then a copy of the as -built plans shall be provided prior to temporary of final C of O. Monitoring and Maintenance Surety Amount: In order to provide you with the amount of security necessary for the maintenance and monitoring of the mitigation plantings, signage, and fencing, we will need a copy of the signed maintenance and monitoring contract for this work. A draft (followed by a final) maintenance and monitoring contract (or contracts) for our review prior to execution of the contract shall be provided. The draft contract language must ensure compliance with all performance standards of the approved Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. mitigation plan as well the maintenance and monitoring standards of the Renton Municipal Code. The scope of the contract must clearly cover the cost of plant maintenance and replacement as well. The language in the contract must also guarantee that "structures, imMrovements, and 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 R E N T O N AHEAD OF THE CURVE This paper contains 50`/o recycled material, 30% post consumer mitigation perform satisfactorily for a period of 5 years" (e.g. add provisions for plant replacement and weed removal referencing compliance with the survival rates noted in the final approved wetland mitigation plan. The draft contract must be followed up with a final signed contract once the City approves the draft version. Once the City approves the contract proposal, the applicant will need to provide a maintenance surety device (a letter of credit or irrevocable set aside letter) set at an amount totaling 125% of the cost to guarantee satisfactory performance for a minimum of five years. The performance surety device shall be provided prior to building permit approval. Protective Easement: You have opted to place the stream buffer in a Native Growth Protection Easement. Section 4-3-050E4 of the Renton Municipal Codes states: "The permit holder shall establish and record a permanent and irrevocable easement on the property title of a parcel or tract of land containing a critical area and/or its buffer created as a condition of a permit. Such protective easement shall be held by the current and future property owner, shall run with the land, and shall prohibit development, alteration, or disturbance within the easement except for purposes of habitat enhancement as part of an enhancement project which has received prior written approval from the City, and from any other agency with jurisdiction over such activity." A copy of the easement document must be provided prior to building permit approval. Monitoring and Maintenance Period Start Date: Once the mitigation project has been installed, please provide me with the wetland consultant's written confirmation of installation pursuant to the final approved mitigation plan. Please send all mitigation -related information to my attention. Feel free to contact me at 425- 430-7219 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Roc e Timmons Associate Planner cc: Sewell Wetland Consulting, Inc. ADF Properties, LLC Yellow File ,67)+) Denis Law, Mayor _"R December 1, 2008 Brett Lindsay Jon Graves Architects & Planners, PLLC 3110 Ruston Way Ste: #D Tacoma, WA 98402 CITY OF RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Subject: Changes Needed to Stream Mitigation Plans Sunset Highlands Mixed Use, City File No. LUA08-028 Dear Mr. Pruess: Thank you for submitting the preliminary wetland mitigation plan/monitoring proposal for the Sunset Highlands Mixed Use Building (dated September 29, 2008). The Sunset Highlands Mixed Use project involves impacts to the buffer of a Class 4 stream. This letter is sent in order to advise you of the changes needed to obtain approval of your final mitigation plans. General Chan es Needed to Mitigation Plan Sheets Survival Standard: The 80% percent survival standard should only apply for the first three years (due to the difficulty of counting individual shrubs over time). Please add the following standards: By Year 5 there should be 80% cover by woody plants - this should include both installed species as well as desirable native species (like red alders, etc.). By 5 years, no single woody species (installed or desirable volunteer) should have more than 30% cover. By Year 5, both of the 2 original tree species should still be present and 4-5 of the original 6 shrub species should still be present. Revise Section 5.2.4 to read: Not more than 10% cover by non-native invasive species within the mitigation area at all times during the 5 ycar monitoring period. Invasive species such as Himalayan blackberries, scotch broom, etc. Because they are so invasive and spread so quickly, there should also be a standard for zero % cover by Japanese knotweed and morning glory (field bindweed) at all times during the 5 year monitoring period. Planting List: Please change the size of the following shrubs to 1 gallon instead of 2 gallons: Indian plum, red flowering currant, nootka rose, Oregon grape. The size of the Salal should be 4- inch pots spaced at 1 %2 - 2 feet on center. Buffer Area Seed Mix: Please do not plant grass. Instead, please add 4-6 inches of arborist mulch over the entire planting area. The mulch must not touch stems. 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98057 R E N 1 0 N AHEAD OF THE CURVE 6) This paper contains 50 % recycled material. 30% post consumer ,I - Section 3.3.4 should be revised: Fertilizers cannot be used in the mitigation area. Section 4.4 should be revised to read: "Closeout of the five year monitoring program." Section 5.1 should be revised to read: "...monitored eight times over the 5-year period." General Chan es Needed to Miti ation Re ort Please provide a mitigation report. Confirmation of NGPE Confirmation Needed: RMC Section 4-3-050G3 requires that all critical areas and their buffers be placed in either a Native Growth Protection Tract or Native Growth Protection Easement. Please provide confirmation that all critical areas have been placed in a Native Growth Protection Area with the stream type and category. If you have any questions feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, IRale Timmons Associate Planner cc; Sewell Wetland Consulting, Inc. ADF Properties, LLC Yellow File �Y o CITY OF RENTQN ♦ ' ■ + City Clerk .Denis Law, Mayor Bonnie I. Walton September 10, 2008 ADF Properties LLC 15007 Woodinville Redmond Rd, Suite #A Woodinville, WA 98072 Re: Appeal to Council; Sunset Highlands Mixed Use; File LUA 08-028 Dear Appellant: At the regular Council meeting of September 8, 2008 the.Renton City Council adopted the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee to reverse the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated June 24, 2008, and approve the .Site Plan and conditional use . permit as referenced; to allow a height limit extension to 55'feet 4 inches for the elevator shaft only. The approval is conditioned upon all the other recornrnendations set forth in Section I, pp. 21-22 of the City's Staff Report dated May 27, 2008. Copy of the report as adopted is attached. If I can provide further information or assistance; please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 'G E- 4- to Bonnie I. Walton cc: Mayor Denis Law Council President Marcie Palmer Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Brett Lindsay, Jon Graves Arcllitects & Planners, 3110 Ruston Way, Ste #D, Tacoma, WA 98402 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 430-6510 / FAX (425) 430-6516 a ` 1 AHEAD OF. THE CURVE September 8, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 279 Lastly, Mr. Bradley reported that ownership of the institutional network (I -Net) has been in question, and to protect its access and use, the City negotiated a nominal lease of $1 per year for 50 years. He noted that with this lease the City will have use of the I -net far longer than its expected lifetime. Ms. Wine summarized the recommendation as follows: 1) approve a five-year extension to the current franchise; 2) approve a separate lease for the Institutional Network (I -Net); and 3) establish a 19-cent per subscriber per month Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) fee for government access channel needs. Public comment was invited. There being none, it was MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. (See page 283 for Committee of the Whole Committee Report.) APPEALS Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report Plannine & Development regarding the Sunset Highlands Mixed -Use Appeal. The Committee heard the Committee appeal on 8/21/2008. Pursuant to City Code 4-8-1 IOF, the Committee's Appeal: Sunset Highlands decision and recommendation is limited to the record, which consists of, but is Mixed -Use, SA-08-028 not limited to the Hearing Examiner's Report, the notice of appeal, and the submissions by the parties. The Committee opened the hearing and heard the presentations and argument by Planning Manager Jennifer Henning, and the applicant's representative, Blake Lindsey. Having done so, the Committee hereby finds that there is a substantial error of law. The appeal was tiled by the applicant, John Graves Architects, LLC, who is seeking a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's decision, which rejected the Site Plan and the Conditional Use Permit. The subject property is located on the south side of NE Sunset Blvd., west of Duvall Ave. NE and east of Union Ave. NE. The surrounding properties are all zoned RMF (Residential Multi -Family) or CA (Commercial Arterial). The applicant is proposing a four-story, 55 foot tall mixed -use building consisting of 21 multi -family residential dwelling units with approximately 2,200 square feet of commercial/retail on the ground level. The excess 5 feet 4 inches beyond the height limit is required in order to accommodate the elevator shaft and stair cases only. All other portions of the building would remain within the 50 foot height limit. There is a Class 4 stream located on the southeast portion of the site (the rear of the proposed building). The proposal requested a reduction of the buffer to 25 feet, The Development Services Director granted this request subject to buffer enhancement for the stream. A reduction of the front yard and landscaping setback was also requested to approximately one foot, at its narrowest point, along the street frontage. City staff recommended approval of the setback modifications. Given the size and constraints of the property, this proposed project is consistent with the City's vision and Comprehensive Plan policies. The project fits within the confines of the CA zoning and will implement and optimize the City's vision for the NE Sunset Business Corridor, with minimal impacts to surrounding properties. Although the surrounding areas are mostly commercial and/or big box retail, the City's vision for this commercial corridor is to have more mixed -use development. This particular corridor allows a density limit up to 60 dwelling units per acre if the residential project contains commercial uses September 8, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 280 long NE Sunset Blvd.; and the proposed project is well beneath that, at approximately 26 dwelling units per acre, even with the concessions given regarding the setbacks. For these reasons, the Committee makes the following recommendations: • That the City Council find that the Hearing Examiner made a substantial error of law in denying the Conditional Use Permit because the applicant did meet the requisite criteria for a conditional use. • That the City Council find that the Hearing Examiner made a substantial error of law in that denying the Site Plan in that it meets the criteria of the City's Site Plan review and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Use policies. • Move to reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision dated 6/24/2008 and approve the Site Plan and approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow a height limit extension to 55 feet 4 inches for the elevator shaft only. This approval shall be conditioned upon all the other recommendations set forth in Section I, pages 21-22 of the City's Staff Report dated 5/27/2008. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Appeal: Nicholson Light Planning and Development Chair Parker represented a report regarding the Trespass, AAD-08-059 Nicholson Light Trespass Appeal. Pursuant to a complaint received by Brad Nicholson regarding an allegation of "light trespass," the City's Code Enforcement Division reviewed the matter and found insufficient basis to issue a citation for the alleged offense. Mr. Nicholson "appealed" this issue to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner declined to hear the appeal, finding no jurisdiction over alleged code enforcement violation, and insofar as any code violations were criminal in nature, the proper venue would be in Renton Municipal Court. Mr. Nicholson subsequently "appealed" the decision by the Hearing Examiner declining to hear this appeal. The Hearing Examiner found no jurisdiction over this matter and the City Council only has authority to review the Hearing Examiner's decision pursuant to RMC 4-8-110F. Therefore, this Committee has no option other than to recommend that this matter be dismissed for lack of case or controversy and jurisdiction. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Jay Leviton (Renton) announced that the Community in Schools of Renton Citizen Comment: Leviton - annual mentor celebration will be held at the Renton Senior Center at 5:30 p.m. Community in Schools of on 10/12/2008 and invited Council to attend. Mr. Leviton also thanked City Renton officials and staff on behalf of the Renton Chamber of Commerce for their commitment to supporting the business community. Citizen Comment: Peterson - Doug Peterson (Renton), President, Valley View Homeowners' Association, Valley View Mobile Home stated that their mobile home park is a diverse, quiet, and safe community. He Park requested the City's help and guidance in preserving their homes. Citizen Comment: Workman - Bill Workman (Renton) stated that Valley View Mobile Home Park is a great Valley View Mobile Home place to live, and he has lived there for 17 years. He noted that the park may be Park closed (and redeveloped), and most of the homes in the park are too old to be moved. He requested the City's cooperation in saving their homes. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT September 8, 2008 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date q ava SUNSET HIGHLANDS MIXED USE SITE PLAN & CUP APPEAL File LUA 08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF (Referred August 4, 2008) The Planning and Development Committee ("Committee") heard this appeal on August 21, 2008. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-11OF, the Committee's decision and recommendation is limited to the record, which consists of, but is not limited to the Hearing Examiner's. Report, the Notice of Appeal and the Submissions by the Parties, The Committee opened the hearing and heard the presentations and argument by Planning Manager Jennifer Henning, and Applicant'. s representative Blake Lindsey. Having done so, the Committee hereby finds that there is a substantial error in law. The Appeal was filed by the Applicant, John Graves Architects, LLC, who is seeking a reversal of the Hearing Examiner's Decision which rejected the Site Plan and the Conditional Use Permit! The subject property is located on the south side of NE Sunset Boulevard, west of Duvall Avenue NE and east of Union Avenue NE. The surrounding properties are all zoned RMF or CA. The Applicant is proposing a 4-story, 5.5 foot tall mixed -use building, consisting of 21 multi -family residential dwelling units with approximately 2200 square feet of commercial/retail on the ground level. The excess 5 feet 4 inches beyond the height limit is required in.order to accommodate the elevator shaft and stair cases only. All other portions of the building would remain within the 50 foot height limit. There is a Class 4 stream located on the southeast portion of theside (the rear of the proposed building.) The proposal requested a reduction of the buffer to 25 feet. The Development. Services Director granted this request subject to buffer enhancement, for the stream. A reduction of the front yard and landscaping setback was also requested to approximately 1 foot, at its narrowest point; along the street frontage. Development Services staff recommended approval of the setback modifications. Given the size and constraints of 'the property, this proposed project is consistent with the City's vision and Comprehensive Plan policies. The project fits within the confines of the CA zoning and will implement and optimize the City's vision for the NE Sunset Business Corridor, with minimal impacts to surrounding properties. Although the surrounding areas are mostly commercial and/or big box retail, the City's vision for this commercial corridor is to have more mixed use development. This particular Corridor 1 The original application called for a site plan review and two conditional use permits —one for a height variance for the elevator shaft, and the other to permit a mixed use building in the CA Zone. However, the City Staff later determined that the CA Zone allows a mixed use building. Therefore, the mixed use conditional use issue is not before this Committee. Sunset Highlands Mixed Use 1 al Sept. 8; 2008 Page 2 allows a density limit up to 60 du/acre if the residential project contains commercial uses along NE Sunset Blvd; and the proposed project is well beneath that, at approximately 26 du/acre, even with the concessions given regarding the setbacks. For these reasons, the Committee makes the following recommendations to the City Council. - That the City Council find that .the Hearing Examiner made a substantial error of law in denying the conditional use permit because the applicant did meet the requisite criteria for a conditional use. That the City Council find that the Hearing Examiner made a substantial error of law in that denying the site plan in that it meets the criteria of the City's site plan review and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Use policies. Move to reverse the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated June 24, 2008 and approve the Site Plan and approve the conditional_se permit to .allow a height limit extension to 55 feet 4. inch for the elevator and shaft only. This approval shall be conditioned upon all the other recommendations sef-forth in Section I, pp. 21'-22 of the City's Staff Report datr4May 7, 20008 KING PARKER, Chair RICH ZWICKER; Vice hair. GREO-T&LOR,' Member M. Alex Pietsch Chip Vincent Jennifer Henning Ann Nielsen August 4, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 252 Appeal: Sunset Highlands JCity Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Sunset Mixed Use, ADF Properties, Highlands Mixed Use Application (SA-08-028) by ADF Properties, LLC, SA-08-028 represented by Brett Lindsay, Jon Graves Architects & Planners, PLLC, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. CAG: 08-102, Mt. Olivet & City Clerk reported bid opening on 7/22/2008 for CAG-08-102, Mt. Olivet & South Talbot Reservoir South Talbot Reservoir Recoating project, nine bids; engineer's estimate Recoating, Scott Coatings $141,264; and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to low bidder, Scott Coatings, LLC, in the amount of $62,378.52. Council concur. CAG: 08-101, SR 900 (Sunset City Clerk reported bid opening on 7/23/2008 for CAG-08-101, SR 900 (Sunset Blvd.) & Hoquiam Ave NE Blvd.) and Hoquiam Ave. NE Traffic Signal project, six bids; engineer's Traffic Signal, Construct Co estimate $281,848,68; and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to low bidder, Construct Co., in the amount of $275,596. Council concur. GAG: 08-074, 2008 Street City Clerk reported bid opening on 7/30/2008 for CAG-08-074, 2008 Street Overlay with Curb Ramps, Overlay with Curb Ramps project, five bids; engineer's estimate $1,192,176.29; Western Asphalt and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to low bidder, Western Asphalt, Inc., in the amount of $1,074,888.94. Council concur. Community Services: Ron Community Services Department recommended approval of a contract in the Regis Park Phase 11, JGM amount of $243,249 with JGM Landscape for landscape architectural design for Landscape the Ron Regis Park, Phase lI project. Council concur. CAG: 08-036, City Hall Space Community Services Department recommended approval of an addendum to Planning & Move CAG-08-036, agreement with Heery International, Inc., in the amount of Management, Heery $156,008 for additional City Hall space planning and move management International services necessitated by the Benson Hill Communities annexation. Refer to Finance Committee. Annexation: Earlington, Community and Economic Development Department submitted 10% Notice of Hardie Ave SW & S 134th St Intent to annex petition for the proposed Earington Annexation and recommended a public meeting be set on 8/ 18/2008 to consider the petition; 100.81 acres located west of Hardie Ave. SW, north of S. 134th St. Council concur. Development Services: Lee Development Services Division recommended acceptance of a deed of Short Plat, ROW Dedication, dedication for additional right-of-way along Hoquiam Ave. NE and NE 3rd St. Hoquiam Ave NE, SHP-08- to fulfill a requirement of the Lee Short Plat (SHP-08-052). Council concur. 052 Development Services: JKH Development Services Division recommended acceptance of a deed of Pacific Short Plat, ROW dedication for additional right-of-way between Harrington Ave. NE and Index Dedication, NE 7th St, SHP- Pl. NE at NE 7th St. to fulfill a requirement of the JKH Pacific Short Plat (SHP- 08-008 08-008). Council concur. Finance: Bankruptcy Claim, Finance and Information Services Department recommended approval to return Treasure Casino & Restaurant $19,346.43 to Fortuna, LLC, dba Treasure Casino and Restaurant, and to write off $107,595.96 as uncollectible bad debt due to the business filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Refer to Finance Committee. Fire: Secretary I Conversion to Fire and Emergency Management Services Department requested authorization Emergency Management to convert a Secretary I position to an Emergency Management Coordinator Coordinator position. Refer to Finance Committee. 252 Dept/Div/Board Staff Contact: ect: CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA 13ILL AJLS/City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated July 7, 2008 regarding Sunset Highlands Mixed Use; 4409 NE Sunset Blvd. Application. (File No. LUA-08-028 SA-H, CU-A, ECF) • Appeal by ADF Properties (7/7/08) • City Clerk's letter (7/28/08) • Response to Request for Reconsideration (7/8/08) • Request for Reconsideration (6/30/08) + Hearing Examiners' Decision (6/24/08) Al #: • e / Consent.....: .......... Public Hearing........ Correspondence...... . Ordinance ............. Resolution ............. Old Business.......... New Business......... Study Sessions........ Information........... . Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Planning and Development Committee Legal Dept........... Finance Dept........ Other .................. Fiscal Impact: N/A Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment........ Amount Budgeted........ Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget .... City Share Total Project... Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Sunset Highlands Mixed Use at 4409 NE Sunset Blvd was filed on July 7, 2008 by Brett Lindsay c/o Jon Graves Architects & Planners, PLLC., Representative for ADF Properties, LLC, accompanied by the required $75 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council to take action on the Sunset Highlands Mixed Use Site Plan at 4409 NE Sunset Blvd appeal. cc: Jennifer Henning Larry Warren Rentonnet/agnbiW bh 'PEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNT' OF HEART EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECO IENDATION APPLICATION NAME FILE NO. W A _ D S_ ' U The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommen a l of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated i Ll-rip�, 20O. JUL 0 7 2008 IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name- f\ 01P Op- A es Address: 15ocl1A o a ryl (� e -myiS tom; Phone Number: o L2-q.7.'- Email:&4a I P'n VL • (clwt 3, �1al��D,,�, CITY CLERK'S OFFICE REPRESENTATIVE (IF Phone Number: I ,bj —� a ) L / Z `4 LI.-f Email: 1-ondsa. gd ct_vc:k .(cw 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) -Meuse- set -AuL No. Error: Correction: Conclusions: No. Error: Correction - Other: No. Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) (P i Co ytCG+iUY14 USA �E�v fir: Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other. �t 64 A-e P S IA p p V J4 2- S 1)a 4pellant/Represe ive Signature Type/Printed NameS Date NOTE: Please refer to )itle IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Sect' 4-8-11OF, for specific a peal procedures. G: �r r .y ti j,iah.-. n, �1 a� , few tti}�r� 11�e v .K, yr . � � City of Renton Municipal le -,-Title IV, Chapter S Section 110 — Ap 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council -- Procedures 1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiners written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3_ Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F1, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) JON GRAVES ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, PLLC 3110 RUSTON WRY, SUITE D TACOMA, WR 98402 TEL (253) 272-421 4 FAX (253) 272-4218 J G R R c H 5. C O_ M July 7, 2008 Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Subject: Appeal to City Council o, f `the bearing Examiner's decision W* regards to Sunset Highlands Mixed Use Site Approval. File No. L UA-08-028, SA-H, C'U--A, ECF Dear Council Members. This letter is in response to the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny our request for Site Plan. Approval, a Conditional Use Permit for a Mixed Use Building, and a Conditional Use Permit for a Building Height Increase in the Commercial Arterial zone for the Sunset Blvd Business District. Please note in your review of our request for appeal that we have been in constant contact with the City of Renton.- It is our, understanding that since the time of our Pre -Application meeting- we have met every expectation required by the City of Renton. Our proposal Was approved with conditions by Development Services, the proposal was issued a Determination of Non -Significance by.the Environmental Review Committee, and there has been no Public dissention to our proposal as there were. no letters submitted to the Hearing Examiner and'there were no witnesses from the public to testify at the Public Rearing. The following response. will provide -you_ with a description of how this proposal has met the necessary review criteria and the objectives for the City of Renton's Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan. Thank you, Brett Lindsay The Hearing Examiner uses, in part, the City of Renton's Review Criteria of Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permits to determine if this proposal is appropriate. for the subject site and to the goals and objectives of the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan. We feel here that the Hearing Examiner has not appropriately used the Review Criteria, Renton Comprehensive Plan and/or the City of Renton Municipal Code to satisfy a denial of our requests. -Conditional Use Permit Request for Height Increase It is our understanding that the City Staff and the Hearing Examiner agree on the following Review Criteria for Conditional Use Permits and are. a non -issue; 2. Community Need 3. Effect on adjacent properties 4. Compatibility 5, Parking 6. Traffic 7. Noise 8. Landscaping In the Commercial Arterial zone along the Sunset Blvd Business district; the height inay be increased from 50' up to 60' upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit (RMC 4-2- 120A). Here; we have requested a building height increase. of up to 55' 4" to allow fora stair tower/elevator shaft to provide. safe access to and provide screening for roof top mechanical equipment. RMC 4-4-095E states that all operating equipment located on the roof of any building shall be enclosed so as to be screened from public view. According to this section, shielding may consist of roof wells, parapets, walls etc. The slight height increase also adds roof deviation which architecturally breaks down the scale of the building. This proposal adheres to the standards and guidelines provided in RMC 4-3-, 100J) Building Architectural Design for District B. The Hearing Examiner has denied the height increase for -reasons that are not particularly clear. He calls the increase "unjustified", however acknowledges on page 8, response #8 that "the building would be only slightly taller than the permitted 50 feet so ultimately it probably would- be .compatible with the surrounding residential uses." VVe'find'no other reason in the Hearing Examiner's response for denial of this Conditional Use Permit.. We ask the Council Members to revefse the Hearing Examiner's decision and allow for a height increase of 5' 4". Conditional Use Permit for Attached Residential Dwellings to Create -a Mixed Use Bur din _ . It is our understanding that the City Staff and the Hearing Examiner agree on the following Review Criteria for Conditional Use Permits and are anon -issue: 2. Community Need. 3. Effect on adjacent properties 5. Parking 6. Traffic First and foremost, it has been determined that attached residential dwellings are an outrightpermitted use in the Commercial Arterial zone subject to certain conditions under RMC 4-2-080A.18. The only condition that applies to this approval is that "residential units developed as part of a same building mixed -use project _are .allowed at a maximum of sixty (60) du/acre if the requirements for mixed use development in the. Business District Overlay are met." Currently we are at 26 du/acre, acid are within the permitted rdnnge. The decision for approval was brought -before the Hearing Examiner under an inaccurate interpretation of RMC 4.-2-070K.. Here, the use table has indicated that 'attached dwellings are permitted upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit subject to .an Administrative Review. (RMC 4-2-070K). However,'we find 4-2-050C.7 states that "in'the event of a conflict between RMC 4-2-060, the Master Use Zoning Table and any other individual zoning use tables, .RMC 4-2-070A through 4-2-070S, the provisions of RMC 4-2-060.shall have priority. Therefore, this use is permitted and should not have been decided before Hearing -Examiner. It is also our understanding that the Hearing Examiner has denied the request for Conditional Use Permit for a Mixed Use building because he feels that the surroundings are too noisy to bean enjoyable residential situation. "Quietude", as the Hearing Examiner describes, is not part of the standard"criteria fot a Conditional Use review and.: in this regard it is not always practicalin an "urban" design environment. The very nature of'a Mixed Use development blends commercial services andamenities with residential uses to promote a neighborhood feel. The Hearing Examiner also contends that the adjacent McDonalds would-be a nuisance to the. proposed residences. It should be noted again here that the Conditional Review Criteria does not ask for tli& opinion of the reviewing official to determine .if the surrounding use may or may not be a nuisance on this site. In. fact the Review Criteria asks if the subject site will have adverse affect on the surrounding property (RMC 4-9-030G). The Hearing Examiner concluded on page 8, response #7 that "it does not appear that the development of the site would have an adverse impact on the surrounding uses." It should further be noted that there were no letters of dissention submitted to City of Renton in regards to this project, and there were no members of the public that came to testify against the project at the Public Hearing. For this, the Hearing Examiner cannot presume to know what may or may not be a nuisance to the residents of the subject site. We ask that the Council Members reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision and allow for a Mixed Use building. Site Plan Approval It is our understanding that the City Staff and the Hearing Examiner agree on the following Review Criteria for Conditional Use Permits and' are a non -issue: c. Effect on adjacent properties d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposed site plan to the site e. Conservation of area -wide property values f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation g. Provision of adequate light and air h. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy eonditions i. Availability, of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use j. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight. As the Hearing Examiner concedes, the Commercial Arterial zone suggests integrating residential uses with. commerci at. However, the Hearing Examiner has also suggested that this particular corridor is reserved for commercial, office and retail uses in the Renton's Comprehensive Plan. We have found no indication to suggest that Renton's Comprehensive Plan for this area is reserved for purely commercial developments. In fact, to the contrary, the Comprehensive Plan describes this District as "unique due to the highly eclectic mix of commercial and residential uses.along its length (IX 53)." It further explains that these integrated uses are appropriate for that area and offer a gateway signal that the City of Renton is a diverse community (IX-63).. The Hearing Examiner has also concluded that this. proposal has not conformed to Building and Zoning Codes: While this proposal has appropriately requested exceptions to the code due to the limitation of our site, we have met all criteria and. expectations of the specified Land Use designation. The purpose and intent of the Commercial Arterial Zone is to evolve from the strip commercial, linear building types that. the Hearing Examiner has deemed more appropriate, and integrated a residential component to a perm anent physical connection to commercial uses (RMC 4-2-020.L). It has been determined by the hearing Examiner that the building would be pulled to right up to the street, when in reality .the closest corner of the building is setback from the street edge by 177'. The'building and landscape reduction inappropriate for this area because we are providing visual interest for retail services and pedestrian access along a high traffic corridor. As is typical with many mixed use developments, especially in an urban setting, our proposal has reserved the ground level for retail/commercial uses and the upper levels for residential uses as directed by the Urban Design Standards and Guidelines for District.B. We have also provided additional landscape strips along the side and rear of the property where none was required; as well, L there is an existing attractive wood -looking concrete fence to provide further buffering.' Street Trees have been placed in the front of the building to provide exposure to the ground level commercial space while still providing some screening for the upper level residences. This proposal adheres to the Urban Design Guidelines 4-3-100H.1.(aii) and (ci) for Landscaping, "street trees ate required and shall be located between the curb edge and building" and "front yards should be visible from the street. and visually contribute to the streetscape." As also indicated and illustrated in the Urban Design Guidelines 4-3-100E.7 for buildings with pedestrian oriented uses, this proposal provides street trees for retail/commercial exposure, pedestrian oriented facades with transparent storefronts and residential decking to provide weather protection. Furthermore, we have provided architectural modulation, proposed quality building materials, and provided pedestrian, amenities as directed by the Urban Design Guideline for District B (4-2-100I.1-5). We are certain that this proposal has met and/or exceeded the criteria for Site Plan Review and of the policies, objectives and guidelines of the Renton Municipal Code and Renton's Comprehensive Plan, We ask that the Council Members reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision:and approve the Proposed Site Plan. , 9' 1 N [; M 5 [ C ',N JON GRAVES ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, PLLC 3110 AUSTON UJFlY, $U1TE D TACOMR, UJA 98402 TEL (253) 272-4214 FAX (253) 272-421.8 Denis Law, Mayon July 29; 2008 APPEAL FILED BY. Brett Lindsay c/o Jon Graves ;Architects & Planners, PLLC; Representatives for ADF 'Properties; LLC RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated June 24, 2008, regarding conditional use permit approval for the. construction of a 4-stbryl 55-foot tail mixed -use V lding on a 35,593 square. foot site, known as Sunset Highlands Mixeduse- 4409 NE-Sunset,Blvd. (File No. LUA-08-428 .SA-H, CU-A, ECF) To Parties of Record: - Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8,,Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal. of the hearing examiner's decision on. the Sunset Highlands Mixed.Use Site Approval has been filed .with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton,Munfcipat Code Section 444 1(tF, within five days of receipt of the'. notice of appeal, or after all appeal periods with the. Dearing E,,xatniner have expired, the City. Clerk shall, notify all parties of record .of the receipt of the appeal, other parties of record ma3� submit letters l ited to support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten (10) days of the date of rnailing of this notification. The deadlin6 for submission.of additional letters is by . 5:00 pan,, Friday, Augtis:t $;. 2008: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that'the written, appeal and pertinentother'documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planningg and Development Cormnitteeat 3:00 .m on Thursda u test 21 200$, ir, the Council Chambers, 7t�' Floor OfR�enton City II 1, 1055 South Grady 4y, Renton., Washington 98057, The recominendati6a o£the`Conum. ttee will be presented, for consideration by the f411 Council at a subsequent Council meetin$, ` Copy of the appeal ,and thc, Renton Municipal Code regarding appeal of Hearing xarniner decisions or recommendations is 4ta�lied, Please n6te that`the rty Council'Will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon. the written reccxd previously, established: Unless a showxr19 ean.he rimad.e.that additional evidence could not reasonabl� have- l eeh ayailAd at -the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence ortestimonv on this matter ,�dllb'e accepted by the City Council. For -additional information or assistance, please call me at 425-430-6510: Sincerely; Bonnie I.. Walton City Clerk Attachments IQ55. South Grady Way - Renton, Washingt6a 98057 - (425) 430-65.10 ( FAX (435) 43or6516 RE. N T 0 N AHEAD OT THE CVRVE - This paper [:onlains 50% recycled material, 30%p6sf consumer - - - 60 feet upon granting of a 'Conditional Use Penult- 'The :proposed sirulettire.: has been o CITY -,,'F RENTON + + Hearing Examiner . Denis Law, Mayor Fred J. Kaufman July 8, 2008 Jennifer Henning Current Planning. Manager City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Sunset highlands Mixed Use, LUA 08-028; SA-H, CU-A, ECF Request for Reconsideration Dear Ms. Henning: A request to reconsider the decision noted above was submitted by staff:. Staff asked that this . office take note of conflicts in Code language that could alter the decision. Staff originally determined that a Coiiditional'Use Permit was required. in the CA Zone =toallow a building to contain a mix of commercial and attached residential uses and presented that issue to tale Hearing Examiner. Apparently, staff believes it inaccurately interpreted code and that a Conditional Use Permit for the attached residential units in a mixed -use building is not required. The Examiner did.not make that determination and reviewed the permit as processed by -staff Staff now - believes. the proposed, use is permitted without a Conditional Use lerrnit. This office has reviewed those provisions. Those provisions do not require a change to the final decision - the Site Plan is inapprolriate'since residential units should be -located. 15-feet from Sunset Boulevard -and no closer. This office has no.issue with the fact that residential uses .whether standaloner attached or-in'combination with other uses maybe developed in the CA zone. So even if the CA Zone permits. these residential units in or as part of a mixed -use building. that. same. CA Zone requires setbacks f7roto Sunset Boulevard (10 feet front:yard and 15 feet landscaping buffer, respectively). Those required setbacks should only be reduced if.th6 proposed Site Plan has appropriate 'design features that offset the -setback reductions. The applicant proposed "street trees." Street trees are not sufficient and are already required so they y offer nothing additional. The bull"gwwas'.designed with ,articulations in facade.' Those, too, are already required elements of the overlay district and offer nothing that was,not already required by code. Neither street trees nor. articulated facade elements provide noteworthy elernerrts or relief for potential residents that suggest a nearly. Zero setback is appropriate. Even if the Conditional Use Permit is not. required,_ the Site Plan approval process still requires the implementation of good planning practices. There was no im i-fxcatiori -for reducir2 the required 10-foot front.ygj setback. Similarly, there was no justifiRLtigg for reducing the re u' ed 15-f "ot -landscaping buffer. Both of those setbacks would provide, a better residential model along Sunset Boulevard than reducing those setbacks to near'Zero. What this office's decision noted was the proposal was inappropriate because it plAoed residential uses clos& to the street than either the required front yard setback of 10 feet or the landscape requirement -of 15 feet. There may be some confusion sine the request was for three permits, a Site Plan review and what this office determined were two separate.Coriditional Use Permits,. one for the mixed use and one for the building height. At the time when the Conditional. Use Permit was still in play, the mixed'use building failed because there is no community need for a building containing residential units to be in a building with a front yard of less than 10 feet or having less than the required 15 feet of landscaping. Eliminating the mixed use/attached unit Conditional. 1055 South Grady.Way - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 430-6515 R E N T O N M/�� AHEAD OF T14L CURVE iyryTh%c rennr,.n--�..�..«cnoi........d...a.......,.�..i ono. .•., ,.. _,.__„____ Use Permit review does not alter the decision. The Site Plan fails because there was no compelling reason to reduce the front yard setback from its required 10 feet nor the landscape setback from its required 15 feet when residential uses would be adversely affected in that location in the proposed building. The building's plans do not provide any unique qualifying features. It is just Iike any other residential building with some articulations, some pitched roof elements and balconies or terraces. Those features pretty much define most multiple family residential buildings in the suburban landscape. If this building qualifies for a reduced setback then any other building would similarly qualify and there would be no standard 10-foot setback or 15-foot landscaping setback. All proposed buildings with facade articulations, pitched roofs and balconies would qualify for setback reductions. That does not seem to be the meaning of the Code - setback reductions are tradeoffs for offsets that still protect the amenities, in this case, residential amenities, inherent in good design. Clearly, the applicant's property is constrained as noted in the original decision. They have a relatively small lot. They have a creek flowing through a portion of the site, which requires, a buffer. They also have a standard requirement for a 10-foot front yard setback and a 15-foot landscaping setback. On a site that is constrained like that, the proposed use should work with the site and not attempt to contravene regulations that good planning would suggest not allow a residential building that close to a major arterial. In other words, the 'applicant is attempting to shoehorn in a project that is inappropriate on this smaller lot. Reducing the required front yard to almost Zero feet when residential units are included is inappropriate. Does it serve the public use and interest to force residential uses onto a lot that does not provide the standard amenities generally associated with residential living`? Might it be more appropriate to develop solely office and ground floor retail uses on this lot? Would office or other retail uses blend better with the immediately adjacent Mc.Donalds Restaurant? . While the setbacks may be reduced by Site Plan review, that is discretionary. The reduction of the front yard setback and the landscaping setback is not an ezatitlement. The plan has to show creativity and, at the same time; protect the future residents -from the negative impacts of reducing the setback to near Zero. Frankly, as noted in the report, there were no unusual elements, no. compelling .design treatments, nq: features of a residential building that set it apart and recommended it for consideration oi" setback reductions, and rioting so compelling as to reduce those setbacks to. nearly Zero. The applicant points to the fact that the interior.unit space is a. bit further setback from the actual balcony areas. That would be true for building where the normal setback was observed and. actually serve to increase the normal setback of 10 or 15 feet to a greater amount. Again, the building is of rather ordinary design, does nothing to protect or buffer its potential residents from arterial traffic and noise and is located next to a drive -up, fast food restaurant. Street trees, as noted above, are not adequateand would be required even if 10 or 15- foot setbacks were proposed. This office cannot speculate as to whether an office building, with appropriate design, would have merited setback reductions as so;ight. But at least a reduction in setbacks for an office building would have limited impact on office workers. Those reductions in setback sought in this case do not appear to be merited when residential housing is included in the mix. Maybe if the design of the building had the housing in the rear facing the creek and office along the street -side it might have warranted a setback reduction but as proposed it does not appear appropriate to. allow residential units that close to Sunset Boulevard. This office believes that there is also a difference between the residential nix in the downtown core and that in other areas of the City. The urban downtown streetscape is substantially different than along Sunset Boulevard. The speed limits alone, not to mention actual speed coupled with traffic signalization are different in the downtown core and along Sunset. Speed limits for downtown streets where housing may be flush with sidewalks are 25 miles per hour while Sunset where setbacks are supposed to be 10 feet, the limits are 35 miles per hour. On some stretches of Sunset those posted speeds might be exceeded due to a different pattern of traffic signalization. As the decision also noted, it was expected to spark discussion of what types of uses the City wants, especially when. this office is aware that the City Council indicated a desire to have landscaping along its Highlands' arterials and Council believed buffers should have been included for some older development along these roadways. One has to consider that just because a discretionary remedy is created does not mean that from a land use perspective it is always appropriate to approve it. Both the Conditional Use criteria and the Site Plan criteria suggest that the use should be. appropriate and that the City look at critical land use elements when approving new developments, particularly new developments. that seek to stray from required, regulated, well-founded setback requirements. Again, normally even an office building would have been expected to comply with both the 10-foot front yard setback and the 15-foot landscape requirement. What.makes this design so compelling that it is necessary to reduce those setbacks to, again, near Zercy when housing...is included in the mix. Finally,while the request to allow.a building that exceeds the height limits of the CA zone is minor, it is associated with a building whose site plan does not`appear appropriate. That means that there is no public need fbr a taller building, even one that is only.taller in some of its components. Actually, if c ne'factors in the normal height of'A building and the height of an .individual story (as in first or second level of Abor).in g building, the CA Zone's height limit was probably defined to, in fait, limit height .somewhat Ip Us case, again, while an additional rive and one-third feet is not exceptional, it is`not approp�lMe for this prt3poaed use. Since staff believes that no,conditional Use P`ennit as". required fora mixed use building in the CA Zone the original decision is' tnodified. In as much as there4a' § apparently no need to review a Conditional Use Permit fora mik6&use building.in a,CA Zo ne that portion of the decision should be ignored. The decisioq�k;is not modifted where'it_was folio that the Site Plan was not appropriate and where the Conditional Use P&T-rit foradded height was not appropriate and both of those requests are still denied. If this office can .provide any additional assistance; please feel free to write. Parties may appeal this determination to the City Council within 14 days of this decision. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Alexander Pietsch, CED Administrator ADF Properties,. LLC, Owner Chip Vincent Planning Director Parties of Record Neil Watts, Development Services Director Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Jon Graves, Applicant/Contact June 24, 2008 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes OWNER: APPLICANT/CONTACT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: ADF Properties LLC 15007 Woodinville Redmond Rd., Ste. A Woodinville, WA 98072 Jon Graves Architects & Planners PLLC 3110 Ruston Way, Ste. D Tacoma, WA 98402 Sunset Highlands Mixed Use Site Approval File No.: LUA 08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF 4409 ME Sunset Blvd. Applicant requested Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit approval for the construction of a 4-story, 55-foot tall mixed -use building on a 35,593 square foot site. Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on May 27, 2008 After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a sunintary of the June 3, 2008 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, at 9:01 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 2: Neighborhood Map Exhibit No. 3: Zoning Map Exhibit No. 4: Site Plan Exhibit No. 5: North and East Elevations Exhibit No. 6: South and West Elevations Sunset Highlands Mixed Use S' pproval File No.: LUA-08-028, SA-H, Cu-A, ECF June 24, 2008 Page 2 Exhibit No. 7: First and Second Floor Plan Exhibit No. 8: Third and Fourth Floor Plan Exhibit No. 9: Utility Plan Exhibit No. 10: Conceptual Landscape/Tree Retention Plan Exhibit No. 11: Aerial Photograph The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The project site is on the south side of NE Sunset Boulevard, west of Duvall Avenue NE and east of Union Avenue NE. The surrounding properties area all zoned Residential Multi -Family (RMF) or Commercial Arterial. The applicant is proposing a 4-story, 55-foot tall mixed -use building. The project would result in 21 multi -family residential dwelling units with approximately 2200 square feet of commercial space. The proposal does comply with the goals and policies established within the Commercial Corridor on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The applicant has requested a reduced front yard setback to 1-foot, 2 and a half inches from the property line. Applicant has proposed uses to enhance the setback area and staff does support the proposed reduction in the front yard setback. There are no interior side or rear yard setbacks. The applicant further is requesting a reduced landscaping strip, a 15-foot landscape strip is required along the front property line, NE Sunset Blvd, the applicant has proposed to reduce that down to as little as zero feet along portions of the street frontage. Staff again supported the reduced on -site landscaping since there is other perimeter landscaping that offsets the landscape buffer. The landscaping would only act as a buffer to abutting properties. A detailed landscape plan would be submitted by the applicant prior to the issuance of the building permit. The City's parking landscaping regulations have additional landscaping requirements for surface parking lots in the amount of 15 square feet per parking space. Based on 21 surface parking stalls, 315 square feet of landscaping would be required, the conceptual landscape plan does comply with this requirement. All parking spaces do comply with the dimensional requirements of the parking regulation. There is a one-way circulation throughout the project site via a 24-foot wide internal driveway. Four feet of the 24-foot width is a pedestrian walkway surrounding the building. The Examiner questioned the traffic noise of the residential units if they were only a foot and a half from the street, Sunset is a fairly heavily trafficked arterial. Ms. Timmons stated that the units are setback due to balconies or decks by approximately 10-feet or so. The proposed building would be located in the center of the site, surface parking areas would be located along the east and west portions of the building. Landscaping would be located around the perimeter of the site and within the surface parking lots. A total of 58 parking stalls are proposed, 21 would be located in the surface parking lot with 11 being dedicated to commercial use and the remaining 37 stalls would be located in the first floor of the building. The structure parking would be accessed through 21 separate garage doors off NE Sunset Blvd via two new 30-foot wide curb cuts. A restrictive covenant would be required to assign tandem parking spaces to the exclusive use of specific dwelling units. The proposed building would result in a lot coverage of 28% and the density for the site would result in about 26 dwelling units per net acre, which is within the permitted range. There is a stream located on the southeast portion of the site. Sunset Highlands Mixed Use Si... Approval File No.: LUA-08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF June 24, 2008 Page 3 There are four protected trees onsite of which three are proposed to remain. There is a Class 4 stream located on the southeast portion of the site, which requires a 35-foot buffer. The applicant is proposing to reduce the buffer to 25-feet. Development Services Director approved the reduction in buffer. The highest point of the building would house the stair tower on the south elevation. The residential units would be located on the upper three levels with seven units on each floor. The commercial space would be located within the north portion of the building on the ground floor facing NE Sunset Blvd. Approximately 1,500 square feet would be designated to specialty retail, and the remaining 700 square feet would be a restaurant. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated, which included 6 mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. The applicant is further required to provide a pedestrian connection from the entry of the building to the street and sidewalk. A 6-foot high wood fence would be required along the length of the west property line with a gate for the pedestrian connection. This would provide privacy to the property to the north. Since the approval of the parking spaces, the ratio designations have changed, instead of 11 spaces now 13 spaces have been designated for commercial use to meet the parking requirements. A revised parking plan must be submitted. The proposed building is appropriate for the site and would be architecturally compatible with the existing neighborhood. The main entrances for the commercial space are located along NE Sunset Blvd. The main entrance to the apartment units would be via the internal elevator. The site is served by the City of Renton for all utilities. Fire, Police and Parks staff have indicated that the existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the subject proposal. The project is subject to the District B Design Guidelines and the proposal does comply with the intent of the design regulations where they are applicable. The proposal complies with the goals, policies and standards established within the Commercial Corridor Land Use designation as well as the Commercial Arterial Zone. The height of the building does exceed the allowed height of the zone by five feet and four inches. This increase in height is to accommodate the elevator shaft and stair tower for the building. No other portion of the building exceeds the 50-foot height limit. BrettLindsay, 3110 Ruston Way, Ste. D, Tacoma, WA 98402 stated that he represents the applicant Jon Graves Architects & Planners. The central stair tower will always be open to the public, there are two doors on the east and west sides that have direct access to it. That will most likely be the primary entrance to the building. Access will be at the doors and not at the stair tower. There is a 5- to 6-foot buffer between the curb and the beginning of the sidewalk. The sidewalk varies in width because of the indents in the building. It is approximately 10-feet to the corners of the building that get closest to the road. There also are three street trees that are centered with the balconies to add another layer of buffer. It seemed to them that a presence on Sunset Blvd would be a positive move. He asked if the "wood" fence could be made of concrete that looks like a wood fence. It is better maintenance and looks very nice. Sunset Highlands Mixed Use : Lpproval File No.: LUA-08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF June 24, 2008 Page 4 The Examiner stated that the issue would become cinder block versus something more appealing, he may condition it so that staff would have total authority over approving something that is not wood but that emulates wood. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services stated that water and sewer are available, the storm drain is fine, they will be taking a close look at the amount of plantings that are being put in. There are two storm ponds at the southerly corners of the property. They currently use a controlled system to dump storm water into Honey Creek. The amount of plantings being proposed will have to be watched, there are specific plants that are welcome and some that are not due to their overgrowth potential. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:39 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: The applicant, Jon Graves Architects & Planners PLLC, filed requests for a Site Plan review together with Conditional Use Permits to allow a 4-story mixed use building in the CA (Commercial Arterial) Zone. 2. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). 3. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 4. The subject site is located at 4409 Sunset Boulevard NE. The subject site is located on the south side of Sunset between Whitman Court NE on the west and Anacortes Avenue NE on the east. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of commercial uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 6. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 2408 enacted in May 1968. 7. The'subject site is approximately 35,593 square feet or 0.817 acres. The subject site is trapezoidal with its north property line defined by the alignment of Sunset Boulevard, which runs toward the northeast in this location. The subject site is approximately 160 feet wide and varies between 170 feet deep (west) and 250 feet deep on the east. The parcel has approximately 190 feet of frontage along Sunset. Honey Creek runs across the subject site in its southeast comer. This creek is a Class 4 stream, which generally requires a 35-foot buffer. The applicant has been provided with an administrative decision that the buffer can be reduced to no less than 25 feet if the creek and buffer are enhanced. This is a critical area and both the creek and its buffer will be protected and preserved. The buffer reduction would total approximately 1,376 square feet. The tree survey found four protected trees and the applicant proposes retaining three of those trees. Sunset Highlands Mixed Use S_. _ Approval File No.. LUA-08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF June 24, 2008 Page 5 10. The applicant proposes erecting a four-story, 55 foot 4-inch tall building on the subject site. The structure would contain retail space on the first floor and residential units on the upper three -stories. The building would have approximately 40,083 square feet over the four stories. There would be approximately 2,209 square feet of retail space divided into separate storefronts including a restaurant of approximately 700 square feet. There would be 21 multiple family units totaling approximately 30,795 square feet. There would be 3 one -bedroom units and 18 two -bedroom units. 11. The CA zone permits lot coverage of 65 percent whereas the applicant proposes only 28 percent lot coverage. Parking allotments are based on a combination of uses and parking configuration. The residential component requires 45 stalls based on the mix of single alignment parking and tandem parking. The proposed restaurant space would require 7 stalls and the remaining commercial spaces an additional 6 stalls. Total parking would be 58 stalls with 21 surface (outdoor) parking stalls and 37 stalls inside the garage on the first level. Since the project was originally reviewed and a parking modification was issued the applicant changed the ratio of commercial uses. Staff found that the project did not provide sufficient parking for the commercial portion of the proposal and required two additional parking spaces dedicated to commercial uses. 12. As noted, the subject site is currently zoned CA which permits commercial and mixed use development with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, the CA Zone limits height to 50 feet and a conditional use permit is required for any building taller than 50 feet. In this case the tallest portion of the building is proposed to be 55 feet 4 inches tall. The additional height was due to the elevator and stairwell towers. 13. The CA Zone requires no rear yard or side yard setbacks. This parcel in the CA Zone requires 15 feet of front yard landscaping because it is across from the residential, RM-F Zone. The zone requires a 10- foot setback from Sunset that in this case is required to be increased to 15 feet because 15 feet of landscaping is required across from residential zone and uses on the other side of Sunset. The Site Plan review process may be used to reduce both requirements to Zero feet. The applicant has proposed reducing the 15 feet of landscaping required along Sunset Boulevard to as little as Zero (0) feet except near the driveways. The applicant has proposed street trees at 30 feet on center. This would result in three trees planted in front of the building with two trees near the east and west margins of the site. 14. Staff has indicated that the applicant's reduced landscaping along the street frontage is reasonable since it has provided adequate other on -site and perimeter landscaping. The perimeter, east and west, require five feet of landscaping along the parking areas as well as 1 tree per 6 stalls and 5 shrubs per 100 feet of landscaping. There will be additional landscaping along the southeast and southwest corners of the parcel, near and adjacent to the stream buffer. 15. The applicant has proposed one way circulation into, around and out of the site via 30 foot driveways and parking aisles along the east and west sides of the parcel. The parking aisle will also provide pedestrian paths. 16. The building will have approximately 75% retail uses along its front facade. As part of the Conditional Use Permit, the applicant has proposed that the majority of the building, the additional three -stories as well as large portions of the first level, and the garage, serve residential purposes. 17. Staff reports that the applicant will use high quality vinyl siding as well as masonry block units. There will be balconies along the front facade as well as other facades. The front of the building will have pitched roof elements while the remainder of the building on its sides and rear will have flat roof elements. Sunset Highlands Mixed Use S' pproval File No.: LUA-08-028, SA-H, Cu-A, ECF June 24, 2008 Page 6 18. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The residential portion of the project is expected to generate additional school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. 19. The refuse and recycling area will be located to the rear of the building but specific location will be determined by the waste handler. 20. The density for the proposal would be 25.95 dwelling units per acre after subtracting sensitive areas. The CA zone permits a minimum of 10 units per acre up to 60 units per acre when a mixed -use building is proposed. 21. The proposal is located in an area subject to the District B Design Guidelines. Staff has generally determined that the proposal meets those guidelines applicable to a single building containing a mix of commercial and residential uses. A number of criteria overlap the general criteria of both the Site Plan Ordinance and the Conditional Use Permit. 22. The development will increase traffic with 21 new residential units and the new retail and restaurant facades. 23. McDonalds restaurant is located immediately east of the subject site. CONCLUSIONS: Conditional Use Permits The applicant for a Conditional Use Permit must demonstrate that the use is in the public interest, will not impair the health, safety or welfare of the general public and is in compliance with the criteria found in Section 4-31-36 (C), which provides in part that: a. The proposal generally conforms to the Comprehensive Plan; b. There is a general community need for the proposed use at the proposed location; C. There will be no undue impacts on adjacent property; d. The proposed use is compatible in scale with the adjacent residential uses, if any; e. Parking, unless otherwise permitted, will not occur in the required yards; f. Traffic and pedestrian circulation will be safe and adequate for the proposed project; g. Noise, light and glare will not cause an adverse affect on neighboring property; h. Landscaping shall be sufficient to buffer the use from rights -of -way and neighboring property where appropriate; and i. Adequate public services are available to serve the proposal. In this case, the applicant has actually requested two conditional use permits. One Conditional Use Permit was to allow a building taller than the normally permitted 50 feet. The applicant proposed a Sunset Highlands Mixed Use b Approval File No.: LUA-08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF June 24, 2008 Page 7 building of 55 feet 4 inches or 5 feet 4 inches taller than permitted. The second Conditional Use Permit was requested to allow a mixed -use, that is a building that contains both commercial and residential uses, in one building. The Commercial Arterial Zone does not normally permit a mixed -use structure. The requested conditional use permits do not appear justified. 2. First, it might be important to note that the Zoning Code has outright permitted uses - those uses that have been determined to be fully appropriate in a particular zone. The Code then has certain uses that may be permitted in a zone but that are not outright permitted. Such permits are discretionary and the applicant has to justify why the proposed use is appropriate. If all uses that are subject to Conditional Use review were appropriate then they would be permitted outright subject to other criteria such as bulk, setbacks or similar. Proposals subject to Conditional Use approval trust satisfy specific criteria enumerated for that use and they may be denied if inappropriate to their neighborhood or their site. There are a number of issues involved in this review as the building not only is taller than permitted but also contains both commercial and residential components in one building and such combined elements are normally not permitted in the CA Zone. What might be appropriate for a commercial building might not be appropriate for a residential building or a building that contains residential units. Residential living has certain amenities associated with it. Quietude night be an attribute or amenity cherished or prized in a residential setting that might be unimportant or less important in a commercial, office or retail building. Similarly, proximity to certain services might be important in a residential complex but too close a proximity to automotive dependent uses or drive up restaurants might tax residents. Being located next to a business catering to drive -up customers might not create the most appropriate living situation. Drive -up windows and the constant opening and closing of car doors and engine startups could be an issue. Quietude might be an attribute that some would trade away for more urban hustle and bustle. Then again, being in proximity to certain uses could tend to make a living situation less desirable. While some might consider a less desirable residential environment unfortunate, it could make the residential complex more affordable since it might be less desirable. More affordable housing might be appropriate even if less aesthetic. Some might suggest that the market will determine whether such a mix of uses is appropriate or not. Others might say that the job of "Land Use Planning" is intended to create more desirable juxtapositions of uses and avoid certain juxtapositions so that irritants or worse that lead to eventual blight are not created. 4. In reviewing this proposal, some criteria or overall issues actually overlap in reviewing a Site Plan and in reviewing the two Conditional Use permits. The proposed plan is crowded and inappropriately located after all things are considered. Staff has expanded the buildable area of the parcel by reducing the critical areas buffer along Honey Creek from 35 feet to 25 feet and then further crafted more buildable space by recommending that the 15 feet of front yard landscaping and building setback from Sunset Boulevard, a heavily traveled arterial, be reduced to between Zero feet and approximately one to two feet. 5. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial uses. It even allows mixed uses but only after determining that the site and design are appropriate under Conditional Use Criteria. But that does not necessarily mean all parcels located along Sunset Boulevard are suitable for residential purposes whether as standalone residential uses or in a mixed use development as now proposed. The subject site is a relatively small, narrow parcel further constrained by Honey Creek, which is located in the southeast comer of the site. In order to increase the developable portion of the subject site staff approved a reduction in the buffer between the development and the Honey Creek. While this is permissible the buffer reduction itself was not sufficient to create an adequate building site. Therefore, the applicant has also sought to reduce the required 15 foot landscape setback between the building and the public right-of-way, the heavy arterial Sunset Boulevard, to Zero feet. Such a reduction, while also ct. .4 --- V.., [NE-J"Ah' RM-F- c LL. CA R-1 ay 010, Mol �om q cl 8 "9 CA - R F EXHIBIT 3 E6 -I T23N R5E W 1/2 ZONING — — — Pr-�m, dity Umito D6 P/R40W TEaMCAL SMVICES - T23N MEW 112v -a.; -r,7 3 S303 111111112 m oa a 0 z H �1 SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION o JONGPAVE5 _ -VSET BLVD. MIXED USE ARGHIT ff P' -,INERS 440 ME SUNSET SLV& iACZt4k WA sNP� x 03 !q -° -' — ? 'N r i gam° : _ AH9L JOS NO. 207*83.10 — - " I PPP-55- SUNSET HIGHLANDS RENTON. WA UTILI[Y PLAN xi. 1 o - 9 S + g{g{tltl � o 1 e w zi K'4D £ 1 "CCl) B Q a" LOCATKW 4409 NE &raq Blvd UMM FLAN nen Wa*koon 980FA OWNS# kk. Dab r-; : &wwm H�tle, LLC S NN HKIJ A )G *007 WwdKtvikc-Redmond M aA Woodnvdb. WashkxAon 98072 t g$ t jj, Denis Law, Mayor July 29, 2008 CITY F RENTON City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton APPEAL FILED BY: Brett Lindsay c/o Jon Graves Architects & Planners, PLLC, Representatives for ADF Properties, LLC RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated June 24, 2008, regarding conditional use permit approval for the construction of a 4-story, 55-foot tall nixed -use building on a 35,593 square foot site, known as Sunset Highlands Mixed Use; 4409 NE Sunset Blvd. (File No. LUA-08-028 SA-H, CU-A, ECF) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Sunset Highlands Mixed Use Site Approval has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 OF, within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, or after all appeal periods with the Hearing Examiner have expired, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of this notification. The deadline for submission of additional letters is by 5:00 p.m,, Friday, August 8, 2008. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 21, 2008, in the Council Chambers, 7`3' Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Copy of the appeal and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeal of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations is attached. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimanY on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please call me at 42 5-43 0-65 10. Sincerely, Bonnie 1. Walton City Clerk Attachments 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 430-6510 / FAX (425) 430-6516 0 This paper contains 5C•" mcylee masenal, 30%post consumer RENTC]N AHEAD OF THE CURVE AdElk Washington State Department of Transportation Paula J. Hammond, P.E. Secretary of Transportation July 18, 2008 Rocale Timmons, Planner City of Renton Development Services 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Subject: SR 900 MP 14.10 vicinity Sunset Blvd Mixed Use (LUA08-028) Traffic Impact Analysis Comments Dear Ms. Timmons: Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P,0- Box 330310 Seattle; WA; 0.8133-9710 206-440-40oo TTY: 1�8oq;a33 www.wsidot.wa.gov J j ofi 0'�kMNA#�'G l� t9jece j zb The subject project proposes to construct a four-story building consisting of 21 condominium units, 1500 square feet of specialty retail space, and a 712 square foot restaurant. The project site is located on the south side of SR 900 between Union Avenue and Duvall Avenue. The full build out of the site will be 2010 and estimated to generate 327 trips daily, 23 AM Peak trips, and 29 PM Peak trips. We have reviewed the Transportation Impact Analysis submitted for the project noted above. Our comments are as follows: 1. Please note SR900 on all figures. 2. Per WSDOT requirements, all State highway intersections impacted by 10 or more Peak Hour trips generated by the development need to be included in the analysis. Please include the signalized SR900/Anacortes Ave NE intersection to the analysis. Anacortes Ave NE roadway descriptions, all LOS calculations, and all figures should be updated. 3. The subject project proposes to create two full accesses onto SR900, within a Managed Access Class 4 roadway. Per WSDOT Design Manual 1435,05(4)(b), no more than one access connection may be provided to an individual parcel unless it can shown that additional access will not adversely effect the operation and safety of the State highway. A deviation for the number of accesses shall need to be approved by the City of Renton. 4. Details relating to the channelization and access management issues (full access or partial access) will be reviewed and approved as part of the official Channelization Plan approval process. Specific requirements for channelization plan development SR 900 MP 14.10 Sunset Blvd Mixed Use (LUA08-028) Page 2 of 2 can be found in the attached WSDOT Northwest Region Channelization Plan Checklist and Channelization Elements. If you have any questions, or require additional information please contact Felix Palisoc of our Developer Services section by phone at 206-440-4713, or via e-mail at palisof @ wsdot.wa.gov. Si ely, ,7 : Ramin Pazooki ' Local Agency and Development Services Manager RP: fsp Attachments: WSDOT Northwest Region Channelization Plan Checklist Channelization .Elements sheet cc: Day File / Project File R. Roberts / R. Brown, MS 120 QIFe I ix_Oe vSenn SE PA_ Respo nsesls a pa R E NTON _ SR 9DOM P 14 Su n s et 6I v d M i xU se _ T i Ac omme nts2O ty. d oc SR: Project T": Submittal Date: City/County: Begin MP: End.... . Page t of WSDOT NORTHWEST REGION CHANNELIZATION PLAN CHECKLIST Channelization plans are design documents that show the relationship between the features and geometric elements that combine to form the highway. Similar to right of way plans, channelization plans are used by anyone looking for geometric information after construction is completed. Channelization plans are preserved under RCW Title 40, Public documents, records, and publications and permanently archived on mylar. Since channelization plans are design documents they are only valid for three (3) years after approval (Design Manual 330.08). Channelization plans and the associated design variances that are older than three years old must be reevaluated for conformance to current standards. Note to Local Agencies and Developers: Channelization plan approval is not project approval. The approved channelization plan is only one part of the approval and permitting process. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CHANNELIZATION PLAN SET ❑ Use the latest updates of the WSDOT Design Manual M22-01 (DM), the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and the Local Agency Guidelines Manual M36-63, where appropriate. Use terminology specified in the WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, WSDOT Standard Plans M41-10, and the WSDOT Design Manual. ❑ Use plan scale of not less than 1" = 60' for 11" x 17" plots and not less than 1" = 30' for the final full size 22"x34" mylar plot. Freeway and Interstate plans may use a different scale with the written approval of the Area Traffic Engineer. ❑ Show the final Channelization where improvements are new in full tone. Include stations and dimensions of all Channelization features where the new improvement ties in to the existing roadway. ❑ Show existing channelization information in 80% gray tone OR using the dashed line styles as shown in- the latest version of the Plans Preparation Manual (M 22-31) ❑ Show at least 300' of existing channelization beyond the improvement limits on the state highway(s). On intersecting roads (public or private) and commercial and multi -residential road approaches, show 100' of existing or new channelization beyond the radius returns or to the limited access limits, which everts greater:. ❑ Provide two half size (11 "x 17") original plots of the channelization plan(s). Scanned images and, photocopied plan sheets will not be accepted. One full size (22" x 34") mylar stamped and signed by the design engineer is required for final approval. Per WAC 193-23-020, plans should be marked "PRELIMINARY" until the final signed plan is submitted. See Channelization Plan Review Process and Final Approval below. ❑ Submit related Design Variance (Corridor or project analyses, deviations, evaluate upgrades, design exceptions, and justifications) requests to the Area Design Reviewer for review and approval. Channelization plans cannot be approved until all design variances are approved. ❑ Submit any calendar actions and traffic signal permit applications for Northwest Region Traffic Engineer's approval. Calendar actions and proposed traffic signals should be discussed with the Area Traffic Engineer early in the design process. Do not wait until the channelization plan submittal to discuss these items. Calendar actions are required for things such as speed limit changes and turning movement restrictions (no u- turns, no right turn on red). Note: a calendar action is a change to something written into law. CHANNELIZATION PLAN SHEETS Channelization plan sheets show the highway in plan view. The plan should show sufficient width to show all roadway features and any features outside the roadway prism that may impact the roadway users. ❑ Channelization plans shall show only the final channelization. The plans shall not show any materials, signing, utilities, landscaping, topography, or electrical and signal appurtenances. ❑ Alignment centerlines for all roadways including all intersecting streets. This includes private roads, large commercial approaches, and multi -family road approaches_ Centerline line type shall follow the construction centerline requirements for Highway Alignment to be Constructed as shown in the Plans Preparation Manual (M 22-31). Include 100 ft and/or 50 ft major stations. Stationing shall follow the direction of increasing milepost, read left to right. ❑ Highway, Street, and alignment names. State routes with local names should include both names. The local name should be shown in parenthesis. SR 999 (Local Rd,) Fallow the construction centerline requirements for CLine PSE New SR No Text as shown in the Plans Preparation Manual (M 22-31) Section 5, CADD Standards for MicroStation using Expanded Levels (httpJ/www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-31 /CADD.pdf} SR: Project T'•'e: Submittal Date: City/County: Begin MP: End Page 2of3 ❑ Bearings of all alignment centerlines. ❑ Intersection angles labeled for all intersecting streets and ramps. See Channelization Elements sheet. ❑ Intersection alignment centerline equations. Include the milepost of the intersection. ❑ Begin and End Project callouts for all State Routes. Include both the milepost and alignment station. Note, the limits of channelization improvements are the limits of the new channelization and may not be the same as the project limits. See Channelization Elements sheet, ❑ Channelization-related Design Variance callouts and notes. See Channelization Elements sheet. ❑ Curve data for each alignment curve (P.I. station, curve delta, curve radius, tangent, length, superelevation, spiral data (if applicable), and curve design speed)_ See the Channelization Elements sheet. ❑ Final right of way and limited access lines. Also show right of way easements for channelization features. See Section 3 of the Plans Preparation Manual (M 22-31) for line style requirements. ❑ Label edge of traveled way and edge of pavement lines. ❑ Existing and new raised curbing, barrier, guardrail, rumble strips and pedestrian rail. ❑ Widths of through lanes, turn lanes, medians, shoulders, sidewalks, and planter strips / amenity zones. Where a feature line does not follow the alignment centerline, label widths on both sides of the centerline. Measurements are made to the face of curb or center of pavement marking. Use names as shown in section 8-22 to the Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (M41-10) and section M of the Standard Plans for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (M 21-01). Include line color but not material types. (i.e. white wide line, yellow edge line, white dotted extension line, stop line, traffic arrow) ❑ Stations and offsets to the center of pavement marking text and symbols such as turn lane arrows, HOV symbols, and bicycle lane markings. ❑ Begin and end stations of right and left turn storage lanes. Indicate the provided storage lengths. See the Channelization Elements sheet for measurement method. ❑ Begin and'end•stations with offsets for all lane transitions, channelization and pavement tapers. ,Include the taper rate (x:x:1) in both the begin and end taper call outs. ❑ Label the turn radii (all right and left) for intersections, private road approaches, and commercial and multi - residential road approaches. See the Channelization Elements sheet. ❑ Show all existing and new sidewalk ramps. For projects with sidewalk ramp(s), include a general note on the plans stating that all sidewalk ramps shall meet current ADA requirements. Show the location of the truncated domes on the sidewalk ramp(s). See the Channelization Elements sheet. ❑ Show and label the locations of transit stops ❑ Design Data Box, including all of the following information for the state highway(s), intersecting roads (public or private) and commercial and multi -residential road approaches. The preferred location of the Design Data Box is the first channelization plan sheet. See the Channelization Elements sheet for format. ❑ Functional Class ❑ Highway Design Class ❑ NHS Status ❑ Design Matrix and Line ❑ Access Control or Managed Access Class ❑ Design Vehicle ❑ Posted and Design Speeds ❑ Terrain ❑ Truck Percentage ❑ Include a vicinity map and a sheet key for larger (10 sheets or more) or complex (interchanges) projects. See the Channelization Elements sheet. Version 1.0 Last Revision: "04/2008 Last Revised by: R.Brown SR: Project Title: Submittal Date: City/County: Begin MP: End Page 3 of 3 The following items are to be included on every_plan sheet: ❑ A title block with the Project Title w/ State Route Number(s), Begin & End Mileposts, City and County, submittal Date and Page Number. See the Channelization Elements sheet for the specific format. ❑ North arrow. See the Plans Preparation Manual (M 22-31) Section 5, CADD Standards for MicroStation using Expanded Levels (htto://www.wsdot.wa. ov/publications/manuals/fulitexVM22-31/CADD.pdf), General Sheet Items section. ❑ Scale bar. The preferred location is at the bottom of the sheet near the WSDOT approval signature block. ❑ Section, Township, and Range. See the Channelization Elements sheet for specific format. ❑ WSDOT approval signature block. The preferred (not required) location is at the bottom of the sheet in the right corner. See Channelization Elements sheet for the signature block detail. Not required on plan sheets that do not show new channelization on state routes. DETAIL SHEETS Details supplement portions of the channelization plans that can not be adequately shown on the channelization plan sheets. Detail sheets are to be stamped and signed by the engineer. The detail sheets also need to include the WSDOT approval signature block. ❑ Details of all raised & striped traffic islands. At a minimum, details should include: offsets of key locations from reference lines, shy distances to curbs, curb type, any curbing or striped radii, angle points, and all sidewalk ramps or barrier -free passageways. Also label the projected square footage of islands. See Design Manual (M22-01) Chapter 910. ❑ Details of curb extensions (bulb outs). Include begin and end transition stations and offsets as well as curve radii. ROADWAY SECTIONS Roadway sections are a required part of the channelization plans. However, they are informational only and should not have the WSDOT signature block_ Roadway sections should show lane, shoulder, planter / amenity: zone, traffic islands, shy to curb, raised curb (include type), barrier, or guardrail and sidewalk widths. The roadway sections should also show alignment centerline, ditches (slopes labeled), cut and fill slopes, slope rounding and right of way lines. Materials and material depths should not be shown. If they are shown then they should not be labeled. References to construction methods should not be included. Roadway sections should be separate sheets at the end of the channelization plan set. The roadway sections may be placed on the plan sheets if sufficient room is available. Note: all widths measured to curbing are measured to the face of curb and not the center of curb. ❑ Typical roadway. Where a feature line does not follow the alignment centerline, label widths on both sides of the centerline. CHANNELIZATION PLAN REVIEW PROCESS AND FINAL APPROVAL The channelization plan review process is typically an iterative process. The first submittal is reviewed by an Area Traffic Analyst, the Area Design Reviewer, and several operations groups within Traffic. The first review usually takes the longest time due to the number of groups reviewing the plans. Comments generated from the first review are sent to the designer. The designer addresses the comments and a new channelization plan is submitted for review. The review and comment process is repeated until all issues are resolved. Keep in mind that changes made could generate additional comments if quality control and Design Manual guidance is not followed_ After the plans have been reviewed, all the issues have been resolved, and all design variances have been approved, a full size mylar plan will be requested. The mylar plan must be plotted on full size sheets (22" x 34") and stamped and signed by the design engineer. The mylar plan is then sent to the Traffic Engineer for Area Operations for review and signature. Following that the plan is then sent to the Area Engineering Manager for review and signature. Half size paper copies of the approved plan are made and the signed mylar plan is archived. ❑ PE stamped, signed, and dated. Only required for final mylar submittal. PE stamps should be located in the title block of each plan and detail sheet Prepared by: Initials: Version 1.0 Last Revision: 04/04/2008 Last Revised by: R.Brown Des i g. - - ar i antes DESIGN VARIANCES Deviations Right Turn Corner. DM 910.06. May 2006. 2 Deviotionr Turning Roadway Width, ON 641.04(1). November 2006. Dev lot ions Access Spacing. OM 1435.02131, December 2003. Approved by the City of Kent. i Evaluate Upgrades Shoulder Crass Slope. OM 640.04131. May 2006. Design Exceptions Lone Width. OM 430.04(1). Nay 20D6. L Type of Portents, variants, daefgn standard, data of standard Comments an Design variances 1, The design variances for each sheet shah be listed on that sheet. 2. Design variances include deviations, evaluate upgrades, dealyn exceptions, projocr snalysas, and corridor analyses. 3. Design variance numbers shall correspond to the number on the design Parlance document_ 4. Symbol and number shelf ha placed an the plan sheets) showing the location of each variance. 5. Access variances lnalde incorporated areas are approved by that city. For State Highways and Ramps: Currant State Highway Loy - DM 430 / DM 440 / Design Reviewer - Design Manuel 325 - Design Manuel 325 - Deaipn Reviewer r NWR Trathc / WSOOT Access wa& sits htfp./Avww. wsdot, wa.gov/EESCIDesigWAccess/defouh. him Traffic Analysis / OM 430.061 / OM 910.65 / DM 1055.05 / Design Reviewer Current State Highway Log / ON 410.02 / _ f DM 440.07 / DM 040.05 / DM 1055.05 Current State Highway Log NWR Safely Manail-ant or Traffic Analysis Cada,ral Information T*22N,Ro4E9W9Mo Comments on Land Survey: 1. Townahlp, Range, and Section fines shall be drawn and noted per Division 3 of the Plana Preparation Manual. 2. Sections shelf be noted adjacent to the section fine unless the Pogo is entirely contained in one section. if the plan is entirely contained in pas saeflon the the section may be noted under the Township and Range at the top of the plan sheet. Design Data Table Centerline Curve Data Block CURVE DATA P. [. STATION DELTA RADIUS TANGENT LENGTH 5 DSPEED No spiral curves ,r-- Spiral curves TOTAL CURVE DATA CURVE DATA I SPIRAL DATA P.I. STATION DELTA TANI:ENT DELTA RADIUS LENGTH S a DE Ls SSIPEEO S - Superalevaflon fx% or 0.Ox ft / ft. use NC for normal crown) a - Depress par station (osrls) Of - Spires deflection angle La - Length of apiraf curve From focal DESIGN DATA SR 000 SR 000 AL3 RAMP CROSS STREET AD. A Ax•se to A yy+yy A yy-yy to A 22+22 Functiorsol Claiss Rlrbas/Rural - Pr'rnctpal lVbm/Rural - Principal County or City Arterial, Nina Arta inl, etc.I Arterial, NTnar Arterial, etc.) Designation Highway Design [loss: (Modified: MDL14, (Modified: MDLL4, Full: Collector, etc,I Full; Collector, etc.) NHS Stotuss (Interstate, NHS (Interstate, NH5 or Non NH51 or Non NHS) Design Notrixl Matrix; IXI Matrix: (X) Line: IYI Line[ (Y) Access Controls (Full, Portiol, (Full, Partial. Managed- Class 1-5) Managed - Class 1-5) Design YetlTCles (SU, WH-67. etc.) (SU. WB-67, etc.) (SU. WB-67, etc.) (SU. WB-67. etc.l Posted/Deslgrt Speeds (25 / 25, (25 / 25, 60 AT CONNECTION, 55 / 65. etc.) 55 / 65, etc.] 0 AT TERMINAL, etc. Terrains (LEVEL. ROLLING, fl-EVEL, ROLLING, or MOUNTAINOUS) or MOUNTAINOUS) Truck Percentoget (37.. li%, etc.) f37/., 11%, etc.) - Comments on the Design oafs BOA f. Only one design dale box is required. preferably on the firsf sheet. 2_ If a route changes ch9rea-j.0.s within fha project limits, each segment should have its own column and each cafumns should clearly identify the limits of segment if covers 3. Projects with several ramps may tabulate Iha design vehicles and speeds in a siip-ata table. 4. Projects with several Inlersecling local roads may labufare the functional class, design vehicles, and poste drdesign speeds in a separate table Begin and End Project Callouts Typical Intersection BEGI `N/ PROJECT END PROJECT Required Required Elements 1-5 ■ MP r [17 `t �8 rs C7 1 1-5 IyJ�i� 1 `7 J.rsff 7 G Show intersection angles in decfmaf degrees S I A I l R+ C1'7 - 6 S T A 1 1 1 7+ 2 9. 4 or degrees, minutes, and secortds� Comments on Begin end End Project Callouts 1. Leader and arrow should point to confer line. 2. Project fitniffs are the lacatfons of permanent chennaOzaFlpn changes, not the construction limits of the project 3. Begin and end project calfouts should be separate from other callauts even If the stationing is coincident. Approval Signature Block WSDOT NORTHWEST RE610N SR 202 (LOCAL APPROI/EO CHANNEL IIA TION PLAN TRAFFIC ENGINEER - AREA OPERATIONS 3"t Signed Date Print ENGINEERING MANAGER Signed Date ------ Print This &Juncture block should he aocrorimstely 3' high by $' wide on a NO slxs otoL Show tangent, it necessary TA L 24+45 5s END WIDE LINE END LEFT TURN STORAGE Nob Store pe length a 2 R=68 LID.9: 12-c ---�•--'. l O' 5TORAGE F2�• 25t00 l2' Re4aJI Storage INeasureme !s shortest distance BEGIN LEFT TURN STORAGE NOT TO SCALE NOT ALL REQUIRED CHANNEL iZA T10N ELEMENTS SHOWN Reduced scale - use larger *Pate on 80081 plans. All elamanfs are subject to be evaluated per standards. '1/1/l MAN /1 / / /I Intentionally Blank l Measure to face of curb l l l Measure to beck of curb f l Show truncated dames on sidewalk ramps with Q. r f hachures or shading 240�Op44r q.5 s o 12' L-LINE DOTTED EXTENSION LINE SR202 MP 10.25 L-LINE 25+28.3 = X-LINE 10+0a Traffic divider facing opposing double left turns T[ME 13s38:48 EEramlPt SITE FED.AID PROJ.NO, DATE 4/29/200$ PLOTTED BY brownr 10 WASH DESIGNED BY rat felt ENTERED BY CHECKED BY CONTRACT NO. LauTISN NO. . ENGR. VISION DATE For Future Use State Route(s) - City (if portion within) / County _ 0 � State Routels) Titfe or sheet type L` must include O 'CHANNEOZATJON' Sheet Key n#�" Comments an the Sheet Key 1. The sheaf key should clearly show the arrangement of the sheers with minimal detail. 2. A sheet key is only needed on larger protects. Intentionally Blank For Future Use Title Block Mile post limits of channallzatoan from current State I-6 MP 148.81 TO MP 149.92 PLOTOI SR-516 MP 1.80 TO MP 2.05 I- C1 SR-516 INTERCHANGE SHEET 1 OF INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS KENT /KING COUNTY MARCH 2O08 CHANNELIZATION PLAN SKETs Mile post limits of chanaellzation from currant State Highway Lag. Use `MP xx.xxB' if back equation. I-5 MP 148.81 TO MP 149.9 SR 516 MP 1.80 TO MP 2.0 project title line # 1 project title line # 2 (optional) project title line # 3 (optional) City (if portion Month and year of submittal within) / County To be updated with each aubmitfaf T// Washington State Department of Tronspor Plan reference number ~~ Shaet number y_- Total number of chane ellzetlort Ilseats L Month and year of submittal To be updated with each submittal Chennefizalfon sheet number SNEET �f Vj TM ETsx Total number of channelization sheets NWR CHANNELIZATION PLAN CE1 Trill T CHANNELIZATION ELEMENTS $1q[T$ W A -- ag.-a 2B Return Address: City Clerk's Office City of Renton 1055 uth Grady ay oWA Renton 98057 20080707001909 CITY OF RENTON R 43.00 PAGE881 OF 802 07/07/2008 15;52 KING COUNTY, WA RELEASE OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS Property Tax Parcel Number: 182305-9114 Project File #: R-092-85 Street Intersection: NE Sunset Blvd. & Anacortes Ave NE Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: 8602060815 Grantor(s): Grantee(s): 1. City of Renton 1. Anton Althoff LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2 of City of Renton Short Plat No. 345-79, recorded under King County Recording Number 7908179008, being a portion of: The southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 3, township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington. Whereas the Grantee, as named above, is the holder of a restrictive covenant acquired from the above named Grantor dated February 6, 1986 and recorded under Recording Number 8602060815 of King County, State of Washington; and WHEREAS, the City of Renton, Washington did require certain restrictive covenant as a condition of approval for the rezoning of the subject property in 1986; and, WHEREAS, said restrictive covenant applied to the then current zoning; and, WHEREAS, the zoning of this site has subsequently changed; and, WHEREAS, the City Council authorized the removal of the restrictive covenant on June 16, 2008; NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Renton does hereby authorize the release of the restrictive covenant described above on the land described above. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said City has caused this instrument to be executed this & day of -TU41 20 OF. City of Rent Denis Law, Mayor Bonnie Walton, City Clerk STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) [ certify that C know or Ove safi and [ " acknowledged that he/she acknowledged it as the ) SS story evi ce that c►xtvr CIA .__ signed this instrument and er thorized to exqpuke the i s nt and L%bd' and to a the a free and voluntary o such uses mentioned in the instrument. Notary (Print)` t My appointment expires: Dated: Co as:-ce 2 'PEAL TO RENTON CITY COUN OF HEARD 1 EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECO.._i.IENDATION APPLICATION NAME J L, V��c �+. 4 G� b1 G� _ _ FILE NO. W A - D S `y 5A-R,a; QOF � The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommen a to of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated j Gt11� Z�� 200. A. 0 i 2008 IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: _ Name: pY_ tv-}I'e<, LU_ Address: Ocaivkui Phone Number: 27q-7 ^ Email: . (C wt 3,'!D M. CITY LE K� ,FICE REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY); , I PhoneNumber: umber: b-5y) Email: -01d9ar.• ACC �cc vc L C"w1 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) 'Negse �i No. Error: Correction: Conclusions - No. Error: Correction: Other: No. Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) (P 111' I�I } C( �04L- � 10v%,L� NSA l E�� IY� ` , Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: i J 4�-r Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: k�r'v Other: t'et L�Gr<vtd2 L: z ll,,��t Oyu A-jppellant/Represepth(tive Signature Type/Printed Nam Date NOTE: Please refer taYfle IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific appeal procedures. l ��' • . r r �p t} ia^ " ' (;� 0 �l"3 r �� �, �� A1 a -. u . S- a Fr,r City of Renton Municipal e; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 — Any 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-11017: Appeals to City Council — Procedures 1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-05OF1, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050172 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) City of Renton Municipal CTit_le 1V, Chapter 8, Section 110 — App 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council — Procedures 1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Cleric, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F1, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050172 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding slraIl be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) ra RENTON" ,,r r I'hU op 'r it r`. ,f: w r% City of Renton www,renterloa,gov 1 Renton Finance 0818820-1 07/08/2008 BR1 T35 Tue Ju108,2008 11:13PM Trans#104-104 Name: APPEAL TO COUNCIL 104 $75,00 8000 - Miscellaneous Revenue 1 ITEM(S): TOTAL: $75,00 Credit Car PAID $75,00 Thank Your J�► : \ JON GRAVES ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, PLLC '= 3110 RUSTON WAY, SUITE D TACOMA, WA 98402 TEL (253) 272-421 4 FAX (253) 272-421 8 1 G H A C H S. C O M July 7, 2008 Bonnie Walton, City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Subject. Appeal to City Council of the Hearing Examiner's decision in regards to Sunset Highlands Mixed Use Site Approval. File No. LUA-08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF. Dear Council Members: This letter is in response to the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny our request for Site Plan Approval, a Conditional Use Permit for a Mixed Use Building, and a Conditional Use Permit for a Building Height Increase in the Commercial Arterial zone for the Sunset Blvd Business District. Please note in your review of our request for appeal that we have been in constant contact with the City of Renton. It is our understanding that since the time of our Pre -Application meeting we have met every expectation required by the City of Renton. Our proposal was approved with conditions by Development Services, the proposal was issued a Determination of Non -Significance by the Environmental Review Committee, and there has been no Public dissention to our proposal as there were no letters submitted to the Hearing Examiner and there were no witnesses from the public to testify at the Public Hearing. The following response will provide you with a description of how this proposal has met the necessary review criteria and the objectives for the City of Renton's Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan. Thank you, Brett Lindsay The Hearing Examiner uses, in part, the City of Renton's Review Criteria of Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permits to determine if this proposal is appropriate for the subject site and to the goals and objectives of the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan. We feel here that the Hearing Examiner has not appropriately used the Review Criteria, Renton Comprehensive Plan and/or the City of Renton Municipal Code to satisfy a denial of our requests. Conditional Use Permit Request for Height Increase It is our understanding that the City Staff and the Hearing Examiner agree on the following Review Criteria for Conditional Use Permits and are a non -issue: 2. Community Need 3. Effect on adjacent properties 4. Compatibility 5. Parking 6. Traffic 7. Noise 8. Landscaping In the Commercial Arterial zone along the Sunset Blvd Business district, the height may be increased from 50' up to 60' upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit (RMC 4-2- 120A). Here, we have requested a building height increase of up to 55' 4" to allow for a stair tower/elevator shaft to provide safe access to and provide screening for roof top mechanical equipment. RMC 4-4-095E states that all operating equipment located on the roof of any building shall be enclosed so as to be screened from public view. According to this section, shielding may consist of roof wells, parapets, walls etc. The slight height increase also adds roof deviation which architecturally breaks down the scale of the building. This proposal adheres to the standards and guidelines provided in RMC 4-3- 100(I) Building Architectural Design for District B. The Hearing Examiner has denied the height increase for reasons that are not particularly clear. He calls the increase "unjustified", however acknowledges on page 8, response #8 that "the building would be only slightly taller than the permitted 50 feet so ultimately it probably would be compatible with the surrounding residential uses." We find no other reason in the Hearing Examiner's response for denial of this Conditional Use Permit. We ask the Council Members to reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision and allow for a height increase of 5' 4". Conditional Use Permit for Attached Residential Dwellines to Create -a Mixed Use Building It is our understanding that the City Staff and the Hearing Examiner agree on the following Review Criteria for Conditional Use Permits and are a non -issue: 2. Community Need 3. Effect on adjacent properties 5. Parking 6. Traffic First and foremost, it has been determined that attached residential dwellings are an outright permitted use in the Commercial Arterial zone subject to certain conditions under RMC 4-2-080A.18. The only condition that applies to this approval is that "residential units developed as part of a same building mixed -use project are allowed at a maximum of sixty (60) du/acre if the requirements for mixed use development in the Business District Overlay are met." Currently we are at 26 du/acre, and are within the permitted range. The decision for approval was brought before the Hearing Examiner under an inaccurate interpretation of RMC 4-2-070K. Here, the use table has indicated that attached dwellings are permitted upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit subject to an Administrative Review (RMC 4-2-070K). However, we find 4-2-050C.7 states that "in the event of a conflict between RMC 4-2-060, the Master Use Zoning Table and any other individual zoning use tables, RMC 4-2-070A through 4-2-0705, the provisions of RMC 4-2-060 shall have priority. Therefore, this use is permitted and should not have been decided before Hearing Examiner. It is also our understanding that the Hearing Examiner has denied the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Mixed Use building because he feels that the surroundings are too noisy to be an enjoyable residential situation. "Quietude", as the Hearing Examiner describes, is not part of the standard criteria for a Conditional Use review and in this regard it is not always practical in an "urban" design environment. The very nature of a Mixed Use development blends commercial services and amenities with residential uses to promote a neighborhood feel. The Hearing Examiner also contends that the adjacent McDonalds would be a nuisance to the proposed residences. It should be noted again here that the Conditional Review Criteria does not ask for the opinion of the reviewing official to determine if the surrounding use may or may not be a nuisance on this site. In fact the Review Criteria asks if the subject site will have adverse affect on the surrounding property (RMC 4-9-030G). The Hearing Examiner concluded on page 8, response #7 that "it does not appear that the development of the site would have an adverse impact on the surrounding uses." It should further be noted that there were no letters of dissention submitted to City of Renton in regards to this project, and there were no members of the public that came to testify against the project at the Public Hearing. For this, the Hearing Examiner cannot presume to know what may or may not be a nuisance to the residents of the subject site. We ask that the Council Members reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision and allow for a Mixed Use building. Site Plan ApRroval It is our understanding that the City Staff and the Hearing Examiner agree on the following Review Criteria for Conditional Use Permits and are a non -issue: c. Effect on adjacent properties d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposed site plan to the site e. Conservation of area -wide property values f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation g. Provision of adequate light and air h. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions i. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use j. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight. As the Hearing Examiner concedes, the Commercial Arterial zone suggests integrating residential uses with commercial. However, the Hearing Examiner has also suggested that this particular corridor is reserved for commercial, office and retail uses in the Renton's Comprehensive Plan. We have found no indication to suggest that Renton's Comprehensive Plan for this area is reserved for purely commercial developments. In fact, to the contrary, the Comprehensive Plan describes this District as "unique due to the highly eclectic mix of commercial and residential uses along its length (IX 63)." It further explains that these integrated uses are appropriate for that area and offer a gateway signal that the City of Renton is a diverse community (IX-63). The Hearing Examiner has also concluded that this proposal has not conformed to Building and Zoning Codes. While this proposal has appropriately requested exceptions to the code due to the limitation of our site, we have met all criteria and expectations of the specified Land Use designation. The purpose and intent of the Commercial Arterial Zone is to evolve from the strip commercial, linear building types that the Hearing Examiner has deemed more appropriate, and integrated a residential component to a permanent physical connection to commercial uses (RMC 4-2-020.L). It has been determined by the hearing Examiner that the building would be pulled to right up to the street, when in reality the closest corner of the building is setback from the street edge by 177'. The building and landscape reduction is appropriate for this area because we are providing visual interest for retail services and pedestrian access along a high traffic corridor. As is typical with many mixed use developments, especially in an urban setting, our proposal has reserved the ground level for retail/commercial uses and the upper levels for residential uses as directed by the Urban Design Standards and Guidelines for District B. We have also provided additional landscape strips along the side and rear of the property where none was required; as well, there is an existing attractive wood -looking concrete fence to provide further buffering. Street Trees have been placed in the front of the building to provide exposure to the ground level commercial space while still providing some screening for the upper level residences. This proposal adheres to the Urban Design Guidelines 4-3-100H. L(aii) and (ci) for Landscaping, "street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and building" and "front yards should be visible from the street and visually contribute to the streetscape." As also indicated and illustrated in the Urban Design Guidelines 4-3-100E.7 for buildings with pedestrian oriented uses, this proposal provides street trees for retail/commercial exposure, pedestrian oriented facades with transparent storefronts and residential decking to provide weather protection. Furthermore, we have provided architectural modulation, proposed quality building materials, and provided pedestrian amenities as directed by the Urban Design Guideline for District B (4-2-1001.1-5). We are certain that this proposal has met and/or exceeded the criteria for Site Plan Review and of the policies, objectives and guidelines of the Renton Municipal Code and Renton's Comprehensive Plan. We ask that the Council Members reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision and approve the Proposed Site Plan. JON GRAVES ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, PLLC 3110 RUSTON WHY. SUITE b TACOMA. WA 98402 TEL (253) 272-4214 FAX (253) 272-4218 CITY OF RENTON Office of the City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way - Renton WA 98057 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED CITY OF RENTON Office of the City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way - Renton WA 98057 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED ADF properties LLC 15007 Woodinville Redmond Rd Suite #A Woodinville, WA 98072 Brett Lindsay Jon Graves Architects & Planners 3110 Ruston Way Ste #D Tacoma, Washington 98402 July 29, 2008 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON } COUNTY OF KING ) BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 29th day of July, 2008, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal filed by Brett Lindsay, c/o Jon Graves Architects & Planning, PLLC, Representatives for ADF Properties, LLC of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation regarding the Sunset Highlands Mix Use; 4409 NE Sunset Blvd. (File No. LUA-08-028 SA-H, CU-A, ECF) Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk j SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE nee this 2 h July, 2008. CynthYAR. Moya Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in Renton My commission expires: 8/27/2010 *--: ��C' lerk's Office Distribution List +Appeal, Sunset Highlands Mixed Use � Located at: 4404 NE Sunset Blvd File No. LUA-08-028 SA-H, CU-A, ECF July 28, 2008 1 Renton Reporter 1 City Attorney Larry Warren �1 City Council * Julia Medze 'an ✓1 CED Alex Pietsch 1 Assistant Fire Marshal David Par as f 7 Planning Commission Judith. Subia 2 Parties of Record** (see attached list 1 PBPW/Administration GreggZimmerman 7 PBPW/Development Services Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Stacy Tucker Rocale Timmons Karyren Kittrick Janet Conklin Larry Mecklin I PBPW/Trans ortation Services Peter Hahn 1 PBPW/Utilities & Tech Services Lys Hornsby f 1 LUA-08-028 • *City Clerk's Letter & POR List only 1611pICaa1VIL ONILIwwUrI OItfC CL O aWUIIOyC IOVIIAC YYYYW.CIVCIy.LwFII AVG����" Y@ 516019 Utilisez le gabarit 51600 1-800-GO-AVERY i7 Brett Lindsay Jon Graves Architects & Planners 3110 Ruston Way Ste #D Tacoma, Washington 98402 ADF Properties LLC 15007 Woodinville Redmond Rd Suite #A Woodinville, WA 98072 � AMMV-49-008-L @09LS 31tl1dW310AjaAv ash 4DOM (MAH3AV .LJ wm/taane•MMM Supulid aaii a6pnws pue wer CITY,___ nENTON Denis Law, Mayor ly 8, 2008 Jennifer Henning Current Planning Manager City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Sunset Highlands Mixed Use, LUA 08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF Request for Reconsideration Dear Ms. Henning: Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman A request to reconsider the decision noted above was submitted by staff. Staff asked that this office take note of conflicts in Code language that could alter the decision. Staff originally determined that a Conditional Use Permit was required in the CA Zone to allow a building to contain a mix of commercial and attached residential uses and presented that issue to the Hearing Examiner. Apparently, staff believes it inaccurately interpreted code and that a Conditional Use Permit for the attached residential units in a mixed -use building is not required. The Examiner did not make that determination and reviewed the permit as processed by staff. Staff now believes the proposed use is permitted without a Conditional Use Permit. This office has reviewed those provisions. Those provisions do not require a change to the final decision - the Site Plan is inappropriate since residential units should be located 15-feet from Sunset Boulevard and no closer. This office has no issue with the fact that residential uses whether standalone, attached or in combination with other uses may be developed in the CA zone. So even if the CA Zone permits these residential units in or as part of a mixed -use building that same CA Zone requires setbacks from Sunset Boulevard (10 feet front yard and 15 feet landscaping buffer, respectively). Those required setbacks should only be reduced if the proposed Site Plan has appropriate design features that offset the setback reductions. The applicant proposed "street trees." Street trees are not sufficient and are already required so they offer nothing additional. The building was designed with articulations in facade. Those, too, are already required elements of the overlay district and offer nothing that was not already required by code. Neither street trees nor articulated facade elements provide noteworthy elements or relief for potential residents that suggest a nearly Zero setback is appropriate. Even if the Conditional Use Permit is not required, the Site Plan approval process still requires the implementation of good planning practices. There was no justification for reducing the required 10-foot front yard setback. Similarly, there was no justification for reducing the required 15-foot landscaping buffer. Both of those setbacks would provide a better residential model along Sunset Boulevard than reducing those setbacks to near Zero. What this office's decision noted was the proposal was inappropriate because it placed residential uses closer to the street than either the required front yard setback of 10 feet or the landscape requirement of 15 feet. There may be some confusion since the request was for three permits, a Site Plan review and what this office determined were two separate Conditional Use Permits, one for the mixed use and one for the building height. At the time when the Conditional Use Permit was still in play, the mixed use building failed because there is no community need for a building containing residential units to be in a building with a front yard of less than 10 feet or having less than the required 15 feet of landscaping. Eliminating the mixed use/attached unit Conditional 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 430-6515 R E N 1 O N a� EAD or• TfTE ctrRV F. This papercani��;-s nG°; r�;cy;;F,+cE material, 36 % post consumer Use Permit review does not alter the decision. The Site Plan fails because there was no compelling reason to reduce the front yard setback from its required 10 feet nor the landscape setback from its required 15 feet when residential uses would be adversely affected in that location in the proposed building. The buildings plans do not provide any unique qualifying features. It is just Iike any other residential building with some articulations, some pitched roof elements and balconies or terraces. Those features pretty much define most multiple family residential buildings in the suburban landscape. If this building qualifies for a reduced setback then any other building would similarly qualify and there would be no standard 10-foot setback or 15-foot landscaping setback. All proposed buildings with facade articulations, pitched roofs and balconies would qualify for setback reductions. That does not seem to be the meaning of the Code - setback reductions are tradeoffs for offsets that still protect the amenities, in this case, residential amenities, inherent in good design. Clearly, the applicant's property is constrained as noted in the original decision. They have a relatively small lot. They have a creek flowing through a portion of the site, which requires a buffer. They also have a standard requirement for a 10-foot front yard setback and a 15-foot landscaping setback. On a site that is constrained like that, the proposed use should work with the site and not attempt to contravene regulations that good planning would suggest not allow a residential building that close to a major arterial. hi other words, the applicant is attempting to shoehorn in a project that is inappropriate on this smaller lot. Reducing the required front yard to almost Zero feet when residential units are included is inappropriate. Does it serve the public use and interest to force residential uses onto a lot that does not provide the standard amenities generally associated with residential living? Might it be more appropriate to develop solely office and ground floor retail uses on this lot? Would office or other retail uses blend better with the immediately adjacent McDonalds Restaurant? While the setbacks may be reduced by Site Plan review, that is discretionary. The reduction of the front yard setback and the landscaping setback is not an entitlement. The plan has to show creativity and, at the same time, protect the future residents from the negative impacts of reducing the setback to near Zero. Frankly, as noted in the report, there were no unusual elements, no compelling design treatments, no features of a residential building that set it apart and recommended it for consideration of setback reductions, and nothing so compelling as to reduce those setbacks to nearly Zero. The applicant points to the fact that the interior unit space is a bit further setback from the actual balcony areas. That would be true for a building where the normal setback was observed and actually serve to increase the normal setback of 10 or 15 feet to a greater amount. Again, the building is of rather ordinary design, does nothing to protect or buffer its potential residents from arterial traffic and noise and is located next to a drive -up, fast food restaurant. Street trees, as noted above, are not adequate and would be required even if 10 or 15- foot setbacks were proposed. This office cannot speculate as to whether an office building, with appropriate design, would have merited setback reductions as sought. But at least a reduction in setbacks for an office building would have limited impact on office workers. Those reductions in setback sought in this case do not appear to be merited when residential housing is included in the mix. Maybe if the design of the building had the housing in the rear facing the creek and office along the street -side it might have warranted a setback reduction but as proposed it does not appear appropriate to allow residential units that close to Sunset Boulevard. This office believes that there is also a difference between the residential mix in the downtown t core and that in other areas of the City. The urban downtown streetscape is substantially different than along Sunset Boulevard. The speed limits alone, not to mention actual speed coupled with traffic signalization are different in the downtown core and along Sunset. Speed limits for downtown streets where housing may be flush with sidewalks are 25 miles per hour while Sunset where setbacks are supposed to be 10 feet, the limits are 35 miles per hour. On some stretches of Sunset those posted speeds might be exceeded due to a different pattern of traffic ,signalization. As the decision also noted, it was expected to spark discussion of what types of uses the City wants, especially when this office is aware that the City Council indicated a desire to have landscaping along its Highlands' arterials and Council believed buffers should have been included for some older development along these roadways. One has to consider that just because a discretionary remedy is created does not mean that from a land use perspective it is always appropriate to approve it. Both the Conditional Use criteria and the Site Plan criteria suggest that the use should be appropriate and that the City look at critical land use elements when approving new developments, particularly new developments that seek to stray from required, regulated, well-founded setback requirements. Again, normally even an office building would have been expected to comply with both the 10-foot front yard setback and the 15-foot landscape requirement. What makes this design so compelling that it is necessary to reduce those setbacks to, again, near Zero when housing is included in the mix. Finally, while the request to allow a building that exceeds the height limits of the CA zone is minor, it is associated with a building whose site plan does not appear appropriate. That means that there is no public need for a taller building, even one that is only taller in some of its components. Actually, if one factors in the normal height of a building and the height of an individual story (as in first or second level or floor) in a building, the CA Zone's height limit was probably defined to, in fact, limit height somewhat. In this case, again, while an additional five and one-third feet is not exceptional, it is not appropriate for this proposed use. Since staff believes that no Conditional Use Permit was required for a nixed use building in the CA Zone the original decision is modified. In as much as there was apparently no need to review a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed -use building in a CA Zone that portion of the decision should be ignored. The decision is not modified where it was found that the Site Plan was not appropriate and where the Conditional Use Permit for added height was not appropriate and both of those requests are still denied. If this office can provide any additional assistance, please feel free to write. Parties may appeal this determination to the City Council within 14 days of this decision. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Alexander Pietsch, CED Administrator ADF Properties, LLC, Owner Chip Vincent, Planning Director Parties of Record Neil Watts, Development Services Director Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Jon Graves, Applicant/Contact h,� Denis Law, Mayor June 30, 2008 Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 CITY 4 RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION — SUNSET HIGHLANDS MIXED USE (FILE NO. LUA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF) Dear Mr. Kaufman, We respectfully request reconsideration of the denial of the conditional use permits included in the Decision for the Sunset Highlands Mixed Use project, dated June 24, 2008. Two Conditional Use Permits were requested in order to: 1) Permit the construction of attached residential units developed as part of a same -building mixed -use project; and 2) To exceed the maximum height allowed within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone. The decision of the Examiner, as it relates to the construction of attached residential units, was based on an inaccurate interpretation of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). RMC 4-2-070K states that attached dwelling units in the CA zone are permitted with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit subject to the additional requirements listed in RMC 4.2-080A.18. Where a use or development requires review under RMC 4-9-200, Site Plan Review, the Site Plan Review and Administrative Conditional Use Permit shall be combined. Therefore, the Conditional Use Permit, for the construction of attached residential units developed as part of a same building mixed -use project, was brought before the Hearing Examiner on June 3, 2008. However: RMC 4-2-060, a conflicting code section, states that attached dwelling units are permitted outright within the CA zone subject to the additional requirements as listed in RMC 4-2-080A.18: "In the event of a conflict between RMC 4-2-060, the Master Zoning Use Table and any other Individual zoning use tables, RMC 4-2-070A through 4-2-070S, the provisions of RMC 4- 2-060 shall have priority. " Therefore, attached residential uses are outright permitted and are determined to be fully appropriate within the CA zone. Accordingly, we are request that the Examiner consider the new evidence noted above and retract the denial of the conditional use permit, to permit a mixed -use commercial and residential building. We also believe the decision of the Examiner, as it relates to excess height within the CA zone, was based on an error in judgment. The CA zone establishes a maximum building height of 50 feet for development located within this zone, but height may be increased to 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 R E N T O N ® This contains 50'% rec c,ed material, 30°h AHEAD OF THE CURVE pier y postcansumer 60 feet upon granting of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed structure has been designed with a maximum height of 55 feet and 4 inches. The applicant proposes to exceed the 50 foot height limit by 5 feet and 4-inches for one element of the project, in order to screen mechanical equipment including the elevator shaft and stair tower for the building. No other portion of the building is proposed to exceed the height limit. In fact, RMC 4-4-095E states that all operating equipment located on the roof of any building shall be enclosed so as to be screened from public view. The applicant has chosen to screen the mechanical equipment in a way that would contribute to the variation of roof heights and forms that are used to break down the scale of the building. In addition, the applicant is proposing taller ceilings within the residential units than what is required by building code in order to provide a more marketable unit. If the denial of the Conditional Use Permit is upheld, the proposal would likely result in less marketable residential units. RMC 4-9-030A states that the purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to allow certain uses in .districts, from which they are normally prohibited, when the use is deemed consistent with other existing and potential uses within the general area of the proposed use. The proposed mixed use building would be the tallest structure in the immediate vicinity, at least for the time being. It is anticipated that the.immediate areas to the west, east, and south (also zoned CA) are likely to change as 'incremental redevelopment occurs. Redevelopment could potentially result in structures with a height of 50 feet surrounding the site. The 50-foot tall structures would be outright permitted within the CA zone and only have a height difference of 5 feet and 4-inches from a portion of the proposed building. As mentioned, on Page 8 of the Decision by the Examiner, "the increase (in height) is very modest". We believe that the proposed height for the mixed use building would be compatible with the neighborhood when taking into consideration the potential height of future projects in the general area which may also include other mixed -use buildings. Therefore, we respectfully is request the Examiner re-evaluate his denial of the Conditional Use Permit to allow a portion of the structure to exceed the maximum height allowed within the CA zone. Please contact Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner, at (425) 430-7219 should you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, i Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager CC. Alexander Pietsch, CED Administrator Chip Vincent, Planning Director Neil Watts, Development Services Director Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Contact Owner Parties of Record Yellow File +7R-) Denis Law, Mayor June 30, 2008 Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 CITY OF RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION — SUNSET HIGHLANDS MIXED USE (FILE NO. LUA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF) Dear Mr. Kaufinan, We respectfully request reconsideration of the denial of the conditional use permits included in the Decision for the Sunset Highlands Mixed Use project, dated June 24, 2008. Two Conditional Use Permits were requested in order to: 1) Permit the construction of attached residential units developed as part of a same -building mixed -use project; and 2) To exceed the maximum height allowed within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone. The decision of the Examiner, as it relates to the construction of attached residential units, was based on an inaccurate interpretation of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). RMC 4-2-070K states that attached dwelling units in the CA zone are permitted with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit subject to the additional requirements listed in RMC 4-2-080A.18. Where a use or development requires review under RMC 4-9-200, Site Plan Review, the Site Plan Review and Administrative Conditional Use Permit shall be combined. Therefore, the Conditional Use Permit, for the construction of attached residential units developed as part of a same building mixed -use project, was brought before the Hearing Examiner on June 3, 2008. However: RMC 4-2-060, a conflicting code section, states that attached dwelling units are permitted outright within the CA zone subject to the additional requirements as listed in RMC 4-2-080A.18: "In the event of a conflict between RMC 4-2-060, the Master Zoning Use Table and any other individual zoning use tables, RMC 4-2-070A through 4-2-070S, the provisions of RMC 4- 2-060 shall have priority. " Therefore, attached residential uses are outright permitted and are determined to be fully appropriate within the CA zone. Accordingly, we are request that the Examiner consider the new evidence noted above and retract the denial of the conditional use permit, to permit a mixed -use commercial and residential building. We also believe the decision of the Examiner, as it relates to excess height within the CA zone, was based on an error in judgment. The CA zone establishes a maximum building height of 50 feet for development located within this zone, but height may be increased to 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 R E l�l 1 O LV MT.^^^ ^-.,... ^..^ AHEAD OF THE CURVE .-cnn�. ... �,-a ...-..,..:.a miner. .,�..r ��..���...o. 0 60 feet upon granting of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed structure has been designed with a maximum height of 55 feet and 4 inches. The applicant proposes to exceed the 50 foot height limit by 5 feet and 4-inches for one element of the project, in order to screen mechanical equipment including the elevator shaft and stair tower for the building. No other portion of the building is proposed to exceed the height limit. In fact, RMC 4-4-095E states that all operating equipment located on the roof of any building shall be enclosed so as to be screened from public view. The applicant has chosen to screen the mechanical equipment in a way that would contribute to the variation of roof heights and forms that are used to break down the scale of the building. In addition, the applicant is proposing taller ceilings within the residential units than what is required by building code in order to provide a more marketable unit. If the denial of the Conditional Use Permit is upheld, the proposal would likely result in less marketable residential units. RMC 4-9-O30A states that the purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to allow certain uses in districts, from which they are normally prohibited, when the use is deemed consistent with other existing and potential uses within the general area of the proposed use. The proposed mixed use building would be the tallest structure in the immediate vicinity, at least for the time being. It is anticipated that the immediate areas to the west, east, and south (also zoned CA) are likely to change as incremental redevelopment occurs. Redevelopment could potentially result in structures with a height of 50 feet surrounding the site. The 50-foot tall structures would be outright permitted within the CA zone and only have a height difference of 5 feet and 4-inches from a portion of the proposed building. As mentioned on Page S of the Decision by the Examiner, "the increase (in height) is very modest". We believe that the proposed height for the mixed use building would be compatible with the neighborhood when taking into consideration the potential height of future projects in the general area which may also include other mixed -use buildings. Therefore, we respectfully is request the Examiner re-evaluate his denial of the Conditional Use Permit to allow a portion of the structure to exceed the maximum height allowed within the CA zone. Please contact Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner, at (425) 430-7219 should you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, j Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager cc_ Alexander Pietseh, CED Administrator Chip Vincent, Planning Director Neil Watts, Development Services Director Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Contact Owner Parties of Record Yellow File Nancy Thompson - Re: Hearing Examiner L' .^ r8-028 (ADF Properties).pdf Page 1 From: Ronald Straka To: Teresa Phelan Date: 6/25/2008 8:44:41 AM Subject: Re: Hearing Examiner LUA 08-028 (ADF Properties).pdf The following are the Surface Water Utilities Comments on the attached project: 1. The project is adjacent to Honey Creek, with a portion of the creek on the site. The applicant will need to show the limits of the 100-year floodplain on the site to verify if proposed parking areas and building are protected from flooding. Finished floor elevation must be set 1-foot above the 100-year floodplain. 2. The 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manaul Flow Conservation Level 2 Standard and basic water quality treatment is recommended for this project. The Surface Water Utility will want to review the storm water design requirements and report for this project. >>> Teresa Phelan 06/25/2008 7:34 AM >>> Attached is the Hearing Examiner Report for ADF Properties dated June 24, 2008. Please provide me with your comments, if applicable. Thanks, Teresa Teresa Phelan Administrative Secretary Utility Systems Division City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425 430-7332 ph 425 430-7241 fax CC: Allen Quynn AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) County of King ) ss. Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 24`h day of June 2008, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this Z?day of , 2008. �. N Al. r�+ rSS1i' 1f'* "'�,�/� �AS4i11;��•�� Application, ��'tl'tl or Case No.: nary )1ublic,�if and fofhe /fState of Washington idinj4 at Kir therein. Sunset Highlands Mixed use LUA 08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT Jun 04 08 05:05p Dale Fonk 425-398-1006 p.3 Limited Liability Company Acknowledgment State of Washington) : SS. County of King ) On this- day of June, 2100$, Dale Fonk, to one known to be the Managing Member of the ADF Properties, LLC, the Washington State Limited Liability Company that executed the within and foregoing instrument, personally appeared before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said company, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he is authorized to execute said instrument. IN Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, the day and year first above written. Name (printed)'�t7l7L#►hca•— Notary Public in and fQr the State of Washington Residing at W OO ct ti� 11 % l\t- My Commission expires L{---19 —11 Jun 04 08 05:04p Dale Fonk 425-398-1006 p.1 ADF PROPERTIES, LLC FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET To: From: Rocale Tirr=ons Dale Fonk FAX NUMBER: Date: 1-425-430-7300 June 4, 2048 COMPANY: TOTAL. NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVED: City of Renton Planni g Division 3 PHONE NUMBER., SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER: 1-425-430-7219 Re: YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER: Recorded,removal of restrictive covenant- 0 URGL•:N r Q I'OR RKVIYW ❑ PLEASE COMMLINT Q PLEASE K8PLY ❑ PLEASE RECYCLE NOTEWCOMMEN` & Dear Ms. Tin=ons, Thank you for taking a few minutes with me yesterday to explain the citds position as regards the restrictive covenants on our property at 4409 Sunset I am very pleased to learn that the city council will effectively nullify the one that related to zoning_ Per out discussion, i have recorded the attached document to nullify the other one relating to the landscaping if there are any questions please do not hesitate to call me at 206-799-3247 or e-mail me at da]ctonk Qbcs.com Thank You Dale Fonk Ev cov 15007 WOOD INVILLE-REM]0ND RD. SUITE A • WOODINVILLE, WA 96072 PHONE: 206 ?97-3247 FAX: (425) 398-1006 Jun 04 08 05:05p Dale Fonk 425-398-1006 p.2 After recording return to: ADIF Properties, L.LC 15Q07 Woodinville -Redmond Rd. Suite A Woodinville, WA 98072 20080604001504 ROF PROPERTIES RISC 43.00 PAG9091 OF 002 06/04/2008 14:14 KING COUNTY, WA Removal of Declaration of Restrictive Covenant RE: Tax Parcel # 032305-9D93-04 Legal Description: Lot 2, City of Renton Short Plat No. 345-79 as retarded under ling County Recording No_ 7908179008; Being a portion of: The Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. in King county, Washington Recitals: WHEREAS this property has in the past been developed as single family residential property and the other parcels 1 and 3 of the above referenced City of Renton Short Plat 345-79 have been developed as commercial property, it was deemed desirable to implement a landscape buffer between this parcel 2, used far a single family residence, and the commercial uses on the other parcels. Implementation was put into effect by imposing a Restrictive Covenant onto Parcel 2 of that Shortplat_ This Restrictive Covenant was recorded in 1979 under King County Recorders No. 7908200517 WHEREAS it is now recognized by the owners of this parcel that the regulatory zoning as designated by the City of Renton for this property has been changed since 1979_ WHEREAS the owners now wish to have all such regulation of uses, buffers and landscaping be governed by the Land Use Codes of the City of Renton only, WHEREAS this parcel 2 has not had a single family use located thereon for a period of more than 5 years. NOW THEREFORE, The owners of record do deem that the Restrictive Covenant as recorded in 1979 under King County Recorders No. 7908200517 to be no longer valid and hereby lift and r vfe that Restrictive Covenant from this Parcel 2- Sig ed ! _ Date 3 069 Dale Fonk, Managing Member ADF Properties, LLC DI~VELOPMENT pLANNING CITY OF RENT©N CE W m R M Of ct. "R-1 Id pwv� r-77-171 1 1 L I ry no z e --RM-:-- F RM F EXHIBIT 3 FlB/PW E6 - lT�3N &e W V2 i :4800 Keaton CY umitl 10 ZONING MAMVT 0 D6 fix. fi 3 T23N R5E W I/Z OZ4SM7 5X EE� W M m G, �n ! t [ ga is➢Fii i �a� # a d 8 g a !!Y R ff a s 7 SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBM17TAL ¢ CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION ' f4 A - ION - 5 I I Gy r_ SET BLVD. MIXED USE � ARGHIT iT � & r.�ERS M "� NNE &I7piNSET BLYl1. TT+CA`i4 W.A ya.+p] ! NEN, Wll MR90 ]S3Ti1-13� "A+l : X 00 CC' C%j n � lS! to `-` CV ifs a ?toes UCIWL04"M'wNm400tA Vf PH aLAw4)ay-l*m4>DoM 400% o-n VLvmB►i )-ze esm -AT49M 1o"Aw PM 1POur14 BN 60" tJOIL 001 U • _S i� 4 NVId AinUfF ! -� vM 'Norma �- SQNvIH`JIH LaSNnS ��"_' ` -ddd I - e — - - ., ,. _ -- oI�CeCCpZ -ON Wr 104V N 3 Fpfppfl.,,� �F G i G Spy 4M u V O 4 u W ow- �' 6 ^ Denis Law, Mayor June 2, 2008 Brett Lindsay John Graves Architects &. Planters 3110 Ruston Way, .Ste #D Tacoma, WA 9840.2 CITY JF RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator - SUBJECT: Proposed Stream Buffer Reduction Sunset Highlands Mixed Use (LUA08-028, ECF, SA-H, CU-A) 4409 NE Sunset Blvd Dear Mr. Lindsay, This letter is sent in response to your request made as.part of the Sunset Highlands Mixed Use Building application (LUA08-028, ECF, SA-H, CU-A), dated March 19, 2008, to reduce a stream buffer on theproject.site. Summaryuf Re uest The applicant proposes to reduce the stream buffer fora Class 4 stream on the project site from 35 feet to a minimum width of 25 feet. The reduction would allow a larger building pad for a proposed.4-story, 55-foot tall mixed -use building by using the additional space for an internal driveway. The stream evaluation indicates that approximately 1,376"sq4are feet of stream buffer. would be affected as a result of the proposed reduction. The applicant would _enhance 2,191 square feet, :the remainder of stream buffer, as part of:the reduction proposal. RMC 4-4-050.L.5,d allows the Administrator to approve buffer width reduction for Class 4 streams where the buffer width is no less than 25 feet, provided the applicant demonstrates all of the following criteria (pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.L.5.c.iv): iii. Criteria for Approval of Reduced Buffer Width: The following criteria in subsections L5c(iv)(a) and (c) through (f), or criteria (iv)(b) through,(f) of this Section shall be met: (a) Buffer Condition: Either subsection (1) and (3) through (5) shall be met or subsection (2) through (5) shall be met: (1) The buffer area land is extensively vegetated with native species, including trees and shrubs, and has less than five percent (5%) non-native: invasive species cover; and has less than fifteen percent (15%) slopes; or (2) The buffer can be enhanced with native vegetation and removal of non-native species per criteria in subsection L5c(iv)(e) of this Section, and has less than fifteen percent (15%) slopes; and (3) The width reduction will not reduce stream or -lake functions, including those of anadromous fish or nonfish habitat; and (4) The width reduction will not degrade riparian habitat; and (5) No direct or indirect, short-term or long-term, adverse impacts to regulated water bodies, as determined by the City, will result from a regulated activity. The 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 MThis papercontains 50%=jded material, 30%post consumer RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE City's determination shall be based on specific site studies by recognized experts, pursuant to subsection F3 of this section and RMC 4-8-120 (b) The proposal includes daylighting of a stream, or removal of legally installed,.as determined by the Administrator, salmonid passage barriers; and (c.) The project includes a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation and substantiates that the enhanced area will be equal to or improve the functional attributes of the buffer; or in the case of existing developed. sites where a natural buffer is not possible, the proposal includes on- or off -site riparianAakeshore or aquatic enhancement proportionate to its project specific or cumulative impact on shoreline ecological functions; and (d) The proposal will result in, at minimum, no net loss of stream/lake/riparian ecological function; and (e) The proposal does not result in increased flood hazard risk; and (f) The proposed: buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there. is an absence of valid" scientific information, the steps in RM.0 4-9-254F are followed. Background A stream has been identified.pn site; Honey Creek, which flows. west to"east along the southeast property corner of the site between two culverts. The City"s Streams and Lakes Map classifies Honey Creek as a:Class 4 stream where it enters the "project site. "- he applicant submitted. a Stream Evaluation by Sewall Wetland Consulting, hjO:(doted March 19, 2008) delineating Honey Creek on the project site. A Class 4 stream 1S 4 non-salmonid.bearing intermittent stream and requires a minimum 35=f6ot buffer. The stream flows subsurface within a pipe from the West;side of Duvall Avenue, approximately 1,000+ feet east of the site.' A 50-foot section of the. ditched. stream surfaces across southeast property comer of the site. The stream then exits via a second culvert whichdischarges on the. north side of NE Sunset Blvd Thestream has an average channel width of approximately 2-feet and an average depth of approximately 12-inches. Due to the long distances in which the stream is culverted, the segmented portion of the stream and the stream buffer located onsite provides very little hydrologic or ecologic function. The sections of stream located onsite contain no documented fish use, and no suitable habitat for fish. However, downstream.segments of this stream contain documented salmonid usage. A small portion of two stormwater retention ponds and a new surface water discharge are proposed to be placed within the stream buffer, with a letter of exemption from the Department Administrator or their designee, and would ultimately discharge stormwater into the stream. As such, water quality has the potential to affect salmonid species. Water quality control is proposed. Class 4 streams require a minimum 35-foot buffer; however the applicant has proposed a reduced buffer down to 25 feet. The applicant has proposed to enhance the remainder of the buffer. The reduced buffer would allow a larger building pad for the mixed -use building by using the additional space for the internal loop driveway, 20 feet in width. The stream evaluation indicates that approximately 1,376 square feet of stream buffer would be affected as a result of the proposed reduction. The applicant would enhance 2,191 square feet, the remainder of stream buffer, as part of the reduction proposal. Stream buffer enhancement would result in the planting of native plants and the removal of dense Himalayan blackberry and Japanese knotwood. The request for stream buffer reduction was made as part of the application for Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 4-story, 55-foot tall mixed -use building on a 35,593 square foot site. The site is located within the Cornmercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the. NE Sunset'Blvd Business District Overlay. The proposed building would include 30,795 square feet of residential within 21 residential units, 2,209 square feet of commercial space, and 58 parking. stalls, 21 of which would be located within a surface parking lot. The remaining 37 stalls would be located on the first floor of the building in structured parking. Analysis per RMC 4-3-050X.5.d.iii a) Buffer Condition: Either subsection (1) and (3) through (5) shall be met or subsection (2) through (5) shall be met: (1) The buffer area land is extensively vegetated with native species, including trees and shrubs, and has less than five percent (5%) non-native invasive species'. cover, and has less than fifteen percent (1 S%) slopes; .or Not applicable. (2) The buffer can ke enhanced with native'vegetation and removal of non-native . . species per criteria in subsection LSc(iv)(c) of this Section; :and has less than fifteen percent {I S%) slopes; and The applicant proposes to enhance the buffer by providing higher quality habitat with greater function and value through species diversity; variable vegetation communities, and removal of non na&v .. invasive specss.. Thi buffer enhancement plan would likely include,species such as, Douglas fir, big leaf maple, beaked hazelnut, vine maple, rcl`elderberr�indian plum, noatka rose, red flowering currant and salal. Average slopes within. the 35-foot stream buffer range from 10-13 percent. (3) The width reduction will not reduce stream or lake functions, including those Of anadromous f ish ar nonfish habitat; and The proposed buffer reduction area is, currently dominated by red alder, Himalayan blackberry, and Japanese knotweed. Due to the degraded condition of the proposed buffer reduction area, the applicant proposes to plant a variety of native trees and shrubs to increase the plant species and structural diversity of the buffer. In addition, all invasive species within the buffer are proposed to be removed. Implementation of the buffer reduction plan should increase the value of the buffer and would not detrimentally affect the ecological function of the stream. The sections of the stream located onsite contain no documented fish use, and no suitable habitat for fish. (4) The width reduction will not degrade riparian habitat; and The habitat value of the reduced area is low as it is comprised of non-native species growing in compacted fill material soils. The non-native species do not provide an adequate buffer habitat or any substantial value to a riparian system. Therefore, the buffer width reduction would not further degrade the riparian habitat. The proposed enhancement plan would increase the ecological function of the buffer and its ability of the buffer to deter degradation of water quality in both the onsite stream, as well as in downstream critical areas. (5) No direct or indirect, short-term or long-term, adverse impacts to regulated water bodies, as determined by the City, will result from a regulated activity. The City's determination shall be based on specific site studies by recognized experts, pursuant to subsection F3 of this section and RMC 4-8-120 Due to the low ecological and hydrological function of the stream and degraded state of the buffer, reduction of the standard buffer is not expected to cause any adverse effect to the functionality of the buffer or stream. b) The proposal includes daylighting of a strew, or removal of legally installed, as determined by the. Administrator, salmonid passage barriers; and Not applicable: c) The project includes a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation and substantiates that the enhanced area will be equal to or improve the functional attributes of the buffer, or in the case of existing developed sites where a natural buffer is not possible, the proposal includes on- or off -site riparianllakeshore or aquatic enhancement proportionate to its project specific or cumulative impact on shoreline ecological functions; and See discussion under Criteria "a„ d) The proposal will result in, at minimum, no net loss of stream/lakefriparian ecological function; and Mitigation' for the reduction of the stream buffer width, would. offset the loss of area, by providing higher quality habitat with greater function and value through species diversity, variable vegetation communities, and removal (if non-native invasive species. e) The proposal does not result in increased,flood hazard risk; and The proposal. to reduce the buffer does not result in a flood hazard risk. f)The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC`365;-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific. information, the steps in.RMC 4-9-25OF are followed The applicant submitted a supplemental stream study by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc: (dated March 19, 2008) delineating and classifying the stream on the project site in accordance with standards outlined in RMC 4-8-120.D. Decision - Based on staff s analysis, I have determined the proposed revisions are within the parameters defined by the Renton Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed stream buffer reduction is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall be required to submit a stream mitigation plan per RMC 4-8-120. . The mitigation plan shall include a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation that enhances or improves the functional attributes of the buffer. A maintenance and monitoring plan for a period no less than five years, shall also be, provided ;in the mitigation plan. The final mitigation plan must be submitted to and approved.by the Current Plarining Project Manager prior to the issuance of building or construction' permits, whichever comes first. 2. After the approval of the final mitigation plan, a performance surety per RMC 4-1-230 must be paid to the City of Renton for the maintenance and monitoring period prior to the issuance of building or construction permits, whichever comes first. Appeal Process: Appeals of this administrative decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. June 16, 2008..Appeals must be filed in writing, together with the required $75.00 application fee, with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, .Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the.Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B..Additional 'information regarding the appeal process may be.obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Should you have any questions regarding this determination or the requirements discussed in this letter, please contact Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner, at (425) 436-72.19. . Sincerely, Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division. cc: Yellow File (LUA08-628) Jennifer Henning. Rocale Tirrinions Party of Records 4 DATE: June 2, 2008 LAND USE FILE NO.: LUA-08-028, SA-H, ECF, CU-A PROJECT NAME: Sunset Mixed Use Building OWNERS: ADF Properties LLC APPLICANT: John Graves Architects & Planners, PI_LC PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale TimmonsAssoicate Planner PROJECT LOCATION: 4409 NE Sunset Boulevard ..PROPOSAL: The installation of a stormwater outlet pipe within the Money Creek Stream buffer. The proposed stormwater pipe would convey stormwater from two bio-retention areas, to be constructed mostly outside tof,;the stream buffer,. to a discharge outlet, which would treat the stormwater prior to it entering Honey Creek.4. The retention system is required to treat stormwater for a:proposed 21-unit mixed use building CRITICAL AREA: Honey Creek stream buffer (Class IV) EXEMPTION JUSTIFICATION: Pursuant to RMC section 4-3-050.C.7.a.ii Stormwater Management Facilities are permitted within stream buffers. An exemption from the Critical Areas Regulations is hereby granted for the following reason(s): X Stormwater Management facilties in Buffer: Stormwater management facilities in critical area buffers including stormwater dispersion outfall systems designed to minimize impacts to the buffer and critical area, where the site topography requires their location within the buffer to allow hydraulic function, provided the standard buffer zone area associated with the critical area classification is retained pursuant to subsection L or M6c of this Section, and is sited to reduce impacts between the critical area and surrounding activities. DECISION: The proposed development is consistent with the following findings pursuant to RMC section 4-3-050.C.5: 1. The activity is not prohibited by this or any other chapter of the RMC or state. or federal law. or regulation; 2. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by industry standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles; and, Page I of 2 Page 2 of 2 Denis Law, Mayor May.28, 2008 Brett Lindsay Jon Graves Architects & Planners, PLLC 3110 Ruston Way #D Tacoma, WA 98402 SUBJECT: Sunset Highlands Mixed Use LUA08-028, ECF, SA-H, CU-A CITY F RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Dear Mr, Lindsay: This letter is to inform you that the appeal period ended May 27, 2008 for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated for the above - referenced project. No appeals were filed on the ERC determination therefore, this decision is final. The applicant must comply with all ERC Mitigation Measures outlined in the Report and Decision dated May 5, 2008. A Hearing Examiner Public Hearing has been scheduled for June 3, 2008 where Site Plan Conditions may be, issued. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at. (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, Roc a Timmons As ciate Planner Enclosure cc: ADF Properties. LLC / Owner(s) 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 -� Thdpapercmfains50%recycled material, 30% postoonsumer RENTON AHEAD OFTHECVRVE Y 66006 YM'HOlN3M 4 3�AY. Sri OLL6 aM1l9 J35HIIi 3H 661M1 U SJaIVEVtifld 5_ ��md 3SQ Q3XIW 'OA'ltl 13SNnS fn � 59ntrd9 NOS I UL Na11VO11ddd 3Sn WN01110NOO IV111MMS M31A38 NV Id 311S $ C� i�6�p !f� I• �� F }� y ! � I � � � ! z �� �e• p � �1 !e! 3��$ ���€ a �� & �_ ��� �� � � � � � ,6 � I# � papp i"� •}a� E ,E� �� � If 96 flF.EI .. d• I EII 4 E1 f i 1 ! I•E 6p9:iz �.vz I_ 6 6FE _&_- ; s.l EFITT L I , 9 k _ Lid . 41 ilidl ` :!k d W H��}6� # j 55 x W it p M 4}1 0 � C� Y M 1,9 M 20 3tJ are t��t[ ors +,ercec «c ❑ co,- M'15/Q1 l �] V s2�aNnnrtd a NO . 6WI VA N s3v IR YM j♦<y,F131/ 3Sn 03xIW'Onle ASKS I ! I 1 T^ I 1 1 4 �]!! g • NOI1VDllddV 3sn -NNOI. ONOO 5 W1.6wBns M31AMI NV1d BLS egf � if �• � a � �! �� 1� �tr gk f $ ��' � � : �� 6 � F � $ � � � ¢ e s �r .. A�9�9@ 99�@�6 @ E r� L uY w co x W ssac YWHOMaa a Sur xF as aA-13CNnC3NiYY/ -11 � LJ LJ U �] sa3r�r nr E sal, �zrd 3sn 03XIW'OAl9 13SNfiS NOf- z aiallg iFig a ►ia Ip €t ! 9 4` 25 o � fill 'ar 3(�$a; Eg 7� R7 ro rz 50 I NOJIVNIddV 3SA WN0111aNO9 ivi_uw9ns M31A3a NV7d 311S [ f TrJ N y m n a z v r m m r rn X 1-4 I I I I i I + i I ; I I S i i { I I i I I } i ! i 4 F 1 1 7 1 I I I h I I 1 I I I f I I I I- I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 41 SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION l SDalt -1d i.�.a' ,"O o sn Liaxlw •a��� l�swns 1® 10,111 51l1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lif ®��� - NOI1tl0I`Iddtl 3sn WNOLLIaNOO Ea i i g s W1111NIMS M31A3M Ma'ld 311S Is g Nil it z-Giiw - I i i I i I i 1 1 i 4 I i i I I i I I I I 1 11 i I I lI i I I I i I 11 I I � 1 I I I i I I I I 1 f f i i I I I I lI 11 -E I 1 I -I------------ i; f I I ! I I ! I 1 I II I J W -j J tr ' O LL N c� zz ILL v+ Pk[ PUO-P%- M LOm o-n VU 491H WAS xP36.4 "a '-" a3Nmo egm LopimeM "Oo" BFv-w oa 'oN Bor —feHv ara C? f .-�©� z ! R 0 g 1 9 w YaM 3YN l8 ryg5µjy vM 'NotN3a SONYW9IH 13SWIS-- El—SS—ddd tM W x W -and 'aaSMFMv an[. .[ 't3t anaanr-a I A ll CL�- I zfr LULL ECM@ VAA 9UM M y&,wA HAS9MW" asn a3xiw •ante s3swns .11 I-11il1111 41 0 VA H co N 2 x W --- Renton City Limits Parcels ® Renton Aerial 100 EXHIBIT 11 Renton 12 I i e: http://rentonnet.org/MapGuidelmaps/Parcel.mwf Monday, April 28, 2008 4:37 PM � � R-1 MDRG ra Wa au . , _ �•• �••p•,�ll O3L I015e�WE 'aA-m igsNns IN to" U seanlnr�td 3? 3sn 03XIW'QA1813SNns 111 <n rr turf 5_• .. JO NOr �rr< N13a1VO1lddV 3S1i IVNOIII13NOO 1V111W9y1S M31A3H NV ld 311S gg e N! I�j - L gpE }r! I9 SE C�• s e � �'- ... I 61 ismLUJA _.._.. �Z41— kil -' T, V. T z IN a w r a`) {� PiAtIL£SL A vmLYt-iQ�.'A Goss YM 'N Nau I 3? II on19136NnB 3N W" V Sd3Ntv�ld ' 3sn a3XIW'anl9 139NnS 6a/` Jor x NO11VOIlddV 3Sn -1VNO1110NOD 1V1.11WSnS M3[A3N NVId 311S i�� � �� � ■ :E j° F �a � � �; = � E s s ae' ?e � ; g i 1 , � j,a�sppp j3 g.. will j g i il4 a S° ! j j� x°E !S ■` :� F{ i E r ��I•5� 4 da�Ygi[ �t� �a :i3r �9 �� �� :- �pE q t ►qf '= 1; �qc F.ii i � �a �a� :$ � i L6 iii ?�j� ;q� � �@ qq� � � �i�� �qs � i!� .r 9 R ri Co S C 144 cio C'" q tCLC4'SL 1 slCtCiC'£SC �N Ik v!n'en a a our +losr®`ol` 'ante iaslx�e 3a wn I ° �H� 3Sn a3XIW MIS 13SIYnS rJor � �i$ 0-1"Cci �1� ai [ Nouvo lddV 3sn '1VNQ111aNOa IV111WBnS M31A3H NVId 311S 3lJJa Iei I ilia 31'� I j g NiHNy ' �¢g€R�8�a��� 11H il, g 9 A 99 G v it P:+'mil a „r K I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I f I I l [ I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 1 [ 3 I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 Z O G w w T 7 0 CITY OF RENTON DETERI4___._ATION OF NON-SIGNIFICAN%,r--MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF APPLICANT: Jon Graves, Architects & Planners, PLLC PROJECT NAME: Sunset Highlands Mixed Use DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review - Conditional Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 4-story, 55-foot tall mixed -use building on a 35,593 square foot site. The site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the. NE Sunset Blvd Business District Overlay. The proposed building would include 30,795 square feet of residential within 21 residential units, 2,209 square feet of commercial space, and 58 parking stalls, 21 of which would be located within. a surface parking lot. The remaining 37 stalls would be located on the first floor of the building in structured parking totaling 6,854 square feet. Access to the site would be provided off of NE Sunset Blvd via two driveways. The site contains a Class 4 stream approximately 312. square. feet in size. The applicant proposes a.reduction of the stream buffer from 35 to 25 feet. There are 4 trees onsite of which 3 are proposed to remain. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4409 NE Sunset Boulevard LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton >Department of Commurtity & Economic.Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant. will be required to submit a.Temporary Erosion and Seuirrmorttation Control Plan (TESCP) designed`oursuant to the State Department of Ecology's.'Frosion and Sediment Control Requirements, :outlined in..Volume ll of the 2001; .Stormw,?ter Management Mane' al. The plan must be.submitted to,and - approved by the Development Servrces;:Division Plan Review stafif. prior to issuance of the utility construction and building permits Arad during construction. 2. The applicant will be required to cornply, with the recommendations found in the-gia6technicai report prepared by Geotech Consultants, dated March 14, 2001 ouran"g site clearing, grading, and building construction. 3 A Native Growth Protection Easement shall be placed over that part of the site encompassing the stream and buffer.area. Restrictive covenants shall also be placed on the lot to this effect. The'.easement and restrictive covenants shall, be recorded prior to issuance of building permits. 4. The applicant shall pay a Parks Mitigation Fee of $354:51 for each new muitiyfarriily unit- This fee is estimated at $7,444.51 and shall be payable prior to issuance of building permits. . 5. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of'$75.00 for each new net daily trip prior to issuance of building permits. The fee is estimated to be $22,275.00: 6. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee of $388.00 for each new multi -family residential unit and-$0.52 for each square foot of commercial space. This fee is estimated to be $9,296.68 which would-be payable prior to the issuance of building permits. FRC.Mftigaton Measures Page;1 of 1 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 27th day of May, 2008, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Brett Lindsay, Jon Graves Architects & Planners, Contact/Applicant ADF Properties LLC Owner (Signature of Send STATE OF WASH I NGTON } } SS COUNTY OF KING } certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: sl0-7 Notary Public in an or the State TAt Notary (Print): e_r- h v. l VV1%-Gtr. s My appointment expires: C t c1 — i.t_) Sunset Highlands Mixed Use """ LUA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF I CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING June 3, 2008 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner_ PROJECT NAME: Sunset Highlands Mixed Use PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF PROJECT LOCATION: 4409 NE Sunset Blvd. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit approval for the construction of a 4-story, 55-foot tall mixed -use building on a 35,593 square foot site. The site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the NE Sunset Blvd Business District Overlay. The proposed building would include 30,795 square feet of residential area within 21 residential units, 2,209 square feet of commercial space, and 58 parking stalls, 21 of which would be located within a surface parking lot. The remaining 37 stalls would be located on the first floor of the building in structured parking. Ingress and egress to the site would be provided off of NE Sunset Blvd via two new curb cuts. The site contains a Class 4 stream approximately 312 square feet in size. The applicant proposes a reduction of the stream buffer from 35 to 25 feet. There are 4 trees onsite of which 3 are proposed to remain. HEX Agenda 6-3-48.doc PUBLIC City of Renton HEARING Department of Community and Economic .Development PRELIMINAR Y REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARYAND PURPOSE OF REQUEST.• REPORT DATE: May 27, 2008 Project Name: Sunset Highlands Mixed Use Owner ADF Properties LLC Address 15007 Woodinville Redmond Rd Ste: #A Woodinville, WA 98072 Applicant/Contact Jon Graves Architects & Planners PLLC Address 3110 Ruston Way Ste: �+D Tacoma, WA 98402 File Number: LUA 08-028, SA-H, CU-A, Project Manager: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner ECF Project Description: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit approval for the construction of a 4-story, 55-foot tall mixed -use building on a 35,593 square foot site. The site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the NE Sunset Blvd Business District Overlay. The proposed building would include 30,795 square fleet of residential area within 21 residential units, 2,209 square feet of commercial space, and 58 parking stalls, 21 of which would be located within a surface parkln'g lot. The remaining 37 stalls would be located on the first floor of the building in structured parking. Ingress and egress to the site would be provided off of NE Sunset Blvd via (WO new curb cuts. "The site contains a Class 4 stream approximately 312 square feet in size, The applicant proposes a reduction of the stream buffer from 35 to 25 feet. There are 4 trees onsite of which 3 are proposed to remain. Project Location: 4409 NE Sunset Blvd Project Location Map City of Renton Community and Economic Development Department Preliminary Reporl to the Hearing Examiner SUNSET HIGHLANDS MIxFD USE LUA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATEJune 3, 2008 Page 2 of'22 B. HEARING EXHIBITS: Exhibit I. Project file ("yellow file") containing the application, reports, staff comments, and other material pertinent to the review of the project. Exhibit 2: Neighborhood Plan Exhibit 3: Zoning Map: Sheet D6 West Exhibit 4: Site Plan (1/31/2008) Exhibit 5: North and East Elevations 0 /31/2008) Exhibit 6: South and West Elevations 0/31:'2008) Exhibit 7: First and Second Floor Plan (1/31/2008) Exhibit 8: Third and Forth Floor Plan (1/3 11/2008) Exhibit 9: Utility (3/21/2008) Exhibit 10: Conceptual Landscape / Tree Retention Plan (1/31/2008) Exhibit Il: Aerial Photo C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: 2. Zoning Designation: 3. Comprehensive Plan Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: ADF Properties LLC 15007 Woodinville Redmond Rd Ste: #A Woodinville, WA 98072 Commercial Arterial (CA) Commercial Corridor (CC) Vacant North: Multi -Family Residential (RN1-F zone) East: Eating and Drinking Establisliment - McDonalds (CA zone) South: Day Care Center (CA zone) West: Single Family Residential (CA zone) 6. Access: 7. Site Area: 8. Project Data: Existing Building Area: New Building Area: Total Building Area: Via NF? Sunset Blvd 0.817 acres (35,593gross square feet) NIA 40,083 square feet 40,083 square feet D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Annexation N/A 2408 5/27/ 1968 Comprehensive Plan NIA 5099 I I/l/2004 Zoning NIA 5100 11 / 1 /2004 Rezone R-092-85 3974 3/5/1986 Rezone R-272-78 3311 4/27/ 1979 Short Plat SHP-345-79 N/A 6/4/1979 City of Renton Community and Economic Deveiopmen[ Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner SUNSET HIGHLANDS MIXED USE. L UA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE June 3, 2008 Page 3 of 22 E. PUBLIC SERVICES: Utilities: Water: There is an existing 12-inch water main within the north side of NE Sunset Blvd. Sewer: There is an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main within an easement along the west property and a 12-inch sanitary main fronting the property along NE Sunset Blvd. Surface Water/Storm Water: There exist storm water conveyance systems within NE Sunset Blvd. 2• Streets: There is currently a paved and improved public right-of-way along the frontage of the site. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table Section 4-2-110: Commercial Development Standards Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Special Districts Section 4-3-040: Commercial Corridor Business Districts Section 4-3-100: Urban Design Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations Section 4-4-070: Landscaping Regulations Section 4-4-080: Parking, Loading, and Driveway Regulations Section 4-4-090: Refuse and Recyclablcs Standards 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 5. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria Section 4-9-030: Conditional Use Permits Section 4-9-200: Site Plan Review 6. Chapter 11 Definitions G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.• 1. Land Use Element 2. Community Design Element H. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. Proiect Description/Background The applicant, Jon Graves Architects & Planners, PLLC, is requesting an Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review before the Hearing Examiner for a 4-story mixed use building. A Conditional Use Permit is required in order to permit the construction of attached residential units developed as part of a same building mixed -use project and to exceed the maximum height allowed within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone. This .report includes Site Plan Review, Urban Design Guideline Review and Conditional Use Permit review. The subject property is located on the south side City of Renton Community and Economic Development Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner SUNSET HIGHLANDS MIXED USE L UA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATFAne 3, 2008 Page 4 of 11 of NE Sunset Blvd just west of Anacortes Ave NE at 4409 NE Sunset Blvd. The mixed use building would be sited on a vacant 0.817 acre site. The completed project would provide 30,795 square feet of residential space within 21 multi -family residential dwelling units and 2,209 square feet of commercial space including a restaurant and retail space. The residential units are proposed to be located on the upper 3 levels with 7 units on each story. There would be three 1- and eighteen 2-bedroom apartment units. The residential units would be accessed by a ground -level elevator at the center of the building, with emergency staircases at the building core and on the south elevation. The commercial space would be located within the north portion of the proposed building on the ground floor facing NE Sunset Blvd_ Approximately 1,500 square feet of the commercial space would be designated to specialty retail space. The remainder 700 square feet would be used as a restaurant. The building would be located in the center of the project site with surface parking areas located along the cast and west sides of the building, and landscaping is located around the perimeter of the site and within the surface parking lots. A total of 58 parking stalls are proposed, 21 of which would be located within the surface parking lot. The remaining 37 stalls would be located on the first floor of the building in structured parking. The structured parking would be accessed through 21 residential garage doors. The building exterior would have a combination of materials including high quality vinyl siding and concrete masonry and a standing seam metal roof. The ground -floor level will provide more than 75 percent of the linear frontage along NE Sunset Blvd with storefront doors and windows. Ingress and egress to the site would be provided off of NE Sunset Blvd via two new 30-foot wide curbeuts. There is one-way circulation throughout the project site via an internal driveway that loops around the building that is 24 feet wide. The proposed building would result in a lot coverage of 28 percent. The tallest point of the building would be the top of the stair tower on the south elevation, which would have a height of 55 feet and 4 incties_ A stream, Honey Creek, has been identified and delineated on the southeast corner of the project site. The section of the stream that is located on site is classified as a Class 4 stream, Honey Creek is classified as a Class 3 stream off site. A Class 4 stream is a non-salmonid bearing intennittent stream and requires a minimum 35-foot buffer. The proposed project would reduce the 35-foot stream buffer to no less than 25 feet. The total reduction of buffer is 1,376 square feet in area. Stream buffer enhancement is proposed as part of the buffer reduction which would result in the planting of native plants. Staff has approved the buffer reduction proposal subject to conditions. The decision for the buffer reduction proposal was issued under a separate cover. There are 4 protected trees onsite of which 3 are proposed to remain. 2. Environmental Review Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on May 5, 2008, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) for Sunset IIighlands Mixed -Use Building. The DNS-M included 6 mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on May 12, 2008, and will end on May 27, 2008. No appeals of the threshold determination were tiled. 3. Compliance with ERC Conditions Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the following mitigation Measure with the Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated: 1. The applicant will be required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the State .Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. The plan must be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Division Plan City of Renton Community and Economic Development Deparimr171 Preliminaty Reporf io the Hearing Eraminer SUNSET HIGHLANDS MIXED USE L UA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATEJune 3, 2008 Page 5 of 21 Review staff prior to issuance of the utility construction and building permits and during construction. 2. The applicant will be required to comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Gcotech Consultants, dated March 14, 2001,during site clearing, grading, and building construction. 3. A Native Growth Protection Easement shall be placed over that part of the site encompassing the stream and buffer area, Restrictive covenants shall also be placed on the lot to this effect. The easement and restrictive covenants shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permits. 4. The applicant shall pay a Parks Mitigation Fee of $354.51 for each new multi -family unit. This fee is estimated at $7,444.51 and shall be payable prior to issuance of building permits. 5. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75.00 for each new net daily trip prior to issuance of building permits_ The fee is estimated to be $22,275.00. 6. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee of $388.00 for each new multi -family residential unit and $0.52 for each square foot of commercial space. This fee is estimated to be $9,296.68 which would be payable prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. Staff Review Comments Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. Consistency with Site Plan Review Criteria The Site Development PIan Review Criteria set forth in Section 4-9-200 and Development Standards set forth in Section 4-3-040F of the Renton Municipal Code forms the basis of the Site Plan Review, as follows: 1. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements and policies: The site is designated Commercial Corridor (CC) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Lands in the CC designation are intended evolve from "strip commercial" linear business districts to business areas characterized by enhanced site planning incorporating efficient parking lot design, coordinated access, amenities, and boulevard treatment. The proposal is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element policies: Land Use Element Policy LU-338: Commercial Arterial -oned areas should include an opportunity for residential uses and office as part ofmixed-use development. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Objective LU-GGG: Guide i-edevelopment of land in the Commercial Corridor designation with Commercial Arterial zoning, fi-om the existing strip commercial forms into more concentrated forms, in which .structures and parking evolve from the existing suburhan. form, to more efficient urban confitiiwations with cohesive site planning. ✓ Policy Objective Met J Not Met Policy LU-353: ,structures at Commercial Corridor intersections should not be set baekfrom the street and sidewalk so as to allow vehicular circulation or parking to be located between the sidewalk and the building. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met City of Renton Community and Economic Development Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner SUNSET HIGHLANDS MIXED USE L UA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE Ame J. 2008 Page h of 22 Policy LU-358: Parking areas should be landscaped (including street trees, buffers, berms), especially along roadways, to reduce visual impacts. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Policy LU-363: Parking provided on -site, in parking structures, and either buffered from adjacent uses or incorporated into pedestrian -oriented street design, is preferred. ✓ Policy Objective Met IJ Not Met Policy LU-368: ConsideratiOn of'the scale and building style of near -by residential neighborhoods should be included in development proposals. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Policy LU-369: Development should be designed to consider potential adverse impacts on adjacent, less intensive uses, e.g. lighting, landscaping, and setbacks should all be considered during design. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Community Design Element Policy CD-17: Development should he designed (e.g. building orientation, setbacks, landscape areas and open ,pace, parking, and outdoor activity areas) to result in a high quality development as a priniary goal, rather than to maximize density as a first consideration. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Policy CD-21: Development should have buildings oriented toward the street or a common area rather than toward parking lots. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Policy CD-29: In mixed -use developments with ground floor retail uses, residential parking areas should not conflict with pedestrian and vehicular access to the retail component of the project. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Policy CD-31: In mixed-ttse do V 1o;)ments, residential uses should he connected to other uses through design features such as pedestrian walkways and common open space. ✓ Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met 2. Conformance with existing land use regulations; The subject site is designated Commercial Arterial (CA) on the City of Renton Zoning Map. The proposed development would allow for the future construction of up to 21 new residential units and commercial space within a mixed -use building. The property was rezoned in 1986 from a medium density residential designation, Residence- 3 (R-3), to an office designation, Office Park (O-P). As a result of the rezone approval the following covenants were imposed: a.) Zoning of the subject site will revert from O-P back to R-3 if specific development plans in the form of a building permit application, or other land use permit representing an intention to utilize the O-P zoning, such as an application for site plan review or conditional use permit, is not submitted within two (2) years of final approval on this zoning action. City of Renton Community and Economic Development Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner SUNSETHIGHLANDS MIXED USE LUA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE June 3, 2008 Page 7 gf22 b.) The existing homes on the subject site are not to be utilized for any commercial endeavor_ Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the restrictive covenants, imposed as part of the rezone of the property from Residence 3 (R-3) to Office Park (O-P) in 1986, be removed prior to the issuance of building permit. The applicant has submitted a request to the City for the removal of the covenants and the City Council is in the process of hearing the request. Density - The allowed density range in the NE Sunset Blvd Business District of the CA zone is a minimum of 10 dwelling units per net acre (du/a) up to a maximum of 60 du/a when the project includes commercial and residential as a mixed -use development. Net density is calculated after public rights -of -way, private access easements (vehicular or pedestrian), and critical areas are deducted from the gross acreage of the site. After deducting 312 square feet from the 35,593 gross square footage, of the site for critical areas, the net square footage of the site would be 35,281square feet (0.809 net acres). The 21 unit proposal would arrive at a net density of 25.9 dwelling units per acre (21units / 0.809 acres — 25.95 du/ac), which falls within the permitted density range for the Business District and Zone. Lot Coverage - The CA zone allows building coverage at a maximum of 65 percent of the lot area as only some of the parking would be contained within the structure. The total building footprint is proposed to be 9,870 square feet. This generates a total building coverage of 28 percent which is well below the maximum 65 percent building lot coverage permitted. Setbacks — In the CA zone, the minimum front yard setback is 10 feet but may be reduced to zero feet through the site plan review process provided no blank walls are located within the reduced setback. In the NF Sunset Blvd Business District the maximum front yard setback permitted is 15 feet. The applicant is proposing a reduced setback down to a minimum setback of I foot and 2'/z inches from the front (NE Sunset Blvd) property line. The building elevations submitted by the applicant propose modulation of the wall within the required front yard setback on NE Sunset Blvd. The wall plane along NE Sunset Blvd would be recessed approximately 5, 6, and 7 feet at the entrances of the 3 commercial spaces. In addition the building elevations indicate that various building materials will be used to further add texture in addition to the proposed building modulation. Therefore staff supports the proposed reduction in the front yard setback from 10 feet to a minimum of 1 foot and 2 �/a inches. There is no interior side or rear yard setback as the rear and side yards do not abut nor are they adjacent to residential zoned property. Landscapes -- The CA zone requires a minimum of 15 feet of on -site landscaping along street frontages that are adjacent to residential zoned property except where reduced through the site plan review process. The landscaping requirements apply to the subject site's NE Sunset Blvd street frontage. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the project application_ The applicant is proposing to reduce the 15-foot landscape strip down to as little as 0 feet along portions of the street frontage. The landscape plan proposes to install street trees planted at a spacing of 30 feet on center along NE Sunset Blvd for the span of the building. The applicant has also proposed two landscape areas that exceed 15 feet in width between the property east and west property lines and the drive aisles along NE Sunset Blvd. Street trees species generally include Chantilla Flowering Pear, Red Bud and Katsura. Additional vegetation is provided around the perimeter of the site that include deciduous street trees (Sunset Red Maplc, BowHall Maple and European Hornbeam) and conifer trees (Western Red Cedar, Hollywood .Juniper and Shore Pine). Drought tolerant evergreen and deciduous shrubs, grasses, groundcover, and lawn are also located along the perimeter of the site. Staff supports the proposal for reduced on -site landscaped areas along portions of the site's street frontages as the applicant has provided adequate perimeter and interior landscaped area as depicted in the conceptual landscape plan. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that a detailed landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect registered in the State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other similarly qualified City of Renton Communitv and Economic Development Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner SUNSET HIGHLANDSMIXED USE LUA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE June 3. 2008 Page 8 of 22 professional and an irrigation plan be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the building permit. The City's parking regulations have additional landscaping requirements for surface parking lots. For surface parking lots with between 15 and 50 parking spaces a minimum of 15 square feet of landscaping is required per parking space. Landscaped areas are required to be a minimum of 5 feet in width. Within the parking area a minimum of I tree shall be planted for every 6 parking spaces provided, shrubs shall be planted at a rate of 5 per 100 square feet of landscape area, ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide 90 percent coverage within the first 3 years of installation, and no more than 50 feet shall separate a parking space from a landscape area. Based on the proposal for 21 surface parking stalls a minimum of 315 square feet (21 spaces x 15 square feet = 315 square feet) of landscaping is required within the surface parking lot, with a total of 4 trees. The submitted landscape plan identifies 9,961 square feet of landscaping within and around the perimeter of the parking lot with a total of 17 trees (Chantilla Flowering Pear, Red Bud, Katsura, Sunset Red Maple, BowHall Maple, European Hornbeam, Western Red Cedar, l lolIywood Juniper and Shore Pine) and 9,961 square feet of shrubs and ground cover. The landscape plan complies with the minimum requirements. Height — The CA zone allows a maximum building height of 50 feet_ Heigbt may exceed the maximum height with a Conditional Use Permit. In no case should the height exceed 60 feet. The maximum height of the proposed building would be 55 feet and 4 inches at its tallest point. The only portions of the building that exceed the 50-foot height limit are the areas to accommodate the elevator shaft and the stair tower. A Conditional Use Permit is required in order to permit the construction of a building that exceeds the maximum height of 50 feet. See Conditional Use Permit criteria below. Pedestrian Connections - All development in the CA zone within the NE Sunset Blvd Business District is required to provide a minimum of one pedestrian connection from the entry of each building to the street and sidewalks, and a minimum of one pedestrian connection is required from each side of a property to commercial and/or residential uses. The submitted site plan identifies pedestrian connectivity to each side of the property except for the south side of the property due to natural conditions of the site that include the stream on site. A concrete walkway would be provided between the commercial entrances of the proposed building and the existing sidewalk on NE Sunset Blvd. A 5-foot wide pedestrian connection on the northeast portion of the site would connect pedestrians to the McDonalds property to the east. An additional pedestrian connection is identified on the northwest portion of the site connecting to the property to the west; however it appears that a pedestrian connection at this location would terminate in the side yard of a single family residence. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant construct a 6-foot high wood fence along the length of the west property line with a gate for the pedestrian connection. The wood fence would provide privacy to the property to the north until such time the property is redeveloped with a commercial use. All pedestrian connections shall comply with the design standards at outlined under RMC 4- 3-040F. l .e.ii. A restrictive covenant has been placed on the subject property (Lot 2 of the Anton A. Altoff Short Plat) that requires a 25 foot landscape buffer be provided between Lots 1, 2, and 3 of the Anton A. Altoff Short Plat (SHP-345-79). At the time of the short plat the lots varied in zoning designations. Since that time the properties have been rezoned and are all located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant have the restrictive covenant, imposed as part of the Anton A. Altoff Short Plat in 1979, removed prior to the issuance of the building permit. City of Renton Community and Economic Devetopment Deparlmrnt , reliminaq Report to the Hearing Examiner SUNSET HIGHLANDS MIXED USF, LUA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE June 3, 2008 Page 9 of 22 Parkin — The parking regulations require a specific number of off-street parking stalls be provided based on the amount of square footage dedicated to certain uses or the number of residential units. The following ratios would be applicable to the site: Use Square Footage of Ratio Required Use or # o Units S aces Residential: Where Tandem Spaces are provided: 16 2.25 space / unit 36 Where Tandem Spaces are notprovided: 5 1.75 space / unit 8.75 Restaurant 700 SF 1 space / 100 SF 7 Retail Sales 1,500 SF 4 spaces / 1000 SF 6 Based on these use requirements, 5S parking spaces would be required to meet code. The applicant proposes to provide 58 spaces. Of the total 58 parking stalls proposed, 21 would be located within a surface parking lot, 1 I of which are designated for commerical use. The remaining 37 stalls would be located on the first floor of the building. The proposed project would have 21 residential dwelling units and 21 private garages located underneath the residential portion of the building. Five of the garages would be single car garages, the remaining 16 garages would be two -car tandem parking garages. Staff recommends as a condition of approval a restrictive covenant be recorded to assign tandem parking spaces to the exclusive use of specific dwelling units. Enforcement of tandem parking spaces shall be provided by the property owner, property manager, or homeowners' association as appropriate. The restrictive covenant should be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. All code required spaces must comply with the dimensional requirements of the parking regulations. For surface standard stalls, each stall must be a minimum of 20 feet long and a minimum of 9 feet wide_ For structured standard stalls, each stall must be a minimum of 15 feet long and 8 feet and 4 inches wide. An aisle width of 24 feet is required for 90 degree parking stalls. All surface stalls are 9 feet wide and 20 feet long with the exception of ADA stalls. Tandem parking garages provided within the building, are 10 feet wide and 30 feet long. Single car garages are 20 feet long and 10 feet wide. The project would meet the requirement to install six parking stalls that meet the minimum stall and aisle dimensions as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The site will be entered at the western curb cut and will be exited at the eastern curb cut. There is one-way circulation throughout the project site via a 24-foot wide internal driveway that loops around the building. Part oC the 24-foot aisle width is a 4-foot pedestrian walkway surrounding the building that has no change in elevation but a change in materials to differentiate the walkway. As proposed, the parking would comply with parking lot design standards. Per the NE Sunset Blvd Business District requirements (RMC 4-3-040) parking for mixed use structures must be within an enclosed structure located under the residential portion of the building. The required guest spaces for residential uses may be surface parking. However, the City's Parking Regulations do not specify the number of required parking spaces designated for guest parking. hl addition, it is unclear if this requirement applies to the commercial portion of the development as commercial uses not in a mix -use development are outright permitted in the Conunercial Arterial (CA) zone and NE Sunset Business District with surface parking. The applicant requested a modification from the standards, in order to specify 10 of the required 47 parking spaces for the residential portion of the development for guest parking that may be permitted as surface parking spaces and to permit the I I spaces required for the commercial use as surface spaces. The Development Services Director approved the modification on July 25, 2007. Since the approval of the parking modification the applicant has increased the commercial square footage. Though the overall count of City of Renton Community and Economic Development Department Prelimina?y Report to the Hearing L:raminer SUNSET HIGHLANDS MIXED USE L UA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATEJune 3, 2008 Page 10 of 22 parking spaces (58 spaces) does not change, the ratio of spaces does change. Instead of 11 parking spaces, 13 spaces would need to be designated for commercial use to meet parking requirements. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant submit a revised site plan depicting two additional standard parking spaces designated for commercial use. The revised site plan should be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance. Refuse and Recyclable Deposit Areas - The location and pick up of the service elements shall be approved by Waste Management. The refuse and recyclable deposit areas for the mixed - use building would be located near the southern property line, behind the proposed building. The proposed refuse and recyclable deposit area is proposed to be screened by a 15-foot fl- inch enclosure and screening details were submitted with the land use application. 3. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses; The proposal would improve the character of the site, as the proposal is to replace the vacant site with a new mixed -use structure, associated parking, and landscaping. Impacts to surrounding properties and uses are expected to be minimal. The properties to the north and west are residential uses and the properties to the south and east have commercial uses on them. The proposal for the construction of a mixed -use building on the subject site would provide a transition from the cormmercial uses to the south and east to the residential uses to the north and west. In addition, a future pedestrian connection is planned, which would connect pedestrians to the commercial development, McDonalds, to the east of the site. An additional pedestrian connection is identified on the northwest portion of the site for the future connection to the commercial zoned property to the west; currently the pedestrian connection would terminate in the side yard of single family residence. There are potential short-term impacts to adjacent businesses and nearby residents (e.g., noise), which would result from the construction of the project. These impacts will be mitigated by the applicant's construction mitigation plan, which limits work and haul hours to those permitted by City Code. 4. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site; The scale, height and bulk ol' the proposed building is appropriate for the site and would be architecturally compatible with the existing neighborhood. The building would be located in the center of the project site with surface parking areas located along the east and west sides of the building, and landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site and within the surface parking lots. The main entrances to the commercial space are located along NE Sunset Blvd. The main entry to the apartment units would be gained through the use of an internal elevator or staircase. Secondary residential entrances can be found on the east, west, and south elevations and are weather protected by upper story balconies and overhangs. The use of balconies, which are ornamented with powder coated guardrails, enhance the fa4ade that can be seen from NE Sunset Blvd. The scale and bulk of the building is reduced through the use of different materials on the building facades and building articulation and modulation. Concrete masonry will be used at the base to ground the building. Horizontal vinyl siding with complimentary colors is proposed for the upper three stories to enhance visual appeal. To ensure that quality materials are used staff recommends that the applicant submit a materials board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of building pen -nit review. A variation of roof heights and forms are used to break down the scale of the building. The building includes standing scam metal pitched roofs along the northern facade that add visual interest to the building as seen from NE Sunset Blvd. The pitched portion of the roof Citv of Renton Community and Economic Deveeopment Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner SUNSET HIGHLANDS MIXED USE L UA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE June 3, 2008 Page I of 22 compliments the main flat roof element of the rest of the building which is also standing seam metal. Although the proposed building would be taller than surrounding buildings, the immediate areas to the west, east, and south are zoned CA and likely to change as incremental redevelopment occurs. The CA zoning allows for a 50-foot height limit. Heights may exceed the maximum height with a Conditional Use Permit. In no case should the height exceed 60 feet. The refuse and recyclable deposit areas for the mixed -use building would be located near the southern property line, behind the proposed building and are proposed to be screened. Some vegetation wilt be removed in preparation of construction. There are 4 protected trees onsite of which 3 are proposed to remain. RMC 4-4-130 provides protection measures in order to preserve and protect the three trees during utility and building construction. The trees shall be fenced off around the drip line and a sign posted that the tree is to be preserved, and the location of the trees shall be indicated on all utility construction plan sheets. The fencing shall be in place prior to the issuance of any utility construction permits and shall remain until the final inspection of the new building is complete_ A stream, Honey Creek, has been identified and delineated on the southeast corner of the project site. The section of the stream that is located on site is classified as a Class 4 stream, Honey Creek is classified as a Class 3 stream off site. Class 4 streams require a rninimurn 35-foot buffer; however the applicant has proposed a reduced buffer down to 25 feet. The applicant has proposed to enhance the remainder of the buffer. The reduced buffer would allow a larger building pad for the mixed -use building by using the additional space for the internal driveway. Approximately 1,376 square feet of stream buffer would be affected as a result of the proposed reduction. The applicant would enhance 2,141 square feet, the remainder of stream buffer, as part of the reduction proposal. Stream buffer enhancement would result in the planting of native plants and the removal of dense Himalayan blackberry and Japanese knotwood. A mitigation plan for the proposed stream buffer impacts was submitted with the project application. The applicant will be required to comply with RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas regulations to mitigate for any impacts permitted to the stream and its buffer. Staff has approved the buffer reduction proposal subject to conditions. The decision for the buffer reduction proposal was issued under a separate cover. 5. Conservation of area -wide property values; The proposed mixed use development is expected to increase property values in the vicinity of the site. Adding residential population would improve the customer base for commercial businesses in the area and the completed project. 6. .Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation; The proposed project would have direct access onto NE Sunset Blvd via two new 30-foot wide curb cuts. There is one-way circulation throughout the project site via an internal 24- foot wide drive aisle that loops around the building. The site will be entered at the western curb cut and will be exited at the eastern curb cut. Part of the 24-foot aisle width is a 4-foot wide pedestrian walkway surrounding the building that has no change in elevation but a change in materials to differentiate the walkway. In addition, pedestrian sidewalks along the new public right-of-way, as well as private pedestrian connections at the perimeter of the property are proposed to provide safe and efficient pedestrian access throughout the site and to other abutting sites. The proposed development is expected to maintain the safety and efficiency of pedestrian and vehicle circulation on the site. Citv of Renton Community and Economic Development Departmew Preliminary Report to the Nearing Fxaminer SUNSET HIGHLANDSMIJXED USE LUA08-028, SA-H CfI--A, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATEAne 3, 2008 Page 12 of 22 7. Provision of adequate light and air; The proposed building is designed appropriately to allow adequate light and air circulation to the building and the site. The design of the building will not result in excessive shading of the property. In addition, there is ample area surrounding the building to provide for normal airflow. Surface parking areas located along the west side of the building include head in parking stalls that may have potential licadlight impacts to the abutting residential property. Landscaping has been proposed around the perimeter of the site that will mitigate the light impacts to the abutting property along with the 6-foot high wood fence along the length of the west property line that is recommended as a condition of approval. A lighting plan was not submitted with the application materials. As a condition of Site Plan Approval the applicant shall provide a lighting plan that will provide lighting to adequately provide for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. 8. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions; It is anticipated that the most significant noise, odor, and other potentially harmful impacts would occur during the construction phase of the project. The applicant has submitted Construction Mitigation Plan that provides measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise control, control of dust and traffic controls. The proposed development would not generate any harmful or unhealthy conditions. There would be traffic impacts that are normally associated with an increase in residential population. 9. Availability of publie services arid, ficilities to accommodate the proposed use; Fire, Police, and Parks Department staff have indicated that existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the subject proposal, subject to the applicants payment of the necessary impact fees. As imposed by the Environmental Review Committee, the applicant will be required to pay a Fire and Parks mitigation fees prior to the issuance of building permits. The site is served by the City of Renton for all utilities. There is an existing 12-inch water main within the north side of NI Sunset Blvd, which can deliver 4,100 gpm and static pressure is 65-70 psi. The proposed project is located within the 565-water pressure zone. There is an 8-inch sewer main within an easement along the west property line as well as a 12-inch sewer main within NE Sunset Blvd. There are existing sidewalks, curbs, and gutters fronting the site along NE Sunset Blvd as well as storm water conveyances along the roadway. The Renton School District has provided assurance that students living in the proposed residences can be accommodated at existing facilities. Students would attend Sierra Heights Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School. 10. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight; The proposal would redevelop a site that is currently underutilized with attached residential units and commercial space; which would be compatible with existing residential and commercial uses in the surrounding neighborhood. The investment in the area and the added presence of a residential population would serve to prevent neighborhood deterioration and blight. Coordinated site improvements including Iandscaping, parking, signage and lighting would be included as part of this development. City of Renton Community and Economic Development Departmeru Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner SUNSETHIGHLANDS MIXED USE LUA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF PUBLIC !TEARING DATL tune 3, 1008 Page 13 of 11 Il. Review of Compliance to District B Design Guidelines; The proposed project is subject to the District `B' Urban Design Regulations. The Administrator shall have the authority of approve, approve with conditions, or deny proposals based on the provisions of the design regulations. The proposed project trust meet the intent of the Design Regulations where the regulations are applicable. In rendering a decision, the Administrator will consider proposals on the basis of individual merit, will consider the overall intent of the minimum standards and guidelines, and encourage creative design alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of the design regulations. i_ 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_ a.) Site Design and Street Pattern: Minimum Standard: Maintain existing grid street pattern. ❑ Standard Met Not Met ✓ Does Not Apply b_) Building Location and Orientation: Minimum Standard: Orient buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk. ✓ Standard Met Not Met -J Does Not Apply c.) Building Entries: Minimum Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the fagade facing a street. Such entrances shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human scale elements_ Secondary access (not Ironting on a street) should have weather protection at least four and one-half feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. ✓ Standard Met Not Met L] Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site shall provide a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide directed view to building entries. 1-1 Standard Met 1 Not Met ✓ Does Not Apply 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. L Standard Met Not Met ✓ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) shall have weather protection at least four and on -half feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. ✓ Standard Met Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access shall be provided to the building from property edges, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. ✓ Standard Met I ' Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows should be orientated to a street or pedestrian -oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features such as trellises, artwork, murals, landscaping or combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street -oriented fagade. City of Renton Community and Economic Development Deparbn(nt reliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner SUNSET HIGHLANDS MIXED USE LUA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATC,Iune 3, 208 Page 14 of72 ✓ Standard Met 1 Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Front yards should provide transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area terrace, or similar feature. ❑ Standard Met - Not Met ✓ Does Not Apply d.) Transition to Surrounding Development: Minimum Standard: Careful siting and design treatment is necessary to achieve a compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk, and scale. ✓ Standard Met I Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply e.) Service Element Location and Design: 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 accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use. ✓ Standard Met Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply 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. ✓ Standard Met ! Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply 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_ ✓ Standard Met Not Met L Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Service enclosure fences should be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood. or some combination of the three (3). ✓ Standard Met Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply ii_ Parkins~ and Vehicular Acccss Intent: To provide safe, convenient access [to the Urban Center;] 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_ a.) Location of Parking: 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. ✓ Standard Met Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Attached personal parking garages at -grade should be individualized and not enclose more than two cars per enclosed space. Such garages should be architecturally integrated into the whole development. ✓ Standard Met Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply City of Renion Community and Economic Deceiopment Departme w Preliminary Report io five Hearing Examiner SUNSET HIGHLANDS MIXED USE, LUA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE June 3, 2008 Page 15 of 22 Minimum Standard: barge multi-user parking garages are discouraged in this lower density district and, if provided, should be located below grade whenever possible. J Standard Met __ Not Met ✓ Does Not Apply b.) Location of Parking: Minimum Standard: Parking lots and garages shall be accessed from alleys when available. Standard Met Not Met ✓ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Garage entryways and/or driveways accessible only from a street should not impede pedestrian circulation along the sidewalk. ✓ Standard Met — Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Curb cuts should be minimized whenever possible through the use of shared driveways, ✓ Standard Met � Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply iii. 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. a.) Pedestrian Circulation: Minimum Standard: Mid -block connections are desirable where a strong linkage between uses can be established. P Standard Met Not Met ✓ Does Not Apply iv. 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 convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. a.) Landscaping: Minimum Standard: All pervious areas shall be landscaped. ✓ Standard Met I Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and building as determined by the City of Renton. ✓ Standard Met __ Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and program of the building, site and use. ✓ Standard Met I Not Met 7 Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: "ncc 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. ✓ Standard Met Not Met J Does Not Apply City oJ'Renton Community and Economic Ueve,opment Departmew Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner SUNSET HIGHI ANDS MIXEI) USE L UA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF PUBLIC HEARING UA 1 E June 3, 2008 Page 16 of 22 Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy, and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced. ✓ Standard Met I_ Not Met F Does Not Apply 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 ten feet (10') in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, subsection H3b of this Section). ✓ Standard Met Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas. ✓ Standard Met Not Met l Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas. ✓ Standard Met - Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Landscaping should be provided that appropriately provides either screening of unwanted views or focuses attention to preferred views. Standard Met i Not Met ✓ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Use of low maintenance, drought -resistant landscape material is encouraged. ✓ Standard Met Minimum Standard: that will be available. ✓ Standard Met Not Met C Does Not Apply Choice of materials should reflect the level of maintenance Not Met F Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Window boxes, containers for plantings, hanging baskets, or other planting feature elements should be made of weather -resistant materials that can be reasonably maintained_ L Standard Met Not Met ✓ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Landscaping should be used to screen parking lots from adjacent or neighboring properties. ✓ Standard Met Not Met Ll Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Front yards should be visible from the street and visually contribute to the streetscape. ❑ Standard Met Not Met ✓ Does Not Apply b.) Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Minimum Standard: Attached housing developments shall provide a minimum area of private usable open space equal to one hundred fifty (150) square feet per unit of which one hundred (100) square feet are contiguous. Such space may include porches, balconies, yards, and decks. ✓ Standard Met Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply V. 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. City of Renton Communily and Economic Development DepartmeW r'reliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner SUNSET HIGHLANDS MIXED USE L.UA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATEJune 3, 2008 Page 17 of 22 a.) Building Character and Massing: Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than twenty feet (20'), ✓ Standard Met Not Met F. Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: 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. ✓ Standard Met I Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Articulation, modulation, and their intervals should create a sense of scale important to residential buildings. ✓ Standard Met J Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: A variety of modulations and articulations should be employed to add visual interest and to reduce the bulk and scale of large projects. ✓ Standard Met -I Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Building modulations should be a minimum of two feet (T) in depth and four feet (4') in width. ✓ Standard Met Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply b.) Ground -Level Details: Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. ✓ Standard Met Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated. ❑ Standard Met Not Met ✓ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature along the facade's ground floor_ ✓ Standard Met Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least seventy five percent (75%) of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true: clevation facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. ✓ Standard Met Not Met J Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Use of material variations such as colors, brick, shingles, stucco, and horizontal wood siding is encouraged. ✓ Standard Met Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply e.) Building Roof Lines: Minimum Standard: Buildings containing predominantly residential uses should have pitched roofs with a minimum slope of one to four (1:4). Such roofs should have dormers or intersectin' roof forms that break up the massiveness of a continuous, uninterrupted sloping roof. ✓ Standard Met Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Root colors should be dark. ✓ Standard Met Not Met J Does Not Apply City of Renton Community and Fcono+nic Development Departmr>nr .'reliminaq Report to the Hearing Examiner SUNSET HIGHLANDS ,MIXED USE L UA08-028, SA-N, CU-A, ECF PUBLIC HEAIUNG DAIE Ane 3, 2008 Page 18 of 22 d.) Building Materials: 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. ✓ Standard Met Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades_ ✓ Standard Met LJ Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained. ✓ Standard Met I Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Bu&hng 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. ✓ Standard Met Not Met -1 Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: 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. ✓ Standard Met Not Met ❑ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Concrete block walls should be enhanced with integral color, textured blocks and colored mortar, decorative bond pattern and/or incorporate other masonry materials. ✓ Standard Met Not Met G Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: 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. L ! Standard Met Not Met ✓ Does Not Apply Minimum Standard: Use of material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding or patterns, or textural changes is encouraged. ✓ Standard Met i ' Not Met LJ Does Not Apply 6. Consistency with Conditional Use Permit Criteria A Conditional Use Permit is required in order to permit the construction of attached residential units developed as part of a same building mixed -use project within the CA zone and to increase the height from 50 feet to 55 feet and 4-inches. Section 4-9-030.G lists 11 criteria that the Hearing Examiner is asked to consider, along with all other relevant information, in making a decision on a Conditional Use application. These include the following: 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Play, Zoning Corte & Other Ordinances: The proposed use shall be compalihlc with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, thC' aolling regulations and any other plan, program, map or ordinance of the City of Renton. a.) Comprehensive Plan See previous discussion above under Site Plan Criteria_ City of Renton Community and Economic Deneiopment Departnuwr Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner SUNSETHIGHL4NDSMIXED USE LUA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF PUBLIC HERRING DATE June 3, 2008 Page 19 of 22 R) Zoning Code The proposed mixed -use project is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation. The purpose of the Commercial Arterial Zone (CA) is to evolve from "strip commercial" linear business districts to business areas characterized by enhanced site planning, incorporating efficient parking lot design, coordinated access, amenities and boulevard treatment. The proposed mixed use development would be permitted in the CA zone subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. c.) Development Standards See previous discussion above under Site Plan Criteria. 2. Community Need: There shall be a community need fur the proposed use at the proposed location. In the determination of community need, the Nearing Examiner shall consider the following factors, among all other relevant information: a,) The proposed location ducall not result in either the detrimental overconcentration of a particular use Wilhi17 the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. The proposed mixed use (multi family residential and commercial) development is intended to serve the surrounding community by providing additional housing and commercial opportunities. Attached units are permitted as a conditional use in the CA zone. Nearby residential projects have continued to be successful ventures, therefore the proposal would not result in an over concentration of residential units- h.) That the proposed location is suited.for the proposed use. Commercial space is an outright permitted use in the CA zone. Attached units are permitted as a conditional use in the CA zone. 3. Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. The following site requirements shall be required: a.) Lot Coverage: Lot coverage shall conform to the requirements of zone in which the proposed use is to be located. See discussion above under the Site Plan Review criteria. b.) Yards: Yards shall corafn-in to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. See discussion above under the Site Plan Review criteria. c.) Height: Building cold .struc.nire heights shall corrform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to he located. Spires, hell towers, public utility antennas or similar structure may exceed the height requirement upon approval of a variance. Buildin, heights should be related to surrounding used in order to allow optimal sunlight and Verttilation, and minimal obstruction of views from adjacent structures, The proposed building would exceed the height requirements of the CA zone. The CA zone establishes a maximum building height of 50 feet for development located within this zone but may be increased to 60 with a conditional use permit. The proposed structure has been designed with a maximum height of 55 feet and 4 inches, which exceeds the maximum height permitted in the CA zone therefore an approval of a conditional use permit is required. City of Renton Community and Economic Deve. opment Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner SUNSETHIGHLANDS MIXED USE LUA08-028, SA-H_,_CU-A, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE June 3, 2008 Page 20 of 22 The applicant would like to surpass the height limit to accommodate the elevator shaft and stair tower for the building. An additional 5 feet and 4 inches are needed in order to accommodate the stair tower on the southern fagade and the elevator for the building results in a height of 52 feet. No other portion of the building exceeds the 50-foot height limit. The stairwell and elevator shaft contribute to the variation of roof heights and forms that are used to break down the scale of the building_ 4. Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the residential scale and character of the neighborhood. The subject property is located within a predominantly commercial area with one abutting single family residence on the west side of the property. There are established multi family developments in close proximity_ Based on existing uses within the surrounding area, staff considers the proposal for the mixed use building that contains attached residential units to be compatible with the neighborhood. The subject site is surrounded on all sides by low rise development. The proposed mixed use building would be the tallest structure in the immediate vicinity. However, it is anticipated that the immediate areas to the west, cast, and south are zoned CA and likely to change as incremental redevelopment occurs. Staff considers the proposed height for the mixed use building to be compatible with the neighborhood. 5. Parking: Parking under the building structure should be encouraged. Lot coverage may be increased to as much as seventy five percent (751o) q/ the lot coverage requirement of the zone in which the proposed use is located if all perrl,ing i., provided underground or within the structure_ A total of 58 parking stalls are proposed, ? 1 of which would be located within a surface parking lot. The remaining 37 stalls would be located on the first floor of the building in structured parking. The structured parking Wauld be accessed through 21 residential garage doors located on the cast and west facades of the building. The applicant requested a modification from parking standards, in order to specify 10 of the required 47 parking spaces for the residential portion of the development for guest parking that may be permitted as surface parking spaces and to permit the 11 spaces required for the connnercial use as surface spaces. The Development Services Director approved the modification on July 25, 2007. See fiu-ther discussion above under Site Plan Review criteria. 6. Traffic: I'ra.fie and circulation patterns of vehicles and pedestrians relating to the proposed use and surrounding area shall be revic ttcr! fnr potential effecls on, and to ensure safe movement in, the surrounding area. Staff has reviewed the circulation pattenis of potential vehicles and pedestrians. See further discussion above under Site Plan Review criteria regarding pedestrian and vehicular circulation. 7. Noise, Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts ,Shall be evaluated based on the location of the proposed use on the lot and the location of oil -silo parking areas, outdoor recreational areas and refuse storage areas. It is anticipated that the most significant Noise impacts would occur during the construction phase of the project. The applicant has submitted a Construction Mitigation Plan that provides measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise, control of dust, traffic controls, etc. In addition, the project will be required to comply with the City's noise ordinance regarding construction hours. Citv of Renton Community and Economic Deve,opment Department Prelimina)y Report to the Hearing Examiner SUNSF.THIGIILANDSMIXED USE LUA08-028, SA-N, CU-A, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATF. June 3, 2008 Page 21 of 22 The refuse and recyclable deposit areas for the mixed -use building would be located near the southern property line, behind the proposed building. The proposed refuse and recyclable deposit area is proposed to be screened by a 15-foot 4-inch enclosure and screening details were submitted with the land use application. There would be noise impacts from traffic and activities that are normally associated with an increase in residential population. These noise impacts, however, would be comparable to noises from existing residential development adjacent to the property across NE Sunset Blvd. 8. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by buildings or paving. The Hearing Examiner may require additional landscaping to buffer adjacent properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed iise. See discussion above under Site Plan Review criteria regarding landscaping. 9. Accessary Uses: Accessory uses to conditional asses such cis day schools, auditoriums used for social and sport activities, health centers, convews, preschool facilities, convalescent homes and others of a similar nature shall be considered to he .separate uses and shall be subject to the provisions of the use district in which they are located. There are no accessory uses included with the proposal. 10. Conversion: No existing building or structure shrill he converted to a conditional use unless such building or structure complies, or is brought into compliance, with the provisions of this Chapter. There is no building conversion included with the proposal. 11. Public Improvements: The proposed use and location sha11 he adequately served by and not impose an undue burden on any public improvements, facilities, itilities and services. Approval of a conditional use permit may be conditioned upon the provision and/or guarantee by the applicant of necessary public improvements, facilities, utilities (tnd,"01- 1'Crvices. See discussion above under Site Plan Review criteria regarding public improvements. I. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the Sunset Highlands Mixed -Use Building, Project File No, LUA08-028, SA-H, CU-H, ECF subject to the following conditions: 1. The restrictive covenants, imposed as part of the rezone of the property from Residence 3 (R-3) to Office Park (O-P) in 1986, shall be removed prior to the issuance of building permit 2. A detailed landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect registered in the State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other similarly qualified professional and an irrigation plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance oi' building pen -nit. 3. The applicant shall construct a 6-foot high wood fence along the length of the west property line with a gate for the pedestrian connection to provide privacy to the property to the north until such time the property is redeveloped with a commercial use. The fence shall be erected prior to final occupancy. City of Renton Community and Economic Development Department relimina?y Report to the Hearing Examiner SUNSETHIGI[LANDS MIXED USE LUA08-028, SA -Hy CU-A, ECF PUBLIC HE,4RING DATF. June 3, 2008 Page 21 of 22 4. The applicant shall have the restrictive covenant, imposed as part of the Anton A. Altoff Short Plat in 1979, removed prior to the issuance of building permit. 5. A restrictive covenant shall be recorded to assign tandem parking spaces to the exclusive use of specific dwelling units. Enforcenicnt of tandem parking spaces shall be provided by the property owner, property manager, or homeowners' association as appropriate. The restrictive covenant shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permit. b. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting two additional standard parking spaces designated for commercial use. The revised site plan should be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance. 7. The applicant shall submit a materials board subject to the approval of the Current Planiiing Project Manager at the time of building permit review. 8. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan that will provide lighting to adequately provide for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. EXPIRATION PERIODS: The Site Plan Approval and Conditional Use Permits Neill expire two (2) years from the date of approval. An extension may be requested pursuant to RMC section 4-7-084.M. CD z zz C a xp� CL9 W IT .mot"':'• � �-_,"� r ATLAS OF SEATTLE _ , _ . LEiENo KROLL MAP GOMPANY,SNC. SEATTLE — .,.,.`ti.,"4�L"` 6CAL[:11N.• MOM COxigl6x[ DROLL Yto COM p.m, ,IxS_ -- cO— .. x..R NOF-TN EXHIBIT 2 co .--I Z ct. BiLrL 4y[ —A ->,rCCL-ES{ — 491+'!C S, aE sms YM ,wmga 0 1913SHns am utt .1 r �` J V 523NN OJ 3 nt��i a Li fi 0XI 3S3W'QA1813SWS� U 1 � �QlEYI i a 51 Y ! f vp• ? � C ' � 1 3 qSq Ia00moo 0aR01aa NOUVO lddV 3Sf1 IVNOUIGNG3 ivhiwysns M31A326 NV1d 311S Q s 9 3 6 ' :ia I F6 S r ArA 'o H 2 X W n � 5.vi mcr ,LS—M LG xis YNl s am w I I O3 gyp( r LSIW . � dO*o AI iN99 ]-111 nL1ao.�.l V sb�N bid 'NP'` �`3Sf1 43XIW'QAIS 13SNns[� NOIiVOE1ddV 3Sn 1VNOI11aNO3 1V11R'Vans M31A31d NVId 911S iH ii €F e I i z A iitl �a� .►�,� �� F� 3� � §� �� �_ �� :_ �� �� rah �� � 3x ��ft :s �� sa � ?�� �� � � �i€� � � ����,� � �� �A A 696AAAgAAAAA A A �� A�7A��9�� A�AA6� 9 A ��°�. { 00 t+1 GC? c� I I 1 yy� I I I iF f I I AAA! 1 1 I I i I I i t� Y, uo x W �z 50 s, > 23 CD to 04 Q a) P-A a �r � ecruc-Esc � e +�rur�sc �+e p49F .-•� b�-iOh'1 O 3lAx. �!4 OaE fFP � 'P �'� ae �i �a ggp � g k£ �� ►a a a t =saga vm wiraa On s mNns n 4a" 3sn tl3XIW'aA1813SNnS Ill Uii 0- Q F i NO11Va1IddV 3sn IVNowawo IVJ.1Pwsns AA31A3N 311S fill gNVId g � 3 p ca� Fa i s F � Ff � , ; '•�! rR a ¢��'R��� e E w w IS-] N fT1 X T TT T T ------------- ---------- -..M- .17 L A. L ------------- Z. lie I ul -ijg N s MIX Ills ilia SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 2 t CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION m m ml_14.1_ - I - ZI+ X x 0 r m m m r -._2I i i i i i i i I i I i i I i s� Bp �a i � �� Y '.�' C4 ��- ,tom• � � � o I mom �z 4. SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION J SUNStT BLVD. MIXED USE ARCH S ff PLANNER5 0 L 9111 1 1 I I I I I al I ti3 1 �I _._ .....a....oM till f 31 5TONWAY. 9 0 T I __..._ _ __ _ m' ss•�ctl,-. SUNSET HIGHLANDS REMON, WA 11TUY PLAN g e s q Y f i � 50000a+'ikcs Ee C i C zlit ._09 OR ass AHBL JDg No, 207393.10 w0 nxuf v �e �a � UTAJTY PLAN SL14SET H VLANDS SRSi� LOCATKft 4409 NE Sume1 Md Renton Wa*w om 98DW OWNER W. Dale Fork amet F ktwarxb, LLC 15007 Wood hte-Redmond Rd 4A Woodnvale, Wmt:am W072 C i C zlit ._09 OR ass AHBL JDg No, 207393.10 w0 nxuf v �e �a � UTAJTY PLAN SL14SET H VLANDS SRSi� LOCATKft 4409 NE Sume1 Md Renton Wa*w om 98DW OWNER W. Dale Fork amet F ktwarxb, LLC 15007 Wood hte-Redmond Rd 4A Woodnvale, Wmt:am W072 w0 nxuf v �e �a � UTAJTY PLAN SL14SET H VLANDS SRSi� LOCATKft 4409 NE Sume1 Md Renton Wa*w om 98DW OWNER W. Dale Fork amet F ktwarxb, LLC 15007 Wood hte-Redmond Rd 4A Woodnvale, Wmt:am W072 E ) f RaA nm YM WOAXWN i uar[n fml —.+ mt v. U%-M 1Mnr iX "" — nv�� 3Sf1 oXtW'OJ1191�SNFIS Fil�slix ao e ; 5 aZ -lu Zfr. W u.. j a ell o A P ~ m 6 4 W STATE OF WASIIINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a bi-weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a bi-weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on May 10, 2008. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $11140. lnda M. Mills - j'Sti "i ' Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and sworn to me this 12th day of May, 2008. = o�,oTa.p` Ila` A& 8 LAG _ ! Z E �1j11511\���' athy D eg Notary Pub ' for he State of Washington, - �C� _= in ovin on, Washington �41I11 +�WAS\A\\ P. C- NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non - Significance -Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Sunset Highlands Mixed Use LUA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF Location: 4409 NE Sunset Blvd. Applicant proposes to develop a 0.81 acre site with a 40,138 s.f. 4-story mixed - use building in the Commercial Arterial (CA) Zone. Parking for 58 vehicles is proposed with 37 stalls located within the building and 21 surface stalls. Access is proposed from NE Sunset Blvd. The site contains a Class 4 stream. Project requires Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, a Conditional Use Permit and Environmental (SEPA) Review. Appeals of the environmental determination mutt be filed in writing on or belw-e 5:00 PM on May 27, 2008. Appeals must be filed in writing to,,ethcr wirh the required S75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 10:5 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110,8, Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A Public Hearing will he held by the Renton Nearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on June 3, 2008 at 9:00 AM to consider the Site Plan. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Published in the Renton Reporter on May 10, 2008. #75882. G City of _ ___ _torn Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:4%v COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 25, 2008 APPLICATION NO: LUA08-028, ECF, CU-A, SA-H DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 11, 2008 APPLICANT: Brett Lindsay, Jon Graves Architects & Planners, PLLC PLANNER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Sunset Highlands Mixed Use PLAN REVIEWER: Rick Moreno SITE AREA: 35,593 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): NIA LOCATION: 4409 NE Sunset Blvd PROPOSED BLDG AREA(gross) 40,138 square feet 140*04 WORK ORDER NO: 77884 _ PLEASE RETURN TO ROCALE TIMMONS IN CURRENT PLANNING 6TH FLOOR SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 4-story, 55-foot tall mixed -use building on a 35,593 square foot site. The site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the NE Sunset Blvd Business District Overlay. The proposed building would include 30,795 square feet of residential space within 21 residential units, 9,343 square feet of commercial space, and 58 parking stalls, 21 of which will be located within a surface parking lot. The remaining 37 stalls will be located on the first floor of the building in structured parking. Access to the site would be provided off of NE Sunset Blvd via two driveways. The site contains a Class 4 stream approximately 312 square feet in size. The applicant proposes a reduction in the stream buffer from 35 to 25 feet. There are 5 trees onsite of which 3 are proposed to remain. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor impacts Probable Major Impacts More information Necessary Earth Air Water Punts Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmentai Health Energy/ Natural Resources S. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services HistorklCultural Preservation Airport Environment 10, 000 Feet 14, 000 Feet A, 045�5c Lct We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Date PmuJECT LUA-08-028, ECF, CU-A, SA-H Sunset Highlands Mixed Use City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENTAL APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET (Continuation) POLICE RELATED COMMENTS 17 Police Calls for Service Estimated Annually CONSTRUCTION PHASE Theft from construction sites is one of the most commonly reported crimes in the City. To protect materials and equipment it is recommended that all materials and tools be locked up when not in use. The site should have security lighting, and any construction trailer or storage area should be completely fenced -in with portable chain -link fencing. The fence will provide both a physical and psychological barrier to any prospective criminal and will demonstrate that the area is private property. Construction trailers should be kept locked when not in use, and should be fitted with heavy-duty deadbolts with a minimum 1-1/2" throw when bolted. Glass windows in construction trailers should be shatter -resistant. Toolboxes and storage containers should be secured with heavy-duty padlocks and kept locked when not in use. "No Trespassing" signs should be posted on the property during the construction phase. These signs allow officers, upon contact, to provide a verbal warning to trespassers that should they be contacted on the property again, they could be cited and/or arrested. COMPLETED COMPLEX All exterior doors should be made of solid metal or metal over wood, with heavy-duty deadbolt locks, latch guards or pry -resistant cylinders around the locks, and peepholes. If glass doors are used, they should be fitted with the hardware described above and additionally be fitted with a layer of security film. Security film can increase the strength of the glass by up to 300%, greatly reducing the likelihood of breaking glass to gain entry. Access to the back of the buildings should be limited, preferably with security fencing, as these areas could be vulnerable to crime due to the lack of natural surveillance by business customers or tenants. It is recommended that the commercial areas be monitored with recorded security alarm systems installed. It's not uncommon for businesses to experience theft and/or vandalism during the hours of darkness. An auxiliary security service could be used to patrol the property during those times. It is important to direct all foot traffic into the main entrance of the building. Any alternative employee entrances should have coded access to prevent trespassing. Security Survey Page 1 of 2 08-OW If there are payphones in business complex, it is recomm ed they be outgoing use only. Public payphones tend to attract drug traffic and having only the ability to call out on payphones severely hinders this type of activity. All areas of this project need to have adequate lighting. This will assist in the deterrent of theft from motor vehicle (one of the most common crimes in Renton) as well as provide safe pedestrian travel for customers of the complex. The structure should have a building number clearly posted with numbers at least 6" in height and of a color contrasting with the building. Unit numbers for the dwellings should also be illuminated so that they are easily located. This will assist emergency personnel in locating the correct location for response. Landscaping should be installed with the objective of allowing visibility — not too dense and not too high. Too much landscaping will make customers, employees, and tenants feel isolated and will provide criminals with concealment to commit crimes such as burglary. It is key for a business complex of this size to have appropriate lighting and signage. "No Trespassing" signs should be posted in conspicuous locations throughout the property, including entrances to the property and parking areas. I highly recommend that the developer have a Renton Police Crime Prevention Representative conduct a security survey of the premises once construction is complete. aK Security Survey Page 2 of 2 08-OW 'LOA IL:A Ar ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERS ;TED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME Sunset Highlands Mixed Use PROJECT NUMBER: LUA08•02B, SA-H, CU-A. ECF LOCATION: 4409 NE Sunset Boulevard DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 4-story, 55-Foot tab mixidwse building on a 35.593 square foot site, The site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning deeignatlon and the NE Sunset Blvd Businesa District Overlay. The proposed building would include 30,795 square feel of residential within 21 resider+llal units, 2.209 square feet of commercial apace. and 51% parking stalls. 21 of which would be located within a surface parking lol. The remaining 37 stalls would be located on the first floor of the building In structured parking totaling 6,a54 square feet. Access to the site would be provided off of NE Sunset Blvd via two driveways. The site contains a Class 4 stream approximately 312 square feet in size. The applicant proposes a reduction of the stream buffer from 3510 25 feet. There are 4 trees onshe of which 3 are proposed to remain. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERG) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NUT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeata of the environmental determination ritual be hied in —ling on or before 5A0 PM on May27, 2000. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.90 application fee wllh: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 90057. Appeals 1m the Examiner are govemed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section "A IO.B. Additional lnfonratioo regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Offlce, (425) 430-0510 A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON DUNE 3, 2nn8 AT 9:UO AM TO CONSIDER THE SITE PLAN. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING._ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification, CERTIFICATION I, c S , hereby certify that �_ copies of the above were posted by me in conspicuous places or nearby the described prop t DATE: SIGNED: ATTEST: Subscribed and swam before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing 'C h on the -i day of Y ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Sunset Highlands Mixed Use PROJECT NUMBER: LUA08-028, SA-H, GU -A, ECF LOCATION: 4409 NE Sunset Boulevard DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 4-story, 55-foot tall mixed -use building on a 35,593 square foot site. The site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the NE Sunset Blvd Business District Overlay. The proposed building would include 30,795 square feet of residential within 21 residential units, 2,209 square feet of commercial space, and 58 parking stalls, 21 of which would be located within a surface parking lot. The remaining 37 stalls would be located on the first floor of the building in structured parking totaling 6,854 square feet. Access to the site would be provided off of NE Sunset Blvd via two driveways. The site contains a Class 4 stream approximately 312 square feet in size. The applicant proposes a reduction of the stream buffer from 35 to 25 feet. There are 4 trees onsite of which 3 are proposed to remain, THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on May 27, 2008. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required S75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.13. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON JUNE 3, 2008 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE SITE PLAN. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY $ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. t e '�- Lis `jh Law, Mayor May 7, 2008 Brett Lindsay Jon Graves Architects & Planners, PLLC 3110 Ruston Way #D Tacoma, WA 98402 SUBJECT: Sunset Highlands Mixed Use LUA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF Dear Mr. Lindsay: CITY SOF RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non - Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental. determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on May 27, 2008. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, . City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City. of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information_ regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in. the Council Chambers on. the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on June 3, 2008 at 9:00 a.m..to consider the Site Plan. The applicant or representative(s) of the.applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy .of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before .the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification.of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, Roca Timmons Ass ciate. Planner Enclosure cc: ADF Properties LLC / Owner(s) 1055 South Grady Way.- Renton, Washington. 9805.7 This paper cordains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE VA CITY OF RENTON . UR eLUenisLaw, Mayor May 7, 2008 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determination Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on May 5, 2008: DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: Sunset Highlands Mixed Use PROJECT NUMBER: LUA08.028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF LOCATION: 4409 NE Sunset Blvd DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan. Review, Conditional Use Permit .approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 4- story, 55-foot tall mixed -use building on a 35,593 square foot site. The site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the NE Sunset ]Blvd Business District Overlay. The proposed building would include 30,795 square feet of.residential: within 21 residential units, 2,209 square feet of commercial space, and 58 parking stalls, 21 of which would be located within a surface parking tot.. The remaining 37 stalls would be located on the first floor of the building in structured parking totaling 6,854 square feet. Access to the site w. ould be provided off of NE Sunset Blvd via two driveways: The site contains a Class 4 stream approximately 312 square.feet in size. The applicant proposes a reduction of the stream buffer from, 35 to 25 feet.. There are 4 trees onsite of which 3 are proposed to remain. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM.on May 27, 2008. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by 'City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-I10.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process maybe obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, JciaRocTimmons te Planner Enclosure co: King County Wastewater Treatment Division WDFW, Stewart Reinbold David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 l� This paper contains 50% recyded material, 30% post consumer R`ENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF APPLICANT: Jon Graves, Architects & Planners, PLLC PROJECT NAME: Sunset Highlands Mixed Use DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 4-story, 55-foot tall mixed -use building on a 35,593 square foot site. The site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the NE Sunset Blvd Business District Overlay. The proposed building would include 30,795 square feet of residential within 21 residential units, 2,209 square feet of commercial space, and 58 parking stalls, 21 of which would be located within a surface parking lot. The remaining 37 stalls would be located on the first floor of the building in structured parking totaling 6,854 square feet. Access to the site would be provided off of NE Sunset Blvd via two driveways. The site contains a Class 4 stream approximately 312 square feet in size. The applicant proposes a reduction of the stream buffer from 35 to 25 feet. There are 4 trees onsite of which 3 are proposed to remain. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4409 NE Sunset Boulevard LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant will be required to submit a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the State Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume'll of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. The plan must be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Division Plan Review staff prior to issuance of the utility construction and building permits and during construction. 2. The applicant will be required to comply: with the recommendations found in the.geotechnical report prepared by GeoteGh Consultants, dated March 14, 2001,durfng site clearing, grading, and building construction: .3... A Native Growth Protection Easement shall be placed over that part of the site encompassing the.stream and buffer area. Restrictive covenants shall also be placed on the lot to this. effect. The easemerit and restrictive covenants shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permits. . 4. The applicant shall pay a Parks Mitigation Fee of $354.51 for each new mufti -family unit. This fee is estimated at $7,444.51 and shall be payable prior to issuance of building permits. 5. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75.00 for each new net daily trip prior to issuance of building permits. The fee is estimated to be $22,275.00. 6. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee of $388.00 for each new multi -family residential unit and $0.52 for each square foot of commercial space. This fee is estimated to be $9,296.68 which would be payable ,prior to.the issuance of building permits. ERC MikigaUoa Measures Page .1 of 1 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF APPLICANT: Jon Graves, Architects & Planners, PLLC PROJECT NAME: Sunset Highlands Mixed Use DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 4-story, 55-foot tall mixed -use building on a 35,593 square foot site. The site is located within the Commercial Arterial) (CA) zoning designation and the NE Sunset Blvd Business District Overlay. The proposed building would include 30,795 square feet of residential within 21 residential units, 2,209 square feet of commercial space, and 58 parking stalls, 21 of which would be located within a surface parking lot. The remaining 37 stalls would be located on the first floor of the building in structured parking totaling 6,854 square feet. Access to the site would be provided off of NE Sunset Blvd via two driveways. The site contains a Class 4 stream approximately 312 square feet in size. The applicant proposes a reduction'of the stream buffer from 35 to 25 feet. There are 4 trees onsite of which 3 are proposed to remain. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4409 NE Sunset Boulevard LEAD AGENCY. The City of Renton Department of Community &-Economic Development Planning Division Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these. notes are provided as' informa Lion only,. they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning: 1.. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 (limits. haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services. Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended .haul hours at any time if complaints are received. 2. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant. an appropriate ground. cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation. and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or,. plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City. of. Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1 st and March 31 st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 3. Commercial, multi -family, new single-family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the. hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8.00.) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 4. All landscaping shall be irrigated by an approved irrigation system prior to final .occupancy permits. Water:. 1. Water System Development Charges will be based on the size of new water meter(s). See Fee Sheet. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Credit will be given for any existing water meters. ERC Advisory Notes Page i of 2 2. Preliminary fire flow requirement is 2,750 gpm. All new construction must have fire hydrants capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 gpm. Three hydrants will be required to serve this site. One hydrant is required within 150 feet of the building and two additional hydrants are required to be within 300 feet of the nearest corners of the building. 3. Existing hydrants approved to be counted as fire protection shall be retrofitted with a quick disconnect Storz fitting if not already installed. Note on plan if required. Show locations of all existing hydrants. 4. A 10-inch water main shall be looped around the building within a 15-foot utility easement and connecting to the existing 12-inch water main within Sunset Blvd. A minimum of 4 gate valves are required for isolation purposes. 5. The new water service shall be connected from the existing 12-inch water main fronting the property along Sunset Blvd NE and/or, a 10-inch required water main looped around the proposed building. 6. DCVA shall be downstream of domestic meter for buildings greater than 30 ft. in height 7. Landscape irrigation system will require a separate permit for the irrigation meter and approved backflow device is required to be installed. A plumbing permit will be required.. Sanitary Sewer: 1. Sewer System Development Charges will be based on the size of new water meter(s). See Fee Sheet. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Credit will be given for any existing water meters. 2. Side sewer shall be a minimum of 2% slope. 3. Floor drain with oil -water separator within parking garage shall connect to 8-inch sewer main. 4. No side sewer shall be within the right-of-way for the commercial space. The side sewer(s) shall be connected to the. sewer within the property site. 5. The property is within the Honey Creek Interceptor Sewer Assessment District. Each dwelling unit with be subject to a $250 assessment. The .Commercial units are exempt: Surface Water: 1. Surface Water System Development Charges are based on a rate of $0.405 x the total square feet of the new impervious surface area of the site. Payment of fees will be required prior to issuance of building permit. 2. A preliminary drainage plan and drainage report was submitted with the site plan application. The report addresses detention and water quality requirements as outlined in the 1990.King County Surface Water Manual. Preliminary calculations show detention will not be required however water quality treatment will be required. 3. Roof drains are required to. be tight lined to the storm system 4. Erosion control shall comply with Department of Ecology's most current Storrhwater Management Manual. Transportation: 1. The traffic study with an analysis off of Sunset Blvd has been accepted and approved. Miscellaneous: 1.. All new electrical, phone and.cable services must be underground. Construction of these franchise utilities must be inspected and approved by a City of Renton public works inspector prior to recording. ERC Advisory Notes Page 2 of 2 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF APPLICANT, Jon Graves, Architects & Planners, PLLC PROJECT NAME: Sunset Highlands Mixed Use DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 4-story, 55-foot tall mixed -use building on a 35,593 square foot site. The site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the NE Sunset Blvd Business District Overlay. The proposed building would include 30,795 square feet of residential within 21 residential units, 2,209 square feet of commercial space, and 58 parking stalls, 21 of which would be located within a surface parking lot. The remaining 37 stalls would be located on the first floor of the building in structured parking totaling 6,854 square feet. Access to the site would be provided off of NE Sunset Blvd via two driveways. The site contains a Class 4 stream approximately 312 square feet in size. The applicant proposes a reduction of the stream buffer from 35 to 25 feet. There are 4 trees onsite of which 3 are proposed to remain. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 4409 NE Sunset Boulevard LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on May 27, 2008. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: May 10, 2008 DATE OF DECISION: May 5, 2008 SIGNATURES: 0 Gregg er is ra or Date David Daniels, Fire C ie Date Public or re Department �e�rryy Higashiyama, Administr r Date AI c P' tsch, Administrator Dat Community Services ment of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE May 5, 2008 To: Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator I. David Daniels, Fire Chief Alex Pietsch, CED Administrator From: Jennifer Henning, CED Planning Manager Meeting Date: Monday, May 5, 2008 Time: 3:00 PM Location: Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 Agenda listed below. Sunset Highlands Mixed Use (Timmons) LUA08-028, ECF, SA-H, CU-A Location: 4409 NE Sunset Blvd. Description: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 4-story, 55-foot tall mixed -use building on a 35,593 square foot site. The site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the NE Sunset Blvd Business District overlay. The proposed building would include 30,795 square feet of residential within 21 residential units, 2,209 square feet of commercial space, and 58 parking stalls, 21 of which would be located within a surface parking lot. The remaining 37 stalls would be located on the first floor of the building in structured parking totaling 6,854 square feet. Access to the site would be provided off of NE Sunset Blvd via two driveways. The site contains a Class 4 stream approximately 312 square feet in size. The applicant proposes a reduction of the stream buffer from 35 to 25 feet. There are 4 trees onsite of which 3 are proposed to remain. cc: D. Law, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, CED Director® D. Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshall N. Watts, Development Services Director 0 F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner C. Duffy, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal J. Medzegian, Council P. Hahn, Transportation Systems Director R. Lind, CED Planning Manager L. Warren, City Attorney QD A, t'ESL A� -zCUi nia a mng M SO 3Ln �15rta CkIE � OA'!9 13SNfIC 3X B4H ' 8 T F U 5aar�rd S�n�9 rOr 3Sf1 a3xIW'dAI813SNfIS se b9tl F z- 'o . y i LL� p aa ga pp g jjJJIIII `� '��� �aa�.0 � � � `�•. 'i L 1 :.; u} NOIIVDllddV 3Sn IVNOIII13NOO IV111W8f1S M31A313 NVId 311S a� Y§ 0 y'sy � IIR ��` gF g 141 Ci ! ..lam. y. 3 r W1 ua 2 x W NOR -z qih, a g mil. HI L:951 Y��B ��p9�F# �n� a ��� � - _ - - "R' i1t L a� � �4 � �� ��y �"r SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION JON 5p--Es SUNSET BLVD. MIXED USE AIZGH17 PLANNERS NE SUNSET �'D RENTON . WA 90039 ESOR VM'HO1N3H I 'OA181 sNNS 3N Boo* Y 3SR (13xIW'OA19 t35Nf1S H NOI1tl311ddtl 3Sf1 TdNOl11ONOO W.Li ens M31A32! Nbld 3115 $� [ a3er ti a ie t o 4 a $E i; s p' "r? g 5 91. ■ Oil% 2 ;;¢R� 5�e s 11Hq ° r• i. b �a - �s �e l_ �t d a ape �' s Q !. xgg e€ i¢ 4 $g6 �qqe 8 % wFj 1 4 1 96 ,8 P 's tg e3 ��3s i 411 3 € HI 3 ��iJsloll 19 c HW f u�u 7� co W Vw ml re +CITY -F RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator May 5, 2008 Attn: John Lefotu and Ramin Pazooki Washington State Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 SUBJECT: Sunset Highlands Mixed Use LUA08-028, SA-H, CU-A, ECF Dear Sirs: Enclosed is a copy of the. TIA. for the subject land use application along with a copy of the proposed site plan. If you have additional comments or concerns, you may either send them via mail or email them to me at rtimmons@ci.renton.wa.us The Environmental Review Committee is scheduled for May 5, 2008. I would appreciate your comments prior to the meeting, preferably by May 15, 200$, if possible to incorporate any comments into the staff report. Sincerely, Rol3LI�` Roc ie Timm s , Planner cc: Project File Rick Moreno, City of Renton - Plan Review RENTON .10.55 South Grady.W.ay - Renton, Washington N 5T - AHEAD OF THE CURVE - � This paperoonta€ns50%re ydedmaterW,30%postoonsumer_ - - - - 0E O TE C H 13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, Washington 98005 CONSULTANTS, INC. (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 April 29, 2008 JN 01065 ADF Properties, LLC 15700 Woodinville -Redmond Road, Suite A Woodinville, Washington 98072 Attention: Dale Fonk Subject: Project Update Proposed Mixed -Use Building 4409 Northeast Sunset Boulevard Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Fonk: Our firm prepared a geotechnicaJ engineering study for this site dated March 14, 2001. At that time, two buildings were planned for the site. However, based on a site plan we recently received from Jon Graves Architects and Planners, we understand that a new plan has now been developed for the site that includes only one larger buiiding near the middle of the site. This letter provides an update to our study based on the new plan. Our study noted that dense, native soil was revealed on the site at a depth of approximately 4 feet below the ground surface, and that the use of conventional footings that are placed on this soil is very suitable. The new plans indicate that the finish floor of the proposed mixed -use building will be near the existing ground surface. Therefore, we believe that the use of conventional footings, as noted in our study, for the new mixed -use building is also very suitable. When our study was prepared in 2001, the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) was being used, Now, the 2006 International Building Code (1BC) is the standard. Because of this, a clarification with regard to the IBC is needed as follows: In accordance with Table 1613.5.2 of the 2006 International Building Code (IBC), the site soil profile within 100 feet of the ground surface is best represented by Soil Profile Type C (Very Dense Soil Profile). In our opinion, with the exception of the change to the IBC code, our study is still very applicable for this project. The recommendations in our study should be followed for the geotechnical engineering aspects of the project. At the time our study was prepared, the existing stream on the southern side of the site was noted as a "wetland' on the civil engineering plan that was available at that time. We und6rstand that this water feature is in fact a stream not a wetland, as noted in the newest plans we have reviewed. In addition, the proposed development at the time our study was prepared was a Jiffy Lube; we were concerned about environmental hazards with regards to oil spills and thus recommended that no surface water from the site drain into the "wetland". However, the project is now a mixed -use building. We understand that surface water from the building alone will drain to the stream. We do not have any objection to this new drainage proposal from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. GEOTECH CON8Ui.TANTS, INC. P,•d BTZV aLa Esa s-4oagtgoju saneJo uor dGi,do Bo 62 idd V i ADF Properties April 29, 2DO8 JN 01065 Page 2 If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. fit^ 3T5" OXAL ExPFREs ! D. Robert Ward, P.E. Principal cc: Jon Graves Architects and Planners, PLLC — Brett Lindsay via email to: BLindsay(gigarchs. cam DRW: jyb 6 -d B l ZV ZLa Eye sgoa j t yo.ad SaAejo uoe dLfr t i'0 80 Go idy 4tii, PLANNING/BUILDING/♦ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 24, 2008 TO: Rocale Timmons FROM: Rick Moreno SUBJECT: Sunset Mixed Use, LUA08-028 (Revised on 5-5-08) The following Utility and Transportation comments concern the Environmental and Development Application review for the subject project. EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER -The site is within the City of Renton water service area. There is a 12-inch water main within the north side of the existing roadway (Sunset Boulevard NE.). The project site is located in the 565-water pressure zone. The site is within zone 2 of the Aquifer Protection Area. Fire Flow available to the site is approximately 4,100 gpm. Static water pressure is approximately 65-70 psi. SEWER -There is an 8-inch sewer main within an easement along the west property line as well as a 12-inch sewer main fronting the property along Sunset Blvd. STORM —Existing storm water conveyances along the roadway within Sunset Blvd. NE. The surface water drains to the May Creek Basin. STREET —Concrete walkway fronts the existing lot. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER 1. In accordance with the Fire Department requirement, at a minimum, one hydrant within 300 feet of any proposed is required. Additional fire flow and hydrants are required. (See Fire Department comments) 2. A 10-inch water main shall be looped around the building within a 15-foot utility easement and connecting to the existing 12-inch water main within Sunset Blvd. A minimum of 4 gate valves are required for isolation purposes. 3. The Water System Development Charge is determined by the number and size of new water meter(s) in use. See attached meter fee sheet. 4. Additional fire service fee is applicable for sprinkler supply connection. H:0ivisionA)evelop.ser\P1an.rev\Rick\LUA-081Sunset Mixed-Uset.doc Page 2 of 3 5. The new water service shall be connected from the existing 12-inch water main fronting the property along Sunset Blvd NE and/or, a 10-inch required water main looped around the proposed building. 6. DCVA shall be downstream of domestic meter for buildings greater than 30 ft. in height. SANITARY SEWER The Sewer System Development Charge is determined by the water meter size. This fee is due with the construction permit. 2. Separate side sewer to each residence and/or business prior to recording. 3. No dual side sewer is allowed. 4. Side sewer shall be a minimum of 2% slope. 5. Floor drain with oil -water separator within parking garage shall connect to 8-inch sewer main 6. No side sewer shall be within the right-of-way for the commercial space. The side sewer(s) shall be connected to the sewer within the property site. 7. The property is within the Honey Creek Interceptor Sewer Assessment District. Each dwelling unit with be subject to a $250 assessment. The Commercial units are exempt. SURFACE WATER 1. Surface Water System Development Charge is based on $.405 per square foot of new impervious surface area, but not more than $1,012.00. This fee is due with the construction permit. . 2. A preliminary drainage plan and drainage report is contained with site plan application. The report addresses detention and water quality requirements as outlined in the 1990 King County Surface Water Manual and concludes that the project is designed to meet the 1990 KCSWIDM guidelines for storm water management. TRANSPORTATION 1. All new electrical, phone and cable services must be underground. Construction of these franchise utilities must be inspected and approved by a City of Renton public works inspector prior to recording. 2. The traffic study with an analysis off of Sunset Blvd has been accepted and approved. H:1Division_s\Develop.ser\Plan.rev\Rick\LUA-081Suiiset Mixed-Uset.doc Page 3 of 3 CONDITIONS 1. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the Department of Ecology Standards and staff review. 2. Access will be limited to Sunset Blvd. NE. 3. The traffic mitigation fee based on the TIA, submitted by Heath & Associated, Inc. will be $24,545.00. This is based on 327 trips x $75.00. See attached mitigation fee report. Payment of fees will be required prior to issuance of building permit. H:ldivision.slDevelop.serlPlan.rev\Rick\LUA-0$1Sunset Mixed-Uset.doc ��01 T \ FJ PIDWE 2 Project Name: rJUFJ i✓-t` %wAl,w3r. S Mly :E L)C F, Project Address: Lk'W l KG 5L)US6T llu d� Contact Person:2.C'C'C LtNnSq^' Permit Number: U)ps OF)- DAS Project Description: - bYLJ Mtu6D LASE %1AA `''1 al QeStio ,UL M - 3'{3'6 C,o V. nne y CA - Land Use Type: kesidential etail Non -retail Calculation: A Transportation Mitigation Fee: Calculated by: Date of Payment: Method of Calculation: ❑ ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7tn Edition cE4--Traffic Study ❑ Other -n� 4 h'SS OCL WIGS , It) (_ Aue'aid Date: '� 91)w07 y /-a-("8 �e City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 25, 2008 APPLICATION NO: LUA08-028, ECF, L-A, SA-H DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 11, 2008 APPLICANT: Brett Lindsay, Jon Graves Architects & Planners, PLLC C4YY Uh HtNIU PLANNER: Rocale Timmons E a PROJECT TITLE: Sunset Highlands Mixed Use PLAN REVIEWER: Rick Moreno SITE AREA: 35,593 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): NIA LOCATION: 4409 NE Sunset Blvd PROPOSED BLDG AREA(gross) 40,138 s ��lt�@h0 DIVISION WORK ORDER NO: 77884 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 4-story, 55-foot tall mixed -use building on a 35,593 square foot site. The site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the NE Sunset Blvd Business District Overlay. The proposed building would include 30,795 square feet of residential space within 21 residential units, 9,343 square feet of commercial space, and 58 parking stalls, 21 of which will be located within a surface parking lot. The remaining 37 stalls will be located on the first floor of the building in structured parking. Access to the site would be provided off of NE Sunset Blvd via two driveways. The site contains a Class 4 stream approximately 312 square feet in size. The applicant proposes a reduction in the stream buffer from 35 to 25 feet. There are 5 trees onsite of which 3 are proposed to remain. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Maio, Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources "T�klp 5k J 409 4115 /aoob B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Lr hUGlare Recreation utilifies Trans ortation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this prcposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date FIRE DEPARTMENT �I �+ M E M O R A N D U M DATE: 4/23/08 TO: Rick Moreno, Plan Reviewer CC: Rocale Timmons, Planner FROM: David Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal SUBJECT: LUA08-028, ECF, CU-A, SA-H SUNSET HIGHLANDS MIXED USE Renton Fire &c Emergency Services Comments: 1. The requirements set forth for the March 26, 2007 Pre -Application meeting are still applicable to this project and shall be required to be adhered to as part of this Conditional Use Permit approval. 2. All hydrants shall be operational before combustible construction shall be allowed. 3. Temporary Emergency Vehicle apparatus access shall be available throughout the duration of the construction project. 4. Temporary address shall be provided and clearly visible for Emergency Responders throughout the duration of the construction project. 5. Standpipes — If required temporary standpipes shall be in place at the time the structure reaches the third floor. The permanent standpipe shall be in place at the time final fire approval is granted. 6. Fire Mitigation fees shall be paid at the time building permits are obtained. Any questions or concerns regarding the fire department comments may be directed to Assistant Fire Marshal, David Pargas. iacity memos%08 final & prelim rev\lua08-028, ecf, cu-a, sa-h sunset highlands mixed use. doc O FIRE DEPARTMENT #M E M O R A, ICI b U lid DATE; March 26, 2007 TO: Jill Ding, Senior Planner FROM. James Gray, Assistant Fire Marsh SUBJECT: Sunset Mixed Use, 4409 NE Suns lvd Fire Department Comments: 1. The preliminary fire flow is 4000 GPM, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and three. additional hvdrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. A fire mitigation fee of $12,557.60 is required based on $.52 per square foot of the commercial square footage and $388.00 per unit of residential. 3. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of fire alarm and sprinkler systems. 4. Fire department access roadways are required to wiNn 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways are a minimum 20 feet in width with a tm-ning radius of45 feet outside and 25 feet inside. 5, Provide a list of flammable, combustible liquids or hazardous chemicals that are used or stored on site. 6. A site plan for Pre -Fire planning is required to be submitted for your project. This shall be submitted prior to occupancy, in one of the attached formats. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Dsunsemtixed.doa City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: F-7 , COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 2�5; 2008._ APPLICATION NO: LUA08-028, ECF, CU-A, SA-H DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 11, 2008 ' APPLICANT: Brett Lindsay, Jon Graves Architects & Planners, PLLC PLANNER: Rocale Timmons �~_ PROJECT TITLE: Sunset Highlands Mixed Use PLAN REVIEWER: Rick Moreno APR SITE AREA: 35,593 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA ros : NI LOCATION: 4409 NE Sunset Blvd PROPOSED BLDG AREA ross 40,138`5Y`iisre let'- ��- WORK ORDER NO: 77884 - SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 4-story, 55-foot tall mixed -use building on a 35,593 square foot site. The site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the NE Sunset Blvd Business District Overlay. The proposed building would include 30,795 square feet of residential space within 21 residential units, 9,343 square feet of commercial space, and 58 parking stalls, 21 of which will be located within a surface parking lot. The remaining 37 stalls will be located on the first floor of the building in structured parking. Access to the site would be provided off of NE Sunset Blvd via two driveways. The site contains a Class 4 stream approximately 312 square feet in size. The applicant proposes a reduction in the stream buffer from 35 to 25 feet. There are 5 trees onsite of which 3 are proposed to remain. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shorehne Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources 12, e xeille4e,) B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major impacts More Information Necessary Housin Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation utilities Transportation Public Services Historlc/Culturai Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14.000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of.. -ton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:Z�,"kvl COMMENTS DUE. APRIL 25, 2008 APPLICATION NO: LUA08-028, ECF, CU-A, SA-H DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 11, 2008 APPLICANT: Brett Lindsay, Jon Graves Architects & Planners, PLLC PLANNER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Sunset Highlands Mixed Use PLAN REVIEWER: Rick Moreno F1 E G E I V E D SITE AREA: 35,593 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 4409 NE Sunset Blvd PROPOSED BLDG AREA(gross) 40,138 square feet WORK ORDER NO: 77884 BUILDING I SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 4-story, 55-foot tall mixed -use building on a 35,593 square foot site. The site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the NE Sunset Blvd Business District Overlay. The proposed building would include 30,795 square feet of residential space within 21 residential units, 9,343 square feet of commercial space, and 58 parking stalls, 21 of which will be located within a surface parking lot. The remaining 37 stalls will be located on the first floor of the building in structured parking. Access to the site would be provided off of NE Sunset Blvd via two driveways. The site contains a Class 4 stream approximately 312 square feet in size. The applicant proposes a reduction in the stream buffer from 35 to 25 feet. There are 5 trees onsite of which 3 are proposed to remain. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Mayor Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shorefine Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources S. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li ht/Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14.000 Feet C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Crurrrnf cva(A r I-aoC t6C f so + 1 S r c ipu 1" F' C,l Lu %A 0 ~1 i l T3 C 2ac> t, We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 4/ 16 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS "It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate future residents that would utilize existing City park and recreation facilities and programs. The City has adopted a Parks Mitigation Fee of $354.51 per each new multi family unit to address these potential impacts." Parks Mitigation Feet City of.. -..ton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: APRIL 25, 2008 APPLICATION NO: LUA08-028, ECF, CU-A, SA-H DATE CIRCULATED: APRIL 11, 2008 APPLICANT: Brett Lindsay, Jon Graves Architects & Planners, PLLC PLANNER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Sunset Highlands Mixed Use PLAN REVIEWER: Rick Moreno SITE AREA: 35,593 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): NIA LOCATION: 4409 NE Sunset Blvd PROPOSED BLDG AREA(gross) 40,138 square feet WORK ORDER NO: 77884 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 4-story, 55-foot tall mixed -use building on a 35,593 square foot site. The site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the NE Sunset Blvd Business District Overlay. The proposed building would include 30,795 square feet of residential space within 21 residential units, 9,343 square feet of commercial space, and 58 parking stalls, 21 of which will be located within a surface parking lot. The remaining 37 stalls will be located on the first floor of the building in structured parking. Access to the site would be provided off of NE Sunset Blvd via two driveways. The site contains a Class 4 stream approximately 312 square feet in size. The applicant proposes a reduction in the stream buffer from 35 to 25 feet. There are 5 trees onsite of which 3 are proposed to remain. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Piement of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Laod/Shorelioe Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housin Aesthetics Li ht/Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10, 000 Feet 14, 000 Feet — 7 - - "_ - , � 4 t 12,D, -"4, ��' � 1,7) /' �Z "; � � C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional informa ' n is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NOWSIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: Apni 11, 2008 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA08-028, ECF, CU-A, SA-H PROJECT NAME: Sunset Highiands Mixed Use PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Reviev: Cor roitiona. Us-. Permit approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review [or the construoWn Of a a -story, 55-fool tall mixed-usa tutld,rig on a 35,593 square foot sile. The site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation and the NE Sunset Blvd Business Oisiricr Overlay. The proposed building would include 30.795 square feet or residental space -thin 21 residential units, 9,343 square feet of commercial space, and 58 parking stalls. 21 of which will be located ::Ayr. a surface parking lot. The remaining 37 stalls will be located an the first floor of the bulking in structured parking. Access 1, Ine s,:e would be provided off or NE Sunset Blvd via two driveways. The site contains a Class 4 stream approx,mately 312 sgdc+r= feet in size. The applicant proposes a reduction in the stream buffer from 35 to 25 feet- There are 5 trees on, be rl ,which 3 are proposed to remain. PROJECT LOCATION: 4409 NE Sunset Blvd OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NOWSIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS -MI" As the Lead Agency lh.e r_ir., of l has determined [hat significant environmental Impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project Therefore, as permmed under the RCW 43.210-1 nQ the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give nc[ire lino: a DNS- M is tikely to be Issued Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a angle car ,n tit period- There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determinal;on of tdnn-Siorrf c., rce- MitkJated (DNS-Mj. A 14-day appeal period w9i fonow the issuance of the ONSW PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: March 26, 2008 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: April 11, 2005 APPLICANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Brett Lindsay, Jon Gravee Architects & Planners, PLL(;, Tel: (250) 2724214 PermHslRoYlew Requested: Environmental ISEPAI Review, Administrative Conditional Use Permit, and Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review Other Permits which may be required: Utility and Building Permits Requested Studies: Stream & Lake Study, Gegtechnical, and ➢ratnagc Reports Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) —Planning Division, Sixth Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, 1,101 98057 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoningtiand Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Prolect-. Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Public hearil is to fatly scheduled tar June 3 ZE before Ine Radio= Hearing Examiner in Re l Council Chambers Hearings hewn at 4 OC „U ul the 71h Moor of the Renton Cify Hall Ocated at 1055 South Grady Way The subject sale is designated Commercial Corridor (CC) on ;he City :A i Comprehensive Land Use Map and Commercial Arterial (CA; cu the C§v s Zomng Map Environmental [SEPA} Checklist Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely b i imposed on the proposed projecl. These recommended Mitigation Measures address pmject impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited shove. • The appircant.06e required topaythe apprgpriare Transportation Mdigalier, Fee; and • The applicant w,il be regmred !o pay the appropnaie Fire Mingahon Fee. and • The appii a,,l w111 be required in pay the appropriale Parks t ritigafi,m Fee: and • Crus­, contor shall he inslailed and mainfarned during conslrochorr in accordance wish the Oepartmenf or Ecrologys Erosior and Sediment Conli Requxernenls as Wtlraed+n fine 2003 Stormwater Management Ili mat. comments on the above application must be submitted to writing to Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner, CED _ Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on April 25, 2008. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on June 3, 2008. at 10:00 AM, Couri Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton If you are imeresled in attending the hearing, please contact the Development Services Dkision to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430-7282- II comments cannot be submitted rn wrBing by the date indicaled above, you may still appear at the hearing and pmseht your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner, J you have questions shout this proposal. Or wish to be made a party of record and receive atlditional Information by mail, please contact the project manager Anyone who suhmits written comments All automaticaey become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this protect CONTACTPERSON: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner; Tel: (425143➢-7219; Eml: rtlmmons&l.renton.wa-us PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete tills form and retum to City of Renton, CFD - Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Nameyrile No.. Sunset Highlands Mixed UseILUA136-028, ECF. GU -A, SA-H NAME' The project will be subject to the Crays SEPA ordinance. Rb,1G r-7-' 204 a. c. other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. MAILING ADDRESS' TELEPHONE NO.. CERTIFICATION I,v,4Y�wcx, , herebycertify that y copies of the above riot tY�{�ir+� were posted by me in `� conspicuous places or nearby the described proper`~ �� 4 4" DATRA �d Oil SIGNED: �} +pT'�►4 ATTEST: subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing;!y�rjr 4&LtG $ !fQ, 20►on the �ui� day of-01 l NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNA CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 11 th day of April, 2008, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter, NOA, Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies — Env. Checklist & PMT See Attached Brett Lindsay — Accpt Ltr only Contact/Applicant ADF Properties, LLC — Accpt Ltr only Owner Surrounding Property Owners - NOA only See Attached (Signature of Sender)_ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) " } SS COUNTY OF KING j I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. �z.r` �y � .� �...-..... hij Dated: 4•LW,pc6 — Notary Public in and 1150the Sate Notary (Print): ►v b Q - My appointment expires: D `kqt--to Project Name: Sunset Highlands Mixed Use Project Number: LUA08-028, ECF, CU-A, SA-H. �sk�rrtt%n 1 �`4WA-3 141i1 WO template - affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology ' WDFW - Larry Fisher" Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. k Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 — 172nd Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office ' Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172"a Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 KC Wastewater Treatment Division ' US Army Corp. of Engineers " Office of Archaeology & Historic Seattle District Office Environmentai Planning Supervisor Preservation" Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer PC Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle. WA 98104-3855 1 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Boyd Powers Depart. of Natural Resources PQ Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson I Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 SE 72" Place 1220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, VVA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01 W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities State Department of Ecology Real Estate Services NW Regional Office Title Examiner 3190 160" Avenue SE 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. " Template - affidavit of service by mailing .- 323059024 TDNN LLC AKA THANH 4311 NE SUNSET BLVD RENTON WA 98059 323059055 BEALE DOROTHY 4325 NE SUNSET BLVD RENTON WA 98059 323059202 RENTON SUNSET EAST 4400 NE SUNSET BLVD RENTON WA 98059 1023059050 ARBOR AT SUNSET LLC 4455 SUNSET BLVD NE RENTON WA 98059 323059044 323059048 DUNG KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTERS INC WEST FREEMAN PROPERTIES 1225 ANACORTES AVE NE 1201 ANACORTES AVE NE RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 323059093 ADF PROPERTIES LLC 15007 WOODINVILLE REDMOND RD #A WOODINVILLE WA 98C72 323059282 ASSOCIAT OLYMPIC DEVELOPMENT 4444 NE SUNSET BLVD RENTON WA 98059 1494500010 CENTRAL HIGHLANDS PLAZA 4601 NE SUNSET BLVD RENTON WA 98059 323059097 MCDONALDS CORP 046/0106 4411 NE SUNSET BLVD RENTON WA 98059 323059283 CR PROPERTIES 1200 WHITMAN CT NE RENTON WA 98059 1494500050 CENTRAL HIGHLANDS PLAZA PO BOX 53290 BELLEVUE WA 98015 7229600000 5169700103 5169700115 SPRINGTREE CONDO ASSOCIATION HO WAYNE S+MARIA S+LAM WAI PAUL YANG PROPERTY LLC MACPHERSON PROPERTY 4502 NE 12TH ST 4500 NE SUNSET BLVD MANAGEMENT RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98039 15281 NE 8TH ST BELLEVUE WA 98007 City of Renton MAR 6 2008 LAND USE PERMIT RECEIVED MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNERS) NAME: ADF Properties LLC ADDRESS: 15007 Woodinville Redmond RD #A CITY: Woodinville ZIP: 98072 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (206) 799-3247 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: Brett Lindsay COMPANY (if applicable): Jan Graves Architects & Planners, PLLC ADDRESS: 3110 Ruston Way, Suite D CITY: Tacoma ZIP: 98402 TELEPHONE NUMBER (253) 272-4214 CONTACT PERSON NAME: Sarre as applicant COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Sunset Highlands m ivo el PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)ILOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 4409 NE Sunset Blvd. Renton, WA 98059 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 0323059093 EXISTING LAND U5E(S): Vacant PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Mixed use EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Commercial Corridor PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): N/A EXISTING ZONING: CA (Commercial Arterial) PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): NIA SITE AREA (in square feet): 35 ; 593 Sq . f t . SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS. NIA PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): 26 NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): 1 Q:sveb/p%vtdevservlforn,slplannitiPlmasternpp.doc i 01/24/08 PRuJECT INFORMA' NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 21 Units NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): K UsI SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): Gross 30,795 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): Gross 9,870 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NIA NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): Net: 9,343 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): approximately 10 TION continued PROJECT VALUE: $4,000,000 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA NIA sq. ft_ ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD NIA sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION NIA sq_ ft. I/SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES -&Z q. ft. ❑ WETLANDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY description on separate sheet with the following information incl NIA sq.ft. SITUATE IN THE SW QUARTER OF SECTION 3 , TOWNSHIP 23 , RANGE 5 , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Site Plan Review 2-0z9c) 3. Environmental Checklist 500 2. Conditional Use Permit —9W 4. i Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Names) —Do, Ae Fo n k , declare that 1 am (please check one) the current owner of the property involved in this application or the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that )�, Q le re"I k signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/herltheir free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. (Signature of OwnedRepresentative) /ION of [bft iature �€�mI AppoMMtnllnf ft*N Alp 7, 2011 1 Or Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print)-- �!� r T✓l C �� My appointment expires: �UY U� �� 6 /l Q:wrb/pNv/devsen,/forms/plaaining/mesterapp.doc 2 01/24/08 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS This requirement may be waived by: L 1- Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: r5c,46_ 5e-, yI,k:C-r ttsc 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section DATE: 0 4- Development Planning Section Q:IWEB%PWIDEVSERVIForms\Planninglwaiverofsubmittalregs 9-06.xis 09106 EVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS MAR 2 E ?K;3 ug ".0.0" Al.....;..10. Char0 Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4 - R" - g ""N� -" i w . 6M .El- mgNm Plat Name Reservation 4 a--g 'gg -i� -gg g. Preapplication Meeting Summary 4 ........... mM Rehabilitation Plan 4 .......... . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... Site Plan 2AND4 -8A W.K Pl"* NO Stream or Lake Study, Supplemental 4 ......... .. Street Profiles 2 77 'Em-M Z.p g-g-xmm 22-0,212--t-M .yr . . . . . . . . . - ------------------ Topography Map 3 g R, Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan 4 a 0 2. - Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 XM �K "00 'R: -N .. .......... •.0 Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Preliminary 4 Z NO 0, �x, mnx .01 Wireless: Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND 3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2 AMD 3 PhotosimulationS 2 AND 3 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: souvic&t4 Krx'j, cj�s-c 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section DATE: 4. Development Planning Section 406.xis 09/06 r ❑ENELOPMENT PLANNING CITY of RE►+TON MAR 2 b 20'' Fl" DEPARTMENT RECEIVED ♦,� � M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 26, 2007 TO: Jill Ding, Senior Planner FROM: James Gray, Assistant Fire Marsh SUBJECT: Sunset Mixed Use, 4409 NE Suns lvd Fire Department Comments: 1. The preliminary fire flow is 4000 GPM, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and three. additional hvdrants are required within 300 feet. of the structure. 2. A fire mitigation fee of $12,557.60 is required based on $.52 per square foot of the commercial square footage and $388,00 per unit of residential. 3. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of fire alarm and sprinkler systems. 4. Fire department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior, Roadways are a minimum 20 feet in width with a turning radius of 45 feet outside and 25 feet inside. 5. Provide a list of flammable, combustible liquids or hazardous chemicals that are used or stored on site. 6. A site plan for Pre -Fire planning is required to be submitted. for your project. This shall be submitted prior to occupancy, in one of the attached formats. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Osunsetmixed.doc s PRE -FIRE PLANNING RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT Jn an effort to streamline our pre -fire process, we are requesting that you submit a site plan of your construction project in one of the following formats which we can then convert to VISIO.vsd. This is required to be submitted prior to occupancy. ABC Flowcharter.aS ABC Flowcharter.aU Adobe Illustrator File.ai AutoCad Drawing.dw AutoCad Drawing.dgn Com uter Graphics Metaflle.cgm Corel Cli art Format.cmx Corel DRAWI Drawing File Format.edr Corel Flow.cfl EncNLsulated Postscript File.eps Enhanced Metafile.emf IGES Drawing File Fornxat.i s Graphics Interchange Format. if Macintosh PICT Format. ct Micro afx Designer Ver 3.1.drw Micrografx Designer Ver 6,0.dsf Microstation Drawin .dgn Portable Network Graphics Format. of Postscript File. s Lag Image File Format.tif Text.txt Text.csv VISIO,vsd Windows Bitma .bm Windows Bitma .dib Windows Metafile.wmf Zsott PC Paintbrush Bitma cx MEMORANDUM DATE:' a TO: Construction Services, Fire Prevention, Plan Review, Project Planner FROM: Neil Watts, Development Services Division Director SUBJECT: New Preliminary Application: --5UASarJ LOCATION: $J VIA PREAPP NO. O — 0-2—`Z- A meeting with the applicant has been scheduled for ftrl l t, , Thursday, at z:Do L IAM APM, in one of the 61h floor conference rooms. If this meeting is scheduled at 10:00 AM, the MEETING MUST BE CONCLUDED PRIOR TO 11:00 AM to allow time to prepare for the 11:00 AM meeting. Please review the attached project plans prior to the scheduled meeting with the applicant. You will not need to do a thorough "permit level" review at this time. Note only major issues that must be resolved prior to formal land use and/or building permit application submittal. Plan Reviewer assigned is Please submit your written comments to (Planner) at least two (2) days before the meeting. Thank you. V so MAO Lf H:IDivision.slDevelop,ser\Dev & PlamingUemplateTroapp2 Revised 1-05 Y o PLANNINGBUILDINGI ♦ a �i )� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT qh;fr4V M L M G R A N D U M To: rill Ding Frorn: hick Moreno Date: April 3, 2007 Subject: PreApplication Review Comments PREAPP No. 07-022 Sunset Mixed Use NOTE ON PRELIMINARY REVIEW COMMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. The following comments on development and permitting Issues are based on the pre -application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant. The Applicant Is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modif7eatfon and/or concurrence by official decision. makers (e.g. Hearing Examiner, Boards of Adjustment, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by the City or made by the applicant. I have reviewed the information provided in the preliminary application for this proposed short plat. The following comments assume the property is annexed to the City of Renton. WATER 1. There is an existingl2" waterline fronting the property on the north side of Sunset Blvd. 2. The modeled fire flow available at the site is approx. 4100 gpm. Static Water pressure is approximately 65 — 70 psi. 3. The proposed project is located within the 565-water pressure zone. 4. A 10-inch water main shall be looped around the building within a 15 ft. utility easement and connected to the existing 12-inch water main within Sunset Blvd. A minimum of 4 gate valves will be required for isolation purposes. 5. The proposed structure will require 4,000 available gpm with one Fire hydrant within 150 ft, and (3) additional fire hydrants within 300 ft. of the structure. Each new fire hydrant trust be capable of delivering a raininrum of 1,000 gpm and meet Renton Standard specifications including, but not limited to storz adaptors. There is an existing fire hydrant within I50 ft of the property, but might not be counted due to its location on the north side of Sunset Blvd. 6. A Water System development Charge of $1,174 per dwelling unit and is payable at time of issuance of a construction permit. 7. Fire sprinkler connection with DDCVA will be required and located per Fire Marshall direction and approval, SANITARY SEWER 1. 'There is an existing 8-inch sewer main available within an easement along the west property line as well as a 12-inch sewer fronting the property along Sunset Blvd. H.\Division.sWevelop.sciAPian.revlRick%Renton Mixed Use-PRE07-022.doe Page 2 of 2 04/03/2007 2. No sewer main extension is required. 3. Within the parking garage facility, an oil water separator is required to connect to the sewer main. 4. No dual side sewers are allowed. Side sewer shall be a minimum 2% slope. 5. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges.(SDC) is $6I0 per dwelling unit. 6. The property is within the Honey Creek Special Sewer Assessment District and maybe subject to and additional $250 per unit fee. SURFA.CK VAT RR 1. This site appears to drain to the May Creek basin. 2. A preliminary drainage report plan and drainage report will be required with the site plan application. The report shall address detention and water quality requirements as outlined in the 2005 King County Surface Water Manual. 3. The Surface Water System Development Charge (SDC) is $0.265 per'square foot of new impervious surface, but not less than $759. These are payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. TRANSPORTATION I. City Code requires street improvements, which include: paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drainage and landscape along the street frontage. 2. This site will require a traffic study with an analysis of access off of Sunset Blvd. 3. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Ordinance. GENERAL CQMMENTS 1. All utility and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. Permit application must include an itemized cost of construction estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000, and 3% of anything over $200,000. Half the fee must be paid upon application. The current fees are subject to change, subject to City Council review and approval. 3. If fire -sprinkler systems are necessary, then a separate fire sprinkler permit will be required. 4. If you have any questions please call me at 425-430-7364— 1W 7z78 M Kayren Kitoick li:ldivision.sNuevolopAeriplan,rev%rick%renton mixed use-preT-022.doc CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works MEMORANDUM DATE: April 5, 2007 TO: Pre -Application File No. 07-022 FROM: Jill Ding, Senior Planner, x7219 SUBJECT: Sunset Mixed Use General: Staff has completed a preliminary review of the pre -application for the above - referenced development proposal, The following comments on development and permltting Issues are based on the pre -application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that Information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision -makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Development Services Director, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall, Project Proposal: The subject site is located on the south side of NE Sunset Blvd at 4409 NE Sunset Blvd. The site totals approximately 35,600 square feet in area and Is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone and NE Sunset Blvd Business District. Access to the site would be provided via two driveways off of NE Sunset Blvd. The proposal is to develop a 5-story mixed use building with 21 residential units and 1,740 square feet of commercial. The commercial area would be located on the ground floor as would under building parking for the residential units. 28 surface parking stalls are proposed around the perimeter of the building. Zoning: The site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation, NE Sunset Blvd Business District, and is subject to the Urban Design Regulations for District B. Retail uses are an outright permitted use within the CA zone, and attached residential uses are allowed subject to the approval of an Administrative Conditional Use Penult.. Density Requirements: Within the NE Sunset Blvd Business District, the minimum density Is 10 units/net acre and the maximum density is units/net acre. The proposed project would result in a net density of 25.7 du/ac, which is within the density range permitted. Development Standards for NE a St Corridor Business District and CA zone General development standards for the CA zone are provided in RMC 4-2-120A. Specific development standards for the NE Sunset Blvd Corridor Business District are provided in RMC 4-3-040F, and should be carefully reviewed against the proposed project. Building Standards — The CA zone allows a maximum building coverage of 65% of the lot area or 75% of the lot area if parking is provided within the building or within an on -site parking garage. The proposed project would result in building coverage of 22 percent, which is less than the maximum lot coverage permitted and complies with this requirement. Building height is restricted to 50 feet, however the maximum building height may be increased by 20 feet subject to the approval of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. Sunset Mixed Use Pre -Application Meeting April 5, 2007 Page 2 of 4 Setbacks - Setbacks are measured from the property lines to the nearest point of the structure. The front yard setback may be a minimum of 10 ft (CA zone requirement) and a maximum of 15 ft (NE Sunset Blvd Corridor requirement). No rear or side yard setbacks are required and the site does not abut a residentially zoned property. Landscaping - A minimum 15-ft landscaping strip is required along NE Sunset Blvd as the subject site is located adjacent (across the street) from a residentially zoned property. Parking Is not permitted within required landscape areas, therefore the site plan shall be revised to remove the parking spaces located within the 15-foot landscape area required along NE Sunset Blvd. Surface parking lots with between 15 and 50 parking stalls are required to provide a minimum of 15 square feet of landscaping per parking space. Based on the proposal for 28 surface parking stalls, a minimum of 420 square feet of landscaping would required within the surface parking areas. The landscaped areas shall include a minimum of 1 tree for ever 8 parking spaces, shrubs shall be planted at a rate of 5 per 100 square feet of landscape area, and ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities as to provide 90 percent coverage after three years of Installation. The NE Sunset Blvd Corridor requirements require that a planting area with a minimum width of 5 feet be installed every six parking spaces. Please refer to RMC 4-4-08OF for further landscaping requirements within parking areas. All landscape areas are to include an underground sprinkling system unless drought tolerant plantings are used. Please refer to RMC 4-4-070 for general and specific landscape requirements. Several of the specific landscape requirements include: the type and location of trees; soils to be used; drainage; plants; and berms. A conceptual landscape plan and landscape analysis meeting the requirements In RMC 4-8-120D shall be submitted at the time of formal land use application. Pedestrian Access: A pedestrian connection shall be provided from a public entrance to the street, In order to provide direct, clear, and separate pedestrian walks from sidewalks to building entries and internally from the proposed building to the abutting properties. The site plan shall be revised to provide additional pedestrian connections to the abutting commercially zoned properties to the east and west. Site DeslgIL Commercial space must be reserved on the ground floor of all mixed use buildings, at a minimum depth of 30 feet along the street frontage. The proposal complies with this requirement. Design Standards: For development within the NE Sunset Blvd Corridor Business District, projects shall be designed to the standards of the Urban Design Regulations for District B, as provided In RMC 4-34100. These standards are included in your packet. PgLking - Each dwelling unit is required to provide of 2.25 parking spaces as tandem spaces are proposed. Based on the proposal for 21 dwelling units, 47 parking spaces would be required for the residential units. Within the NE Sunset Blvd Corridor District, the required parking spaces for the residential units must be within an enclosed structure located under the residential portion of the building. It doesn't appear that there is adequate room under the building to provide parking for the project. Where practical difficulties exist a modification to the parking requirements may be obtained provided the applicant provides a written justification based on the criteria outline in 4-9-250D. PRE07-022 (CA - Sonset Minced Use),doz1 Sunset Mixed Use Pre -Application Meeting April 5, 2007 Page 3 of 4 The number of spaces required for retail sales is 0.4 spaces per 100 square feet of net floor area, Based on the proposal for 1,740 square feet of retail, 7 parking spaces would be required. The NE Sunset Corridor Business District requires that the minimum number of parking spaces listed In the parking regulations also serves at the maximum number of parking spaces permitted in this corridor. It appears that the proposal would exceed the maximum number of parking spaces permitted. The standard surface parking stall dimensions required are 9' x 20' and the compact spaces may be 8 Y2' x 16', a maximum of 30 percent of the surface stalls may be compact stalls, The standard structured parking stall dimensions required area 8' 4" x 15' and the structured compact stall dimensions required are 7' 6" x 12', a maximum of 50 percent of the provided structure parking stalls may be compact stalls. Environmental Review: The project would require SEPA review due to the number of dwelling units proposed (greater than four dwelling units). The proposal would be brought to the Environmental Review Committee for review as it is their charge to make threshold determinations for environmental checklists. Typically, mitigation of impacts is accomplished through fees related to issues such as transportation, fire and parks as well as measures to reduce impacts to environmental elements such as soils, streams, water, etc. Sensitive Areas (Wetlands and streams): The City's Critical Areas Maps indicate the presence of a Class'4 stream on the south side of the site, a Class 4 stream requires a 35- foot buffer the buffer may be reduced down to 25 feet provided that the applicant demonstrates the reduction would comply with the criteria outlined under RMC 4-3- 0501-5c(iv)(a), (c), (d), (e), and (f). In addition wetlands and/or buffer areas may also exist on the site. The applicant is required to submit a complete stream study and wetiand report and delineation prior to formal land use application. For wetlands, the applicable buffer widths based on the category of the wetland are required (Category 1 — 100 ft.; Category 2 — 50 ft.; and Category 3 -- 25 ft.). Please refer to RMC 4-3-050.M. for additional regulations on wetlands. Sensitive Areas (Aqulfer Protection): The site is located within the City's updated Aquifer Protection Area Zone 2. If more than 100 cubic yards of fill are proposed, a Source Statement is required for each source location from which imported fill will be obtained. Permit Requirements: The project would require Administrative Conditional Use Permit approval, a Hearing Examiner Site Plan approval, and Environmental (SEPA) review. With concurrent review of these applications, the process would take an estimated time frame of 10 to 12 weeks. After the required notification period, the Environmental Review Committee would issue a Threshold Determination for the project. When the required two -week appeal period Is completed, the project would go before the Hearing Examiner for a decision on the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review. The Hearing Examiner's decision would be subject to a two -week appeal period. The application fee would be $2,000 for the Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review,'/2 of full fee for SEPA Review (Environmental Checklist) which would be $500.00, and the administrative Conditional Use Permit fee would be Y2 of full fee, or $500.00. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal requirements is provided in the attached handouts. PRE07.022 (CA - Sunset Mixed Use).doc1 Sunset Mixed Use Pre -Application Meeting April 5, 2007 Page 4 of 4 Once Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan approvals are obtained, the applicant must complete the required improvements and dedications, as well as satisfy any conditions of the approval before a building permit may be obtained. Fees: In addition to the applicable building and construction permit fees, the following mitigation fees would be required prior to the recording of the plat A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each riew average daily trip attributable to the project; • A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $0.52 per square foot of new commercial area and $388 per each new dwelling unit. • A Parks Mltigation Fee based on $354.51 per each new dwelling unit. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees is included in the packet for your review. Additional Comments: In advance of submitting the full application package, applicants are strongly encouraged to bring in one copy of each application material for a pre-screening to the customer service counter to help ensure that the application Is complete prior to making all copies. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The Commercial Corridor land use designation is characterized by concentrated, pre-existing commercial activity, primarily in a linear urban form, that provides necessary goods and services for daily living, accessible to near -by neighborhoods, serving a sub -regional market and accommodating large volumes of traffic. Commercial Corridor areas are characterized by medium intensity levels of activity. In these districts, provision of pedestrian amenities is encouraged, as are opportunities to link adjacent uses and neighborhoods. Land Use Element Policy LU-338. Commercial Arterial zoned areas should include an opportunity for residential uses and office as part of mixed -use development. Policy LU-363. Parking provided on -site, in parking structures, and either buffered from adjacent uses or Incorporated into pedestrian -oriented street design, is preferred. Policy LU-368. Consideration of the scale and building style of near -by residential neighborhoods should be included in development proposals. Policy LU-369. Development should be designed to consider potential adverse Impacts on adjacent, less intensive uses, e.g. lighting, landscaping, and setbacks should all be considered during site design. cc: Jennifer Henning PRR07 022 (CA - Suneet Mixed Uae),doc1 CYD R-1 rh VZ. EI, 6t -C E! �h Ct. pvla I UP:flv= ' aw I ,Ito 4E7 R R-8 M 8 R-r- 0. A rx .ISM, F RM-F R-10 E6 • 10 T23N R5E W 1/2 ZOMNG D 6 VMW TBCMHC" emvum 3 T23N R5E W 1/2 $303 R -F City of Renton Wetland/Stream Consultant Roster For project sites with wetlands, streams, and/or their associated buffer areas, a wetland and/or stream study is required, prepared by a qualified professional. Per RMC 4-3- 050F7, when appropriate due to the type of critical areas, habitat, species present, or project area conditions, the Reviewing Official may require the applicant to find analyses including evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's submitted analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures or programs, to include any recommendations as appropriate. This shall be paid at the applicant's expense, and 'the Reviewing Official shall select the secondary review professional. The following is a list compiled by the City of Renton in alphabetical order of Wetland/Stream Consultants that are pre -qualified to prepare the initial critical areas studies and conduct a secondary review of wetland/stream studies, supplemental stream studies and mitigation playas for the City. 1. A.C. Kindig & Co. 4. Otak 12501 Bellevue -Redmond Road, Suite 11.0 10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 400 Bellevue, WA, 98005-2509 Kirkland, WA 98033 Telephone: (425) 638-0358 Telephone: (425) 822-4446 2. ESA Adolfson 5. Steward and Associates Contact: Ilon Logan 120 Avenue A, Suite D 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200 Snohomish, WA 98290 Seattle, WA 98107 Telephone: (360) 862-1255 Telephone: (206) 789-9658 3. Herrera Environmental Consultants 6. The Watershed Company Contact: Kittie Ford 750 Sixth Street South 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 "klatul, WA 98033 Seattle, WA 98121 ::'Telephone: (425) 822-5242 Telephone: (206) 441-9080 Preliminary Meeting with the City of Renton AVES ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS TON WAY SUITE D TACOAAA, WA 98402 E (253) 272-4214 FAX (253) 272-4218 l 0 R a C H 5. C O M 09 April 2007 RE; (Pre -application File No.07-022) - Additional Notes Attending: Jill Ding, Corey Thomas, Michel Dotson, Rick Morena, Brett Lindsay, Jeff Walls The following are additional notes taken from the meeting with City of Renton. The City provided a complete, -written, preliminary Review of the proposed project. See the attached documents for their comments. Also, we were provided with all the necessary application forms and submittal standards. if you would like us to forward copies, just let us know. Fire D000rtment It will be necessary to provide three (3) additional fire hydrants on the property that are within one -hundred fifty (150) feet of the structure. Four (4) hydrants are needed, but we will be able to share access to an existing one across Sunset Blvd. The water department provided a sketch that shows an approximate design. See the attached Site Plan with notes. The proposed driveway and access drive is adequate for the flre department. The 13'-V minimum height to bottom of structure, for this access drive, was also confirmed. Wafer. A ten (10) Inch water main shall loop.around the building undemeath the proposed driveway with a 16' utility easement and will connect back to the twelve (12) inch water main located on Sunset Blvd. The water department provided a sketch that shows an approximate design. See the attached Site Plan with notes. Sonitary Sewer There are two•existing sewer mains'that can be utilizeid for the project. One Is located on Sunset Blvd and the other resides in the utility easement on the west side of the property. An oillwater separator is required in the parking garage. Note that if the garages are compartmentaiized, then each will need to have its own drain. Transportation Only'two driveways will be permitted for access oft' of Sunset Blvd. Currently, there are threa(3).' The proposed project meets this requirement. Sulldhgl - Heights We will have to file an Administrative Conditional Use Permit in order to exceed the height limit of fifty (50) feet. With the approval of the city, we will be able to alter the maximum height of the building to seventy (70) feet. This will be presented by JIII to the Hearings. Examiner and their owner or the owner's representative will need to be thereto answer any questions. 0600 -- Sunset Mixed Use Preliminary Meeting with the City bf Renton 8ulldins - Setbacks Per the RMC, because of the zoning designation, we can propose a zero setback along Sunset Boulevard, provided blank walls are not located in the required setback area. This is pending approval'through the site plan review process. Based on the design that we submitted with the pre -application materials, It appears that the city staff would support.a proposed reduction In the front yard setback. Since this project will go before the Hearing Examiner for. a decision, this is the best answer that they can give us. They do not have'a process through which they could approve the reduced setback ahead of time, but again as long as we comply with the approval criteria (not providing blank wells within this setback area) they do not see any problem with getting that reduction approved. Landscaafna There is a fifteen (15) foot landscaping buffer on the north property line, In which parking cannot be allocated within. This will slightly change our site plan,. though the exterior parking count should not be affected. Pad" lens Pedestrian connections. to both adjacent propertl6s are needed in order to be compliant with the city code. It would be acceptable to locate the eastern connection within the 15ft landscape buffer. On the western side, it would also be acceptable to only.ellow for a future connection, as currently, this Is a single family residence. Parkins in order to meet the parking standards, we will need to provide a written justification to the City of Renton based on the criteria outline In 4-9-250D. Our goal Is to get permission from the city to allow us to designate (8) eight parking spaces that are not under the residential structure for guest parking. Note that this will require an additional (4) parking stalls under the building. We believe that this will be possible because we are allowed to have a zero foot setback as noted above. Also note that there Is the possibility that they may allow us to designate (10) tan of the parking stalls outside the building. No parking under the - building can be used for the nonresidential use areas. Sen Protection It appears that this project may Ile within an Asuffer Protection lone Land therefore, there may be requirements, In addition to those In the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). An attached document lists the potential requirements. This surhmarizes any additional comments made during the meeting. Let us know If you have any concerns or questions.. Thanks, O600 — Sunset Mixed Use K DENSITY WORKSHEET City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 1. Gross area of property: MAR 2 b C� RECEI 1. 35,593 square feet 2. Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from density calculations. These include: Public streets** Private access easements** Critical Areas* Total excluded area: 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1 for net area 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage: 5. Number of dwelling units or lots planned: square feet square feet 312_ square feet 2. 3. 4. 5. 312 square feet 35,281 square feet 0.81 acres 21 units/lots 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: 6.26 = dwelling units/acre *Critical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be not suitable for development and which are subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations including very high landslide areas, protected slopes, wetlands or floodways." Critical areas buffers are not deducted/excluded. ** Alleys (public or private) do not have to be excluded. GA0600 Renton Mixed Use10600_Density.doc Last updated: 03/20/2008 1 Mar 27 08 08:47a Jon Graves Architects 253 272 4218 p.2 City of Renton TREE RETENTION ��C�NOFRENTON WORKSHEET MAR 26108 clvru 1 _ Total number of trees over S" in diameter' on project site: 1. trees 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous2 trees Trees in proposed public streets trees Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts _ trees Trees in critical areas3 and buffers i _ trees Total number of excluded trees: 3. Subtract line 2 from line 7: 2. trees 3. 4 trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained4, multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones RC, R-1, R-4, or R-8 0.1 in all other residential zones 0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. trees 5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing5 to retain4• 5. trees 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: 6. trees y% (If line 6 is less than zero, stop here. Na repiacentent trees are required). 7. Multiply line 6 by 12"' for number of required replacement inches: 7. inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2" catiper trees required) 8. inches per tree 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees: (it remainder is .5 or greater, round up. to the next whole number) 9. trees ' Measured at chest height. z dead, diseased or dangerous trees must be certified as such by a forester, registered landscape architect, or certified arborist, and approved by the City. ', Critical Areas. such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in Section 4-3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC)- 4 Count only those trees to be retained outside of criticat areas and bugs. 5_ The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention or the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-13OH7a B. Inches of street trees, inches of trees added to rrihcal areaslbuffers, and inches of trees retained on site that are less than 6" but are greater than 2" can be used to meet the tree replacement requirement_ Fl:Division/Forms'Treeltctcntiunwarkshcct t U071 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENI'ON JON GRAVES ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, PLLC MAR 31 1 0 RUSTON WRY, SUITE D Tncomn, Wn 98402 TEL (253) 272-4214 FAX (253) 272-4218 RECEIVED J G A A C A S- C p AA Project Narrative: The name of the proposed project is Sunset Highlands, located at 4409 NE Sunset Blvd., Renton, WA 98059. The site is a 35,593 square foot parcel located in the center of the NE Sunset Blvd Business District and is currently zoned Commercial Arterial (CA). The proposed mixed -use building will offer residential units in the upper stories, therefore a Conditional Use permit will be required per the City of Renton. The site is currently vacant. Some vegetation will be removed in preparation of construction. Honey Creek is a class 4 stream located at the NE corner of the site. Please see stream delineation, soils report and update letter addressing stream location, soil type and drainage conditions. Sunset Highlands is a proposed 40,665 sq. ft. mixed -use apartment building. It is designed to be 1 floor of parking plus a commercial element with 3 floors of 7 residential units on each story for a total of 21 residential units and a total of 4 stories. There will be two access points to the site from NE Sunset Blvd. Two entry driveways per the City of Renton requirements will provide access to the site and will be connected via a two-way loop drive around the proposed building. Proposed off -site improvements will include new sidewalks, curbs and gutters, entry driveways, and two connections to the existing 12" sewer main in Sunset. The total estimated cost and fair market value for the building is 4 million. Fill material will be imported in order to obtain desired site grades and provide for effective stormwater drainage. Fill will consist of pavement sub -grade material, and general fill. Approximately 1500 cubic yards of fill will be required to be imported from a locally approved source. Currently there are no trees set to be removed, and because of the existing site condition, the amount of vegetation to be removed is negligible. Currently there are no proposed job shacks, model homes or sales trailers. Also, a parking modification request has been submitted and approved by the City of Renton to allow 10 of the required 47 parking spaces for the residential use to be designated as guest parking and would be permitted as surface parking. Approval is enclosed with Site Plan Review Package. There will be a 25 ft buffer from Honey Creek to nearest area of work as shown in wetland mitigation and stream study. I G A A C H S _ C 0 M DEVELOPMENT PLANNING~ CITY OF RENTON JON GRAVES ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, PLLC MAR Z 62008 3110 RUSTON WAY, SUITE D TACOMR, WA 98402 TEL (253) 272-421 4 FAX (253) 272-4218 �CC������ CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION DESCRIPTION In an effort to provide tactical construction impact mitigation the following plan describes not only the major components of the project but mitigation measures that will be in place to minimize the projects impacts on the environment and community as a whole: Construction Dates: The project is estimated to begin in May 2008 with an overall timeline of 10 months from the breaking ground ceremony to the final acceptance of the project by the governing authorities and the owner. Construction Hours and Days of Operation: The project will be completed Monday through Friday with some minor activities being done on some Saturdays to avoid delays and complications. The construction gate will open at 6:00 am and the equipment on site will be turned on at 7:00 am to warm-up with operations starting at 7:15 am. The workforce on the project will arrive on the project between 6:00 am and 7:00 am with rollout beginning at 7:00 am. The construction gate will close at 6:00 pm and all equipment will be stopped and shut down by 5:00 pm. The workforce on the project will begin roll -up at 4:00 pm with all work stopping no later than 5:00 pm. The site will have security fencing in place at all times and the site will be locked during non -construction hours. Construction access will be controlled and all visitors must report to the construction office and must have the appropriate safety protection (boots, hard hat and safety glasses) to walk the site. Trucking and Transportation Routes: Most common commuting will be done via I-405 to NE Sunset Boulevard, East to the site. Major Trucking and Hauling will follow two common traffic routes: • I-405 to NE Sunset Boulevard, East to the site • I-405 to NE 4th Street, East to Duvall Avenue NE, North to NE Sunset Boulevard, West to the site The total travel time from I-405 to the site is 5-7 minutes using either route. Mitigation and Control of Impacts on the Surrounding Community: The site will be watered during times when dust reaches a level that is disturbing to the surrounding areas in the morning and in the late afternoon or as needed to reduce transient dust from escaping the site and lingering to surrounding areas. The perimeter of the site will have filter fabric fence installed to gather and hold any and all debris, spoils and "dirty" water from leaving the site without being controlled. Soil and Landscaping materials that are collected and/or gathered in amounts exceeding 2 cubic yards will be covered with visqueen and sandbags to minimize erosion. During heavy hauling or site delivery times, licensed and independently contracted road crews and flagging companies will be used to control traffic flow to and from the site. Each activity that requires traffic flow control will be applied for to the governing authorities and a site control and access plan will be approved. At times when traffic is heightened due to area activities, the local law enforcement agency may be contracted to ensure the safety of the community, and all vehicles leaving the site will enter and leave the flow of traffic in a safe and controlled manner. The site will have crushed rock and tire gravel at the construction entrance to minimize the impact on NE Sunset Boulevard. All dirt or debris tracked on to NE Sunset Boulevard will be addressed with a contracted Street Cleaning service. The site will have times that noise will exceed common day practices on a typical adjacent properties, but the activities that will affect the community with noise pollution the most will be controlled based on the times that the work will be taking place and the amount of work being done at any one time. The activities will not be grouped together and will be spread out to minimize the effect on local businesses and properties. All generators, compressors and heavy equipment will be inspected to ensure that all current WISHA measures for sound extenuation have been adhered to. All gases, chemicals and toxins will be controlled on site in a single area and will be locked and sealed at all times while they are not being used. The items will be properly placarded and Material Safety Data Sheets will be on site for each item at all times. Secured and Safe Lockers and/or Storage Bins will be used at all times with a properly developed perimeter to ensure the safety of the items on the site. ***** A detailed Communications Plan outlining the steps that will be taken by the contractor and the project owner during the course of construction of the project to alleviate the identified impacts, which shall include, but not be limited to the following: • Schedule of regular meetings with the surrounding businesses throughout the course of construction; Display of maps and construction schedule information posted in and around the construction area; • Schedule of meetings with the surrounding community, emphasizing the market area of the impacted businesses; • Schedule of regular meeting to coordinate with any other construction project within 500 feet of the project. ***** The potential impacts to businesses within a 1000 foot radius of the Project that shall be addressed in the Construction Impact Mitigation Plan, if applicable, shall include: • Impacts on patronage due to impediments to pedestrian and vehicular access, visual impediments to signage; loss of on street parking, or perceived safety issues; • Forced temporary business closure due to loss of utilities, loss of access for patrons and employees, loss of access for services such as deliveries or garbage service, or perceived safety issues; • Forced permanent business closure due to permanent loss of pedestrian or vehicular access. TYPES OF MITIGATION MEASURES THAT MAY BE REQUIRED: • Physical Impacts: Traffic detours, temporary sidewalks, construction coordination meetings Environmental Impacts: Car wash vouchers, pressure washing sidewalks and driveways Communications: Community meetings pre- and during construction, expanded project signage with project information and contact names, a fax distribution to community and stakeholders in and around the affected area, central contact staff in field, updates available on existing website. Other Impacts: Project signage to support businesses, parking assistance for employees and customers, business association outreach EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES THAT MAY BE REOUIRED: • Physical Impacts: Long-term detour signage, temporary traffic signals, special bus routes and shuttles • Environmental Impacts: Acoustical window treatments, HVAC upgrades/ installation, temporary utility services, noise attenuation barriers 0 Communication: Regular newsletter, construction hotline, marketing assistance —advertising, promotions, special events to mark milestones (groundbreaking, topping -off, openings), up-to-date information made available at an information center, information kiosks with maps and construction information posted in and around construction area, newspaper articles and press releases —regular updates to local reporters, weekly meetings with affected businesses, residents and property owners during construction, advertising(including print & broadcast) to promote region--e.g. Downtown, dedicated website with webeam access of project in progress * Other Impacts: Marketing assistance, technical business support, cross -promotion efforts with adjacent businesses JON GRAVES AACHITECTS 6 PLANNERS, ,PLLC 3110 RUSTON WAY, SUITE D TACOMA, WA 98402 TEL (253) 272-4214 FAX (253) 279-4218 =..r�•f�:�. JON GRAVES ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, PLLC 31 10 RUSTON WAY, SUITE ❑ TACOMA, WA 98402 TEL (253) 272-421 4 FAX (253) 272-4218 DEVELOPmENT G"y OF ENTON"' J G A F C H 5. C O M MAR 216 2008 Wave) Conditional Use Justification The site is located in the commercial arterial zone (CA) zoning designation, NE Sunset Blvd Business District, and is subject to the Urban Design Regulations for District B. Retail uses are an outright permitted use within the CA zone, and attache residential uses are allowed subject to the approval of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. Also, the building height is restricted to fifty fee in this zoning designation, however the height may be increased by 24 feet subject to the approval of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. ' A. Comprehensive Plan The subject property lies in the Commercial Arterial Zone of the NE Sunset Blvd Business District. As part of Renton's Comprehensive Plan, the city's objective for this district is to create an energetic business environment for new commercial activity that provides a range of service, office, commercial, and mixed use residential elements. Efficient parking, coordinated access, amenities and boulevard treatments that create a focal point for pedestrian activity and visual interest. NE Sunset Blvd. district promotes activities that connect the business district to the adjacent uses and neighborhoods. The proposed location and use of this project is compatible with all goals, objectives and standards of Renton's Comprehensive Plan. Sunset Highlands is a proposed mixed -use building that incorporates commercial office and residential uses. This proposed project encourages the development of commercial activity which will inevitably promote employment opportunities and residential use with the possibility of a live -work environment. Sunset Highlands is proposed as a larger, more visible building that would have two separate access points from NE Sunset Blvd. Due to a small creek toward the edge of the property, the proposed building would sit farther toward the front of the property, with surface parking surrounding it. B. Community Need 1. Much of the immediate surrounding area is commercial property with one adjacent single family residence on the west side. The proposed building is located in the NE Sunset Blvd. Corridor which serves as a gateway to the Highlands Neighborhood Center. Adding a mixed use development will encourage the transition from commercial to residential uses. 2. As outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan, Commercial Arterial zoning within the NE Sunset Boulevard Business District allows and promotes the opportunity for residential uses and offices as part of a mixed use development. The elements of this combined residential and commercial use will heighten the districts economic viability by attracting local and sub -regional shoppers. The proposed location is well suited for the "highly eclectic mix of commercial and residential uses" 1 C. Effect on Adjacent Property As described above, the proposed use will be well suited for the location. The proposed development, like its surrounding area, incorporates commercial and residential elements and will not result in undue adverse effects. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan; IX-59 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING OfTY OF RENTON Ma JON GRAVES ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, PLLC R � � ��$ 3110 RUSTON WAY. SUITE D TACOMA, LllA 98402 RECEIVED TEL (253) 272-4214 FAX (253) 272-421 8 J G R R C H S_ C O M Sunset Blvd. Business Districts Development Standards Report The site is located in the commercial arterial zone (CA) zoning designation, NE Sunset Blvd Business District, and is subject to the Urban Design Regulations for District B. The following is a section by section breakdown on each requirement and a description of how each is addressed in the proposed project. Section 4-3-100E RMC: Site Design and Building Location 4-3-100E1a. Site Design and Street Pattern: This project will maintain the existing grid street pattern that runs along the Sunset Blvd. Corridor. Improvements to the street frontage will provide better sidewalks to maintain safe pedestrian access to the site and a circular driveway creates an effective way to access retail shops, a restaurant and residences. 4-3-100E2a.Building Location and Orientation: To ensure visibility and maintain safe access for pedestrian use of businesses, we have oriented the building to face Sunset Blvd in accordance with the current street pattern. The entrance to the building faces Sunset Blvd. and is not oriented to a drive aisle. 4-3-100E3a. Building Entries: There is only one building proposed on this site however the multiple entries that serve each of the retail shops and the restaurant are facing Sunset Blvd. and are connected by a public sidewalk. Secondary accesses to the residential units are weather protected by upper story balconies and upper story overhangs that are more than 411Z ft. wide over the entrances. Pedestrian access is provides by sidewalk from property edges, adjacent lots, crosswalks and transit stops. Display windows are also oriented toward the street as recommended by Guidelines in 4-3-1003c(v.). 4-3-100E4b. Transition to Surrounding Development: Due to the natural conditions of the site and an existing stream at the southeast corner of the property, the rear setback has been increased to protect the wetland environment. The design has also provided a diagonal articulation to the front facade that has divided the building into three smaller sections and reduced the look of a large square building. 4-3-100E5a. Service Element Location and Design: The refuse enclosure is located at the southwest corner of the site and away from view of Sunset Blvd. This enclosure is easily accessible for service vehicles from the circular driveway, yet is.screened from adjacent properties by landscaping. The refuse and recycling area is enclosed on all side, including the roof and has a fifteen (15') foot wood, self -closing gate consistent with RMC 4-4-090 and screened consistent with RMC 44-095. Section 4-3-10OF_ RMC: Parking and Vehicular Access 4-3-100F la. Location of Parking: Not Applicable. 4-3-100174a. Vehicular Access: Not Applicable. 4-3-100F4d. Guidelines: Not Applicable Section 4-3-10OG RMC: Pedestrian Environment 4-3-100G2b. Guidelines: Not Applicable. Delineation of pedestrian pathway is marked by transition from asphalt to conerete sidewalk. Section 4-3-100H RMC: Landscaping/Recreation/Common Oven Suace 4-3-100H1a. Landscaping: All pervious areas are landscaped, and trees located on the street are located between the building and the curb edge. On Sunset Blvd., a pedestrian designated street, the trees will be installed with tree grates. The landscape plan is consistent and appropriate with the design intent. Parking areas have been appropriately screened with landscaping and screen parked cars from view of neighboring sites. Planting meets the minimum specific standards, please see landscaping plan for code layout. Section 4-3-100I RMC: _Building Architectural Design 4-3-100I1b. Building Character and Massing: This project does not have any articulation intervals that are more than 20' including decks and columns. 4-3-100I1d. Guidelines: The building facade are designed with articulations and modulations that reduce the bulk and scale of the large building and provide a visual interest to enhance the character of the neighborhood. 4-3-100I2a. Ground Level Details: This building has one blank wall at the South end of the building. The blank wall on the south side of the building is unavoidable because of the location of the parking garages. In an effort to treat this wall, we will provide a seating area with seasonal planting. We have also provided landscaping (trees and seasonal planting) along the facade's ground floor. The Facade's ground level walls also provided more than 75% of the linear frontage with storefront doors and windows. The storefronts will have changing displays and will be clearly visible into and out of the building. 4-3-100I4a. Building Materials: All side of this building, visible or not, will be finished with the same building materials and color scheme. In addition, all sides will have the same attractive quality, texture and detailing. All materials used for this building, including high quality vinyl, concrete masonry and metal roofing, will be durable and well -maintained. 4-3-100I4c. Guidelines: Building materials and colors will be used in a way that is consistent with a more traditional urban environment. High quality vinyl siding will be colorful and attractive. Concrete block walls will be enhanced with integral color -and texture. 4-3-100I4d. Guideline: The proposed building design uses a variety of colors, materials and textural changes to enhance the visual appeal. JON GRAVES ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, PLLC 3110 RUSTON WAY, SUITE D TACOMA, WA 98402 TEL (253) 272-421 4 FAX (253) 272-421 8 J G R F C H S. C O M Landscape Analysis, Lot Coverage and Parking Analysis Total Square Footage of Site: 35,593 Total Square Footage of Building Footprint: 9,870 CM ON Total Square Footage of Existing Impervious Surfaces: 384 MAR 2 6 20 Total Square Footage of Proposed Impervious Surfaces: 25,632 RECEIVED Total Square Footage of Each Floor: 1"'` Floor 9,870 2nd Floor 10,265 3Td Floor 10,265 4Th Floor 10,265 Total Square Footage of Building: 40,665 Percentage of Lot Covered by Building: 28% Number of Parking Spaces Required by City Code: Requirement Area or # of Units Number Required Residential 2.25 per unit 21 47 Retail 4/1,000 SF 1,259 SF 5 Restaurant 10/1,000 SF 562 SF 6 TOTAL 58 Number and Dimensions of Proposed Standard, Compact and ADA Accessible Spaces: Standard Compact ADA TOTAL Structured 35 — 10 x 15' 0 1 — 9'6"x 18'6" 1 — 9'6" x 18'6.5" 37 Surface 17 -- 9'x 20' 0 4 —10' x 20' 21 TOTAL 53 0 6 58 Square Footage of Parking Lot Landscaping: 9,961 Y Kathy Keotker, Mayor July 25, 2007 Brett Lindsay Jon Graves Architects & Planners 3110 Ruston Way, Suite D Tacoma, WA 98402 CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/PubiicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator I RE CL. ! �:� :. , 31 M Subject: 'Parking Modification Request for Sunset Blvd Mixed Use Dear Mr. Lindsay: dEVELOPMEN p CITY OF FtEARa�G MAR Z b 200E RECEIVED The City of Renton is in receipt of your request for a parking modification dated July 19, 2007 regarding the property located at 4409 NE Sunset Blvd. The following summarizes your request, project background, analysis and decision. Summary of Reguest/Background Per the NE Sunset Business District requirements (RMC 4-3-040) parking for mixed use structures "must be within. an enclosed structure located under the residential portion of the buildings. The required guest spaces for residential uses may be surface parking," The City's Parking Regulations do not specify the number of required parking spaces designated for guest parking. In addition, It is unclear if this requirement applies to the commercial portion of the development as commercial uses not In a mix -use development are outright permitted in the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone and NE Sunset Business District with surface parking. The applicant has requested a modification from section 4-4-080F Number of Required Spaces of the Clty's Parking Regulations. Section 4-4-08OF requires that a minimum number of parking spaces be provided based on land use. A modification has been requested in order to specify 10 of the required 47 parking spaces for the residential portion of the development for guest parking that may be permitted as surface parking spaces and to permit the 11 spaces required for the commercial use as surface spaces. The applicanl's justification for the request Is as follows: The proposed project would have 21 residential dwelling units and 21 private garages located underneath the residential portion of the building. Five of the garages would be single car garages, the remaining 16 garages would be two -car tandem parking garages. As the garages will be private garages, It would be impractical for guest parking and patrons of the commercial uses to utilize the under building parking. In addition, stand alone commercial uses proposed within the CA zone and NE Sunset Business District are outright permitted uses and are permitted to provide required parking in surface parking lots. Section 4-4-08OFd allows the Development Services Division to grant modifications from the parking standards for Individual cases provided that the modification meets the following criteria (pursuant to RMC 4-9-250D2): Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use E16ment and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; C. Will not be injurious to other property(s) in the vicinity; 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 R L N 1 N ® ThiapaperconAHEAD OF 71iL CVKVE Wns50°h+ocyGedrnateria1,30°laposlconatxner Sunset Mixed Use. Parking Modification Page 2 of 3 d. Conform to the intent and. purpose of the Code; e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(s) in the vicinity. Analysis 1.) Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to Implement these policies and objectives. The proposed modification to clarify the guest parking requirements for the residential portion of the use and to allow for commercial parking to be surface parking would be consistent with the policies and objective:: of the Commercial Corridor sand Use Element and the Community Design Element. The applicant has provided a private garage with'11- 2 spaces for each dwelling unit proposed and would like to designate 10 of the required 47 spaces (or 21 percent) as surface spaces for guest parking. The proposed private garages would provide adequate parking for the residences of the proposed dwelling units. The Comprehensive plan supports surface parking for oommercial uses when they are landscaped appropriately. The surface parking areas will. be required to be landscaped in compliance with the Marking regulations. The proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives. 2.) Will most the objectives and. safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended.bythe Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment. A total of 21 residential units are proposed in the mixed used project and tandem parking is proposed within private garages underneath the proposed units. The parking requirements for tandem spaces is 2.25 spaces per dwelling unit. Based on the proposal for 21 units, 47 parking spaces would be required. The: applicant has proposed a private garage for each unit with 1€ 2 spaces in the garage for a total of 37 spaces within the building. The remaining 10 required spaces (or 21 percent) are proposed to be located outside of the building in a surface parking lot and would be designated as guest parking spaces, It appears that sufficient parking would be provided within the building for each of the residents and that adequate parking is proposed for guests of the units. The proposal for designating 10 surface parking stalls as guest spaces would meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability Intended by the Code requirements. The proposal to allow 11 parking stalls required for the commercial space to be located outside of the building in a surface parking lot would comply with the City's requirements for parking as stand along commercial uses that are outright permitted uses in the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation are permitted to provide the parking as surface parking. The proposal to provide the parking stalls required for the proposed commercial space as surface parking would meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the City of Renton regulations. 3.) Will not be injurious to other property(s) In the vicinity. The proposed surface parking spaces would not be injurious to other properties in the vicinity as the surface parking spaces would be screened froth view via landscaping surrounding the parking lots. In addition the surrounding commercial properties currently Sunset Mixed Use Parking Modification Page 3 of 3 have surface parking, therefore it is not anticipated that the 21 proposed surface parking spaces would adversely impact the surrounding properties. 4.) Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code. The proposed surface parking stalls would conform to the intent and purpose of the Code by providing accessible parking for guests of the residential portion of the project and patrons of the commercial portion while providing the majority of the parking required for the residents of the development underneath the building. 5.) Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended. The proposed surface parking for the guest spaces is justified and required for the situation intended. With the size of the building that is proposed, the amount of parking that Is proposed to be located underneath the building is the maximum amount possible. In addition It appears justifiable that 10 of th&required 47 spaces for the residential use would be designated as guest spaces and located in the surface parking lot around the building. Each, residential unit would. be assigned adequate parking underneath the building in private garages and the surface parking would provide accessible parking for guests visiting the residential units. Stand alone commercial uses proposed in the CA zone .within the NE Sunset Business Dlstrict are permitted to have the required off-street parking within surface parking lots. Therefore, it would be justifiable to have the parking designated for the commercial portion of the proposed mixed use development permitted as surface parking. B.) Will not create adverse impacts to other property(s).in the vicinity. See previous discussion under 3. Decision The applicant's request for a modification from the parking requirements to provide surface parking for the commercial uses proposed and to clarify that the proposed for 10 of the required 47 parking spaces for the residential use may be designated as guest parking and would be permitted as surface parking is approved. This decision to approve the proposed revisions as a minor modification is subject to a fourteen (14) day.appeal period from the date of this letter. Any appeals of the administrative decision must be filed with the City of Renton Hearing Examiner by 5:00 pm, August 8, 2007. If you have questions regarding this correspondence, feel free to contact Jill Ding at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, �16J C� tIT Neil Watts Development Services Director Cc Jill Ding DEVELOPMF-NT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON MAR 2 6 2008 DEVEI OPMENT SERVICES DIVISION RECEIVED 9 � "fll ff �l Sp8 y rw Y City of Denton Development Services Divislon 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98065 Phone:426-430-7200 Fax: 426-430r7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST' The State l nvira7mental Policy Act (SrPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before snaking decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (LIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable slgnificant adverse Impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency Identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid Impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whet1wr an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe, some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine wheth& the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise Information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most casos, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Same questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. /answer, these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJI CT PROPOSALS - Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply," IN ADDITION, complete the StJPPI-f-_MEN-1"AL SHEET FOR NON PROJECTACTIONS (part D), For nooproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. G:MOO Renton Mixed Use10600 SE PA Dale Foak.docl 1119107 RECEIVED NOV 26 2007 3 Gh A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Sunset highlands 2. Name of applicant: ADF Properties, LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: ADF Properties, LLC, 15007 Woodinville Road # A, Woodinville, WA 98072 (206) 799-3247 Contact: Jon Graves Architects & Planners, PLLC, 3110 Ruston Way, Tacoma, WA 98402 (253) 272-4214 4. Date checklist prepared: 2 November 2007 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The project will take approximately 8 months to beginning of construction. Construction will also take an estimated 8 months. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No plans for future additions, expansion at this time. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Standard Stream Study and Mitigation Plan 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Unknown at this time. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Site Plan Approval, Conditional Use Permit, Building Permit and Construction Permit. Grading, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Fire Sprinkler Permits. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. GA0600 Renton Mixed UsM0600 SEPA%0600 SEPA.doc 2 40,665 square foot building with a footprint of 9,870 square feet on a 35,593 square foot site. Proposed building to be 1 floor of parking plus a commercial element with 3 floors of 7 residential units on each story for a total of 21 residential units and a total of 4 stories. 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. 4409 NE Sunset Blvd., Renton, WA 98059. Parcel number 0323059093. Legal: 032305 93 LOT 2 OF CITY OF RENTON SHORT PLAT No. 345-79, RECORDING No. 7908179008 SD SHORT PLAT DAF - PORT OF SW 114 OF SW 114 — COMM SW COR OF SD SUBDIVISION S 88-39-01 E 965 FT TO TROB TH N 0-59-25 E 454.74 FT TO SELY MGN OF ST HWY SR 900 TH N 64-56-00 E 220.39 FT TH N 70-17-21 E 125.85 FT TH S 01-12-00 W PLWELNOFSW1/4OFSW1/4&40FTWILY OFSDELN598.01 FT TO S LN OF SW 1/4 OF SW 114 TH N 88-39-01 W 313.53 FT TO TROB LESS C & M RGTS. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); ISrolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) 2% C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. This site is generally gravelly silty sand and sandy loam. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? if so, describe. We are not aware of any unstable soils. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Fill material will be imported in order to obtain desired site grades and provide for effective stormwater drainage. Fill will consist of pavement subgrade material, and general fill. Approximately 1500 cubic yards of fill will be required to be imported from a locally approved source. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. GA0600 Renton Mixed Use10600 SEPA10600 SEPA.doc 3 Yes, as always, clearing and construction associated with development could contribute to the likelihood of erosion. Best Management Practices to control erosion and sedimentation during construction as required. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 72% Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: An erosion/sediment control plan will be prepared and approved by the City of Renton prior to commencement of construction activities for each of the proposed future developments. Due to the limited proposed disturbed area and gentle site slopes, the primary form of erosion control will be filter fabric fence to remove sediment prior to stormwater runoff entering on -site stream during construction. Other BMP's such as construction entrances, inlet protection, and temporary cover measures will be implemented as appropriate. AIR What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Automobile exhaust and minor amounts of construction dust during construction. Once the project is completed we estimate no significant impacts. b. Are there any off -site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Vehicle emissions from NE Sunset Blvd. are anticipated to have minimal impact on the proposal. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: If necessary, a water truck will be used during construction activities to suppress dust. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Honey Creek is a class 4 stream located at the SE corner of the site. 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. GA0600 Renton Mixed Use10600 SEPA10600 SEPA.doc 4 Yes, there will be worst within 200 feet of Honey Creek, but not within the mitigated 26-foot setback. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlancis and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. No flit and dredge material will be placed In or removed from the indicated area. Q) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No surface water withdrawals or d1verslotns will he required for this proposal, 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does tho proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No disehargo of waste materials to surfaco waters are anticipated. b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. The Ceotachnlcal Investigation Indicates that dense, glacially consolidated till material Is located approximately 3.6 to 4,6 foot below existing ground surface. Thorefore, stormwator and Irrigation water that may Infiltrate Into the near surface weathered soil will be hnpodod from entoring the groundwater by the relatively Impervious till solis. Runoff from the project site will generally enter the creek at the projoefs southern property line. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic, tanks or other sources, if any (for exarnplo: [domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general site 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 systems) are expected to serve. A small portion of storm water rmioff is anticipated to eater' into the ground aftor appropriate water quality treatment according to the 1980 King County surface Wator Manual, Aquifer Protection Area Zone 2 requireinents and the City of R011ton Storm and Drainage Standards, C. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1 } Describe tho source of runoff (Including storm water) and method of collection arxf disposal. If any (include quantities, if known), Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. Storm water and irrigation water from the proposed development areas are tho only anticipated sourcos of runoff. On site storm drainage systems will be designed to collect and convey the runoff. Appropriate water quality treatment It accordanco with the 1000 King County Surface Water Manual, Aquifer Protection Area Zone 2 GV600 Renton Mixed Usen0600 SCPA Dale Fonk,doc and the City of Renton Standards will be provided prior to discharge to the crook at the southern boundary of the project. Stormwater detention is not proposod for this project because the developed runoff rates are below the tflrosholds as established in the 1990 King County Surface Water Manual. 2) Gould waste material onter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Common pollutants from parked vehicles may collect on impervious surfaces and be washod Into the storm drainage system. Common pesticides and nutrients from tho landscaping areas may also enter the storm drainage system. d. Proposed measures to reduce or Control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, If any: The guidelines and Best Managornont Practices developed in the 1990 King County Surface Water Manual and roqulromonts of the Aquifer Protection Area Zone 2 will be adhered to In accordance with City of Benton re(Juirements. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other �x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs ,,,_x_ grass pasture �. crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation 1). What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Some grass and shrub vogetation will be removed, C. List threatened or endangorod species known to be on or near the site. To the best of our Iniowlodge, no threatened or endangered species known to be on or noar the site. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: All areas cleared for storm drainage, driveway, parking and utilities shall, at a minimum, be re -seeded upon completion of construction activities. Naw landscaping is anticipated to supplemont areas within Individual lots disturbed by construction activities. Curroot City of Renton policy and Development Gu ldolinos encourage the use of native and drought tolerant plant materials within new landscape areas. 5, ANIMALS G:10500 Renton KOO Use10600_SFPA Dale Fonk.doc Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near Tile site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, boaver, other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, sheiliish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. To tale best of our knowledge, no endangered animal species have boon Identified as having home territory within tho site. C. Is the site part of a migration route? if so, explain To the best of our knowledge, this site Is not part of a rnigratlon route. d. proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any, It is not anticipated that the proposed project will Impact wildlife habitat or causo disturbance such that mitigation measures will be needed. Buffers around Ilia stream have been provided to protect the stream and associated wildlife habitat. Project development well leavo Intact as much natural vegetation and buffer areas, which will proservo wildlife utiI12'atloil , 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy {electric, natural gas, oil, wood stovo, solar) will be used to rneet the completed projects energy noods? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc, 'T'ho use and Incorporation of electrical or gas heating Is anticipated. Electricity for street, parictng lot, and other lighting Is also anticipated in connection with the roadways, individual structures, and ;narking areas, b. Would your project affect tho potential Else of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. It Is unlikely that use of solar enorgy by adjacent properties would he affectod. C. What kinds of energy conservation foRturea are included In the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy Impacts, if any: Tito proposed building iy required to bo constructed Ixar current ortorgy codes. ENVIRONMENTAL HF.:AI..'rll a. Are there any onvironmontal Itoalth hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a rosuit of this proposal? If so, describe. Developments will require Construction activitlas which have potential environmental health hazards associated with the use and operation of heavy GA0600 Renton Mixed Uset0800_SCI'A Dare Fonk.doc construction equipment. No othor onvirontnental health hazards are anticipated to occur as a ivsult of the proposal. t) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None anticipated. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Beat Managemont Practices shall bo implemented during all construction activities. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? General traffic from surrounding streets aro anticipated to havo a mhnlmaf impact. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with file project on a short-term or a long-term basis (far example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Localized noise of short duration commonly associated with construction of a project of this type and the operation of construction equipment. Noise from the construction equipment will occur during daylight hours. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, If any: Contractors shall be requhred to comply with the City of Renton limitations for operating hours of corostrarctian ac{ulpmont. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent propurties? The site is currently vacant. Adjacent properties are generally retail I commorclal uses. b. Has the site been used Far agricullurc ? If so, desalbe. No, to our knowledge this sito has not boon used as for agricultural. C. Describe any structures on the site, There aro no Oxisting structures an the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? NIA e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The site Is Zonecl CA (Conhtnorcial Arterial) GV600 Renton Mixed Usow800WTA Dole Fookxloc 8 f. What is the currant cornpinhrnaiva plan designation of the site? The comprehensive plan designation of the Hite is Commercial Corridor with a Land Use Element of Commorclal Arterial, g If applicable, what Is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. The sits is located in tho City of Renton Aquifer Protection Aiva Zone 2. i, Approximately how many people: would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 5o pooplo will work anchor reside in tho completed project, j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k, Proposed measures to avoid or raduce displacement impacts, if any: NIA I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None proposed. g. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, If any? Indicate whether nigh, middle, or low-income housing. 21 middle -income residential units are proposed. b. ,Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminatod? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No units would be eliminated as a rosult of this project. C. Proposed measures to rr3cluco or control housing impacts, if any: None proposed. 1ti, M5'i HETIC3 a. What Is the tallest height of any proposed slructure(s), not including antennas; what Is the principal oxtorior building material(s) proposed. The tallest portion of the building is 46ft with the principal building materials being vinyl siding, vinyl windows, exposod concrota, concrete masonry block, and metal roofing. ,,AM0 Ronron Mixed L1se%0600 SEPA Hale Ponk.doc b, What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Views within the alto aro anticipated to be altered to the extent that new multi- family I commercial davolopmonts will roplaoe Vacant land, howover, It Is not anticipated that the devoloprnent of the olte will obstruct views from surrounding sites. C. Proposed measures to roduco or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None proposed. 11. LIGHTAND GLARE a. What typo of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light from street lights along roadways and within the associated parking lot will occurdtmng hours of darkness. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. The lighting will bo sloslgned to increase safety within tho project site and minimize glare to surrounding development. C. What existing off,sito sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Light and glare from NF Sunsat Blvd are anticipated to have minimal impact on the SRO. d. Proposed measures to reducs: or control light and glare impacts, If any: Street and parking lot lurninarles will be designed to control impacts. in addition, landscaping screen will be used where appropriate to roduce Impact to nearby residential uses. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opPortunities are in the immediate vicinity? The City of Ronton offers marry recreational opportunities, The nearest Park, Kiwanls Park, Is more that'/z mile from the alto. b. Would the proposed project displace: any existing recreational uses? If so, dosc6be. Th is project will not displace any existing recreational uses. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opporkmities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: !Norio proposed. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESIENVATION 0:1Q600 Renton Mixed USOMOO 8EPA Dale f w*Aoc 10 a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None known within or next to the proposed site. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. NIA C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: NIA 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. NE Sunset Blvd. currently serves the site. The proposed project will have two driveways accessing NE Sunset Blvd. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes, the site is served by Metro Transit. C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project would eliminate none and add 58. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? if so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The Renton Municipal Airport is about four miles away and serves air charter, air taxi, corporate, business & recreational flyers. There are also rail and water transportation available, but not in the immediate vicinity. It is not anticipated that this proposal will directly use these facilities. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The project would generate up to 297 total trips movements in and out of the site. 21 movements should enter and exist during the AM peak hours and 26 should enter and exit during the PM peak hours. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None proposed. G:10600 Renton Mixed Use10600 SEPA10600 SEPA.doc 11 46. PUBLIC SERVICE-8 a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describo. There would be Increased demands for electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sawor, storm sewor. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Nano Proposed, 16, UTILITIES a. Circle utilities Currently available al the site electrici aturai ga water efuse servi elepfion anitary sew septic systein, oth 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 Ilnmedlate vicinity which aright be needed, Eloctrieity : Puget Sound Energy Sower: City of Renton Utilities Telophono: Qwest Natural Gas: Puget Sound Cnorgy Water: City of Renton Utilities Refuse. City of Renton Utilities C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the t*:st of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non -significance that it might Issue In reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: Dater: G*.W600 Renton Mixed Uselo600 3FPA Dale Fonk.doc 12 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. DEVIrLOPNT PLANNING CRY O RENTON MAR 2 6 2008 RECEIVED ADF-SUNSET PROPERTY STANDARD STREAM ASSESMENT AND SUPPLEMENTAL STREAM STUDY WITH CONCEPT MITIGATION CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON Prepared For: Dale Ponk ADF Properties, LLC 15007 Woodinville Redmond Road, Suite A Woodinville, WA 98072 March 19, 2008 Job #99-247 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Phone: 253-859-0515 1103 W. Meeker Street Fax: 253-8524732 Kent, WA 98032 Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. 1103 W. Meeker St eet (v)2&"59-0515 Kent, WA 98032 (f)253r852-4732 ADF-SUNSET PROPERTY STANDARD STREAM ASSESMENT AND SUPPLEMENTAL STREAM STUDY WITH CONCEPT MITIGATION CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Location This report and the attached drawings describe jurisdictional stream and the impacts and enhancement measures associated with the proposed development located on the ADF-Sunset Property. The 0.81-acre parcel is located on the south side of NE Sunset Boulevard within the City of Renton, Washington. Thomas Guide Vicinity Ma 1vc .;.ti PIrn __ N E 1�h StVJ r x a w • � 4 d 7 R ~� a ° v n RI:n�Ot1 NE 2th 51 : n b c SE 112th St m N 11" Pi E cLU 2 aF. m NIB ltttlSt i �c��a tJF 11 St .�` n l,1 Ns:,.,r..:o WE 101h PI WE oth Ct y 'WNE 1othP1 z �, { —^ 41 .1 Rr�m°Ad A, p€ p ti. ., . m x ` WE kith St :_ a SE ar NE loth L.n to �� %4 WE lobe SI N[ ?th tt W _ N E 9th P 15ppft NEGI St m 1.2 Existing Conditions The property, identified as parcel 0323059093, is bordered to the north by the existing NE Sunset Boulevard, to the east by a McDonalds Restaurant, and to the south and west by existing commercial properties. The majority of the site is cleared and contains gravel fill material, though a small area of vegetation exists along the southern property line and offsite along the western property line. RE: Stream Study/Enhancement Plan r1DF-Sunset, SWC 999-247 March 19, 2008 Page 2 of 10 2.0 METHODOLOGY Sewall Welland Consulting Inc. visited the site on May 17, 2007 to identify and delineate any wetlands or streams located on the property. A combination of field indicators, including vegetation, soils, and hydrology was used to determine the presence of wetlands. The methodology used to identify any jurisdictional wetlands on the site is described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (WADOE, March 1997). This is the methodology currently recognized by the City of Renton and the State of Washington for wetland determinations and delineations. The wetland areas identified would also be considered wetlands using the methodology described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory., 1987), as required by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual and the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual both require the use of the three -parameter approach in identifying and delineating wetlands. A wetland should support a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, have hydric soils and display wetland hydrology. To be considered hydrophytic vegetation, over 50% of the dominant species in an area must have an indicator status of facultative (FAC), facultative wetland (FACW), or obligate wetland (OBL), according to the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9) (Reed, 1988). A hydric soil is "a soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part". Anaerobic conditions are indicated in the field by soils with low chromas (2 or less), as determined by using the Munsell Soil Color Charts; iron oxide mottles; hydrogen sulfide odor and other indicators. Generally, wetland hydrology is defined by inundation or saturation to the surface for a consecutive period of 12.5% RE- Stream Study/Enhancement Plan ADF-Sunset, SWC #99-247 March 19, 2008 Page 3 gj10 or greater of the growing season. Areas that contain indicators of wetland hydrology between 5%-12.5% of the growing season may or may not be wetlands depending upon other indicators. Field indicators include visual observation of soil inundation, saturation, oxidized rhizospheres, water marks on trees or other fixed objects, drift lines, etc. Under normal circumstances, indicators of all three parameters will be present in wetland areas. Streams were identified by the presence of a defined channel that contains flowing surface water at some time of the year. Streams were delineated by the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). The definition of the OHWM as defined by the Washington State Department of Ecology as a part of the Shoreline Management Act is, "the mark on all lakes, streams, and tidal water that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and .so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971, as it may naturally change thereafter, or as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by a local government or the department: PROVIDED, That in any area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high water mark adjoining fresh water shall be the line of mean high water". Data points were flagged with orange with black stripe flagging labeled DP#_. The OHWM was flagged with white with blue polka dot flagging and labeled consecutively. Flags were subsequently located in the field by Center Pointe Consultants, Inc. 2.0 OBSERVATIONS 2.1 Existing Site Documentation Prior to visiting the site, a review of several natural resource inventory maps was conducted. Resources reviewed included the National Wetland Inventory, the Department of Natural Resources Forest Practices Application Review System (F'PARS) Maps, the City of Renton flood hazards map, the City of Renton Wetland Map, the City of Renton Water Class Map, and the King County Soil Survey. 2.1.1 Wetland and Stream Resources The US Fish and Wildlife online wetland mapper and the Department of Natural Resources Forest Practices Application Review System (FPARS) map do not show any wetlands or streams located onsite. However, these maps do depict a non -fish bearing portion of Honey Dew Creek mapped offsite to the northeast. RE_ Stream Study/Enhancement Plan ADF-Sunset, SWC #99-247 March 19, 2008 Page 4 of 10 De artrnent ol Natural Resources PPARS L rc a t� 360 • �� 7Z"t - -� �I� ih IL �lIlk According to the City of Renton Flood Hazard and Wetlands Maps, there are no known flood hazards or wetlands located within 100-feet of the site (Figures RCM 4-3-050Q2 and 4-3- 050Q5). The City of Renton Water Class Map (RMC 4-3-050Q4) shows Honey Dew Creek extending across NE Sunset Boulevard, where it becomes a Class 4 stream before entering the proposed project site. City of Renton Water Class Ma The City of Renton Aquifer protection map (RMC Figure 4-3-050Q1) shows that this stream flows subsurface within a pipe from the west side of Duvall Avenue, approximately 1000-feet east of the site, surfaces across the site, and then exits via a second culvert which discharges on the north side of NE Sunset Boulevard, This rnap also shows that the project site is located within a Zone 2 aquifer Protection Zone. RE: Stream Sludy/Enhancement Plan ADF-Sunset, SWC #99-247 March 19, 2008 Page 5 of 10 er Protection Ma 2.1.2 King County Soil Survey According to the King County Soil Surrey, the soils onsite are completely comprised of the Ragnar Indianola soil association, sloping (RDC). Ragnar soils are not considered to be hydric (wetland) soils, according to the publication Hydr-ic Soils of the United States (USDA NTCHS Pulp No.1491, 1991), 2.2 Onsite Observations 2.2.1 USGS Topography The site is generally flat with a slight slope down to the stream on each bank. A 6-foot retaining wall is located approximately 5-feet south of the onsite stream which runs along the length of the stream. RE: Stream Study/Enhancement Plan ADF-Sunset, SWC #99-247 ,'March 19, 2008 Page 6 of 10 2.2.2 Uplands The majority of the site has been historically cleared and graded. Soils within the uplands generally revealed a compact lb -inch gravelly sandy loam layer with a color of IOYR 3/3. Soils within the uplands were generally compact and dry at the time of our May 17`h site visit. Vegetation generally remains only along the property boundaries and onsite stream buffer. Dominant tree species found within the vegetated uplands included Douglas fir (Psuedotsuga menzeish), western red cedar (7huja plicala), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllurn), and red alder (Alnus rubra). The scrub -shrub vegetative community was dominated by the invasive species of Japanese knotweed (Polyganum cuspidatum) and Himalayan blackberry (Ruhus arn?eniacus). Portions of the existing graded area have also been rehabitated by a mixture of native and invasive emergent species. A detailed description of vegetative communities can be found below in section 2.2.5, Habitat Functions and G alues_ 2.2.3 Stream A A 50-foot section of ditched stream, identified as Stream A, flows eastward across the southeast property corner of the site between two culverts. Stream A was flagged with white with blue dot boundary flagging labeled Al though A8 on the north ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and AA1 through AA8 on the south OHWM. The onsite section of the stream is assumed to be part of the mapped Honey Dew Creek, as described in section 2.1.2 above. The banks of the ditch and associated stream buffers contain forested and scrub -shrub vegetative communities dominated by invasive species. Dominant vegetation adjacent to the stream includes red alder (Alnus rubra), Himalayan blackberry (Rubes armeniacus), and Japanese knotweed (Polyganum cupsodatum). Stream A has an average channel width of approximately 2-feet and an average depth of approximately 12-inches. The streambed was unconsolidated and comprised of a mixture of RE: Stream Study%Enhancement Plan ADF-Sunset, SWC #99-247 March 19, 2008 Page 7 of 10 sand and gravel. At the time of site visit, the channel contained flowing water approximately fl- inches deep. Stream A appeared to be intermittent in nature. The City of Renton Water Class map (RCM 4-3-050Q4) identifies the sections of Honey Dew Creek located onsite as being classified as a Class 4 stream. Class 4 streams are intermittent in nature and contain no documented or observed fish use. Typically, Class 4 streams located within the City of Renton require a 35-foot buffer measured from the Ordinary High Water Mary (RCM 4-3-05OL5). Average slopes within the 35-foot for Stream A range from 10 to 13 percent. 2.2.4 Stream Functions and Values Due to the long distances in which this stream is located subsurface within pipes, the segmented portion of stream and stream buffer located onsite provide very little hydrologic or ecologic function. The sections of stream located onsite contain no documented fish use, and no suitable habitat for fish was observed during outfield investigation. However, downstream segments of this stream contain documented salmonid usage. As Such, water quality of the onsite segment of stream has the potential to affect salmonid species. 2.2.5 Habitat Functions and Values The site and surrounding areas can be broken into three distinct vegetative communities based on the site visit and review of the aerial photographs provided by King County I -map. A general sketch of the location, size and shape of these vegetative communities is provided below. (Note: this sketch is not to scale and do not represent a survey of the mapped vegetative communities.) RE: Stream Study/Enhancement Plan ADF-Sunset, SWC ##99-247 March 19, 2008 Page 8 of f 10 The first area (blue) is comprised of a mixture of lawn and herbaceous community with few trees and shrubs and is located offsite to the west and south. The second area (green) is comprised of a forested canopy with a mixture of cleared or scrub -shrub understory dominated by invasive species. This area is located mostly along the western and southern site boundaries and offsite to the southwest. The third area (yellow) is comprised of scrub -shrub and an emergent vegetative community dominated by invasive species including Himalayan blackberry and Japanese knotweed, and is located onsite along the east, south and west property boundaries. This yellow area represents the vegetative community within a historic buffer impact area. The total vegetated area comprises approximately 2.3 acres and is isolated by urban development. Due to the intense development and high boundary fencing surrounding the property, the dominant wildlife species likely to utilize this habitat would be human tolerant and noise tolerant avian species, rodents, and small mammals. No evidence of wildlife use was observed onsite during our field evaluation. The remainder of the site and surrounding area has been historically graded and currently contains impervious soil conditions, fill material, asphalt, or existing structures. These areas have little or no function or value to the aquatic system, as they do not provide any hydrologic retention, water quality, or habitat value. 3.0 REGULATIONS In addition to the wetland regulationspreviously described for wetlands and streams, certain activities (filling and dredging) within "waters of the United States" may fall under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The ACOE regulates all discharges into "waters of the United States" (wetlands) under Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act. Discharges (fills) into wetlands may require "Notification" and mitigation at a minimum ratio of 1:1 (minimum). Washington State Department of Ecology has placed Regional Conditions on fill permits that are more restrictive than the national regulations. The limits of fill can be modified if the agencies conclude that ESA fisheries could be impacted by the proposed wetland or stream fill activities. Due to the increasing emphasis on Endangered Species Act compliance for all fills of Waters of the United State and Waters of the State, both the Corps of Engineers and Washington Department of Ecology should be contacted regarding permit conditions, compliance, and processing prior to commitment to any fill of wetlands or streams. Additionally, any work within the OHWM would require a HPA (Hydrologic Project Approval) permit which can be applied for by submitting a DARPA (Joint Aquatic Resource Permits Application). 4.0 PROPOSED BUFFER REDUCTION/ENHANCEMENT The project proposes to reduce the standard 35-foot Class 4 stream buffer to 25-fect with enhancement as allowed by in the City of Renton Code (RCM 4-3-050-L5c4). Specifically, the stream buffer will be reduced by 1,376 sf in an area of historical disturbance in return for RE: Stream Study/Enhancement Plan ADF-Sunset, SWC #99-247 March 19, 2008 Page 9 of 10 enhancement of the remaining 2,191 sf of buffer located on the north side of the stream. Enhancement will include the removal of all invasive species, including Japanese knotweed and blackberry, and replacement of this vegetation with native tree and shrub species. Existing native vegetation will be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Due to the low quality of the buffer and stream, the minor buffer width reduction will not reduce stream functions. The habitat value of the reduced area is extremely low as it is comprised of non-native invasive species growing in compacted fill material soils. Non-native invasive species are not considered to provide adequate buffer habitat or any substantial value to a riparian system. Mitigation for the reduction of the stream buffer will substantially offset the loss of area by providing higher quality habitat with greater function and value through species diversity, variable vegetation communities, and removal of non-native invasive species. In addition, sensitive area signage and a wildlife passable fence will be provided along the edge of the development in order to ensure the protection of the mitigation area / enhanced stream buffer. Additionally, portions of two stormwater retention ponds and a new surface water discharge will be placed within the stream buffer, which is an allowed exemption according to City of Renton Code (RCM 4-3-050-C7). A letter of exemption will be obtained from the Department Administrator prior to construction or initiation of activities (RCM 4-3-050-C4). The new surface water discharge to the stream buffer from the proposed onsite ponds will not result in significant adverse changes to the water temperature or chemical characteristics of the stream. This is due to the fact that the majority of the property already contains compact soils, allowing untreated storm flows to enter the stream. Consturction of the ponds will increase water quality by removing pollutants prior to discharge to the stream. After grading of the ponds, all areas located within the reduced 25-foot stream buffer will be revegitated with native tree and shrub species as part of the proposed buffer enhacement plan. 5.0 CONCLUSION Due to the low ecological and hydrological function of the stream and the degraded state of the buffer, reduction of the standard buffer is not expected to cause any adverse effect to the functionality of the buffer or stream. In addition, enhancement of the reduced stream buffer will increase the ecological functionality of the buffer and its ability of the buffer to deter degradation of water quality in both the onsite stream, as well as in downstream critical areas. It is the opinion of Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. that this mitigation plan will sufficiently compensate for all proposed impacts, and will provide additional ecological function and value to both the stream and stream buffer areas. Once the concept mitigation plan is approved a subsequent final mitigation plan will be provided for review and comments which will detail plant species, locations, plant size, plant quantity, planting details, location of sensitive area signs, fencing details, mitigation monitoring guidelines RE: Stream Study/Enhancement Plan ADF-Sunset, SWC 999-247 March 19, 2008 Page 10 of 10 and procedures, mitigation monitoring timeline, construction sequencing and mitigation bond information etc. The buffer enhancement plan would likely include species such as, but not limited to Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), big leaf maple (Ater inacrophyllum), beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), vine maple (Acer eireinatum), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), red flowering currant (Ribes sanguineum), and salal (Gaultheria shallon). If you have any questions or require any additional information, please call me at (253) 859-0515 or e-mail me at tsmith(t,sewallwc.corn. Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Tonya Smith Wetland Scientist File- ts/99-247 ADF-Sunset WA.doc GECTECH CONSULTANTS, INC_ Celebrating 20 Years 1986-2006 ADF Properties, LLC 15700 Woodinville -Redmond Road, Suite A Woodinville, Washington 98072 Attention: Dale Fonk Subject: Project Update Proposed Mixed -Use Building 4409 Northeast Sunset Boulevard Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Fonk: 13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, Washington 98DO5 (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 September 13, 2007 J N 01065 our firm prepared a geotechnical engineering study for this site dated March 14, 2001. At that time, two buildings were planned for the site. However, based on a site plan we recently received from Jon Graves Architects and Planners, we understand that a new plan has now been developed for the site that includes only one larger building near the middle of the site. This letter provides an update to our study based on the new plan. Our study noted that dense, native soil was revealed on the site at a depth of approximately 4 feet below the ground surface, and that the use of conventional footings that are placed on this soil is very suitable. The new plans indicate that the finish floor of the proposed mixed -use building will be near the existing ground surface. Therefore, we believe that the use of conventional footings, as noted in our study, for the new mixed -use building is also very suitable. When our study was prepared in 2001, the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) was being used. Now, the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) is the standard. Because of this, a clarification with regard to the IBC is needed as follows: In accordance with Table 1613.5.2 of the 2006 International Building Code (IBC), the site soil profile within 100 feet of the ground surface is best represented by Soil Profile Type C (Very Dense Soil Profile). In our opinion, with the exception of the change to the IBC code, our study is still very applicable for this project. The recommendations in our study should be followed for the geotechnical engineering aspects of the project. rL9=r* ExeI:GIe7'0['UIW14h&,%fzrel ADF Properties JN 01065 September 13, 2007 Page 2 If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. D. Robert Principal P.E. cc: Jon Graves Architects and Planners, PLLC — Brett Lindsay via email to: BLindsayRigarchs.com DRW: Jyb OEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ADF Properties, LLC 15700 Woodinville -Redmond Road, Suite A Woodinville, Washington 95072 Attention: Dale Fonk Subject: Transmittal Letter — Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Jiffy Lube and Retail Building 4409 Northeast Sunset Boulevard Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Fonk: 13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 March 14, 2001 JN 01065 We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed Jiffy Lube and retail building to be constructed in Renton, Washington. The scope of our work consisted of exploring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations, retaining walls, and pavements. This work was authorized by your acceptar:ce of our proposal, P-5464, dated February 14, 2001. The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact us if there are any questions regarding this report, or for further assistance during the design and construction phases of this project. SES/JRF: me Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. �X4 James R. Finley, P.E, Principal GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. "' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Proposed Jiffy Lube and Retail Building 4409 Northeast Sunset Boulevard Renton, Washington This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for the site of the proposed Jiffy Lube and retail building to be located on Northeast Sunset Boulevard in Renton, Washington. We were provided with a site plan with topographical information. Pacific Engineering Design, Inc. developed this plan, which is dated December 7, 2000. Based on this plan and conversations with the project engineer, we anticipate that the development will consist of two buildings; a retail space designed for a Jiffy Lube automotive shop, and a 3-story mixed -use building. The Jiffy Lube will be aligned with Northeast Sunset Boulevard on the northern portion of the site. The footprint of the building will be approximately 2,600 square feet with a finished floor elevation of 389.0 feet. The 3-story, mixed -use building will consist of two -stories of residential living over a floor of commercial space. The footprint of the mixed -use building will be approximately 2,700 square feet with a finished floor elevation of 389.0 as well. The current grade of the site is approximately 384.0 to 386.0. We anticipate that the site may be filled to reach the proposed grades for the buildings. The plans, however, are still being developed and the proposed finish floor elevations may change. A 19 foot by 105.E-foot detention vault is proposed on the southern portion of the site north of the 25 foot wetland setback. The vault will empty into a 150-foot long bio-swale on the southwestern portion of the property that will empty, in turn, to an existing stream to the south of the property. The remainder of the property will be covered with an impervious layer, either concrete or asphalt. Drive access will be from Northeast Sunset Boulevard adjacent to the northern property line. A proposed joint -use driveway for the site is planned in the northeastern corner. It will also provide access to the adjacent property to the east. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. The trapezoidal site is approximately 35,300 square feet in size. The northern property border is aligned with Northeast Sunset Boulevard, while the eastern, western and southern property borders align with Anacortes Avenue Northeast, approximately 150 feet to the east. The site has approximately 185 feet of frontage along Northeast Sunset Boulevard. The site is currently undeveloped and partially covered with small vegetation and trees. There is some gravel on the northern portion of the site providing a vehicle turnaround. A stream aligned with Northeast Sunset Boulevard comes onto the southeastern corner of the property flowing to the west. The topography of the site is generally flat. The elevation drop from Northeast Sunset Boulevard to the north is approximately 4 feet and gradual. The elevation of the stream to the south is GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ADF Properties, LLC March 14, 2001 JN 01065 Page 2 approximately 5 feet below the general grade of the site. The bank of the stream drops at a moderate slope within the 25-foot setback area. The southern bank of the stream, off the subject property, is retained with an approximate 8-foot-high rockery. The surrounding property use is generally residential and commercial along Northeast Sunset Boulevard. SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating four test pits at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was based on the proposed construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during exploration, and the scope of work outlined in our proposal. The test pits were excavated on February 28, 2001 with a rubber -tired backhoe. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soil were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are attached to this report as Plates 3 and 4. Soft Conditions The test pits encountered up to one foot of topsoil overlying medium -grained, loose sand. The sand was observed to an approximate depth of 2.5 to 3.5 feet below grade. Underlying the sand is medium -dense, weathered, gravelly, silty sand that becomes dense to very dense and glacially consolidated approximately 3.5 to 4.5 feet below grade. These soils are referred to in this report as glacial till. The till was observed to the maximum explored depth of 10 feet below grade. Groundwater Conditions Perched groundwater seepage was observed at an approximate depth of 7 feet. The test pits were left open for only a short time period. Therefore, the seepage levels on the logs represent the location of transient water seepage and may not indicate the static groundwater level. it should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. We anticipate that groundwater could be found in pockets within the till and perched between the near -surface weathered soil and the underlying glacial till. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test pit logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation. The compaction of backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soil will therefore be found in the area of the test pits. if this presents a problem, the backfill will need to be removed and replaced with structural fill during construction. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ADF Properties, LLC March 14, 2001 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL JN 01065 Page 3 THIS SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A GENERAL OVERVIEW ONLY. MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE CONTAINED IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT. ANY PARTY RELYING ON THIS REPORT SHOULD READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT. The test pits conducted for this study encountered loose topsoil and sand overlying glacially consolidated, gravelly, silty sand (glacial till). The dense to very dense glacial till was observed approximately 3.5 to 4.5 feet below the existing grade. Based on this, the proposed buildings can be constructed on conventional foundations bearing directly on the dense to very dense native soils, or atop of structural fill place above this competent soil. Based on the proposed elevations of the finished floors, we anticipate excavations up to 4.5 from the current grade may be needed in the foundation areas. The plans indicated a finished floor grade of approximately 389.0. However, the plans did not indicate the finished floor elevation of a mechanics pit, which is typical of buildings constructed for this specific business. We anticipate that a mechanics pit may need to be constructed with a finished floor elevation approximately 6 feet below the slab of the building. Temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet in height should not exceed a 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) slope except in the dense glacial till where they can be made at 0.5:1 (H:V). A major consideration for this development is the location of the multi -story mixed -use building in relation to the detention vault. The plan indicates the southern footing line of the mixed -use building will be placed directly next to the northern wall of the detention vault. Proposed elevations indicate that the footing will be approximately 3.5 feet above the base of the detention vault. This will require the northern wall of the detention vault to be constructed as a retaining wall to withstand the surcharge load of the building. If this is unfeasible, the footing elevation of the building can be lowered to the base elevation of the vault, or the detention vault wall could be reinforced to support the building wall. The southern portion of the site should be graded to drain all surface water into the detention vault. No surface water should be allowed to drain into the wetland area. Also, considering the specific nature of the business to be located on the site, we anticipate that drums containing new and used oil may be onsite. These should be placed on the northern side of the site, in a protected area away from the bio-swale and inlet to the stream. A significant geotechnical consideration for development of this site is the overly moist to wet condition of the silty soils. Based on our observations, the moisture contents of the on -site soils are significantly above the optimum moisture content necessary for the required structural fill compaction. These fine-grained, silty soils are sensitive to moisture, which makes them impossible to adequately compact when they have moisture contents even 2 to 3 percent above their optimum moisture content. The reuse of these soils as structural fill in non-structural areas will only be successful during hot, dry weather. Aeration of each loose lift of soil will be required to dry it before the lift is compacted. Alternatively, the soil could be chemically dried by adding lime, kiln dust, or cement, provided this is allowed by responsible building department. Regardless of the method of drying, the earthwork process will be slowed dramatically. The earthwork contractor must be GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ADF Properties, LLC JU 01065 March 14, 2001 Page 4 prepared to rework areas that don't achieve proper compaction due to high moisture content. Utility trench backfill in structural areas, such as pavements, must also be dried before it can be adequately compacted. Improper compaction of backfill in utility trenches and around control structures is a common reason for pavement distress and failures. Imported granular fill will be needed wherever it is not possible to dry the on -site soils sufficiently before compaction. The erosion control measures needed during the site development will depend heavily on the weather conditions that are encountered. While site clearing will expose a large area of bare soil, the erosion potential on the site is relatively low due to the gentle slope of the ground. We anticipate that a silt fence will be needed around the downslope sides of any cleared areas, specifically at the 25-foot setback for the wetlands. Rocked construction access roads should be extended into the site to reduce the amount of mud carried off the property by trucks and equipment. Wherever possible, these roads should follow the alignment of planned pavements. Out slopes and soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic during wet weather. Following rough grading, it may be necessary to mulch or hydroseed bare areas that will not be immediately covered with landscaping or an impervious surface. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process. We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and recommendations. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS The site is located within Seismic Zone 3, as illustrated on Figure No. 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), In accordance with Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC, the site's soil profile within 166 feet of the ground surface is best represented by Soil Profile Type Sc (Very Dense Soil). The site soils are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature. CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed, dense to very dense glacially consolidated, native soil, or on structural fill placed above this competent, native soil. See the section entitled GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL for recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill beneath structures. Adequate compaction of structural fill should be verified with frequent density testing during fill placement. Prior to placing structural fill beneath foundations, the excavation should be observed by the geotechnical engineer to document that adequate bearing soils have been exposed. We recommend that continuous and Individual spread footings have minimum widths of 16 and 24 inches, respectively. Footings should also be bottomed at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required. Footing subgrades must be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. Depending upon site and equipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ADF Properties, LLC JN 01065 March 14, 2001 Page 5 Depending on the final site grades, some overexcavation may be required below the footings to expose competent, native soil. Unless lean concrete is used to fill an overexcavated hole, the overexcavation must be at least as wide at the bottom as the sum of the depth of the overexcavation and the footing width. For example, an overexcavation extending 2 feet below the bottom of a 2-foot-wide footing must be at least 4 feet wide at the base of the excavation. If lean concrete is used, the overexcavation need only extend 6 inches beyond the edges of the footing. The following allowable bearing pressures are appropriate for footings constructed according to the above recommendations: Where: (1) pelf Is pounds per square foot A one-third increase in these design bearing pressures may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent, native soil, or on structural fill up to 5 feet in thickness, will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-half inch in a distance of 50 feet along a continuous footing with a uniform load. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill. We recommend using the following ultimate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: PARAMETER ULTIMATE VALUE Coefficient of Friction 0.45 Passive Earth Pressure 350 pcf Where: (1) pcf is pounds per cubic foot and (1I) passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. We recommend maintaining a safety factor of at least 1.6 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when using the above ultimate values. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ADF Properties, LLC JM 01065 March 14, 2001 Page 6 PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for wails that restrain level backfill: Where: (1) pcf is pounds per cubic foot, and (11) active and passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid pressures. • For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0.002 times Its height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 psf times the height of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid pressure. The values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only. The passive pressure given is appropriate for the depth of level structural fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall only. The values for friction and passive resistance are ultimate values and do not include a safety factor. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding, when using the above values to design the wells. Restrained wall soil parameters should be utilized for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from corners in the walls. The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent foundations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added to the above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need to be given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be accounted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid density. If site grades do not allow the use of footing drains around the mechanics pit, its wall should be designed for hydrostatic pressure and all joints should be made waterproof. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. The wall design criteria assume that the backfill will be well -compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls should be accomplished with hand -operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the higher soil forces that occur during compaction. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ADF Properties, I.LC March 14, 2001 SLABS -ON -GRADE JN 01065 Page 7 The building floors may be constructed as slabs -on -grade atop the medium -grained sand or weathered, gravelly, silty sand, or on structural fill. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non - yielding condition at the time of slab construction or undersiab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and replaced with select, imported structural fill. All slabs -on -grade should be underlain by a capillary break or drainage layer consisting of a minimum 4-inch thickness of coarse, free -draining structural fill with a gradation similar to that discussed in PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS. As noted by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) in Section 3.2.3 of the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Structures, proper moisture protection is desirable immediately below any on -grade slab that will be covered by tile, wood, carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture -sensitive equipment or products. ACI also notes that vapor retarders, such as 6-mil visqueen, are typically used. A vapor retarder is defined as a material with a permeance of less than 0.3 US perms per square foot (psf) per hour, as determined by ASTM E 96, It is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this specification, although the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted. However, if no potential for vapor passage through the slab is desired, a vapor harrier should be used. A vapor barrier, as defined by ACI, is a product with a water transmission rate of 0.00 perms per square foot per hour when tested in accordance with ASTM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can meet this requirement. Additionally, ACI (Section 4.1.5) recommends that a minimum of 4 inches of compactible granular fill, such as crushed rock, should be placed over the vapor retarder or barrier for protection. Sand is not recommended by ACI for use as the protection layer. Isolation joints should be provided where the slabs intersect columns and walls. Control and expansion joints should also be used to control cracking from expansion and contraction. Saw cuts or preformed strip joints used to control shrinkage cracking should extend through the upper one- fourth of the slab. The spacing of control or expansion joints depends on the slab shape and the amount of steel placed in it. Reducing the water -to -cement ratio of the concrete and curing the concrete, by preventing the evaporation of free water until cement hydration occurs, will also reduce shrinkage cracking. We recommend proof -rolling slab areas with a heavy truck or a large piece of construction equipment prior to slab construction. Any soft areas encountered during proof -rolling should be excavated and replaced with select, imported structural fill. EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should not be made near property boundaries, or existing utilities and structures. Based upon Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the weathered soils at the subject site would generally be classified as Type B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet in height cannot be excavated at an inclination steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the bottom of a cut except in dense glacial till where they can be made at an inclination of 0.5:1 (H:V). GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ADF Properties, LLC JN 01065 March 14, 2001 Page 8 The above -recommended temporary slope inclinations are based on what has been successful at other sites with similar soil conditions. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a relatively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities. Temporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet weather. The cut slopes should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for instability. Please note that sand can cave suddenly and without warning. Excavation, foundation, and utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. All permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not be constructed with an inclination greater than 2:1 (H:V). DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS Foundation drains should be installed at the base of all footings where the slab or floor is below the outside grade. Drains should also be placed at the base of all earth -retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch-minus, washed rock and then wrapped in non- woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert should be at least 6 inches below the bottom of a slab floor or the level of a crawl space, and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 5. For the best long-term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains. Underslab drainage or drainage inside the building's footprint should also be provided where (1) a crawl space will slope or be lower than the surrounding ground surface, (2) an excavation encounters significant seepage, or (3) an excavation for a huilding will be close to the expected high groundwater elevations. In general, an outlet drain is recommended for all crawl spaces to prevent a build up of any water that may bypass the footing drains. We can provide recommendations for interior drains, should they become necessary, during excavation and foundation construction. Groundwater was observed during our field work. If seepage is encountered in an excavation, it should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pipe, or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site, away from the tops of slopes, and away from the 25-foot wetland setback. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Surface drains should be provided where necessary to prevent ponding of water behind foundation or retaining walls. PAVEMENT AREAS The pavement section may be supported on competent, native soil or on structural fill compacted to a 95 percent density. Because the site soils are silty and moisture sensitive, we recommend that the pavement subgrade must be in a stable, non -yielding condition at the time of paving. Granular structural fill or geotextile fabric will likely be needed to stabilize soft, wet, or unstable areas. To GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ADF Properties, LLC March 14, 2001 JN 01065 Page 8 evaluate pavement subgrade strength, we recommend that a proof -roll be completed with a loaded dump truck immediately before paving. In most instances where unstable subgrade conditions are encountered, an additional 12 inches of granular structural fill will stabilize the subgrade, except for very soft areas where additional fill could be required. The subgrade should be evaluated by Geotech Consultants, Inc., after the site is stripped and cut to grade. Recommendations for the compaction of structural fill beneath pavements are given in the section entitled GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL. The performance of site pavements is directly related to the strength and stability of the underlying subgrade. The pavement for lightly loaded traffic and parking areas should consist of 2 inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over 4 inches of crushed rock base (CRB) or 3 inches of asphalt -treated base (ATB). We recommend providing heavily loaded areas with 3 inches of AC over 6 Inches of CRIB or 4 inches of ATB. Heavily loaded areas are typically main driveways, dumpster sites, or areas with truck traffic. Water from planter areas and other sources should not be allowed to infiltrate into the pavement subgrade. The pavement section recommendations and guidelines presented in this report are based on our experience in the area and on what has been successful in similar situations. As with any pavements, some maintenance and repair of limited areas can be expected as the pavement ages. To provide for a design without the need for any repair would be uneconomical. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and other deleterious material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. Structural fill is defined as any fill, including utility backfill, placed under, or close to, a building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs to support loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or near, the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not sufficiently compacted, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents recommended relative compactions for structural fill: GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. AD✓= Properties, LLC March 14, 2001 Where. Minimum Relative Compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation a 1557-91 (Modified Proctor). Use of On -Site Soil A 01065 Page 10 If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the silty, on -site soil is wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rain and the potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soil is generally silty and therefore moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult during wet weather, or when the moisture content of this soil exceeds the optimum moisture content. Moisture -sensitive soil may also be susceptible to excessive softening and "pumping" from construction equipment, or even foot traffic, when the moisture content is greater than the optimum moisture content. It may be beneficial to protect subgrades with a layer of imported sand or crushed rock to limit disturbance from traffic. Structural fill that will be placed in wet weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a silt or clay content of no more than 5 percent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the test pits are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in test pits. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of ADF Properties, LLC, and its representatives, for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on observed site materials, and selective laboratory testing and engineering GEDTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ADF Properties, LLC March 14, 2001 JN 01065 Page 11 analyses. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. The scope of our work did not include an environmental assessment, but we can provide this service, if requested. The following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 'I Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan Plates 3 - 4 Test Pit Logs Plate 5 Grain Size Analysis GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. ADF Properties, L.L.0 March 14, 2001 JN 01065 Page 12 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any cluestions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. SESIJRF:rne Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Scott Stevens Geotechnical Engineer ssl-0XAL �co i (EXPIRES $1171&VI James R. Finley, P.E. Principal GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 0 L i ST : a VN T9R ^� ,}Rrl 1 - 44 h � 151 .d n5£ 75TH PL if 11 s I 5E J x A` F r 4 ar rF N 43 Ala", r 1i660 w [ t ci F gkz� T! a k39i7 pq'y ti x ' S> le- - PEA I1200 y sf ,47 <' raitJAY SL B3n�J� y ('Fy S!J Si '= b T Y ST �a ST SE FL .. 4? . sF 87TIf iT z CA, .+ RE '3Gi$� nw ST' Y Si S 697N Si c�A�,,. h 90 Si i m i _ C.f"r u:' ' 9 3 915i 122flL1., „`ST SE �+ 91ST Si Lj r ST 1 e TFi 4 T c CT 2laa .�� .4 SIFFdZ1 iE 99'.R sr ficI&W5 a �r 1 � � Y c W . << _ lr 7 f74RK PL $ 3 i00N PiLion � T 1 UO >y WIM Sm L atk rj s _ SE 1 RE jjCC�� H 22 Pow N 5 -19 :t r` 3 i t. Pl p 74 ;! 71E yiST r 4 k 2ND ST 2 ¢ & m On ! tDiiM H z AEA ' Y $ F iH ST a 5 3if FS-N 5 r+ r r - Tl1E w a y306 RE 33 '}t s5 U Ci ST sTk 1 SE AM ST YI ST il d �jt AE °[ 1°n� ST HE 14TH K .E s[ T of imt 8T 1aTd STD ads �iN PL fQ .� K ! xTK- 51A HE aw ST " a ` " � uCaKnc S NE I2TH L !8 r' '�' +� "6 6 zyw ST x i 112 Sr x Flzw AT. z1w F ITx XE I ifs A ERN s Ni lOTH pr } z 33 LD +ar { q IGTx F I NE 16T4 A 5T ¢ a 1167 ST 5 RE M PI E'er j . � w E ,r 4TR Si r ST! 9 SS " 7v FS �' Rs a ' W N£ e _ by S 3 7 NP -a' - NE [H S7 m CT _IIAM 1� 7Tii 5T " ^� � SE ly15T ST � 1( ai bs c 3 `r w WE ST I Si }42R0 f VICI • TY 11A1 GEOTECH 4409 Sunset Blvd. CONSULTANTS, INC. Renton, Washington Jab Nu Qele: Scale,- Plaxe: 01065 March 2�41 Not to Scafe i PROPOSED JIFFY LUBE BUILDING - MIXED USE BUILDING Ta I DETENION VALT L-^ --_- ......j GEOTECH CONSULTAN'M INC. TP-4 LEGEND, Q APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATIONS SITE EXPLORATION PLAN 4409 Sunset Blvd. Renton, Washington Job NO. Date: Scab Play 01065 March 2001 Not to Scale 2 A We \ use�� { 'q TEST PIT 1 Description Reddish -brown SAND, with organics, fine- to medium -grained, moist, loose Light gray, gravelly silty SAND, (Weathered TH4, fine - to medium -grained - becomes dense (Glacial Till} Il M. l l l li -groundwater seepage - becomes slightly less consolidated ' Bottom of the Test Pit was terminated at 10 feet on February 28, 2001. * Groundwater seepage was observed at 7 feet during excavation. ° No caving was observed during excavation. er �la4 TEST PIT 2 5CP G° Description Black silty SAND, TOPSOIL Reddish -brown SAND, fine -to medium -grained, moist, loose SP Light gray, gravelly silty SAND (Weathered T1,10, fine- to meduim-grianed, moist, medium -dense 5SM I -becmces dense (Glacial THO TBottom of the Test Pit was terminated at 6.0 feet on February 28, 2001. * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. * No caving was observed during excavation. IFS GEOTECH CONSULTATSMS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS 4409 Northeast Sunset Boulevard Renton, Washington Job No: Date: jLoggedby. P/afe: 01065 1 Februa 2001 SES 1 3 5 TEST PIT 3 Description Reddish -brown SANG, with organics, fine -to medium -grained, moist, loose Light gray, gravelly silty SAND (Weathered Ti1I), fine- to medium -grained, medium -dense - becomes dense (Glacial Till * Bottomof the Test Pit was terminated at 7 feet onFebruary 28, 2001. 10 * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. * No caving was observed during excavation. 15 TEST PIT 4 .Description Reddish -brown SAND, with - uew� � lea_ i �ec_i i r�ci we Gray, gravelly s[Ity SAND (Weathered Vlt ), fine- to -becomes dense (Glacial T111) 5 , moist, loose- to medium -dense moist, medium- dense * Bottom of theTest Pit was terminated at 7 feet on Febraury 28, 2001. 10 * No groundwater seepage was observed during excavation. * No caving was observed during excavation. 15 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS 4409 Northeast Sunset Boulevard Renton, Washington Job No: Dater Logged by: Plate; 01065 February 2001 SES 4 Slope backfill away from foundation. Provide surface drains where necessary. Backfill (See text for requirements) Nonwoven Geotextile Filter Fabric _ 6��0° ObOVOp 40 P0PSI X,0,0 r Tightline Roof Drain (Do not connect to footing drain) Vapor Retarder or Barrier -, _ SLAB .y:�c....<;:..�. '•app a@�•q0a a0 °•I� oo'•m� aO a�Od oa �PP9 Mr, .::- a •a. •�. /y p. •o. � p•e ''2,,,,3,'iS.Y:G�.',..._`._;i}wj 4.@�� • 4.Ea� O.O��t � as a. p � d.@� � �d aG 4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe (Invert at least 6 inches below slab or crawl space. Slope to drain to appropriate outfall. Place holes downward.) Free -Draining Gravel (if appropriate) NOTES: (1) In crawl spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that bypasses the perimeter footing drains. (2) Refer to report text for additional drainage and waterproofing considerations. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, MC:. FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL 4409 Sunset Blvd. Renton, Washington Job Nor: Date: seals: I Plate. 01065 March 2001 Not to Scale 5 "Mom= 1C F—NGINEERING DESIGN, LLC " CIVIL tNEERINry ND P ANNI ECONOSULTANl-S 4B❑❑ r, SEA-lr-FI-E, VV,ASHINGTON 961 GE3 2O@.fd� 1 -797❑ FAX.`�I31 -7975 TOE! ^- 7 , N We Are Sending You: ❑ Blue Prints ❑ Copies Cl MylarslNellumsO Disks Printing: ❑ IN HOUSE ❑ Other ❑ Engineering Xerox © REPROGRAPHICS ILLC�FAi:? 1 F V A-0) -Ti1�� B Ul-�fcaL GATE d f JOB NO. 970/0 ATTENTION PROJECT- VIA: Fax --.2--- Sheets including Letter of Transmittal ❑ Courier hour Delivery 0 Mail ❑ Other COPIES DATE No. '9 hipk� 7JJ �crr�d-'�.G-� �•a9Y7 d tl R� These Are Transmitted As Checked Below: 0 As requested ❑ Approved as submitted G For approval 0 For review and comment J3' For your use 1) Approved as noted ❑ Returned for correction ❑ -' — COPY TO: t Apr A - •/VO;IGNED:If enclosures are not as holed, kindly notify us at once FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 0136 — 5137 - 5160 5135 5150 5165 5135 5i55 « 5166 zll a5ecl :,r;1d?E 10 9 riCN :c�F+ r. BLOC, W..L wl 49 Tua5 Jon 30 08 04:26p Dale Fonk 425-398-1005 p.2 '..ASTER LICENSE SERVICE PO BOX 9034 6 Olyffri a, WA 9B507-90M a (360) 664-1400 REG I STRATIONS AND UCENS ES STOWE OF WASHINGTON Unified Business ID St 601 980 957 Business 10 *: I Expires3 09-30-2008 ADF PROPERTIES, LLC 702 STH AVE 93600 SEATTLE WA 96104 7010 Domestic Limited Liability Company Renewed by Authority of Secretary of State The licenses named above -has been issued the business regiutraWns or Ramses listed. By acaeptingthis docUrnard fro licenses oartillift the hilomnation provided on the-app#catron for these Micenseswas rate to the best of his or her knowledge, and that business W111 be cohdluctad in compliance with all appftabte Washington state, county, and elty regutations. Director, oe Deparmiard at 0EV1:1-0111 M�N'T p, cin, OF PIEN! MAR 2 A 21 RECEIVE 00 2 dC 3: M LL. j a a LLI a Go 0-0 43% 26 'a C=1 5 hma } Jan 30 08 04,28p Dals Fonk 425-398-1006 p.1 -'u . rye, r . Zi — RL VrAre 4FrWASHINGTOW �C7 '� C>r1zTl> c,ATS OF l o 1vlA>liCry SEP 1719 OF #..- ADF FROPSR"l'lES, LLC RzC"I YAR QF ST4T<: The Undetsig:sod do hereby gubmit this CertiBccti of Formation for the purpose of forrninb a limited babiliW easnpany unfit• the Wasbiri tor. Limited UabMty Campnny Act. ARTICLE I. NAME The home of Ws limited liability cormpatty is ADF MCFERTLES, LILC Ait'T1iCLE 2. RECzfS R50 OFFICE AND AQEW The initial Registered Agent mid Registered Office of this l;.aiited liabiliIy cony era as follows Agaistet•ed Arent Registemd Offsta, 5tr�ttad IMSMSIg A sss W ashington CwPorate SaiVites, Ate. 701 F ifdi Avenue, Suire 2250 semtle. WA 911104 ARMCLB 3. PRINCIPAL PLAC5OF 13LfMESS 'its address of lke principal place of business of dais limited liability camparsy is 11007 Woodinville Rotd, Suite A, Woodinville, WA 9$072. AftMLE 4. MANAGEMENT Mmagerrieat of this 1f nitod 114b9ity company is vrated'ut the merd3 zn. ARTICLE S. NAME AND ADDRESS OF EACH FEMON FXrr.CUTINC THIS CERTMQkT'E The ie►mc and addizax of die perion cxecpting thie C.crtificata :s aE Follows: Marne Mailiqu Addm Hale IAA Fonk 15007 waadinvilie`ite3rnor►d Road Suite A Woodinville, WA 98072 AnthcoY Far kah DATED this I6th day of September, ,999 t � Dale Lm Fouk 978 Amelia Avt Smu Di naa, CA 91773 Aatlwry Faaticala COPY M "0-44/ .006 r eay ? �00 r On this Aft day of .►, 1925, before me, 1he lLrly--•— undersignad, a Notary PubIla in and for the Stdaly COmMMioned and sworn, peraanally appcarcd� to me known to be the _ of the Corporation which eaceuted the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said iaSl[GmCp1 10 bC the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purpose& thcrrin mentioned. and on oath Stated that slWhe is authorized 10 execute thr said insirument W .N'ESS my hand and official scat 1jefreto affixed the day and year first above written M ' • %otary Public in and for the Sta1e Ct of WaftWPM, r85tdtns al i ,HGR lit i • ca ;ice Ll DEVEI-OPMFNT PLANNING CITY O RENTOI, MAR 2 b 2008 RECEIVED 406 y/ STATE or WASI'INGTO.4 ) 1 COUNTY OF Kl`:C } AL - On this day of September, 1985. before me, the undersigned. a Notary Public. in and ror the Staic of ltrashin,ton, duly commissioned and sworn, personaity appeared AWN A AL7110FF to me known to be the individual described in and who cxecutcd the foregoing tnsifcincnt, and xe.enowiedgcd to me that tic stgncd and sealCd the raid itssuurnem as his free and voluntary act and deed for the-.4,lVs -and purposes therein menuoned. 1 Wk;;bs my hand and offielai seal hereto affixed I1ie day and yt.,t Cr) • ' Kol.try Pu R nt and the aJ • - rr•• Of WHI11np1011, rCSidtag at lfi CD STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COliM' OF KING y On i:.:s T7 day of September, 1995, before. me, the undersigned, a notary Public in anu f4: ilia State of Washinttoo, duty commissioned and sworn, personally appeared MILLIE T. %L,,.-.. to me !mown to be ilia individual described in an who cxecuttd t'ic foregetng instrument, and acl.nowlcd;ed I•i mr Mar sh: sit;' J and sealed the said Insirunme"- as her frec and solantary acI and deed for the «scs and purposes thcrcin menlioite-i WITNESS my hand and ollieial seal 'tercto affixed the day and year first above written I Notary Pu iic in and for the Slaic of Washingion, residing at f. f EXHIBIT" A" Lcgsl description of pr9perty being purchased bg Kinder•Care Lot 3 of City of Renina. sivorr Plat Number 343.79, U recorded ender recording number 1909179008, records of IC$ng County. Washington to CO . �JgY6 at FILED IN RY110 tt R', tg OF SURSO ME I....r a: r 004P b'If CONSMUC FUN EA5LMEhtT 2615 ilk 111 U111t. SWILL WA 91121 THIS AGREEMENT is made this ,2y of Sepimcbcr, 1985 by and between Kinder - Can Learning. Centers, Inc. a Delaware Corporation (Kinder -Care), and Anton A. Althoff and Millie E. Althoff, husband and wife (Althoff). Backgmund Kinder -Cm is purchasing a parcel of land, further described as Exhibit "A"" in the County of King, City of Renton, State of Washington from did Althoff$. In connection with tlie3rpurcha3c of the property, Althoff wishes to grant and convey a Construction CabStnettt to Kinder`Cam underand accnm Althoffs properly, more particularly described its Eithibit"13" attached herclo The purpose of the easement is to divert the above ground stream to an underground storm drain culvert and to connect the newly created storm drain culvert with the existing culvert on said premisis, CD W CONSMERATICN of the sums of erne dobar ($1.00) and other bargained for cn eonsidetadon, and subject to the terms and eonsiderat;ons set forih below,Althoff hereby grants Kinda-Catty an easement fore the purposes and to the extent provided herein W ' HEREPOIi1r, the parties asme as follows. (L) Grantor Althoff hereby grants and conveys to Grantee Kinder•Carc, its successors and assigns. it perpetual easement. under and accross the land of Grantor, more particularly ' described as Exhibit"C' attached hescta I Z 1 Grantee, Kindco--Care will bear the cntim. cast of construtdng said storm drain culved and amneaion wide existing culvert on easeinant.i...i, and will hold Grantor Althoff harmless fioin any and all costs, expenses, cIrtcros or demands relating 10. arising from or i out of the constrnct..,n of said casement (3 ) The Grantor Althoff %hail fully use and enjoy the aforesaid premises, including the right to use the surface of said Construction cerement if such use clots not initvfcfe vr11h Installation and function of said storm drain enlvert lioweaer, the Grantor Althoff Shall not sect buildings or pemwent structures over, under or accross the easement aria (d) This Apecracm %hall be binding upon and run %with the land and rhatl inurr to ilia benefit of a rid. be binding uponthe owners described above their heirs, successors and ` assigns, and personal Mprgcatatrves. I IN 1rvEffd M whereof. the parties have bereurw set their h-tads and seal W 6 1-'L— day of September,1995. AMNA.ALTHOFF KINDER ING NTERS,1NC �Y Dy � P- AL HOOF V .ICA • M e:arE r• a a o v v , `-.. ', �.���. ".+��'►�i r• r .. ter.-.. _ - c .Y.4} :��-: r"`► .eI' Legal description of Althoff property LGt x of City of Renlon short Plat Number 345.79, as recorded under retarding number 7908179008, records of King County. Washington. cr3 M' .traction egs. mcnt lot 2 of City of Renton Short ordinr no 7908I79008 ca f a .f M .', co . r DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON MAR 2 12008 JON GRAVES ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, PLLC RECEIVED 3110 RUSTON WAY. SUITE D TACOMA, WA 98402 TEL (253) 272-421 4 FAX (253) 272-421 8 J G R R C H s. C o M February 1, 2008 Jennifer Henning Plaiming Manager City of Renton Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way 'Renton, WA 98057 RF: Application to Remove Restrictive Covenants 47908200517 and #8602060815,i•oin land referred to as Lot 2 of Cit1 o f Rc . trr,re 411roT't Plrrt No. 345-79, recorded under Kirk; Count), Recording Wntber 790817111008. Dear Ms. Henning: The property owner of said land wishes to remove restrictive covenant #79082005 which requires a 25 foot landscape buffer be provided between Lots 1, 2, and 3 of short plat 345-79, City of Renton. This covenant states that it shall consist of 12.5 feet on each lot between 1 and 2 to the west, and entirely on Lot 3 between Lots l and 3 to the South. Lots 1, 2, and 3 have since been reclassified as compatible zones. Therefore, according to the "Duration" section of this declaration, this covenant shall be terminated without further documentation. The property owner of said land also wishes to remove restrictive covenant 48602060815 which requires the zoning of subject site to revert from O-P back to R-5 if specific development plans occur that may subject existing homes on site to be used for commercial endeavors. There currently are no existing homes on the subject site that may be affected by said zoning restrictions. Furthermore there currently no longer exists zone O-P in the City of Renton which therefore renders this covenant as no longer applicable. T� ou, Brett Lindsay Jon Graves Architects and Plann r,� ' rllliif a Anton AltholC short plat 313-79 17ECLARgloM_ -F R6SMr?;V6 COVF,1 A14T5 W!>EBPAS, Antos A. Althoff and his wife Millis E. Althoff, are the owners of the following real pxvj*rty 1n the City of Benton, County of King, Stato of Washington, described as follows !- "4 That portion of the southwest 1/4 of too southwast 1/4 of goction 1, ToWaship p 21 Borth, Range 5 East, N.K. Xing County Washington, described on tollowas 0 crasenolag at the southwest carA■r or •aid section 3j thanca south OW W OV Cd east alarq the south lino of said southwest 114 of the Southwest 114 for 965.00 feet to the true point of beginnings thonco north 0*59115" east 454.74 �. tact to the southeasterly margiA of STATE 111ORWAY 50001 thence north 64s56'00" east Shag sold socteeastarly otmin 220.19 feetr thence north 70a17110 east 0 WAS Coati theses mouth r 124O0" vast parallel with the id east line of sa h southwest 1/4 of the soutWast 1/4 and 40.0 fact veeterly or said out line N for $90.01 feet to the south lima or said southwest 1/4 of the soutl,wst 1/4p .� thence north W19101" weot along said south line 313.53 foot to the true point of beginning. Containing 3.63 sores. f WIf o M. the owners of Sold doxerlbod property, hereinafter "the property." ass doalr* to impose the following restrloUve eovanente running with the land as to use. pretest and f hwo, of the ptgmrtys WA. Tail, the aforesaid ownece and parchaeers hereby establish, great and hipo*s restrictions aid covenants running with the lend as to the cool of two land hareinsbove Aasorlb" with renwat to the use by the undersigned, their auau-38sore, helm and assigns. as follwas L% W5CA9i A11PPP.it A 25-foot londetape buffer *m L1 be provided between [nts 1, 2 aad 3 at Short Plot 145-79, City of Xanrau, which Swell consist of 12.5 feet on each lot between Lots 1 and 2 to the vast, aad astir*ly on lot 3 between late 1 and 3 to the *oath. As aatk natural vegetation as possible shall be included in the buffer. 17t MT-100f These eovaposts shell rea with the land and =Vita on Mce31, 2015. If at any tias reclassification of the Property 00mrs Which creates conpatibls umres the portion of the covenants pertaining to the landsaaying buffer shall terminate without any further documentation. Proper legal proasioas* In the Superior Court of Ming County may be lnstlgatad by sithar the City of nanran or any property anars adjoining subject property who an odvon*ly affected by Say violation or breach of theg* restri-�tivo covenants. nesseneblo attaensys' team komma;sd during an onforepment procooding will he been* by the partis■ Amu the court detarwinsa are in error and sball be entered an a Moment in mach action. • Anton A, Althoff r Millie E. Althoff Sll6' SURVEY VOL —&- - Par - Md Dasariptions Xing,WA D"ment-Year.hifonth.Day. DoarD 1979.920.S17 Paget 1 of 2 orders 1 Comment t RECOM AT MOT OF OM WINem 7Sr151 y.+.; .0u 4V MtM. A1+IYGM A'1.T! IF is tho ownim- of Ufa fallowifig coal pmparty In the City of T) Ft AL r. C owky of Kkv, SWA of WadAmilon, desulbed as ExMMt W attached hombol. Wf MEM. the avmp{o of salt! de=ibad property duke to lmpo n t1u1 todlawIng raftlaWe cavwnants runnlug +with the lend as to ma. present and future. of thu sbave dwetbad coal #sporty. NOW, TMWOM. the afermatd mma*) f+croby estebttsh. gr&nt and ira wo owb ioth" and covanarU rurullrrR with the land harnErzwvn descrffiad with ra*wt to the wa by 2 r mftt%1 t04 thak N=UMW% hobs, and axsi ns at Fnllanra: I. zwft of opts Ab)ft t. sits wlii covert fsant D-P track to R-S tf voditc aminkpmadt Pipes Ert tm ftm of a lxsiuno pm-n t umlwatJE ^ w ather ieed a= Pens& 91pramog act Mte om to r UUM thu 0-p zw&q. xxft as w WUCSUW fm sU Phn xevhm or cw4UmuI wa parrWt, is clot wkn ted within two W yam of hW aMm vM of this as ft amt3m. z TFo 02ds bones an the subs Wn am rwt: to ir.. sste"fiwd for arry e*mmorcb i araw v w- diwx1 Z cor JlCirrg,� DaeumerrC-Year.Manth O.r.Day.Aae2D I386.Z06.,,B Falter 2 0>• 3 Ordexr awnsnE:r I t s i ip MTR Cr W INGTOM} COURTY OF KING j r- On thia X-1- day of� , lkj7 . before ee pereonatly uj EPpearad Antae A, Althoff and Nillie Z. Althoff, the persona who oreaated the vithin NM forsgoinq instr� -t, and ac3'aowled9sd said instrut2ant to be the Eras and voluntary hat and dead of acid person~ fW the uses cad p4tposna therein mentioned. 1!T MITM O WORDW, I have hareoato sat uy hand and affixed ey official saaA the day end ;-ear firah abmm written. Est ry Public in and for 81re Of wanhington, reaidiaw ins R OFFICN or 'rile Cr1Y CLZRK O 00 HILL AVE.SO S FILED for Record at Regod al 2N NUHICIFaLDO- 00 UTH RLMTOH. NA. 9905E Deaoriptionr KingAM DoCuMant-rOar,uon".Da]r.DOCXD '979'920.517 Fagan R of 2 Ordorr 1 Comment: I DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, INC. MAR 2 6 2008 215 Columbia Street Seattle, Washington 98104-1511 Senior Title Officer, Marilyn Sanden (marilynsander2@pnwt.com) R ECEIVE D Senior Title Officer, Bob Curtis (bobcurtisppnwt.com) Title. Officer, Georgean Moore (georgeanmoore4pnwt.com) Assistant Title Officer, Debby Bigelow (debbybigeIow4pnwt.com) Unit No. 2 FAX No. (206)343-8400 Telephone Number (206)343-1345 ADF Properties Title Order No. 669358 15007 Woodinville -Redmond Road, #A CERTIFICATE FOR Woodinville, Washington 98072 FILING PROPOSED PLAT Attention: Dale Fonk PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE A GENTLEMEN: In the matter of the plat submitted for your approval, this Company has examined the records of the County Auditor and County Clerk of King County, Washington, and the records of the Clerk of the United States Courts holding terms in said County, and from such examination hereby certifies that according to said records the title to the following described land: As on Schedule A, page 2, attached. IS VESTED IN: ADF PROPERTIES, LLC, a Washington limited liability company SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS: As on Schedule B, attached hereto. CHARGE: $250.00 TAX: $ 22.25 TOTAL CHARGE: $272.25 RECORDS EXAMINED TO: January 24, 2008, at 8:00 a.m. PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, INC. Marilyn Sanden Senior Title Officer Unit No. 2 ob Order No. 669358 PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE A Page 2 The land referred to in this certificate is situated in the State of Washington, and described as follows: Lot 2 of City of Renton Short Plat No. 345-79, recorded under King County Recording Number 7908179OC8, being a portion of: The southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington. END OF SCHEDULE A PLAT CERTIFICATE Schedule S GENERAL EXCEPTIONS: Order No. 669358 1. Rights of claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Public or private easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public record. 3. Encroachments, overlaps, boundary line disputes, or other matters which would be disclosed by an accurate survey or inspection of the premises. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records, or Liens under the Workmen's Compensation Act not shown by the public records. 5. Any title or rights asserted by anyone including but not limited to persons, corporations, governments or other entities, to tide lands, or lands comprising the shores or bottoms of navigable rivers, lakes, bays, ocean or sound, or lands beyond the line of the harbor lines as established or changed by the United States Government. 6. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water. V. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, capacity, or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity or garbage removal. 8. General taxes not now payable or matters relating to special assessments and special levies, if any, preceding the same becoming a lien. 9. Indian tribal codes or regulations, Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including, but not limited to, easements or equitable servitudes. Order No. 669358 PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE B Page 4 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 1. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REFERENCED THEREIN, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING: GRANTEE: The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company PURPOSE: Guystubs and anchors AREA AFFECTED: An indeterminable portion of said premises RECORDED: June 14, 1926 RECORDING NUMBER: 2439671 2. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REFERENCED THEREIN, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING: GRANTEE: Creek Flood Control Zone District, a created Municipal Corporation PURPOSE: A drainage channel and/or other flood control works AREA AFFECTED: Southerly portion of said premises and other property RECORDED: October 20, 1965 RECORDING NUMBER: 5943053 3. Right to enter upon said premises to remove eaves, construct approaches, cut curbs and construct guardrails granted to the State of Washington by Recording Number 7201270090. 4. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REFERENCED THEREIN, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING: PURPOSE: Storm drain culvert AREA AFFECTED: The east 80 feet of the south 30 feet of said premises RECORDED: November 13, 1985 RECORDING NUMBER: 8511131487 (continued) Order No. 66935a PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE B Page 5 5.( COVENANTS,"CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS CONTAINED IN SHORT LAT, COPY ATTACHED: RECORDED: August 17, 1979 RECORDING NUMBER: 7908179005 Said Short Plat was amended by instrument recorded under Recording Number 8904280127. 6. DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: RECORDED: August 20, 1979 RECORDING NUMBER: V908200517 7. DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: RECORDED: February 6, 1986 RECORDING NUMBER: 8602060815 8. RESERVATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS CONTATNED IN DEED FROM NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY: Reserving and excepting from said lands so much or such portions thereof as are or may be mineral lands or contain coal or iron, and also the use and the right and title to the use of such surface ground as may be necessary for mining operations and the right of access to such reserved and excepted mineral lands, including lands containing coal or iron, for the purpose of exploring, developing and working the same. RECORDING NUMBER: 60425 NOTE: No examination has been made to determine the present record owner of the above minerals, or mineral lands and appurtenant rights thereto, or to determine matters which may affect the lands or rights so reserved. (continued) Order No. 669358 PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE B Page 6 GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES AND CHARGES: FIRST HALF DELINQUENT MAY 1, IF UNPAID: SECOND HALF DELINQUENT NOVEMBER 1, IF UNPAID: YEAR; 2008 TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER: 032305-9093-04 LEVY CODE: 2100 CURRENT ASSESSED VALUE: Land: $567,900.00 Improvements: $0.00 AMOUNT BILLED GENERAL TAXES: $5,552.65 SPECIAL DISTRICT: $2.25 $9.98 TOTAL BILLED: $5,564.88 PAID: ($0.00) TOTAL DUB: $5,564.88 10. LEASE, AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: LESSOR: Anton A. and Millie E. Altoff LESSEE: Dale and Nancy Fonk FOR A TERM OF: 7 years FROM: January 1, 1997 to December 31, 2006 DATED: December 31, 1996 RECORDED: January 10, 1997 RECORDING NUMBER: 9701100543 11. Unrecorded leaseholds, if any; rights of vendors and holders of security interests on personal property installed upon said property and rights of tenants to remove trade fixtures at the expiration of the term. END OF SCHEDULE B Title to this property was examined by: Jeff Meyer Any inquiries should be directed to one of the title officers set forth in Schedule A. jxm/20061122002350 Lot 2 of Renton SP#345/79 No.7908179008 149450 CEN• PLA; i� PACIFIC NORTHWEST TULE Order No. 669358 Company of Washington, Inc. IMPORTANT: This is not a Plat of Survey. It is furnished as a convenience to locate the land indicated hereon with reference to streets and other land. No liability is assumed by reason of reliance hereon. DEVELOPMENT Zr I�INti Y OF RENTON k MAR 2 12008 RECEIVED WHEN RECORDED. RETURN TO: ADF Properties, LLC 15007 Woodinville -Redmond Rd. Suite -A Woodinville. WA. 98072 20M 122002350.00' E225�1863 0 gz Ltp S 5378;��.EO PpGEB@1 GF �1 DDcturtent Title: Statutory Wan-anty Deed Grantor: M. Annette Althoff and Anita M. Nordstrom Grantee: ADF Properties, LLC, a Washington limited liability company Legal: Lot 2 of City of Renton, Short Plat No. 345 79, Ptn. SW SW, 03-23-05 Tax ID : 032305-9a93-04 FILED By PN WT STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED (0zr/ GrtR— � �[ 3a THE GRANTOR, M. Annette Althoff and Anita M. Nordstrom, for and in consideration of Ten Dollars ($14.00), and/or other valuable consideration, conveys and warrants to ADF Properties, LLC, a Washirgton limited liability commpany, the following described real estate, situated in din County of King. State of Washington: Lot 2 of City of Renton Short Plat No. 345-79, recorded under King County Rem -ding Number 7908179008, being a portion of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington. Dated: October 31, 2006 SPATE OF WASMOTON COUNTY OF MG ore me M. Annette Althoff, to me known to be the the within and foregoing mstrment, and wJmoowWging oluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein seal j 1 L%r��.��y�C. /l�T d d; '. Notary F ablic in and for the State of Washington Appointment Expires: � Px inted NAme: Patri 0. 20061122042350.E STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before rue Anita M. Nordstrom. to me known to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledging that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein menteoned. "• ri nd and official seal C� 41 _oW &L� D(o 1. „t,w 1 ,���� %joy Sa7twp ' ?_ Notary Public in and for &e 9tate of Washington Appointment Expires' �rteLti� = Printed Dame. MI 01- ..i bto Claud ' ii YV '� yo Claud Kettells "laluary Yettells, bw Yp oya and qos to spa, all int in the tare in KOV: Lots 1 and 2 in blk 2 of rau,ntleroy `view Add to the 0 of S, Wn aoo to the plt in vol. 24 of pltspg 38 rkds of Kow, eso the U725 ft of ad lots eyed to the C of S for street purposes IWW the ad oorp has crused this inst to be exeo by its prop 0rra and its op sl to be hto affxd. ap Ql Standard Auto Firenas Company 0e o W Kennedy pros S C Nelson seety Saw Feb 3-28 by Ueo W Kennedy and S C Nelson the pros and see reap of S A F 0 (of) bef Wesley J tIfflin, N P for Wn at S. NS Dot 26-26. (ill to P S insustrial Loan 1200 2nd Ave) 74 Fab $-28 4 58 '-' 2439671 Tax 30-98 Claud Kettelle and :'aluary Kettells, bw of Sko r to Sound: IndustriY a Loan Company, a corp Bps mtg to sp, the folg real eat or any rte wh lah mtgors my iA any Ow way harearter aoq thin in Kow: Lots 1 and 2 in blk 2 of Fauntl.eroy View Add to the C of 39 ft aoo to pit in vole 2 or pits pg 36 rkds of Karr, a xo the N 25 ft of ad Lots aged to the 0 of 0 for street puz-poses. Tap of $'500. aoo to aert ned due in insts of $20.85 saoh pbl on 15th of each mouth following the bate of ad note. (Subj to a mtg of 5200. in favor of Western Loan & Bldg Oo) Ins .500. Claud Kettells Valuary Kettells KOW Jan 50-28 by ClAaud Kettells & Vaiu6ry Aettellas, bear Nests ldoarath, N P for Wn at S. NS. Feb 10-28e (M to a a 070) D Fob 3-28 4 39 39678 $eb 1-90 'IDma R I Latho end Alioe C Lamotue, h and w, L H Craig and Hl.e r R Craig, h and w of Lois Angeles County, Calif to Sound Industriel Loan Company, a oorpn of Saattle, Washn Fps Op sud xr to sp the tdre in Kos¢= Lot 5 blk 40 A A Denny's Sixth Add to the 0 of S, batter known., as Newall Apartments t 2220 Testern Ave. Also asm% of pert oont dtd Dot 18-27 oxen by R I Lemothe and Alias C Lamothe, h and w and L H Craig sad lR1eanor R Crolg, h and w, to FrvakA Maxwell, witht renours*. tXIM Subj to 410000 mtg and taxes and: street isms also int ther•on, also subj to above ao t. R) i LWoothe 1►lies D ismathe ' (BV) (F.01 L • ci) L H are ig 4*anor R Craig ' 3 4j I Lomor Itikol■as 13425. Sunset Blvd. 'Beaton, Clash. May Creek Flood Control Zane Dist.- y GEM Prof. 770-475 �r Ii/W 25 �..4B BASE M E 0 T 4 TaIS Imo, made this / a" day of betWes z !� sS o c orau e a ps}8dNTI: fi- , �n Corpo ation of the state of WaahiLgton, under the authority of 0bapter 153, G� passion Lass of 1961, of the State of Trrashiagton. �77 VX2%d3e6M, that first party, '- consideration of Mi OD receipt of ubtab is a9lmolr1eags3„awe! the bonefize 11535W111 accrue M We laud Of Grantor by the exercise of the rights herein granted, do hereby "ulnas release and forever grant unto the Grentas, its successors and designs. an easement and right-of-way for the purposes hereinafter stated to include an area within the banks of the censtrueted abonval and a strip of land 30 ft. in width that is 15 ft. on either side of center line of lous4 Creel. on the foilowinx described property: 1 d portion of the S.W.} of the S.W.J- lying southerly of State Rd. #2, less the West 965 ft. loss portiere Northerly of line be g 250.18 ft. Borth of the Southwest owner thereof, thonas N. 67e5$2' Beat 127.0E ft. then@* S. 05*06100• Want 30 feet, theuce Easterly to point an the East line 292.76 ft. South of the Northeast corner tbereef, lose CA rights. In Sae. 3, Too 0; i.8. 5 S.Y.K. Said casement and ri&t-of-way ere for the following purposes: T arighhtd enter upon t e above described land to construct, reconstruct, na repair a drainage ahaxsnel and/or other :load control works, including all appurtenances thereto, togetbar Ath right to trial, out, fell and remove all inch trees, brush and other matnrel growth and obstructions ¢a are neoesesry to provide adequate clearance end to eliminate interfer- ones witb, or barArda to the structures. The consideration above mentioned, is accepted as full compensation to the exeraise of the rights ebore granted. To have and to hold, all and singular, the said easement and right -of - $my, together with appurtanances. unto Orantee, its ruocessors and assigns. IN iiVVMSB WHEREOF the Grantors hereunto not bond, bond, the day 4nd year above Written, gAL E i�ran$ar ' I i ran I STATE OF liAffiIMO!1)� I COUNTY OF III ) On this day appeared before vie��,�o�.q�sr� 1 _a +� M eA- e at 19nago Ej Be the ILWyjaupr — aescrI1603 I" gna jM3 execu are - going Instrument, end acknowledged-Eo me t',at signed the some �■ .r.�.s free and vrluntery act and e3e"�,'""i?ire uses and Purposes are a uonttoned. ^ivppen under myhandand official seal this sW day of r2aT1965 a t ai ,ing�on Ft esi�einJo7Iatba ste OCT 20 SM [f.'arsr iR,rrt aritb Rrlurd; rraRk ssx Wwi ia111TKn6aaad See�daaen at ftrdw ; w-,e ulgmm f laity GLnea; and 8mb (J)vPL "TED) CnNF d9'_ et P. ' ' Pit Nor Ian D®R hr•,(FS. ;rS. r�s- P. 44� A'crfkcrn lbe ffe Ra?*Irmd Cow. Coro. LOT j i .5yarbat , Jiaxyasar6xndAdofnaug.'.all't .,An Aet CNartta.isg !"ds- f6 aid (or-5161K - "j �- L~. A - tha cv- u dpwdn of a R. R. amd TeIar_ � f Line from Lk Su ''la ^get Sit are W )%c Caaxl0lie NorfAA route." DATED r and the CenM d Tixsf 6w*seey, o/ Ncar f�l.ED ! �' _�--- B. �• Yank; a :&firs a N. } . ^ o� j �• 7'rerafrrXNWor D- erf .?'rxst ,, grd ai C S1- (D, Ae* 4'er,F. )V. 1' kf I_ 'T k des, Cvmsn t '.�,. !. ' .. ' : :- R t trr I'rJrl°Sr ! a+ICreq •M (JI ' Y-- � I�7 of two in Nrra Y„rk iiiwat his opkr in New, Yarn C "M BLCCiG AD_'DI_Y_.. a CALM l Mld notil. who orae rww_ rs tkof last. Was sjrad RrrfW fir AuMswi(y a Od o j. Mroafors e+/ sd tiomp - - (1) Flad natk, who sisir sawars Iknt trrsr, rwx s ;%d and rid AN nytbonly os fad of DireKrrs of it/ Clowprr}: OPY AVAILABLE AVAILAB E i NORrlijctiN PACtF•ID D£4ME7. Form 34 A.) Wham, Fp and ad Ad qF Cmap, is grantee of aerin ids ie St. rf W. & nrd to Sp a x1a of sd Ida in trurl fnr pw 1, n nuwd, did dua 1-81 rand to offied of Steen ofinteriorrat Waghinglan, and what, It is proatdd j�n sd mig ehai at all times be at libertir ry sell any of ad Ids. not bel. appraised value. & upon, deposit of proeeede with SP it shall reds ika Id to gold & pd,fw, from tiara of sd mil r and, what, kp has said 2p the Id hinfir dscbd ,f. f+ of sd nnty, for prior hfig b xpgfd bg nos isms than appraised value appromd by .Sp, and Sp has become party hereto for the purpm of releaag UP eydfFM U01 of sd wtt x = = Now. F & 48 by virtue 7� - were in sd n►tg, and in cons raj' 8--�'...t+�..... !n .Its the f o des. Id in g c W r (ewer) arr. et to yy'jIj� Q desCXibed romi,9es reservi:s�,. _nL cxce;=t�n� Truer: S beiek F,,Jaeral lands or t13' ;s t:iei'cl, f us ;ire or r I i. ui1C1 �, j,%1 G' to !' 3J :.,'emu"ra xllC: aUG:i = 1 • ti.[7 �ilE ➢ Ljt�i 11S9 L1111 t!1[9 r �,01. IL-iniI1g; G: c(}►►L;illl coal c. �r�►� try: naceS:3:►.Y 0 USE: -3)f ;-Jjc:1 :;111feLc : 1"oL1.�C s: liliiy r i ucccss tO au...1 reservcci ►.nd BxOBptc: oijexstians a:,d Lnc, riT i►L of �G c.ir:tinin; co�sl. or iron for tl�e°~ nline1�1 lands ifte ai.lc. 1 - n.,7� s�,,g. .` ." pvrp�sew tier �lc�rl;itI,, „rah"�►� r L i �,'fST L`dltFiEA►i' 0 AVZw F ' , -P�l �-!.Ics+T�r�S• •�Yv�,�c3Iy. ? j ^:,� � i .7R7iy 1 �• AtIe' ,•.•1 ' i . art : T- i' -- —"-'-- ._ is .. .I .4. _� ,.�-i3.,A ��r;•.R,�.:;r_.><�k�w ,.�..u�s.. _ IV f UN A ALI Uf , Jf7iJl'T I L AIO Jfts- xf S_W 14S W 14 SECTION 3 T 23 N. R5 E.W.M. RENTON KING COUNTY WA. 2E.MQ PrION N amr Thor partfon of the SW llO of the SW44 of Section 3. T 23 N KCAA ecas,r+aa used J R 5 EWX King County Washington. *Wifbed as follows. cornmewng of the S w corner of said Section S• Iheam $ Be- 39' O,1'E ohury the awth tits of said SW U4 of the SW ev for 963 QO reef to the true point of acomiapr ther„ce N 0'5wes- E 454 74 feel to tft southemueNy mar yen of STAT£ t+WNWAY I S'R 900; thence N641561001E atarrp said souMeodlerly margin 22OJ9 feet. fhancs N TC•!T 'Pl'E IN-8511eep �► thence S I' 12'00'w parallel w th the east Abe of sod S.W ►/4 of the 5w�14 and 4O.O fee westerly of said east the for 598.D1 feetto /be sgrrfh fix ofsoid SWI4 offhe SW 4�4� Ihenoe N88.39'01 W aharrq smd. sonrh litre 313Si feet y p to Me true point of booming. confarnmp •T•83 dries. 4 y „CUR423i9RS�rtFMAT£, 'k This shorf plal corrWIr mpreseofs er Srxrer mach by me or antler im dvAmtfan iR canfarrnonm kk wNh h6e reauirevun/s ofthe appr4p*te state lr 42mly or efty SM4* or erdinancr. -CER 1FIC. 471 Csrfi irate 110 4665 Cspirvfian ebte r-Zr-P* We the undemipned hereby certify that we are the owners in fee sfmpfe ofland pleffed in this short plop. APPROVALS �r examined and opprored this AMOW AI S _ar_ day of ✓ter• Ap »fe STATE OFWASIIINMON COUNTY OF DING S This n to- cerlMyMot an this afi-day of when ae Arpr mr-ra Weiroxxx ►ors before me the underi nrq a notary public perionolly spewed Anton A Adoff and Millie E Alfoff Erdrrrined and approved fAis tt day of -/ - to me XnoW brae the indirMMS "*& signor the above mWficafe.and oc edfa me oral they signed the someas elr fmir and voAvdary act and deed• �lt.•,f1.,,�.:.r,�-!�„( t �- W#ness ory hand aad official seal the day TeAiF/F FXfiIMFF and year first oboe written. &amfned and apprswdWif d-"W._'L Ad&A.L -a&-**day of-619 m. ae ter* Nafery public ih and far the State of was- LAXrIlrX lAe row e�,amerz �wrJ�rrt�a xa �9�A14DOB^ ><ILEo AW r►rLaRO T�IEIl��r�n r aI rlr! Ar..P-LA* /m eaaX r+ nrASaA'YEYS Ar• vAr£-B.d.- AT FW srouFsr ap ANION A ALT*rlr AND t8l Crrr Of RENTON r•Z�^s•_rl3bY rl lrTfi�w�rtl /rANA*Fe --- znpr. ap eFCaeas N� Erl'amined and- approvedMi* -13. day of ,AW"W""r & nr* .rr APWFV [alarm &M#aXNrrAMFXSde ASSEisae s.i•.R.•'N f. fl•r [ J, P, . 4 Jr �I3 9 rss•o�� S 9803V 01" f 1318.53 uqi .*j s:%aa 71..1,16X! Lill a via CWI. •' 1 a cs, #{s7 h •� T_ 916 AMENDMENT SLOPE EASEMENT TMIS AG(I MNT 15 MAOE THIS 29th day of March. 1989. by and between Kinder - Cara Learning Centers. Inc. a Delaware Corporation (Kinder -Care), and Anton A. Althoff and Millie E. Althoff, husband and wife (Althoff). Parties hereby agree to modify the Slope Easement that is recorded under Auditor's File No. 79= 79008 as recorded at King County, Washington. Grantee, not withstanding the restrictions on Erantor's use of Slope Easumt dated September 27, 1985'. the Grantee hereby agrees that Grantor may install, maintain and repair underground utility linos and facilities on the easement area so long as the same does not interfere with function of said slope. This Agreement shalt be binding upon and run with the land and shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the owners described above, their heirs, successors and assigns, and personal representatives. IN VITMESS whereof, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seal the 29th day of March, 1989. R. r:t.t.i- C e t�7 8 5.00 t,ie;i 5L. *N:WW5, 00 5:. ANION A. ALTHOFF jeonard DER- LEARNING its, INC. �.�� c C. Kuhn, for Vice I+rea daat LIE E. ALIROFF llj�al "I STATE OF WASHINGTO.N. county of King on tilisday personally rpp-Ered baore me Anton A. Althoff and Tullis E. Althoff to me known to br thrr individuals described in and who executed the within and foreav9n= 1Het I. and aeknowkdged that they 4 for Ihe uses aad purpoecs therein signed thr same as their rrec ind voluntary mentioned. +•r p my hand and official seal this slnto. g47 day of 0742` 19 S f ��1�� O S ua+wr ,� Nma�-'NUfr h, and for to Stair of 1►'rshinglotl Ire n•ridi,r r rirr,�4'rq- r"'• P. 9236 WA���... ily cohtta�ssion expire :S'1}•sue). k r �sl 11 ARR,1 SIN DEED r �uh7, 1:4tn are, S.l, to lyytn .i.e. 3.E. ~ •. i..1n•Wt l',f. Wjl..N til ?flkih 1•itf.•%t.,NTti .: ';w.:.,. 1. nh1Yk tin iLf•10FF and IR �1LLIt E. •.ik4FF. his wife, 'i r� n. .01 _"a :M ...wattaGwA w tar -utw ol- - - TEN AND M0/100 - (lla.X) - '•MA and otnar iot.,abl♦ cert►lderat}on, ;s •.kit'ny d1tip .,i t.'4•,anl '.t tkr tis.rt. -it lS-rwi:..r.1 '4, 'ti- 1••+91 sited M Mug r ,•. :n •'t, 4t etc •L+ WL it„ "I. 1q, 4lent and Itw.f. - to Il:h,' rights hirv.tw yfwniid tt. A$4 !- tYdi'd 0,604 t jsu"rsa sot ih a....t ., :1,10 s.l :ne Stctc of WoJimiglunt Atl that portion of the following described Parcel 'St•t iyi•ig north"tterly of the foilan- ing described linel beginning at a Point 45 teat southeasterly and oppo*I N HWgnrdy Engineer's Station 16j•00. ►.tier, casurad at right angles From the center line survey of 19 900, 116th Ave. S.E, to 438th Ave. S.E.; krona northeasterly parallel with said canter line to a pol-it opposite Hlgn" Engirasar's Station 166475. theus northeasterly In a Straight line to a pOltit 60 fart soutlteasturly and apposite Highway Engineer's Station 168aj5 when wasorod at right angles free sold center line; thence northeasterly parallel with said center line to a point apposlta Nighv*y Bagineer's Station 172*10 and the and of this li q Jaatrlptiyn. PARCEL VI: That Portion Of the Southeast j of the Southwest j of Sactlon 3, Township :3 north, Range 5 East, N.M., described as followst B"Innlnt at the Southwest corner of sald Section 3; then" Sawth E8'39'04" East 90 Fast to the true point of beginning of the tract herein described; thence North 0 59125" test 470.60 feet to the Southeasterly line of Prtnary State Highway No. 2, known at the ksnten-l"squah Highway; thane North 64'57'25" East, along tna Southeasterly line wrf said h! , 396.40 feet to the East Ilne -f said Southwest i of the Southwest tnsnce South I 12100" West, along said East line, 646,76 feet, more of loss, to the Soutm Ilse of said Srctlon 3; there North 8841910141 West, along said South line. 353.75 fast to the true point of beginning; 1.ES3 all coal and minerals and the right to explore for and ,sine the same. Situate In tna county of King, State of Washington. The grantors Herein reserve the right to remove the abuse on the lapro"Mbht tress Lhe lands herein conveyed, assuisinp all lieblllty to persons andlor property Connected filth said redevP1. at a" tlw until ]?� 7q1�__ ; however. on said date, the eaves of sold Improvement yet room n ng, or par tte ly remblT on sold ]sods shall become the Property af.the State of ltsshington and ail rights of the grantors to said eaves on the inprovsemnts shall then cease and terminate. It ;s understood dud agreed that the State of Washington, Its euthorlred agents or assigns, shall wtave the right to enter upon the r"Ining abutting lands of the grantors, his heirs, successors or assigns, where necessary to occonollsh the removal of the eaves From Bald ingrovemnent. It Is understood and Tread that the State of yashinyton will reeonatrwGt the atlating road approaches on the Southerly side of sold highway at or near Highway Englnssr's Stations IW79. 165+25 and 165495, and construct a curb cut only at or asar Illghway Engineer's Station 168+25. which approaches and curb cut shall be asintalned between ere Mot of nay litre and the shovldar line of said hlghiay by the grantors, their heirs, successors or assigns. The gfr.- .rs hsraln further grant to the State of Washington, or its agents, the right to entar upon the grantor's re+walning lands Where necessary to con- struct said approaches and curb cut. It Is further us :ratood and agreed that the State of Weshintggton will tor: VUCI; a Standard Boom Guard tall. Type I (G•2) on the back side of the sidswa l; and being located at or near and between 1119biay Engineer's Stations 164+85 and Hlgfewsy thginser's Station 165*84; exddpt at or rear Nlgh►ey 1021 irr's Station 1654-I3 a break shall be ad& In said Standard Beaty Guard tall for the Purpose of raconstrocting the existing drtvo%ay at ttset location. Tito grantors herald Further grant to ttte State of 4l061hingtoe, er Its agents the right to enter ,prat the grantor's rwdining lands where nscssssry to aecoepllsb said construction. The lands hareln conveyed contain on area of 7.J22 square feet, cotes or lass& the aPew;nfta details moncerning all of .Mich are to be fowl within that cert&IX temp of definite location bar .if rocord and on file in the office of the Director of highways at Olympia, end beaN ng date of aprroval Jww l9, 100, revlsed December 17. 1970, and the cantor $Jew of %hick It also shows of tword lit Values 4 Of Highway Picts. page ill, records of sold wunty. 8y Initialing tho appropriate spur below. 00 undsrslgnW agrsat To aurhndar PaaMa*IOn -od..ShaArarisea. rr�re�d 1 white date Is bee on permat for I the puruiraa hwlwug been . saw ab a at least days prior tnarsta. (InitIat) t 1 ' • Parcel 1-'16'32 Description: Jring,?M Doc=ent-Year.adonth..•Daty.DocID 1972.127.90 Pager 1 of 2 Order: I Cogent: I?An- %TATE IF WASHNGTON rhic sinderxViss-d. a noiarp puldir in rind for the tijjjrc k.jr Wj,hjvjMj". ILgruhN is -ruler 0,ul wi tau ft1k 11?tp C4 oat*", Irr Akt= A* AMP= Mul =16 4 J[Lth*ff -it ;Piutr n w In the ondro'utuark dercribcd in ind r '4e- re"'0k 'nam rl.. -rul .jwknorwictiged that tbW stionsd and sealed he viric MW& tree mu tutunfory art uhd area, �W.f%hr Pi'vVP nit hand and official Real the day and !'Cur or Ct"Mill of On 1141 do of bf*v pit pcts"allp opptorrd and to me "mm to be the and, of the corporation 1h ' at executed the foregoing instrument anti Or;.'F1'PV-(V40j141 AradNXIMMit Id he the is -cc and i Pluntary arl nttd deed of said carpor-olion. far the tries anti puj7,w.cs thrrun mriawmed. and art oatL n4tod th-i nuthora.,v' no rirew mid insirunrient and that flit, .col -Iffixt4l Pit the rF.rpwjrc xqqt of said twporation- ,(Zj r;ii*o und" my head and official oval the day rind Ire-ar (nit r twir wrturm. Rrrtfrar et v D&j;c,r.j.pt.jajmt Klnq,WA Lpocume=t:-Year-Month.Day.l)oclD 1972-127-90 Page: 2 of 2 ords.r.- I Co=vnl:1 y�i��fra �L MM me etr0l 7T Y710T Of WACO T1.1E G..a th'; CO di= CC)NISTtT1C VON LA5LMENT 251b 411t ltlfENaf, rATUL WA 9bltl THIS AGREEMENT is made this 2,aay of Se%mcber,1985 by and between 10nder- Care Learning Cxntcrs, Y>.s a Y?.laware Corpoeation (Rindcr.Carc), and Anton A Althoff` and Millie & Althoff, Imsband and wife (Allheeft). Background _Mnder -Care is pwthesing a parcel of ImA (ranter described as Uitbit "AW' In the Courvy of King, City of Renton, State of Washington from the AlthoWs Tn conawlion with IhoirpuW ace of the property, Ahhoff wisbss to grant and convoy a Construction tasetaetll to lCinder-Cam ender and acmes Althorfs property, mote paAicularly dc=bed u Wibit "B" attached h=jL7bP purpose orthe aaseirtont is to divert ine above gmand streaet to an undergroaadstormdrain culvert and to connect the newly created storm dram culvert with the eaustiag culvert on said pmatists. r BS CONSIDERATION of the rums or me dollar(Si.C)G) and other bargained for t+3 considemdon. w4 subject to the tans and considemCons set Earth below,Alrhorrhen by Slants Virtder-Case an casemtnt for the parposts and to the extent provided harem In (a 'iHEREFO€E. the parties Iowa as foltows. (1.) GrantorAltitotf bereby greats and conveys to Grantee TGndcr•Care, its successors and assigns, a perpetual easement, under and aceross the land of Grantor, mote particularly ' described as ExbAst "Cattichad hereto Z ) Grantee, Kinar-ram will beer the entire cast of constructing said storm drain culvert i and etmneetion wits cidsdnt culvert on easwnent a". ±rd will hold Grantor Althoff # harmless fawn any red %11 costs. expenses, elutms or demands relating to. ansing Crum or I out of the conswea...ttorsaadeasemcrsr I (3 ) The GrantorAhka f shall fully utt and enjoy the aforesaid pmrrtm, including die right to um the surface of said Constnrctionrsscutant if suet, use does not interfere with f Waliation and funedon of said storm drain calvart. However, the Gnomon Althoff shall notcrect buildings or permanmtt structures over, under or accross the easement arcs K) Thb Agraem=t shot[ be bbtdtag ispou and Tara with the land and strati rinmr so ilia limclit of pod be bhading upon the owners ticscrlbcd above their heirs, successors and assigns, aad personal reptrsentat6tL x IN WITNESS whereof, the parties have itereurta sct their hinds and seal th's " day of Scpttsnt W' 19B5. ANfON A. ALT HOFF KINDER Wo NTERS, WC by & ALTHOFF t.. O t 0 a Descrigtion: xfag,WA Doctanent-Year-Mcinth.Day. DoclD 1985.1113.1487 Page: I off Order. 1 Coutm en t: sT 1TL• or WASI'INGTON ) COUNTY OF 7[%.G ) On this _ day of September, IM, before Inc, tits endersigued, a 14olary Public in and for the State of Waslnngton, duly commissioned and sworn, personalty appeared ANTAN A AL111OFF to mo Icisnurn to be the individual describcd in and who aseemcd the foregoing instrument, and aa,aiowiodyed to me that he signed and sealed ttin said inssrnmmi. as his free and voluntary act and daW for tire- yhgs and purposes therein mentioned. M1 1 f Wh&o my hard and oft➢elat seal hcrc%o afrixed the day and )Gar rat, Written M Y', • Notary llu44 in and for the State — -. of Washington, residing at STATE OF WASHINGTON } 1 COUNTY OF KING ) LL_ On L%% 1-17 day of September, 1995. before me, the undersigned, a notary Nblie in anu f..: ti+C State of Washin,+too, duly commissioned and %worn, personally nppcired MILLIE f: NL%%%.,%% to me known to be the individual described in an who execot>`d 0e fo:egoLng ias:rurneat, and aclnowlildgcd w mz, %lilt slia siq' J and sealed the sold tnsirunmew as her free and %oluntary an and deed rat the uses and purposes thtrein meniionc-I WITNESS my hind and ofilcial seal 'iereto afrixed the day and year first above. wntian ^ o. as Notary pudic in and for the State or Waahiagton, residing at L.. ,.. .d r_ ySFI� I. r• , • w r Descrfptionr iCiagri>rA Document -rear, Month, Day.Doc2D 1985.1113.1487 Pager x of 6 order: 1 Comment. } o eR� i Or. dt's z_ day of A= 1985. before me, the undersisned, a Notary Public to and for the Ste of-W t duly cotamissioaed and sworn, personally appeared to me known to be the 4L A the eotparNlon which executed the Piregoing instrument, and acknowlefted the silid instrommit. to be tho free and voluntary :et and deed or said corporation, for the uses and purposes therrin tntatnionod, and on oath stilled that httelhe is authorised to execute the said instrument Wr.*N' _SS my hand and official seal ?ttrretO affixed the day and year first above written ZAI M • . +,: Notary Public in and for the State c of resldtng at Deaaripttan: J"ztg,AFA Document -Ycar.Mon0-Day,DocSD 1985.1113.1487 Pages 3 or 6 Order. I Comment, EXHIBIT " A" Legal daseripdon of prWerty being Purchased by Kinder•Care Lot 3 of City of ACnto71 shots Plat plumber 345.79, as recorded under recording number 19O9179008, records of Icing County. Washington Ira CD D85oript3on: Xing,prA Doextmeat-Xaax.Month.Day.DoaiD 1995,1113.1487 pager 4 of B drdez. 1 comment: AW Legal description of Althoff property Lot 2 of City of Renton short Plat Number 345-79, as recordcd under recording number 7908179009, records of King County. Washington. t7t7 �,IJ� f9 . 6J ry , 00 Description: V'UgeVA Daaummnt-rq&r.Month.Day.DocrD 1989,1113.1497 Pegs: S of 6 Orders 1 CommeIItt wilon etisment t 2 of City of Rental Shore 'ding no 7902179o08 Description: King,Fra Document -Year. Mon Oz. Day. Doc2D 1985_1213.1487 page: 6 of 6 Order. 1 Comakent: .t Tim covenants shall r n with the fiend end expire on Occembelr St. 2US. if at any time improvomants are installed pursuant to thew aauanants. the partton of the covenants pertains to 'ho speclflc installed lmprovsments as required by tlto Ordina+aes of the City of Renton sMIL tarmtnaie withaut necessity e.• further Odccumw*AttcrL N iP th 00 Any vb9atian or brewA of t1msB restrictive cove -rots may be enfereed by proper beget des In the Supedw Court of KIM Cmaty by either the City of Fwaam or any Party ovmm adjoining subject Property who ato adversely of Fatted by $a . breast+ STATE OF WASt-IIl1t MM } as., Caunty of ICM 3986 on this Z2day of 6"W before me permmaUy appeared the pel�Ca) who exeauLed the within and tr and aclalowi rftw "Id b"bun ant to be ties free and wohz tart' act and deed of said perm(s) for the uses and pimposes th@vWa nwwdomd. ,on IN wmT m wmEpmr. t have taeremao set my hand and afflxad aw afoul wd the day and }sac first abomm w=iLam Notary PLI.2 in state of wash gtrsre,reskruV at w Deacrlptlon: 8ing,WA Docament-fear.Month. Day. Doc1D 1986.206.815 page: 2 of 3 Order: 1 Comment: L4HIRIT "All %TO% AL7HOIF REULW R-Qq2-85) fi f . mwife_ -ORgI79DO t+ In Ow Smil -;at rni-A==of E=iem 3. MMMIbV -23. R9xen 5 ZM=. W.M.. MM CX= ir. WL-J 91=. a _ a } ` r o � wit Deacriptione &ny,NA Document -Year .Month - DRY- DaCYD 2996.206-8.15 page., 3 of 3 Order: 1 Comments ft V my D 4A C Rdum Ad&f!13: #"• w....-4.& s o..W.LMINGTnN STATE RECORDER'S Cover 5hert rarar s� i?pt'>lmefit '%tk(a} {oa: caatained >is±re:ia): tall � �ilaabRa m ,our a6ocameei mi_se':e ailed � a. Ref+ereme Nmmber(s) of Docmmeub assiped or rdesedr Additions[ mfesmm O's an pup _ of docmw= Gmtt S) (L==me Am theme EP same and irdriais) 3. C1Addo dOWL smrs a an page — of dov=eat. Gr2ntar(3) (Lm male f» d m lmu=c sad imaals) Mffluoaaf =m= as page _ of doc=euL Legatl description (ahh wriated: i.e. lot, bloc-. pLu or m=iam mwaship. range) ❑ + 49dorrrl legal is on page _,.-_ of docssmem Assessor's i'`roperq Tm-c PmmeMccount Number C1Assraaor Tu x trot let ass ped IV l be AudizarfRecotdet wig rely aaa tlsa inform anion pmvkled cm the form Tb* staff shill not reed the dac mal to vetify the ==ra 7 or comptemam of the 'Ladvewg u foasuatfou provided bereim Si S TATE L FA 0 Mda Lame Aar u i u mx& vMw*m"of Ammy ill, 3599', by and brtws= Auft A. mdMift 8 ("La"Off), and Daly=dNmoy Pock, no yutiq* Wft a fa vat PRUUW& ImAW, yin eandtkdfm of fhe kasa paymub ta Wm Lear, law to Tcam t Eat � oftbe of tlbartplat d 345-79, rnca�ad under �B Catmty orR raft MIKE t�omtnoNy nw tom Sum* �lavard, Renlou, WA. (tt T m�s"j l�aoattid a t sand Bnultvard, Re�on, e$tatt „____ram Tt XYL "flue km ttm►wM bq& oa l uuw 01,1997 and wM Umipnte anDecambw 31, 2006. HOMVM If ?ems makp3m pama im of rho Ptamnu for wy purW Aw%euvWumim of Ws Lmn ["Hokkw ftimn Tww ftV pay to TmOacd a low pry mt Ex do Mokkmw Perin$ bused om C"? Om tcxof" faiiowlog Low Pit psrspapL Sucb haldDm shall aawrduft a ma" to mom& a Reiss omis Eraser. LRAU PAYM MM Tetamt shmH pay to laa&ortl trmmhly paymcm of $25M OD per month, payable ,r4 is alwauoe am ibe &* day of emb month, fbr s total sumal lease p W=W of M000A. L w pa is CshaRbe- ma& to tta Ladkwd st�^!ark-,V u / 54Le �s ,E►wk. U MY be d=gW $t M time to tbW by twxUcxd LATE PAYMENT$. Teams al:#Il pay a We fm equal to 230% mf 1bc stop &M haler mart paymed for eaeb paytoaettt tbBtisw*pddwkft 15 dabs after the due dw fbr tatah b►te pgmmt. \, STCLMM DEPOSIT. Allb&*w of the taguing of lWa gym, Ttmmt shall pay fo 1&9& td, in tarn, it m dW &VoB t of $20,000.00. T andlcrd shall bald d a dapaa until tha tad err the term oftlue bares. A may biti ue e applkd to a final poyt1 man at �o imdorthe ]me teem or, if TwaW emcim ib optim to purdam clpmpe t .the will be applied to jhe wain pAm Page - l- ti!-. _......__,._._. 9701100543 rr SA I t rl f �€ arr � Ir rir 9701100543 , rr lit w e� >— "4 ir t � � �sa;FF lit �f43 FF ! ! 8S 6n65E6� 9701100543 I a a E e a qw• 1 9 70IL100543 ie a I� Z Printed: 03-26-2008 Payment Made Total Payment: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA08-028 03/2612008 01:13 PM 3,000.00 Current Payment Made to the Following Items: MVELOPMENT PLANNWO CrrY OF MEyYpy MAR 2 6 20M RECEIVED Receipt Number: R0801453 Payee: ADF PROPERTIES LLC Trans Account Code Description Amount 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 500.00 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval 2,000.00 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee 500.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check #20050 3,000.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000,00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee .00 5006 000.345.81,00.0002 Annexation Fees _00 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers .00 5008 000.345.81.00,0004 Binding Site/Short Plat .00 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees .00 5010 000.345.81.00,0007 Environmental Review _00 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat .00 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat .00 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD .00 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees .00 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment 00 5016 000.345.81,00.0013 Mobile Home Parks _00 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone .00 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt .00 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev .00 5020 000,345..81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval .00 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence .00 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees .00 5024 000.345.81,00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee 00 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend .00 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies .00 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) .00 5954 650.237,00.00.0000 Special Deposits .00 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage .00 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax .00 Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 HEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC. SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS RErti TON, WA e F—EY,PIRES Q(34/09 Prepared for: Dale Fonk Transportation and Civil Engineering ADF Properties, LLC 15007 Woodinville Redmond Rd #A Woodinville, WA 98072 April 2008 DEVELOPIMEW P CITY QP RE11tTp� 11dQ MAY - 2 2008 RECEIVED 2214 Tacoma Road • Puyallup, NVA 98371 • (253) 770-1401 • Fax (253) 770-1473 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction..................................................................................................................3 Il. Project Description.......................................................................................................3 III. Existing Conditions......................................................................................................3 IV. Future Traffic Conditions.............................................................................................9 V. Conclusions and Mitigation........................................................................................14 Appendix LIST OF TABLES 1. Existing Level of Service.............................................................................................S 2. Trip Generation............................................................................................................9 3. Future 2009 Level of Service.....................................................................................14 [1ht�►Yll�a►CeiiJ:7�iL9 1. Vicinity Map & Roadway System................................................................................4 2. Site Plan ........................................................................................................................5 3. Existing Peak Hour Volumes.......................................................................................7 4. Trip Distribution and Assignment .................... 5. 2010 Future PM Peak Volumes Without Project.......................................................12 6. 2010 Future PM Peak Volumes With Project............................................................13 2 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS I. INTRODUCTION This report summarizes traffic impacts related to the Sunset Boulevard Mixed Use building. The general goals of this impact study concentrate on 1) the assessment of existing roadway conditions and intersection congestion, 2) forecasts of newly generated project traffic, 3) estimations of future delay, and 4) recommendations for mitigation. Preliminary tasks include the detailed collection of roadway information, road improvement information, and peak hour traffic counts. A level of service analysis for existing traffic conditions is then made to determine the present degree of intersection congestion. Based on this analysis, forecasts of future trade levels on the surrounding street system are found. Following this forecast, the future service levels for the key intersections are investigated. As a final step, applicable conclusions and possible on -site or off -site mitigation measures are defined. The findings of this study are intended to ensure safe and efficient progression of vehicular/non-motorist traffic near the site. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a four story building consisting of 21 condominiums units, 1,500 square feet of specialty retail space, and a 712 square foot restaurant. The project site is located on the south side of NE Sunset Blvd between Union Avenue and Duvall Avenue. Other major nearby roadways which serve the area include NE Park Drive and SR-405. Site access is to be provided by two full accesses onto Sunset Boulevard. Most development surrounding the site is mixture of commercial and retail. Full buildout of the site will be by 2010 and for traffic purposes the study time frame is 2010. Figure 1 shows the site location and roadway network. The general configuration of the project is given in the site plan of Figure 2. III EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Surrounding Roadways The street network serving the proposed project consists of a several different types of roadways. Characteristics for these roadways vary with respect to lane widths, grades, speeds, and function. The major roadways and arterials surrounding the site are listed and described on page 6. 3 N 5UN5ET BOULEVARD MIXED USE HEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC Transportation and Civil Engineering 51TE PLAN FIGURE 2 NE Sunset Boulevard is a multi -lane arterial that generally runs east -west and borders the north edge of the site. Two lanes run in each direction and a center two-way left turn lane runs along the majority of the roadway with signals installed at major intersections. The posted speed limit in the vicinity of the site is 35 mph and road surfacing is composed of asphalt concrete. Shoulders are curb/gutter and sidewalk to accommodate pedestrian traffic. Grades are a combination of flat to rolling. Lane widths are 11 to 12 feet. Union Avenue NE is a north south, two-lane roadway which lies to the west of the site. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. Lane widths are generally 12 feet and surfacing is comprised of asphalt concrete. Grades are flat or rolling depending on the location. Shoulders are typically curb/gutter and sidewalk. Duvall Avenue NE is a north -south arterial lying east of the project. The posted speed limit varies from 35 to 40 mph. The surface of the road is asphalt concrete and lane widths are typically I2 feet. Bike lanes are provided for most of the road's length. Grades along this road are flat to rolling. Shoulders are curb/gutter and sidewalk along the roadway. B. Peak Hour Volumes Field data for this study was collected in June and August of 2007 at the adjacent intersections of Sunset Boulevard & Union Avenue and Sunset Boulevard & Duvall Avenue. Evening traffic counts were taken during the peak periods between the hours of 7 AM to 9 AM and 4 PM to 6 PM. These peak periods were targeted for analysis purposes since they generally represent the worst case scenario for commercial developments with respect to traffic conditions. This is primarily due to the common 8 AM to 5 PM work schedule. In addition to the natural peak in traffic due to commuting, a greater number of personal trips are made during the PM peak period. Most employees return to their dwellings at the same time of day which translates to a natural peak in intersection traffic loads, especially when combined with the relatively Iarge number of personal trips on the roadway system. Figure 3 shows the existing weekday AM and PM peak volumes at the key intersections. C. Level of Service Existing peak hour delays were determined through the use of the Highway Capacity Manual. Capacity analysis is used to determine level of service (LOS) which is an established measure of congestion for transportation facilities. LDS is defined for a variety of facilities including intersections, freeways, arterials, etc. A complete definition of level of service and related criteria can be found in the HCM. The methodology for determining the LDS at signalized intersections strives to determine the volume to capacity (v/c) ratios for the various intersection movements as well as the average stopped delay for those movements. Delay is generally used to measure the degree of driver 6 AM 240 J38 106 121 79\ 417-11� -+--369 71 �� ! Fo 169 311 112 / 153 25 44 S4 �82 AM 467--111- F-6ao 40' 165 86 155 153 76 SUNSET 60ULEVARD MIXED USE HEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC Transportation and Civil Engineering PM / 294 577 73 /2/97J 1 Lo� 5 11 437--* 4-520 109 �) f 36 265 63 SITE z w a Q discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost time. Stopped delay, in particular, is defined as the amount of time a vehicle, on average, spends not in motion at an intersection. Aside from the overall quantity of traffic, three specific factors influence signalized intersection LOS. These include the type of signal operation provided, the signal phasing pattern, and the specific allocation of green time. The methodology for determining the LOS at unsignalized intersections strives to determine the potential capacities for the various vehicle movements and ultimately determines the average total delay for each movement. Potential Capacity represents the number of additional vehicles that could effectively utilize a particular movement, which is essentially the equivalent of the difference between the movement capacity and the existing movement volume. Total delay is described as the elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line. Average total delay is simply the mean total delay over the entire stream. A number of factors influence potential capacity and total delay including the availability/usefulness of gaps. The range for intersection level of service is LOS A to LOS F with the former indicating low stopped delays and the latter indicating severe stopped delays. The results of the level of service analysis are given in Table 1 shown below. This analysis involved the HCS-2000 program which is based on the 2000 HCM. Refer to the HCM for calculation procedures for unsignalized intersections. TABLE 1 Existing Level of Service Delays given in Seconds Per vehicle AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Control Approach LOS Delay LOS Delay Sunset/Union Signal Southbound B 18.8 C 31.1 Westbound C 22.4 C 33.6 Northbound C 23.1 C 28.8 Eastbound B 18.4 C 32.5 Overall C 21.0 C 32.2 Sunset/Duvall Signal Southbound C 21.5 C 23.5 Westbound C 28.2 C 29.9 Northbound C 22.1 C 22.1 Eastbound C 29.3 C 27.6 Overall C 25.3 C 25.9 D. Non -Motorist Traffic Observations for pedestrian and bicycle activity were made along Sunset Boulevard, Union Avenue and Duvall Avenue during several field visits. Moderate pedestrian volumes were noted. Given the accommodations for non -motorist traffic through 8 sidewalks and bike lanes in area there are no traffic impacts expected due to non -motorist traffic. E. Transit Service The Metro Transit regional bus schedule indicates transit service is not available in the general area within walking distance of the Sunset Boulevard Mixed Use project. F. Sight Distance at Access Driveways The proposed site access driveways are to be located on Sunset Boulevard. An assessment of the driveway locations was made to establish whether sufficient entering sight distance can be provided. According to the AASHTO Green Book, a minimum entering sight distance of 390 feet would be required for a 35 mph design speed. From the project entrances, sight to either direction appears to be adequate. General verification of sight distance should be made at final review. IV FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS A. Trip Generation Trip generation is used to determine the magnitude of project impacts on the surrounding street system. Data presented in this report was taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineer's publication Trap Generation, Seventh Edition. The designated land uses for this project are defined as Residential Condominiums (LUC 230), Specialty Retail (LUC 814), and High Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant (LUC 932). Data for the 4 PM to 6 PM peak hour was used for future traffic estimations. Table 2 below shows the trip generation values used for this study. Included are the average weekday daily volumes and the AM and PM peak hour generation volumes for the project. TABLE 2 Trip Generation 21 condo units 1, 500 s.f. oj'specialty retail 712 s.f of restaurant Time Period Condos Retail Restaurant Total AWDT 170 66 91 327 vpd AM Peak Inbound 3 0 4 7 vph AM Peak Outbound 12 0 4 16 vph AM Peak Total 15 0 S 23 vph PM Peak Inbound 11 2 5 18 vph PM Peak Outbound 6 2 3 11 vph PM Peak Total 17 4 8 29 vph 7 The anticipated inbound and outbound split for the AM peak is estimated at roughly 29 percent entering and 71 percent exiting. A 62 percent entering and 38 percent exiting split is expected for the PM peak hour with trip generation slightly higher during the PM peak versus the AM peak. B. Distribution & Assignment The pattern by which project trips disperse on the roadway network is highly variable and largely depends on driver behavior and psychological factors. Based on this information, general estimations of traffic distribution are made to determine the impacts of a project on nearby arterials. Trips generated by the project are expected to follow the pattern shown in Figure 4 on the following page. Percentages are based generally on existing traffic patterns. C. Future Peak Hour Volumes The owners of the project anticipate a completion date for the build out of this project by 2010. As directed by the city of Renton, the proposed buildout year, 2010, was used as the horizon study year in order to assess future impacts. The PM peak hour was targeted for analysis since it has larger existing volumes and higher trip generation volumes. AM calculations are not needed because they do not represent the worst case scenario in terms of traffic congestion. Future 2010 traffic volumes without the project were derived by applying a 3 percent annual growth rate to the volumes of Figure 3. Future 2010 volumes with the project completed were found by adding the project generated volumes (trip assignment) of Figure 4 to the future 2010 volumes without project -related traffic. Shown on the following pages is the anticipated peak hour volumes for the primary intersections examined. Figure 5 represents 2010 traffic without the project (background growth, no project -generated trips). Figure 6 shows cumulative 2010 intersection volumes with project -generated trips added. 10 AM C 1 AM PM 0-00. .-.1 i -0 0-10. stop 4-0 3—. 4 8 10 z w 5 6 Q� z w 0 °u 35% o o II+ 'A 0j AM 0 0 a 0 0 0 I i / 0�, Lok- PM 6 ► 0 0 �s I i 5UN5ET 13OULEVARD MIXED U5E HEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC Transportation and Civil Engineering; 5% 115% 1 30% �d 51TE 5% )0% a 0 NEW AM PEAK HOURTRIP5 INBOUND: 7 VPH OUTBOUND: 16 VPI1 NEW PM PEAK HOUR TRIP5 INBOUND: I & VPH OUTBOUND: I I VPH TRIP DISTRIBUTION * A55IGNMENT FIGURE 4 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE HEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC 2010 PM PEAL: MOUR VOLUME5 WITHOUT PROJECT Transportation and Civil Engineering FIGURE 5 D. Level of Service A level of service analysis was next trade of the peak hour volumes with project trips applied. This analysis involved the use of the Signal-2000 and HCS-2000 programs which are based on specific intersection analysis procedures of the Highway Capacity Manual. Results for 2010 traffic conditions are given in Table 3. TABLE 3 2010 PM Level of Service Delays given in .seconds Per Vehicle Without Project With Project Intersection Control Approach LOS Delay LOS Delay Sunset/Union Signal Southbound C 33.3 C 33.3 Westbound D 35.8 D 35.9 Northbound C 30.1 C 30.2 Eastbound C 34.1 C 34.2 Overall C 34.1 C 34.2 Sunset/Duvall Signal Southbound C 26.4 C 26.6 Westbound C 33.9 C 34.5 Northbound C 23.4 C 23.7 Eastbound C 30.2 C 30.5 Overall C 28.7 C 29.0 Sunset/Entrance Stop Westbound LT - - B 10.7 (Combined) Northbound - - C 17.0 As shown above, moderate delays are expected under future conditions. increases in delays associated with project traffic are small. Note that the project accesses were combined which makes for a conservative analysis. V. CONCLUSIONS AND MITIGATION The Sunset Boulevard Mixed Use project is a proposed complex consisting of 21 units of condominiums, a 712 square foot restaurant, and 1,500 square feet of specialty retail space. According to published information by ITE, the project would generate up to 297 total trip movements into and out of the site on a daily basis. Of this total daily traffic, 21 movements should enter and exit the site during the AM peals hour. Approximately 26 inbound and outbound trips are anticipated during the critical PM peak hour. All site generated trips would be considered destination -based with no pass -by trips expected. The local intersections most impacted by project traffic, Sunset Boulevard & Union Avenue and Sunset Boulevard & Duvall Avenue are expected to operate at LOS C with project traffic included. The project entrances were combined for analysis to stay on the 14 conservative side. Calculations show that the project entrances will operate at LOS B and LOS C. No off -site mitigation measures are needed to serve the additional project traffic. The following mitigation measure is therefore proposed: 1. Construct frontage improvements as required by city of Renton ordinances. 15 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX 16 LEVEL OF SERVICE The following are excerpts from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual - Transportation Research Board Special Report 209, Quality of service requires quantitative measures to characterize operational conditions within a traffic stream. Level of service (LOS) is a quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. Six LOS are defined for each type of facility that has analysis procedures available. Letters designate each level, from A to F. with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. Each level of service represents a range of operating conditions and the driver's perception of those conditions. Level -of -Service definitions The following definitions generally define the various levels of service for arterials. Level of service A represents primarily free -flow operations at average travel speeds, usually about 90 percent of the free -flow speed for the arterial classification. Vehicles are seldom impeded in their ability to maneuver in the traffic stream. Delay at signalized intersections is minimal. Level of service B represents reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel speeds, usually about 70 percent of the free -flow speed for the arterial classification. The ability to maneuver in the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and delays are not bothersome. Level of service C represents stable operations; however, ability to maneuver and change lanes in midblock locations may be more restricted than in LOS B, and longer queues, adverse signal coordination, or both may contribute to lower average travel speeds of about 50 percent of the average free -flow speed for the arterial classification. Level of service D borders on a range in which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in approach delay and hence decreases in arterial speed. LOS D may be due to adverse signal progression, inappropriate signal timing, high volumes, or some combination of these. Average travel speeds are about 40 percent of free -flow speed. Level of service E is characterized by significant delays and average travel speeds of one- third the free -flow speed or less. Such operations are caused by some combination of adverse progression, high signal density, high volumes, extensive delays at critical intersections, and inappropriate signal timing. 17 Level of service F characterizes arterial flow at extremely low speeds, from less than one- third to one -quarter of the free -flow speed. Intersection congestion is likely at critical signalized locations, with long delays and extensive queuing. These definitions are general and conceptual in nature, and they apply primarily to uninterrupted flow. Levels of service for interrupted flow facilities vary widely in terms of both the user's perception of service quality and the operational variables used to describe them. For each type of facility, levels of service are defined based on one or more operational parameters that best describe operating quality for the subject facility type. While the concept of level of service attempts to address a wide range of operating conditions, limitations on data collection and availability make it impractical to treat the full range of operational parameters for every type of facility. The parameters selected to define levels of service for each facility type are called "measures of effectiveness" or "MOE's", and represent available measures that best describe the quality of operation on the subject facility type. Each level of service represents a range of conditions, as defined by a range in the parameters given. Thus, a level of service is not a discrete condition, but rather a range of conditions for which boundaries are established. The following tables describe levels of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of ave_ rgge control delay. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time, as well as time from movements at slower speeds and stops on intersection approaches as vehicles move up in queue position or slow down upstream of an intersection. Level of service for unsignalized intersections is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is determined for each minor movement. Signalized Intersections - Level of Service Control Delay per Level of Service Vehicle (sect A :510 B > 10 and 520 C > 20 and 535 D > 35 and 5 55 E > 55 and 580 F > 80 18 Unsignalized Intersections - Level of Service Level of Service A B C D E F Average Total Delay per Vehicle (sec) s10 >10and <15 >15and 525 > 25 and 535 > 35 and :5 50 > 50 As described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, level of service breakpoints for all - way stop controlled (AWSC) intersections are somewhat different than the criteria used for signalized intersections. The primary reason for this difference is that drivers expect different levels of performance from distinct kinds of transportation facilities. The expectation is that a signalized intersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes than an AWSC intersection. Thus a higher level of control delay is acceptable at a signalized intersection for the same level of service. AWSC Intersections - Level of Service Level of Service A B C D E F 19 Average Total Delay per Vehicle (sect s10 > 10 ands 15 >15and s25 > 25 and 535 > 35 and :550 > 50 Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 21 Dwelling Units of Residential Condominium / Townhouse August 30, 2007 Averaae Rate Standard Deviation Adjustment Factor Driveway Volume Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 8.11 0.00 1.00 170 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.12 0.00 1.00 3 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.59 0.00 1.00 12 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.71 0.00 1.00 15 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.53 0.00 1.00 11 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.26 0.00 1.00 6 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 0.80 0.00 1.00 17 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.12 0.00 1.00 3 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.56 0.00 1.00 12 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 0.69 0.00 1.00 14 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 1.39 0.00 1.00 29 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.78 C.00 1.00 16 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 2.16 C.00 1.00 45 Saturday 2-Way Volume 24.00 C.00 1.00 504 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 1.25 0.00 1.00 26 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 1.07 0.00 1.00 22 Saturday Peak Hour Total 2.32 0.00 1.00 49 Sunday 2--Way Volume 20.14 0.00 1.00 423 Sunday Peak Hour Enter 1.28 0.00 1.00 27 Sunday Peak Hour Exit 1.33 0.00 1.00 28 Sunday Peak Hour Total 2.61 0.00 1.00 55 Note: A zero indicates no data availab]e. The above rates were calculated -from these equations: 24-Hr. 2-Way Volume: LN(T) _ .85LN(X) + 2.55, R^2 = 0.83 7-9 AM Peak Hr. Total: LN(T) = + .26 R^2 = 0.%6 0.17 Enter, 0.83 Exit 4--6 PM Peak Hr. Total: LN(T) _ .82LN(X) + .32 R^2 = 0.8 , 0.67 Enter, 0.33 Exit AM Gen Pk Hr. Total: LN(T) = .82LN(X) + .17 R^2 = 0.8 0.18 Enter, 0.82 Exit PM Gen Pk Hr. Total: T - .34(X) + 38.31 R^2 = 0.83 0.64 Enter, 0.36 Exit Sat. 2-Way Volume: T = 3.62(X) + 427.93, R^2 = 0.84 Sat. Pk Hr. Total: T = .29(X) + 42.63 R^2 = 0.84 , C.54 Enter, 0.46 Exit Sun. 2-Way Volume: T = 3.13(X) + 357.26, R^2 = 0.88 Sun. Pk Hr. Total: T = .23(X) + 50.01 R^2 = 0.78 , 0.49 Enter, 0.51 Exit Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. TRIP GENERATION BY MICPOTRANS Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 1.5 T.G.L.A. of Specialty Retail Center April 28, 2008 Average Rate Standard Deviation Adjustment Factor Driveway Volume Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 44.32 15.52 1.00 66 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 1.19 3.00 1.00 2 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 1.52 0.00 1.00 2 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 2.71 1.83 1.00 4 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 3.28 0.00 1.00 5 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 3.5F 0.00 1.00 5 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 6.64 3.55 1.00 10 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 2.81 0.00 1.00 4 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 2.21 0.00 1.00 3 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 5.02 2.31 1.00 8 Saturday 2-Way Volume 42.04 13.97 1.00 63 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.0C 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.01� 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday 2-Way Volume 20.43 +.0.27 1.00 31. Sunday Peak Hour Enter O.CO 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday Peak Hour Exit O.U� 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday Peak Hour Total O.U) 0.00 1.00 0 Note: A zero indicates no data vailable. Source: Institute of Transportati n Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edit -on, 2003. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For .712 Th.Gr.Sq.Ft. of High 'Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant April 28, 2008 Average RaLe S:=andard Deviation Adjustment Factor Driveway Volume Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 127.15 `1.77 1.00 91 7-9 AM Peak dour Enter 5.99 0.00 1.00 4 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 5.1--3 0.00 1.00 4 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 11.52. 6.75 1.00 8 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 6.66 0.00 1.00 5 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 4.26 0.00 1.00 3 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 10.92 9.39 1.00 8 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 7.04 0.00 1.00 5 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 6.49 0.00 1.00 5 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 13.53 10.05 1.00 10 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 10.34 0.00 1.00 7 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 8.4E :.00 1.00 6 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 18.80 13.82 1.00 13 Saturday 2-Way Volume 158.3? 0.00 1.00 113 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 12.60 0.00 1.00 9 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 7.41 0.00 1.00 5 Saturday Peak Hour Total 20.0C 16.54 1.00 14 Sunday 2-Way Volume 131.84 0.00 1.00 94 Sunday Peak Hour Enter 10.15 0.00 1.00 7 Sunday Peak Hour Exit 8.:?1 0.00 1.00 6 Sunday Peak Hour Total 18.4r 13.74 1.00 13 Note: A zero indicates no data ,ailaLie. Source: institute of Transportat-:on Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. TRIP GENERATION BY P�]=CRCTRANS Heath & Associates, Inc. 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup, WA 98371 (',miina Prinfarl_ I-miin 1 File Name : untitled3 Site Code : 00002882 Start Date : 8114/2007 Page No : 1 UNION AVE NE SUNSET BLVD NE UNION AVE NE SUNSET BE -VD NE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right I Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Ri ht Thru Left Int. Total Factor 1,01 1.0 1.0 1.01 1.0 1 A 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 07:00 AM 33 5 4 11 179 1 33 36 7 3 127 17 456 07:15 AM 32 4 12 15 194 8 20 29 5 6 111 19 455 07:30 AM 46 5 13 24 134 7 25 40 12 4 124 16 450 07:45 AM 41 2 14 22 197 13 17 41 13 4 116 22 502 Total 152 16 43 72 704 291 95 146 371 17 478 74 1863 08:00 AM 34 14 5 21 155 08:15 AM 25 15 8 25 146 08:30 AM 28 15 10 19 122 08:45 AM 34 13 10 13 122 Total 121 57 33 78 545 Grand Total 273 73 76 150 124.9 Apprch % 643 17.3 18.0 10.2 84.6 Total % 7.6 2.0 2.1 4.2 34.6 10 24 55 10 4 116 23 9 18 34 10 4 121 20 12 30 19 7 2 135 27 17 20 22 14 5 118 23 48 92 130 41 15 490 93 77 187 276 78 32 968 167 5.2 34.6 51.0 14.4 2.7 82.9 14.3 2.1 5.2 7.7 2.2 0.9 26.8 4.6 UNION AVE: NI -- Out In Total 593 422 1015 273 73 75 Righl Thru Left 4- L+ N Irth 8/1412007 7:00:00 AM /14/2007 6:45:00 AM Group 1 4� T F+ Left Thru Right 78 2761 187 1821 541 723 Oul In Total UNION AVL NF __ _ 471 435 426 411 1743 3606 Heath & Associates, Inc. 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup, WA 98371 File Name : untitled3 Site Code : 00002882 Start Date : 8/14/2007 Page No : 2 UNION AVE NE Southbound SUNSET BLVD NE Westbound UNION AVE NE Northbound SUNSET BLVD NE Eastbound Start Time flight Thru Left ��- Right Thru Left , Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left To al 1 - 1 IV Vi 1 I VI11 V! . - 1 Qi Intersection 07:15 AM Volume 153 25 44 222 Percent 68.9 11.3 19.8 07,45 41 2 14 57 Volume Peak Factor High Int. 07:30 AM Volume 46 5 13 64 Peak Factor 0.867 f\ 1 VI 1 82 680 38 800 10,3 85.0 4,8 22 197 13 232 07:45 AM 22 197 13 232 0.862 86 165 40 291 29.6 56.7 13.7 17 41 13 71 08:00 AM 24 55 10 89 0.817 UNIONAVENE --- Out In TOW 327! 222 549 1531 Right 251 44 Thru LEM 1 4 I + North 11412007 7,15:00 AM /14/2007 8:0a:00 AM Group 1 41--� T F+ Left Th�R'40 1 81 372 291 Ow UNION In AVE Total NF 18 467 80 565 3.2 82.7 14.2 4 116 22 142 07:30 AM 4 124 16 144 0.981 Int. Total 1878 502 0.935 Heath & Associates, Inc. 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup, WA 98371 Grouns Printed- Unshifted File Name : untitled3 Site Code : 00002882 Stark Date : 8/29/2007 Page No : 1 UNION AVE NE SUNSET BLVD NE UNION AVE NE SUNSET BLVD NE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound start Time Ri ht Thru Left Ri ht Thru ✓ eft Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Int. Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.01 1,01 1.0 04:00 PM 44 17 15 15 186 36 38 21 6 15 201 41 635 04:15 PM 36 34 14 18 192 39 38 25 17 10 195 46 664 04:30 PM 46 41 18 12 143 39 42 20 16 15 188 45 625 04:45 PM 35 37 22 17 187 46 42 28 24 12 167 48 665 Total 161 129 69 62 708 160 160 94 63 52 751 1801 2589 05:00 PM 42 41 22 16 200 44 28 21 15 22 160 46 677 05:15 PM 38 30 27 14 175 40 30 12 15 11 178 49 619 05:30 PM 33 27 15 15 206 41 32 28 19 6 178 40 640 05:45 PM 36 14 20 17 210 40 34 21 25 11 207 39 674 Total 149 112 84 62 791 1651 124 82 74 50 743 174 2610 Grand Total 310 241 153 124 1499 325 284 176 137 102 1494 354 5199 Apprch % 44.0 34.2 21.7 6.4 7T 16.7 47.6 29.5 22.9 5.2 76.6 18.2 Total % 6.0 4.6 2.9 2.4 28.8 6.3 5.5 3.4 2.6 2.0 28.7 6.8 IN ON AVE NE out In Tafal 6541 704 135a 310 241153 Right Thru Left I OM v ? imaS North 3 a 0 L ° v�/2912007 4:00:00 PM— m 5 JE 8/2912007 5'45:00 PM ra � Unshifted v Iv �D I r+ Left Thru Ri ht 137 176 284 668�59;1265 Out In Total Heath & Associates, Inc. 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup, WA 98371 File Name : untitled3 Site Code : 00002882 Start Date : 8/29/2007 Page No : 2 UNION AVE NE Southbound SUNSET-8LVD NE Westbound UNION AVE NE Northbound SUNSET BLVD NE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Ta a� Right Thru Left off. r can 1 Wvr rlvlll VM.vV rlTr tv VJ.Y:J rryf - rc< Intersection 04:15 PM Volume 159 153 76 388 Percent 41.0 39.4 19.6 05:00 42 41 22 105 Volume Peak Factor High Int. 04:30 PM Volume 46 41 18 105 Peak Factor 0.924 IA 1 yr 1 63 722 168 953 6.6 75.8 17.6 16 200 44 260 05:00 PM 16 200 44 260 0.916 150 94 72 316 47.5 29.7 22.8 28 21 15 64 04:45 PM 42 28 24 94 0.840 59 730 185 974 6.1 74.9 19.0 22 180 46 248 04:15 PM 10 195 46 251 0.970 UNION AVE NE put In ToW 342 388 159 1531 76 Right Thru Left I I S� c m t l2412007 4:15:00 PM -4 m ~ l2912007 5:00:00 PM nr'i m_ O� Unshift Irn i �` o co — f I 4^ T F+ i Left Thru RI ht 72 94 150 380 318 696 Out In TOW Int. Total 2631 677 0.972 Heath & Associates, Inc. 2214 Tacoma Roast Puyallup, WA 98371 1',rni ins arin}eri_ r rn- , 9 File Name : 2882b Site Code : 00002882 Start Date : 6/20/2007 Page No : 1 DUVALL AVE NE SUNSET BLVD NE DUVALL AVE NE SUNSET BLVD NE Southbound Westbound_ Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left R' hi Thru Left Right Thru Left Ri ht Thru Left Int. Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 i.0 1'0 0710 AM 62 28 48 14 101 9 23 82 31 12 131 26 567 07:15 AM 48 39 26 16 89 14 37 91 56 15 113 33 579 07:30 AM 61 40 20 28 67 21 22 81 43 8 98 21 510 07:45 AM 69 31 101 21 112 27 30 57 39 21 75 41 533 Total 240 138 1061 79 369 71 112 311 169 56 417 121 2189 08:00 AM 55 31 22 21 87 12 12 71 37 11 88 45 492 08:15 AM 51 36 14 17 60 11 20 77 37 13 86 52 474 08:30 AM 37 35 7 28 92 24 18 83 36 17 70 60 507 08:45 AM 56 37 15 31 73 22 18 87 44 16 55 49 503 Total 199 139 58 97 312 69 68 318 154 57 299 206 1976 Grand Total 439 277 164 176 681 140 180 629 3231 113 716 3271 4165 Apprch % 49.9 31.5 18.6 17.7 68.3 14.0 15.9 55.6 28.5 9.8 61.9 28.3 Total % 10.5 6.7 3.9 4.2 16.4 3.4 4.3 15.1 7.8 , 2.7 17.2 7.9 AVE NE Oul In Total 1132 1380 2412 439 277 164 Right Thru Left i I m � ' N r. 0 a a N � C " a North m cs c" m=-► 12012007 7:00:00 M a en g ~ l2012007 8:45:00 AMEO a v o 4� L !Group 1 con Left Thru Right 323 629 180 530 1132 1662 Qut In Total Heath & Associates, Inc. 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup, WA 98371 File Name : 2882b Site Code : 00002882 Start Date : 6/2012007 Page No : 2 DUVALL AVE NE SUNSET BLVD NE DUVALL AVE NE SUNSET BLVD NE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Starttime Right Thru Left Tota! Right Thru Left Iota! Right Thru Left APP' Right Thu Left APP Int. Total Total Total Peak Hour From 07:00 AM to 08-45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 07:00 AM Volume 240 138 106 484 Peroent 49.6 28.5 21.9 07-15 Volume 48 39 28 115 Peak Factor High Int. 07:00 AM Volume 62 28 48 138 Peak Factor 0.877 79 369 71 519 15.2 71.1 13.7 16 89 14 119 07:45 AM 21 112 27 160 0.811 112 311 169 592 18.9 52.6 28.5 37 91 56 184 07:15 AM 37 91 56 184 0.804 56 417 121 594 9.4 70.2 20.4 15 113 33 161 07:00 AM 12 131 26 169 0.879 DUVALL AVF- NE Out In Total 511 484 995 240 138 106 Right Thru LO 4-J O ~ r r North � V g a t 15l2D/2007 7:00:00 qM 4---- m j 8120/2007 7:45:00 AM �n a' Grou 1 s A F+ Left Thru Rohl 169 3111 112 { 285F 592 857 Out In Total 2189 579 0.945 Heath & Associates, Inc. 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup, WA 98371 r-rmine Prinle'1_ f'-- 7 File Name : untitled3 Site Code : 00002882 Start Date : 6/19/2007 Page No : 1 DUVALL AVE NE SUNSET BLVD NE DUVALL AVE NE SUNSET BLVD NE Souhbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Lest Ri ht Thru Left Ri ht Thru Left Int. Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1'0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 04:00 PM 67 141 17 14 725 33 13 57 28 42 90 65 692 04:15 PM 56 131 16 13 109 32 8 60 18 24 109 74 650 04.30 PM 58 143 22 18 101 17 17 57 25 28 98 69 653 04:45 PM 71 155 18 9 95 34 8 63 33 26 106 65 683 Total 252 570 731 54 430 116 46 237 104 120 403 273 2678 05:00 PM 60 138 05:15 PM 63 148 05:30 PM 83 144 Grand Total 546 1147 Apprch % 29.7 62.4 Total % 9.7 20.4 15 13 128 31 11 fit 26 27 110 77 698 33 13 123 24 13 53 39 34 110 75 728 10 14 133 32 21 78 38 25 105 71 754 15 11 136 36 18 72 33 23 112 74 765 73 51 520 123 63 265 136 109 437 297 2945 146 105 950 239 109 502 240 229 840 570 5623 7.9 8.1 73.4 18.5 12.8 59.0 28.2 14.0 51.3 34.8 2.6 1.9 16.9 4.3 1.9 8.9 4.3 4.1 14.9 10.1 DUVALL AVE NE OkA In Total 1177 1839 3016 546 1147 146 Right Thru Left f I N N North 7 O c -� 6/19/2007 4:0000 PM I /1912007 5:45:00 PM of i�dZ00 Group 1 ME P 'i T r Left Thru M M 240T 502 109 1615 851 F 2466 OLA In Total Heath & Associates, Inc. 2214 Tacoma Road Puyallup, WA 98371 File Name : untitled3 Site Code : 00002882 Start Date : 6/19/2007 Page No : 2 DUVALL AVE NE Southbound SUNSET BLVD NE Westbound DUVALL AVE NE Northbound SUNSET BLVD NE Eastbound Start Time Right Thru I Left App' Total Right Tttru Left App Total Right Thru Left 'gyp' Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 05:00 PM Volume 294 577 73 944 Percent 31.1 61.1 7.7 05:45 88 147 15 250 Volume Peak Factor High Int. 05:45 PM Volume 86 147 15 250 Peak Factor 0.944 51 520 123 694 63 265 136 464 7.3 74.9 17.7 13.6 57.1 29.3 11 136 36 183 18 72 33 123 05:45 PM 05:30 PM 11 136 36 1831 21 78 38 137 0.948 0.847 109 437 297 843 2945 12.9 51.8 35.2 23 112 74 209 765 0.962 05:15 PM 34 110 75 219 0.962 DUVAIL AVE NE Out In Total 613 944 1557 : 294�57-773 Right Thru Left � 4J1 y ~ I in M + �� !� mra N J NOft1i � N �7 v EIX �--# 311912007 5:00= PM v, 119/2007 5:45:11D PM L a o Sit Group 1 __% to w n�IlI� V Im 4-i T Ff Leh Thru Ri ht 136 265 63 809 464 1273 Out In Total SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BLVD & UNION AVENUE NE EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - HCM Input Worksheet Intersection # 1 - I I II 153 1 25 1 44 II 0.0 112.0 1 12.0 II 0 1 1 1 1 II I I !1 / I � 80 12.0 1 / ------------------- 467 24.0 2 -- ------------------- 18 --------------------- 0.0 0 I I Heavy veh, %HV Pk-hr fact, PHF Pretimed or Act Strtup lost, 11 Ext eff grn, e Arrival typ, AT --------------- Pad vol, vped Bike vol, vbic Parking locatns Park mnvrs, Nm Bus stops, NB Grade, %G 1 � 09/04/07 08:39:29 Area Location Type: NONCBD Key: VOLUMES -- > I I WIDTHS I v LANES --------------------- 82 0.0 0 -------------------- -- 680 24.0 2 ------------------- / 38 12.0 1 II I I II 40 1 165 1 II 12.0 1 12.0 1 fl 1 I 1 I II I I SB RT TH LT .0 .0 .0 .87 .87 .87 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 -------------- 3 3 0 NO 0 0 .0 / -------------- I 86 I Phasing: 0.0 1 0 I I WB RT TH LT .5 .5 .5 .86 .86 .86 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 -------------- 3 3 0 NO 0 0 .0 NB RT TH LT .0 .0 .0 .82 .82 .82 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 3 3 -------------- 0 NO 0 0 .0 I I North I SEQUENCE 44 PERMSV Y N Y N OVERLP N N N N LEADLAG LD LG EB RT TH LT .5 .5 .5 .98 .98 .98 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 -------------- 3 3 0 NO 0 0 .0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sq 44 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1 Phase 5 1 Phase 6 1 **/LG--------------------------------------------------------------------------- I * 1+++ 1 I I I I * 1+++ 1 **** 1 I I /11 I *> 1<+ + +> I <****1 I I I I I I v I 1 ****I I I 1 I I I I++++ v I I I North 1 <+ 1 <+ **>I++++> I I I I I I + I +** I++++ I I I I Im + ! + * * I v Im I I I ------------------------------------------------------------------------- C= 60"1 G= 5.0" 1 G- 14.8" 1 G= 19.2" 1 G= 5.0" 1 G= 0.0" 1 G= 0.0" 1 I Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 0.0" 1 Y+R= 0.0" 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BLVD & UNION AVENUE NE EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07) - HCM Volume Adjust & Satflow Worksheet Volume Adjustment Volume, V Pk-hr fact, PHF Adj my flow, vp --------------- Lane group, LG Adj LG flow, v Prop LT, PLT Prop RT, PRT --------------- Saturation Flow Rate Base satflo, so Number lanes, N Lane width, fW Heavy veh, fHV Grade, fg Parking, fp Bus block, fbb Area type, fa Lane util, fLU Left -turn, fLT Right -turn, fRT PedBike LT,fLpb PedBike RT,fRpb Local adjustmnt Adj satflow, s Prot LT fLT Prot LT Satflo SB RT TH LT 153 25 44 .87 .87 .87 176 29 51 -------------- RT+TH LT 205 51 .000 1.00 -------------- .859 .000 SB RT TH LT 1900 1900 1 1 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 .291 .871 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1655 553 .000 .950 0 1805 WB RT TH LT 82 680 38 .86 .86 .86 95 791 44 RT+TH LT 886 44 .000 1.00 .107 .000 -------------- WB RT TH LT 1900 1900 2 1 1.000 1.00 .995 .995 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 .952 1.00 1.000 .950 .984 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 3542 1796 NB RT TH LT 86 165 40 .82 .82 .82 105 -------------- 201 49 RT+TH LT 306 49 .000 1.00 -------------- .343 .000 NB RT TH LT 1900 1900 1 1 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 .435 .949 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1802 826 .000 .950 0 1805 09/04/07 08:39:29 EB RT TH LT 18 467 80 .98 .98 .98 18 -------------- 477 82 RT+TH LT 495 82 .000 1.00 -------------- .036 .000 EB RT TH LT 1900 1900 2 1 1.000 1.00 .995 .995 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 .952 1.00 1.000 .950 .995 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 3580 1796 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BLVD & UNION AVENUE NE EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - HCM Capacity and LOS Worksheet Capacity SB Analysis RT TH LT Lane group, LG RT+TH LT Adj Flow, v 205 51 Satflow, s 1655 1805 Lost time, tL 4.0 4.0 Effect green, g 14.8 5.0 Grn ratio, g/C .247 .083 LG capacity, c 408 150 v/c ratio, X .502 .340 Flow ratio, v/s .124 .028 Crit lane group --------------- ---_----__---- Permitted Phase of Compound LTs Adj Flow, v 0 Satflow, s 553 Lost time, tL .0 Effect green, g 18.8 Grn ratio, g/C .313 LG capacity, c 173 v/c ratio, X .000 Flow ratio, v/s .000 Crit lane group Sum crit v/s,Yc 0.494 Crit v/c, Xc .673 Delay and LOS Lane group, LG Adj Flow, v LG capacity, c V/c ratio, X Grn ratio, g/C Unif delay, dl Incr calib, k Incr delay, d2 Queue Delay, d3 Unif delay, dl* Prog factor, PF Contrl delay, d Lane group LOS Final Queue,Qbi --------------- Appr delay, dA Approach LOS Appr flow, vA --------------- Intersection: SB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 205 51 408 323 .502 .158 .247 .397 19.4 12.0 .11 .11 1.0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 20.4 12.2 C+ B+ 0 0 -------------- 18.8 B 256 Delay 21.0 WE RT TH LT RT+TH LT 886 44 3542 1796 4.0 4.0 19.2 5.0 .320 .083 1133 150 .782 .293 .250 .024 * NB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 306 49 1802 1805 4.0 4.0 14.8 5.0 .247 .083 445 150 .688 .327 .170 .027 * Total lost, L 16.0 WB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 886 44 1133 150 .782 .293 .320 .083 18.5 25.8 .33 .11 3.6 1.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 22.1 26.9 C+ C+ 0 0 22.4 C+ 930 LOS C+ 0 826 .0 18.8 .313 259 .000 .000 NB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 306 49 445 409 .688 .120 .247 .397 20.5 11.5 .26 .11 4.4 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 24.9 11.7 C+ B+ 0 0 -------------- 23.1 C+ 355 -------------- 09/04/07 08:39:29 EB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 495 82 3580 1796 4.0 4.0 19.2 5.0 .320 .083 1146 150 .432 .547 .138 .046 * EB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 495 82 1146 150 .432 .547 .320 .083 16.1 26.4 .11 .15 .3 4.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 16.4 30.6 B C 0 0 -------------- 18.4 B 577 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BLVD & UNION AVENUE NE EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - Evaluation of Intersection Performance Intersection # 1 - ------------------------------------------------- Sq 44 I Phase 1 I Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1 **/LG ------------------------------------------------- * I + + + I ^ I I /I1 I *> I<+ + +> I <****I I I I I v I I ****I I I I I I++++ v 1 North I <+ I <+ * *>I++++> I I I I + I +** I++++ I I Im + I + * * I v Im I ------------------------------------------------- I G/C=0.083 I G/C=0.247 I G/C=0.320 I G/C=0.083 I I G= 5.0" 1 G= 14.8" I G= 19.2" I G= 5.0" 1 I Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R 4.0" 1 I Off= 0.0% 1 Off=15.0% I Off=46.3% I Off=85.0% I -------------------------------------------------- C= 60 sec G= 44.0 sec = 73.3% Y=16.0 sec = 26.7% MVMT TOTALS Param:Units AdjVol: vph Wid/Ln:ft/# g/C Rqd@C:% g/C Used: % SV @E: vph Svc Lvl:LOS Deg Sat:v/c HCM Del:s/v Tot Del:min # Stops:veh Queue l:veh Queue 1: ft 09/04/07 08:39:29 Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% SB Approach WB Approach NB Approach EB Approach Int RT TH IT RT TH IT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total 176 29 51 95 791 44 105 201 49 18 477 82 2118 0/0 12/1 12/1 0/0 24/2 12/1 0/0 12/1 12/1 0/0 24/2 12/1 0 16 0 0 27 5 0 21 0 0 16 7 0 25 8 0 32 8 0 25 8 0 32 8 0 408 323 0 1133 140 0 445 409 0 1146 140 4144 C+ B+ C+ C+ C+ B+ B C C+ 0.00 0.50 0.16 0.00 0.78 0.29 0.00 0.69 0.12 0.00 0.43 0.55 0.61 0.0 20.4 12.2 0.0 22.1 26.9 0.0 24.9 11.7 0.0 26.4 30.6 21.0 0 17 3 0 82 5 0 32 2 0 34 10 185 0 44 8 0 201 10 0 69 8 0 98 20 458 0 6 1 0 14 1 0 9 1 0 6 3 14 0 142 27 0 348 34 0 227 25 0 162 67 348 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE 09/04/07 NE SUNSET BLVD & UNION AVENUE NE 08:39:29 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.071 - Evaluation of Intersection Performance APPR TOTALS Int Param:Units SB Approach WB Approach NB Approach EB Approach Total AdjVol: vph ----------- 256 -------------- 930 -------------- 355 577 2118 Svc Lv1:LOS B C+ -------------- C+ -------------- B ----- C+ Deg Sat:v/c 0.43 0.76 0.61 0.45 0.61 HCM Del:s/v 18.8 22.4 23.1 10.4 21.0 Tot Del:min 20 87 34 44 185 # Stops:veh ----------- 52 -------------- 211 -------------- 77 118 458 Queue 1:veh 6 14 --------------- 9 -------------- 6 ----- 14 Queue 1: ft 142 348 227 162 348 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BLVD & UNION AVENUE NE EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - HCM Input Worksheet Intersection # 1 - I I 11 159 I 153 I 76 II 0.0 1 12.0 1 12.0 II 0 1 1 1 1 II I I II / I 185 12.0 1 / ------------------- 730 24.0 2 -- ------------------- 59 --------------------- 0.0 0 I I N 1 I 09/04/07 08:57:53 Area Location Type: NONCBD I Key: VOLUMES -- > I I WIDTHS I v LANES ---------------------- 63 0.0 0 -- ------------------- 722 24.0 2 / ------------------- 168 12.0 1 II I ! I I 72 I 94 f II 12.0 112.0 ] !I 1 I 1 I it I I / -------------- I ISO I Phasing: 0.0 I 0 I I /Ir 1 North I SEQUENCE 44 PERMSV Y N Y N OVERLP N N N N LEADLAG LD LG SB WB NB EB RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Heavy veh, %HV .0 .0 .0 .5 .5 .5 .0 .0 .0 5 5 5 Pk-hr fact, PHF .94 .94 .94 .92 .92 .92 .84 .84 .84 .97 .97 .97 Pretimed or Act A A A A A A A A A A A A Strtup lost, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext eff grn, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival typ, AT --------------- 3 -------------- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Ped vol, vped 0 -------------- 0 --------------- 0 -------------- 0 Bike vol, vbic 0 0 0 0 Parking locatns NO NO NO NO Park mnvrs, Nm 0 0 0 0 Bus stops, NB 0 0 0 0 Grade, %G .0 .0 .0 .0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sq 44 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1 Phase 5 1 Phase 6 1 **/LG ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I * I**+ I * I**+ ! ****I I I I /I1 I *> 1<* * +> I <****I f I I I I I v I I ++++1 I I I I I I I**** v I I I North 1 <+ { <+ ++>1++++> I I I I ! + 1 + + + {++++ I { I I Im + I +++ I v f I I I ------------------------------------------------------------------------- C= 90"1 G= 5.0" 1 G= 24.5" 1 G= 26.9" 1 G= 17.6" ! G= 0.0" 1 G= 0.0" 1 I Y+R= 4.0" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 0.0" 1 Y+R= 0.0" I SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BLVD & UNION AVENUE NE EXISTING PM PEAR HOUR VOLUMES SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - HCM Volume Adjust & Satflow Worksheet Volume Adjustment Volume, V Pk-hr fact, PHF Adj my flow, vp --------------- Lane group, LG Adj LG flog, v Prop LT, PLT Prop RT, PRT --------------- Saturation Flow Rate Base satflo, so Number lanes, N Lane width, fW Heavy veh, fHV Grade, fg Parking, fp Bus block, fbb Area type, fa Lane util, fLU Left -turn, fLT Right -turn, fRT PedBike LT,fLpb PedBike RT,fRpb Local adjustmnt Adj satflow, s Prot LT fLT Prot LT Satflo SB RT TH LT 159 153 76 .94 .94 .94 169 163 -------------- 81 RT+TH LT 332 81 .000 1.00 .509 -------------- .000 SB RT TH LT 1900 1900 1 1 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 .324 .924 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1755 615 .000 .950 0 1805 WB RT TH LT 63 722 168 .92 .92 .92 68 -------------- 785 183 RT+TH LT 853 183 .000 1.00 -------------- .080 .000 WB RT TH LT 1900 1900 2 1 1.000 1.00 .995 .995 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 .952 1.00 1.000 .950 .988 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 3557 1796 NB RT TH LT 150 94 72 .84 .84 .84 179 112 86 RT+TH LT 291 86 .000 1.00 .615 .000 -------------- RT TH LT 1900 1900 1 1 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 .269 .908 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1725 511 .000 .950 0 1805 09/04/07 08:57:53 EB RT TH LT 59 730 185 .97 .97 .97 61 753 191 -------------- RT+TH IT 814 191 .000 1.00 .075 .000 -------------- EB RT TH LT 1900 1900 2 1 1.000 1.00 .995 .995 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 .952 1.00 1.000 .950 .989 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 3559 1796 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BLVD & UNION AVENUE NE EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.071 - HCM Capacity and LOS Woarksheet Capacity SB Analysis RT TH LT Lane group, LG RT+TH LT Adj Flow, v 332 81 Satflow, s 1755 1805 Lost time, tL 4.0 4.0 Effect green, g 24.5 5.0 Grn ratio, g/C .272 .056 LG capacity, c 478 100 v/c ratio, X .695 .810 Flow ratio, v/s .189 .045 Crit lane group ---------------- -------------- Permitted Phase of Compound LTs Adj Flow, v 0 Satflow, s 615 Lost time, tL .0 Effect green, g 28.5 Grn ratio, g/C .317 LG capacity, c 195 v/c ratio, X .000 Flow ratio, v/s .000 Crit lane group --------------- Suns crit v/s,Yc -------------- 0.583 Crit v/c, Xc .709 Delay and LOS Lane group, LG Adj Flow, v LG capacity, c v/c ratio, X Grn ratio, g/C Unif delay, dl Incr calib, k Incr delay, d2 Queue Delay, d3 Unif delay, d1* Prog factor, PF Contrl delay, d Lane group LOS Final Queue,Qbi --------------- Appr delay, dA Approach LOS Appr flow, vA --------------- Intersection: SB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 332 81 478 295 .695 .275 .272 .372 29.4 19.5 .26 .11 4.3 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 33.7 20.0 C C+ 0 0 -------------- 31.1 C 413 Delay 32.2 WB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 853 183 3557 1796 4.0 4.0 26.9 17.6 .299 .195 1064 351 .802 .521 .240 .102 * NB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 291 86 1725 1805 4.0 4.0 24.5 5.0 .272 .056 469 100 .620 .860 .169 .048 0 511 .0 28.5 .317 162 .000 .000 09/04/07 08:57:53 EB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 814 191 3559 1796 4.0 4.0 26.9 17.6 .299 .195 1065 351 .764 .544 .229 .106 * -------------- -------------- -------------- Total lost, L 16.0 WB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 853 183 1064 351 .802 .521 .299 .195 29.1 32.4 .35 .13 4.5 1.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 33.6 33.9 C C 0 0 33.6 C 1036 LOS C NB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 291 86 469 262 .620 .328 .272 .372 28.7 20.0 .20 .11 2.5 .7 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 31.2 20.7 C C+ 0 0 -------------- 28.8 C 377 -------------- EB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 814 191 1065 351 .764 .544 .299 .195 28.7 32.6 .32 .14 3.4 1.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 32.0 34.4 C C 0 0 -------------- 32.5 C 1005 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BLVD & UNION AVENUE NE EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - Evaluation of Intersection Performance Intersection # 1 - ------------------------------------------------- Sq 44 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1 **/LG -------------------------------------------------- I * I**+ I AI I I * I * * + I ****! I /11 I *> 1<* * +> I <****! I I I I v I I ++++I I I I I I**** v I North I <+ 1 <+ + +>1++++> I I I I + I +++ I++++ I I Im + 1 +++ I v I I ------------------------------------------------- 1 G/C=0.056 I G/C=0.272 I G/C=0.299 I G/C=0.195 I G= 5.0" I G= 24.5" 1 G= 26.9" I G= 17.6" I Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" 1 I Off= 0.0% 1 Off=10.0% I Off=41.7% 1 Off=76.0% I ------------------------------------------------- C= 90 sec G= 74.0 sec = 82.2% Y=16.0 sec = 17.8% MVMT TOTALS Param:Units AdjVol: vph Wid/Ln:ft/# g/C Rqd@C:% g/C Used: % SV @E: vph Svc Lvl:LOS Deg Sat:v/c HCM Delis/v Tot Del:min # Stops.veh Queue 1:veh Queue 1: ft 09/04/07 08:57:53 Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% SB Approach WB Approach NB Approach EB Approach Int RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH IT RT TH LT Total 169 163 81 68 785 183 179 112 86 61 753 191 2831 0/0 12/1 12/1 0/0 24/2 12/1 0/0 12/1 12/1 0/0 24/2 12/1 0 27 0 0 29 19 0 25 1 0 28 19 0 27 6 0 30 20 0 27 6 0 30 20 0 478 294 0 1064 346 0 469 259 0 1065 346 4321 C C+ C C C C+ C C C 0.00 0.69 0.28 0.00 0.80 0.52 0.00 0.62 0.33 0.00 0.76 0.54 0.69 0.0 33.7 20.0 0.0 33.6 33.9 0.0 31.2 20.7 0.0 32.0 34.4 32.2 0 47 7 0 119 26 0 38 7 0 109 27 380 0 75 14 0 197 41 0 64 15 0 185 43 634 0 14 3 0 20 8 0 12 3 0 18 8 20 0 349 68 0 490 194 0 297 75 0 456 203 490 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE 09/04/07 NE SUNSET BLVD & UNION AVENUE NE 08:57:53 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES SIGNA1,2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - Evaluation of Intersection Performance APPR TOTALS Int Param:Units SB Approach WB Approach NB Approach EB Approach Total AdjVol: vph ----------- 413 -------------- 1036 --------------- 377 1005� 2831 Svc Lvl:LOS C C -------------- C -------------- C ----- C Deg Sat:v/c 0.61 0.75 0.55 0.72 0.69 HCM Del:s/v 31.1 33.6 28.8 32.5 32.2 Tot Del:min 54 145 45 136 380 # Stops:veh ----------- 89 -------------- 238 --------------- 79 228 634 Queue 1:veh 14 20 -------------- 12 -------------- 18 ----- 20 Queue 1: ft 349 490 297 456 490 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BLVD & UNION AVENUE NE 2010 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - HCM Input Worksheet Intersection # 1 - I I II 174 1 167 I 83 II 0.0 112.0 112.0 II 0 1 1 1 1 II I I II / I 1 202 12.0 1 / ------------------- 798 24.0 2 -- ------------------- 64 --------------------- 0.0 0 \ I I I \ I 09/04/07 10:51:43 Area Location Type: NONCBD I Key: VOLUMES -- > I I WIDTHS I v LANES --------------------- \ 69 0.0 0 ------------------- -- 789 24.0 2 ------------------- / 184 12.0 1 II I I If 79 I 103 1 II 12.0 1 12.0 I If 1 I 1 I II I I /-------------- 164 ! Phasing: 0.0 1 0 1 I II\ f f North I SEQUENCE 44 PERMSV Y N Y N OVERLP N N N N LEADLAG LD LG SB WB NB EB RT TH LT RT TH IT RT TH LT RT TH LT Heavy veh, %HV .0 .0 .0 .5 .5 .5 .0 .0 .0 .5 .5 .5 Pk-hr fact, PHF .94 .94 .94 .92 .92 .92 .84 .84 .84 .97 .97 .97 Pretimed or Act A A A A A A A A A A A A Strtup lost, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext eff grn, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival typ, AT --------------- 3 -------------- 3 3 3 3 -------------- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Ped vol, vped 0 0 -------------- 0 -------------- 0 Bike vol, vbic 0 0 0 0 Parking locates NO NO NO NO Park mnvrs, Nm 0 0 0 0 Bus stops, NB 0 0 0 0 Grade, %G .0 .0 .0 .0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sq 44 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1 Phase 5 1 Phase 6 1 **/LG ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I * I**+ I I I I I * I**+ I **** f I 1 I If\ I *> I<* * +> I <****I I I I I I k v I I ++++! I I I I I I f**** v I North 1 <+ 1 <+ + +>1++++> I f 1 { + { +++ I++++ I f I Im + { +++ I v I I ! I ------------------------------------------------------------------------- C= 90"1 G= 5.0" 1 G= 24.7" 1 G= 27.8" 1 G` 16.4" 1 G= 0.0" I G= 0.0" 1 I Y+R= 4.0" --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Y+R= 4.011 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 0.0" 1 Y+R= 0.0" 1 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BLVD & UNION AVENUE NE 2010 PM PEAL{ HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.071 - HCM Volume Adjust & Satflow Worksheet Volume Adjustment Volume, V Pk-hr fact, PHF Adj my flow, vp --------------- Lane group, LG Adj LG flow, v Prop LT, PLT Prop RT, PRT ---------------- Saturation Flow Rate Base satflo, so Number lanes, N Lane width, fW Heavy veh, fHV Grade, fg Parking, fp Bus block, fbb Area type, fa Lane util, fLU Left -turn, fLT Right -turn, fRT PedBike LT,fLpb PedBike RT,fRpb Local adjustmnt Adj satflow, s Prot LT fLT Prot LT Satflo SB RT TH LT 174 167 83 .94 .94 .94 185 178 88 -------------- RT+TH IT 363 88 .000 1.00 -------------- .510 .000 SB RT TH LT 1900 1900 1 1 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 .291 .924 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1755 553 .000 .950 0 1805 WB RT TH LT 69 789 184 .92 .92 .92 75 858 200 RT+TH IT 933 200 .000 1.00 .080 .000 -------------- WB RT TH LT 1900 1900 2 1 1.000 1.00 .995 .995 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 .952 1.00 1.000 .950 .988 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 3556 1796 NB RT TH LT 164 103 79 .84 .84 .84 195 123 94 RT+TH LT 318 94 .000 1.00 .613 .000 NB RT TH LT 1900 1900 1 1 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 .232 .908 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1725 441 .000 .950 0 1805 09/04/07 10:51:43 EB RT TH LT 64 798 202 .97 .97 .97 66 -------------- 823 208 RT+TH IT 889 208 .000 1.00 -------------- .074 .000 EB RT TH LT 1900 1900 2 1 1.000 1.00 .995 .995 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 .952 1.00 1.000 .950 .989 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 3560 1796 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BLVD & UNION AVENUE NE 2010 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.071 - HCM Capacity and LOS Worksheet Capacity SB Analysis RT TH LT Lane group, LG RT+TH LT Adj Flow, v 363 88 Satflow, s 1755 1805 Lost time, tL 4.0 4.0 Effect green, g 24.7 5.0 Grn ratio, g/C .275 .056 LG capacity, c 482 100 v/c ratio, X .753 .880 Flow ratio, v/s .207 .049 Crit lane group --------------- --------------- Permitted Phase of Compound LTs Adj Flow, v 0 Satflow, s 553 Lost time, tL .0 Effect green, g 28.7 Grn ratio, g/C .319 LG capacity, c 176 v/c ratio, X .000 Flow ratio, v/s .000 Crit lane group --------------- -------------- Sum crit v/s,Yc 0.637 Crit v/c, Xc .775 Delay and LOS Lane group, LG Adj Flow, v LG capacity, c v/c ratio, X Grn ratio, g/C Unif delay, dl Incr calib, k Incr delay, d2 Queue Delay, d3 Unif delay, dl* Prog factor, PF Contrl delay, d Lane group LOS Final Queue,Qbi --------------- Appr delay, dA Approach LOS Appr flow, vA Intersection: SB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 363 88 482 276 .753 .319 .275 .375 29.8 19.7 .31 .11 6.6 .7 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 36.5 20.4 D+ C+ 0 0 33.3 C 451 -------------- Delay 34.1 WB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 933 200 3556 1796 4.0 4.0 27.8 16.4 .309 .183 1100 328 .848 .610 .262 .111 * NB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 318 94 1725 1805 4.0 4.0 24.7 5.0 .275 .056 474 100 .671 .940 .184 .052 * 0 441 .0 28.7 .319 141 .000 .000 09/04/07 10:51:43 EB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 889 208 3560 1796 4.0 4.0 27.8 16.4 .309 .183 1101 328 .807 .634 .250 .116 * -------------- ----- ------ -------------- Total lost, L 16.0 WB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 933 200 1100 328 .848 .610 .309 .183 29.1 33.8 .38 .20 6.4 3.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 35.5 37.1 D+ D+ 0 0 -------------- 35.8 D+ 1133 LOS C NB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 318 94 474 241 .671 .390 .275 .375 29.0 20.2 .24 .11 3.7 1.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 32.7 21.3 C C+ 0 0 -------------- 30.1 C 412 -------------- EB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 889 208 1101 328 .807 .634 .309 .183 28.6 34.0 .35 .21 4.6 4.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 33.2 38.0 C D+ 0 0 34.1 C 1097 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BLVD & UNION AVENUE NE 2010 PM PEAL{ HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - Evaluation of Intersection Performance Intersection # 1 - ---------------------------------------------------- Sq 44 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1 **/LG ------------------------------------------------- I * I**+ I I I I * I * * + I ****I I I I I v ! I ++++1 I I I I !**** v I North I <+ 1 <+ + +>I++++> { I I + 1 + + + I++++ I I Im + 1 + + + I v I I ------------------------------------------------- I G/C=0 056 I G/C=0.275 I G/C=0.309 I G/C=0.183 I I G= 5.0" 1 G= 24.7" 1 G= 27.8" 1 G= 16.4" 1 I Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R-- 4.0" 1 1 Of€= 0.0% I Off=10.0% I Off=41.9% 1 Off=77.3% ! ------------------------------------------------- C= 90 sec GW 74.0 sec = 82.2% Y=16.0 sec = 17.8% MVMT TOTALS Param:Units AdjVol: vph Wid/Ln:ft/# g/C Rqd@C:% g/C Used: % SV @E: vph Svc Lvl:LOS Deg Sat:v/c HCM Del:s/v Tot Del:min # Stops:veh Queue 1:veh Queue 1: ft 09/04/07 10:51:43 Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% SB Approach WB Approach NB Approach EB Approach Int RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total 185 178 88 75� 858 200 195 123 94 66 823 208 3093 0/0 12/1 12/1 0/0 24/2 12/1 0/0 12/1 12/1 0/0 24/2 12/1 0 28 0 0 31 20 0 26 1 0 30 20 0 27 6 0 31 18 0 27 6 0 31 18 0 482 274 0 1100 321 0 474 236 0 1101 321 4309 D+ C+ D+ D+ C C+ C D+ C 0.00 0.75 0.32 0.00 0.85 0.61 0.00 0.67 0.39 0.00 0.81 0.63 0.75 0.0 36.5 20.4 0.0 35.5 37.1 0.0 32.7 21.3 0.0 33.2 38.0 34.1 0 55 7 0 138 31 0 43 8 0 123 33 438 0 83 16 0 218 46 0 71 17 0 205 48 704 -- 0 16 3 0 22 9 0 13 3 0 20 9 22 0 394 76 0 553 220 0 331 84 0 509 231 553 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BLVD 6 UNION AVENUE NE 2010 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - Evaluation of Intersection Performance APPR TOTALS Param:Units AdjVol: vph Svc Lvl:LOS Deg Sat:v/c HCM Delis/v Tot Del:min # Stops:veh Queue 1:veh Queue 1: ft 09/04/07 10:51:43 Int SB Approach WB Approach NB Approach EB Approach Total 451 1133 412 --Y --Y 1097 -3093 C D+ C C C 0.67 0.81 0.61 0.77 0.75 33.3 35.8 30.1 34.1 34.1 62 169 51 156 438 99 264 88 253 704 16 22 13 -- 20 -- 22 394 553 331 509 553 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BLVD & UNION AVENUE NE 2010 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - HCM Input Worksheet Intersection # 1 - I I If 174 I 167 1 84 II 0.0 1 12.0 1 12.0 II 0 1 1 1 1 II I I II / I 1 202 12.0 1 / ------------------- 804 24.0 2 -- ------------------- 64 --------------------- 0.0 0 I I Heavy veh, %HV Pk-hr fact, PHF Pretimed or Act Strtup lost, 11 Ext eff grn, e Arrival typ, AT --------------- Pad vol, vped Bike vol, vbic Parking locates Park mnvrs, Nm Bus stops, NB Grade, %G + 1 I 04/29/08 14:42:26 Area Location Type: NONCBD I Rey: VOLUMES -- > I I WIDTHS I v LANES --------------------- 1 70 0.0 0 -- ------------------- 792 24.0 2 / ------------------- 185 12.0 1 II I I II 79 I 103 II 12.0 112.0 1 fl 1 I 1 I II I SB RT TH LT .0 .0 .0 .94 .94 .94 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 3 3 -------------- 0 NO 0 0 .0 / ---------------- I 165 I Phasing: 0.0 I 0 I I WB RT TH LT .5 .5 .5 .92 .92 .92 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 3 3 -------------- 0 NO 0 0 .0 NB RT TH LT .0 .0 .0 .84 .84 .84 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 3 3 -------------- 0 NO 0 0 .0 /Ir I I North I SEQUENCE 44 PERMSV Y N Y N OVERLP N N N N LEADLAG LD LG EB RT TH LT .5 .5 .5 .97 .97 .97 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 3 3 -------------- 0 NO 0 0 .0 -----------------------------_-----------------------------_-___--------- Sq 44 I Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1 Phase 5 1 Phase 6 1 **/LG --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I * I**+ I * I**+ I ****I I I I /11 I *> I<* * +> I <****I I I I I I I v I I ++++I I I I I I I I**** v I I I North I <+ I <+ ++>1++++> I I I I I I + 1 + + + I++++ I I I I Im + I + + + I v I I I I ------------------------------------------------------------------------- C= 90"I G= 5.0" 1 G= 24.7" 1 G= 27.9" 1 G= 16.4" I G= 0.0" I G= 0.0" I Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.011 I Y+R= 0.0" 1 Y+R= 0.0" 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BLVD & UNION AVENUE NE 2010 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - HCM Volume Adjust & Satflow Worksheet Volume Adjustment Volume, V Pk-hr fact, PHF Adj my flow, vp --------------- Lane group, LG Adj LG flow, v Prop LT, PLT Prop RT, PRT --------------- Saturation Flow Rate Base satflo, so Number lanes, N Lane width, fW Heavy veh, fHV Grade, fg Parking, fp Bus block, fbb Area type, fa Lane util, fLU Left -turn, fLT Right -turn, fRT PedBike LT,fLpb PedBike RT,fRpb Local adjustmnt Adj satflow, s Prot LT fLT Prot LT Satflo SB RT TH LT 174 167 84 .94 .94 .94 185 178 -------------- 89 RT+TH LT 363 89 .000 1.00 .510 -------------- .000 SB RT TH LT 1900 1900 1 1 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 .289 .924 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1755 549 .000 .950 0 1805 WB RT TH IT 70 792 185 .92 .92 .92 76 861 201 -------------- RT+TH IT 937 201 .000 1.00 .081 .000 -------------- WB RT TH LT 1900 1900 2 1 1.000 1.00 .995 .995 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 .952 1.00 1.000 .950 .988 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 3556 1796 NB RT TH LT 165 103 79 .84 .84 .84 196 123 94 RT+TH LT 319 94 .000 1.00 .614 .000 -------------- NB RT TH LT 1900 1900 1 1 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 .232 .908 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1725 440 .000 .950 0 1805 04/29/08 14:42:26 EB RT TH LT 64 804 202 .97 .97 .97 66 829 208 -------------- RT+TH IT 895 208 .000 1.00 .074 .000 -------------- EB RT TH LT 1900 1900 2 1 1.000 1.00 .995 .995 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 .952 1.00 1.000 .950 .989 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 3560 1796 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BLVD & UNION AVENUE NE 2010 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.071 - HCM Capacity and LOS Worksheet Capacity SB Analysis RT TH LT Lane group, LG RT+TH LT Adj Flora, v 363 89 Satflow, s 1755 1805 Lost time, tL 4.0 4.0 Effect green, g 24.7 5.0 Grn ratio, g/C .274 .056 LG capacity, c 482 100 v/c ratio, X .753 .890 Flow ratio, v/s .207 .049 Crit lane group ---------------- -------------- Permitted Phase of Compound LTs Adj Flow, v 0 Satflow, s 549 Lost time, tL .0 Effect green, g 28.7 Grn ratio, g/C .319 LG capacity, c 175 v/c ratio, X .000 Flow ratio, v/s .000 Crit lane group Sum Grit v/s,Yc 0.638 Crit v/c, Xc .776 Delay and LOS Lane group, LG Adj Flow, v LG capacity, c v/c ratio, X Grn ratio, g/C Unif delay, dl Incr calib, k Incr delay, d2 Queue Delay, d3 Unif delay, dl* Prog factor, PF Contrl delay, d Lane group LOS Final Queue,Qbi --------------- Appr delay, dA Approach LOS Appr flow, vA --------------- Intersection: SB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 363 89 482 275 .753 .324 .274 .374 29.9 19.7 .31 .11 6.6 .7 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 36.5 20.4 D+ C+ 0 0 -------------- 33.3 C 452 Delay 34.2 WB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 937 201 3556 1796 4.0 4.0 27.9 16.4 .310 .182 1102 327 .850 .615 .264 .112 * NB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 319 94 1725 1805 4.0 4.0 24.7 5.0 .274 .056 473 100 .674 .940 .185 .052 Total lost, L 16.0 WB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 937 201 1102 327 .850 .615 .310 .182 29.1 33.9 .38 .20 6.5 3.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 35.6 37.3 D+ D+ 0 0 -------------- 35.9 D+ 1138 LOS C 0 440 .0 28.7 .319 140 .000 .000 NB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 319 94 473 240 .674 .392 .274 .374 29.1 20.2 .25 .11 3.8 1.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 32.9 21.3 C C+ 0 0 -------------- 30.2 C 413 -------------- 04/29/08 14:42:26 EB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 895 208 3560 1796 4.0 4.0 27.9 16.4 .310 .182 1103 327 .811 .636 .251 .116 EB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 895 208 1103 327 .811 .636 .310 .182 28.6 34.0 .35 .22 4.7 4.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 33.3 38.1 C D+ 0 0 -------------- 34.2 C 1103 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE 04/29/08 NE SUNSET BLVD & UNION AVENUE NE 14:42:26 2010 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - Evaluation of Intersection Performance Intersection # 1 - ------------------------------------------------- Sq 44 1 Phase 1 I Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1 **/LG ------------------------------------------------- I * I**+ I AI I I * I * * + I ****I I /11 I *> I<* * +> I <****I I I I I v I I ++++1 I I I I 1**** v I North I <+ I <+ + +>1++++> f I I f + I + + + I++++ I Im + I + + + I v I I ------------------------------------------------- I G/C=0.056 I G/C=0.274 I G/C=0.310 I G/C=0.182 I I G= 5.011 1 G= 24.7" I G= 27.9" I G= 16.41' I 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Off= 0.0% I Off=10.0% I Off=41.9% 1 Off=77.3% I --------- ----------------------------------------- C= 90 sec G= 74.0 sec = 82.2% Y=16.0 sec = 17.8% Pad= 0.0 sec = 0.0% MVMT TOTALS SB Approach WB Approach NB Approach EB Approach Int Param:Units RT TH IT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total AdjVol: vph 185 178 89 76 861 201 196 123~ 94 66�-829 208 3106 Wid/Ln:ft/# 0/0 12/1 12/1 0/0 24/2 12/1 0/0 12/1 12/1 0/0 24/2 12/1 g/C Rqd@C:% 0 28 0 0 31 20 0 26 1 0 30 20 g/C Used: % 0 27 6 0 31 18 0 27 6 0 31 18 SV @E: vph 0 482 273 0 1102 320 0 473 235 0 1103 320 4308 -------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Svc Lvl:LOS D+ C+ D+ D+ C C+ C D+ C Deg Sat:v/c 0.00 0.75 0.32 0.00 0.85 0.62 0.00 0.67 0.39 0.00 0.81 0.64 0.75 HCM Delis/v 0.0 36.5 20.4 0.0 35.6 37.3 0.0 32.9 21.3 0.0 33.3 38.1 34.2 Tot Del:min 0 55 8 0 139 31 0 44 8 0 124 33 442 # Stops:veh 0 83 16 0 219 46 0 71 17 0 206 48 706 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Queue 1:veh 0 16 3 0 22 9 0 13 3 0 20 9 22 Queue 1: ft 0 394 77 0 556 222 0 333 84 0 514 231 556 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BLVD & UNION AVENUE NE 2010 PM PEAR HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - Evaluation of Intersection Performance APPR TOTALS Param:Units AdjVol: vph Svc Lvl:LOS Deg Sat:v/c HCM Delis/v Tat Del:min # Stops:veh Queue 1:veh Queue 1: ft 04/29/08 14:42:26 Int SB Approach WB Approach NB Approach EB Approach Total 452 1138 413 1103 3106 C D+ C C C 0.67 0.81 0.61 0.78 0.75 33.3 35.9 30.2 34.2 34.2 63 170 52 157 442 99 265 88 254 706 16 22 13 20 22 394 556 333 514 556 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BOULEVARD & DUVALL AVENUE NE EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - HCM Input Worksheet Intersection # 1 - I I I II I 240 1 138 1 106 11 1 12.0 124.0 1 12.0 II I 1! 2 1 1 II 1 I I II -------------- 121 ------------------- 24.0 2 / 417 24.0 2 -- ------------------- 56 --------------------- 0.0 0 1 I I I Heavy veh, %HV Pk-hr fact, PHF Pretimed or Act Strtup lost, 11 Ext eff grn, e Arrival typ, AT --------------- Fed vol, vped Bike vol, vbic Parking locatns Park mnvrs, Nm Bus stops, NB Grade, %G 1 I 09/04/07 09:21:48 Area Location Type: NONCBD ! Key: VOLUMES -- > I I WIDTHS I v LANES --------------------- 79 0.0 0 ------------------- -- 369 24.0 2 ------------------ / 71 12.0 1 II I I II 169 1 311 I II 12.0 1 24.0 1 II 1 ! 2 I II I I SB RT TH LT .5 .5 .5 .88 .88 .88 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 -------------- 3 3 0 NO 0 0 .0 / -------------- I 112 I Phasing: 0.0 I 0 I I WB RT TH LT .5 .5 .5 .81 .81 .81 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 -------------- 3 3 0 NO 0 0 .0 NB RT TH LT .5 .5 .5 .80 .80 .80 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 -------------- 3 3 0 NO 0 0 .0 /l1 I I North I SEQUENCE 48 PERMSV N N N N OVERLP N N N N LEADLAG LD LD EB RT TH LT .5 .5 .5 .88 .88 .88 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 -------------- 3 3 0 NO 0 0 .0 -------------------------- Sq 48 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1 Phase 5 1 Phase 6 1 **/** --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I + I*+ I " I I I I I + I*+ I ++++1 ****I I I /11 I +> I<* + I <++++I <****1 I I I I I v I I I " I V I I**** I I North I <* 1 ++>I 1++++> 1++++> I I I I * I ++ I 1++++ I I ++ I I v Im v I I ---------------------------------- C= 60"1 G= 11.4" 1 G- 15.5" 1 G= 5.71, 1 GZ 2.5 " 1 G= 5.0" I G= 0.0" 1 I Y+R= 4.0" l Y+R= 4.01, l Y+R= 4.01, I Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 0.0" I ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BOULEVARD & DUVALL AVENUE NE EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - HCM Volume Adjust & Satflow Worksheet Volume Adjustment Volume, V Pk-hr fact, PHF Adj my flow, vp --------------- Lane group, LG Adj LG flow, v Prop LT, PLT Prop RT, PRT --------------- SB RT TH LT 240 138 106 .88 .88 .88 273 -------------- 157 120 RT TH LT 273 157 120 .000 .000 1.00 1.000 -------------- .000 .000 Saturation SB Flow Rate RT TH LT Base satflo, so 1900 1900 1900 Number lanes, N 1 2 1 Lane width, fW 1.000 1.00 1.00 Heavy veh, fHV .995 .995 .995 Grade, fg 1.000 1.00 1.00 Parking, fp 1.000 1.00 1.00 Bus block, fbb 1.000 1.00 1.00 Area type, fa 1.000 1.00 1.00 Lane util, fLU 1.000 .952 1.00 Left -turn, fLT 1.000 1.00 .950 Right -turn, fRT .850 1.00 1.00 PedBike LT,fLpb 1.000 1.00 1.00 PedBike RT,fRpb 1.000 1.00 1.00 Local adjustmnt 1.000 1.00 1.00 Adj satflow, s 1607 3600 1796 WB RT TH LT 79 369 71 .81 .81 .81 98 456 88 -------------- RT+TH LT 554 88 .000 1.00 .177 -------------- .000 WB RT TH LT 1900 1900 2 1 1.000 1.00 .995 .995 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 .952 1.00 1.000 .950 .973 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 3504 1796 NB RT TH LT 112 311 169 .80 .80 .80 140 -------------- 389 211 RT+TH LT 529 211 .000 1.00 -------------- .265 .000 NB RT TH LT 1900 1900 2 1 1.000 2.00 .995 .995 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 .952 1.00 1.000 .950 .960 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 3457 1796 SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - HCM Capacity and LOS Worksheet Capacity Analysis Lane group, LG Adj Flow, v Satflow, s Lost time, tL Effect green, g Grn ratio, g/C LG capacity, c v/c ratio, X Flow ratio, v/s Crit lane group ---------------- Sum Grit v/s,YC Crit v/c, Xc SB RT TH LT RT TH LT 273 157 120 1607 3600 1796 4.0 4.0 4.0 15.5 15.5 11.4 .258 .258 .189 414 927 340 .659 .169 .353 .170 .044 .067 -------------- 0.489 .666 WB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 554 88 3504 1796 4.0 4.0 12.2 5.7 .203 .095 712 171 .778 .515 .158 .049 NB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 529 211 3457 1796 4.0 4.0 15.5 11.4 .258 .189 890 340 .594 .621 .153 .117 09/04/07 09:21:48 ES RT TH IT 56 417 121 .88 .88 .88 64 -------------- 474 138 RT+TH LT 538 138 .000 1.00 -------------- .119 .000 EB RT TH LT 1900 1900 2 2 1.000 1.00 .995 .995 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 .952 .971 1.000 .950 .982 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 3535 3488 EB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 538 138 3535 3488 4.0 4.0 11.5 5.0 .191 .083 676 291 .796 .474 .152 .040 -------------- -------------- -------------- Total lost, L 16.0 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BOULEVARD & DUVALL AVENUE NE EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.071 - HCM Capacity and LOS Worksheet Delay and LOS Lane group, LG Adj Flow, v LG capacity, c v/c ratio, X Grn ratio, g/C Unif delay, dl Incr calib, k Incr delay, d2 Queue Delay, d3 Unif delay, dl* Prog factor, PF Contrl delay, d Lane group LOS Final Queue,Qbi ---------------- Appr delay, dA Approach LOS Appr flow, vA --------------- Intersection: SB RT TH LT RT TH LT 273 157 120 414 927 340 .659 .169 .353 .258 .258 .189 19.9 17.3 21.1 .23 .11 .11 3.8 .1 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 1.00 23.8 17.4 21.8 C+ B C+ 0 0 0 -------------- 21.5 C+ 550 Delay 25.3 WB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 554 88 712 171 .778 .515 .203 .095 22.6 25.8 .33 .12 5.5 2.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 28.1 28.5 C C 0 0 28.2 C 642 LOS C+ NB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 529 211 890 340 .594 .621 .258 .189 19.5 22.3 .18 .20 1.1 3.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 20.6 25.8 C+ C+ 0 0 -------------- 22.1 C+ 740 -------------- 09/04/07 09:21:48 EB RT TH LT RT+TH IT 538 138 676 291 .796 .474 .191 .083 23.2 26.2 .34 .11 6.6 1.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 29.8 27.5 C C+ 0 0 -------------- 29.3 C 676 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE 09/04/07 NE SUNSET BOULEVARD & DUVALL AVENUE NE 09:21:48 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - Evaluation of Intersection Performance Intersection # 1 - ------------------------------------------------------------- Sq 48 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1 Phase 5 1 **/** -------------------------------------------------------------- I + I*+ I A I AI I 1 + I * + I ++++I ****I I /!1 ! +> I<* + 1 <++++1 <****I I I I I v I ****I ! I I I I I v I 1**** I North I <* 1 ++>I 1++++> 1++++> 1 ++ I I++++ 1++++ I I * I ++ I I v Im v 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- I G/C=0.189 I G/C=0.258 I G/C=0.095 I G/C=0.041 I G/C=0.083 I I G= 11.4" 1 G= 15.5" I G= 5.7" I G= 2.5" I G= 5.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" I Off= 0.0% 1 Off=25.6% I Off=58.0% I Off=74.2% 1 Off=85.0% I ------------------------------------------------------------- C= 60 sec G= 40.0 sec = 66.7% Y=20.0 sec = 33.3% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% MVMT TOTALS SB Approach WB Approach NB Approach EB Approach Int Param:Units RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total AdjVol: vph 273 157 120 98 456 88 140 389 211 64 474 138 2608 Wid/Ln:ft/# 12/1 24/2 12/1 0/0 24/2 12/1 0/0 24/2 12/1 0/0 24/2 24/2 g/C Rqd@C:% 21 6 10 0 18 8 0 18 16 0 18 6 g/C Used: % 26 26 19 0 20 10 0 26 19 0 19 8 SV @E: vph 414 927 340 0 712 162 0 890 340 0 676 291 4752 --------------------------------------- ---------------------------- ------ Svc Lvl:LOS C+ B C+ C C C+ C+ C C+ C+ Deg Sat:v/c 0.66 0.17 0.35 0.00 0.78 0.51 0.00 0.59 0.62 0.00 0.80 0.47 0.64 HCM Del:s/v 23.8 17.4 21.8 0.0 28.1 28.5 0.0 20.6 25.8 0.0 29.8 27.5 25.3 Tot Del:min 27 11 11 0 65 10 0 45 23 0 67 16 275 # Stops:veh 61 30 26 0 131 21 0 116 48 0 128 33 594 -------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Queue 1: veh 8 2 3 0 9 3 0 8 6 0 9 2 9 Queue 1: ft 201 51 84 0 237 71 0 196 160 0 235 57 237 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BOULEVARD & DUVALL AVENUE NE EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - Evaluation of Intersection Performance 09/04/07 09:21:48 APPR TOTALS Int Param:Units SE Approach WB Approach NB Approach EB Approach Total AdjVol: vph 550 642 740 676 2608 Svc Lvl:LOS C+ C C+ C C+ Deg Sat:v/c 0.45 0.74 0.60 0.73 0.64 HCM Del:s/v 21.5 28.2 22.1 29.3 25.3 Tot Del:min 49 75 68 83 275 # Stops:veh ----------- 117 -------------- 152 -------------- 164 161 594 Queue l:veh 8 9 -------------- 8 -------------- 9 ----- 9 Queue 1: ft 201 237 196 235 237 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BOULEVARD & DUVALL AVENUE NE EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - HCM Input Worksheet Intersection # 1 - I I ! II 1 294 1 577 1 73 II 1 12.0 1 24.0 [ 12.0 II I 1 1 2 1 1 11 I I I II -------------- / 1 297 24.0 2 / ------------------- 437 24.0 2 -- ------------------- 109 --------------------- 0.0 0 I I Heavy veh, %HV Pk-hr fact, PHF Pretimed or Act Strtup lost, 11 Ext eff grn, e Arrival typ, AT --------------- Ped vol, vped Bike vol, vbic Parking locatns Park mnvrs, Nm Bus stops, NB Grade, %G � I 09/04/07 09:20:29 Area Location Type: NONCBD 1 Key: VOLUMES - - > I I WIDTHS I v LANES --------------------- 51 0.0 0 ------------------- /f1 520 24.0 2 1 ------------------- / 123 12.0 1 North II f II 136 1 265 1 II 12.0 1 24.0 1 II 1 I 2 1 If I I SB RT TH LT .5 .5 .5 .94 .94 .94 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 3 3 -------------- 0 NO 0 0 .0 / -------------- I 63 I Phasing: 0.0 1 0 1 I WB RT TH LT .5 .5 .5 .95 .95 .95 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 3 3 -------------- 0 NO 0 0 .0 NB RT TH LT .5 .5 .5 .85 .85 .85 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 -------------- 3 3 0 NO 0 0 .0 SEQUENCE 48 PERMSV N N N N OVERLP N N N N LEADLAG LD LD EB RT TH LT .5 .5 .5 .96 .96 .96 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 3 3 -------------- 0 NO 0 0 .0 Sq 48 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1 Phase 5 1--Phase 6--1 **/** ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I + I*+ I ^ I I I I I + I * + ! ++++I ****I I ! /11 I +> I<* + I <++++1 <****1 I ! I I I v I ****I I ^ I I I l I ^ I v I 1**** I I North 1 <* 1 ++>I 1++++> 1++++> I I I ! * I ++ I f++++ 1++++ I I I * I ++ I ! v I v I I ----------_--------------------------------------------------------------- C= 60"1 G= 8.3}' 1 G= 15.7" I G= 7.0" 1 G= 1.4" 1 G= 7.6" 1 G= 0.0" 1 I Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.01, j Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 0.0" 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BOULEVARD & DUVALL AVENUE NE EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] -- HCM Volume Adjust & Satflow Worksheet Volume Adjustment Volume, V Pk-hr fact, PHF Adj my flow, vp --------------- Lane group, LG Adj LG flow, v Prop LT, PLT Prop RT, PRT --------------- SB RT TH LT 294 577 73 .94 .94 .94 313 614 78 -------------- RT TH LT 313 614 78 .000 .000 1.00 1.000 -------------- .000 .000 Saturation SB Flow Rate RT TH LT Base satflo, so 1900 1900 1900 Number lanes, N 1 2 1 Lane width, fW 1.000 1.00 1.00 Heavy veh, fHV .995 .995 .995 Grade, fg 1.000 1.00 1.00 Parking, fp 1.000 1.00 1.00 Bus block, fbb 1.000 1.00 1.00 Area type, fa 1.000 1.00 1.00 Lane util, fLU 1.000 .952 1.00 Left -turn, fLT 1.000 1.00 .950 Right -turn, fRT .850 1.00 1.00 PedBike LT,fLpb 1.000 1.00 1.00 PedBike RT,fRpb 1.000 1.00 1.00 Local adjustmnt 1.000 1.00 1.00 Adj satflow, s 1607 3600 1796 WB RT TH LT 51 520 123 .95 .95 .95 54 -------------- 547 129 RT+TH LT 601 129 .000 1.00 -------------- .090 .000 WB RT TH LT 1900 1900 2 1 1.000 1.00 .995 .995 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 .952 1.00 1.000 .950 .987 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 3551 1796 NB RT TH LT 63 265 136 .85 .85 .85 74 312 -------------- 160 RT+TH LT 386 160 .000 1.00 .192 -------------- .000 NB RT TH LT 1900 1900 2 1 1.000 1.00 .995 .995 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 .952 1.00 1.000 .950 .971 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 3496 1796 SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.071 - HCM Capacity and LOS Worksheet Capacity Analysis Lane group, LG Adj Flow, v Satflow, s Lost time, tL Effect green, g Grn ratio, g/C LG capacity, c v/c ratio, X Flow ratio, v/s Crit lane group --------------- Sum Grit v/s,Yc Crit v/c, Xc SB RT TH LT RT TH LT 313 614 78 1607 3600 1796 4.0 4.0 4.0 15.7 15.7 8.3 .261 .261 .138 420 941 248 .745 .652 .315 .195 .171 .043 -------------- 0.542 .739 WB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 601 129 3551 1796 4.0 4.0 12.5 7.0 .208 .117 737 210 .815 .614 .169 .072 NB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 386 160 3496 1796 4.0 4.0 15.7 8.3 .261 .138 914 248 .422 .645 .110 .089 Total lost, L 16.0 09/04/07 09:20:29 EB RT TH LT 109 437 297 .96 .96 .96 114 455 -------------- 309 RT+TH LT 569 309 .000 1.00 .200 -------------- .000 EB RT TH LT 1900 1900 2 2 1.000 1.00 .995 .995 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 .952 .971 1.000 .950 .970 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 3491 3488 EB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 569 309 3491 3488 4.0 4.0 13.0 7.6 .217 .126 757 440 .752 .702 .163 .089 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BOULEVARD & DUVALL AVENUE NE EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - HCM Capacity and LOS Worksheet Delay and LOS Lane group, LG Adj Flow, v LG capacity, c v/c ratio, X Grn ratio, g/C Uni€ delay, dl Incr calib, k Incr delay, d2 Queue Delay, d3 Unif delay, dl* Prog factor, PF Contrl delay, d Lane group LOS Final Queue,Qbi --------------- Appr delay, dA Approach LOS Appr flow, vA SB RT TH LT RT TH LT 313 614 78 420 941 248 .745 .652 .315 .261 .261 .138 20.3 19.7 23.3 .30 .23 .11 7.1 1.6 .7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 1.00 27.4 21.4 24.0 C+ C+ C+ 0 0 0 -------------- 23.5 C+ 1005 WB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 601 129 737 210 .815 .614 .208 .117 22.7 25.2 .36 .20 7.1 5.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 29.8 30.5 C C 0 0 29.9 C 730 Intersection: Delay 25.9 LOS C+ NB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 386 160 914 248 .422 .645 .261 .138 18.4 24.5 .11 .22 .3 5.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 18.7 30.1 B C 0 0 -------------- 22.1 C+ 546 -------------- 09/04/07 09:20:29 EB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 569 309 757 440 .752 .702 .217 .126 22.0 25.1 .31 .27 4.2 5.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 26.2 30.1 C+ C 0 0 -------------- 27.6 C 878 -------------- SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE 09/Q9/D7 NE SUNSET BOULEVARD & DUVALL AVENUE NE 09:20..29 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.071 - Evaluation of Intersection Performance Intersection # 1 - --------------------------------------------------------------- Sq 48 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1 Phase 5 1 **/** -------------------------------------------------------------- + I * + I f AI 1 + 1 * + 1 ++++I ****I I /I\ I +> I<* + I <++++I <****I I 1 I I v I ****I I AI I I 1 I v I 1**** I North 1 <* 1 ++>I 1++++> I++++> I I I * I ++ I I++++ 1++++ 1 * I ++ I I v I V I -------------------------_------------------------------------ 1 G/C=0.138 1 G/C=0.261 I G/C=0.117 1 G/C=0.024 I G/C=0.126 I 1 G= 8.311 1 G= 15.7 " 1 G= 7.0 " I G= 1. 4 " I G= 7.61, 1 1 Y+R-- 4.01, I Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R-- 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 I Off= 0.0% I Off=20.5% 1 Off=53.3% 1 Off=71.695 1 Off=80.7% 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- C= 60 sec G= 40.0 sec = 66.7% Y=20.0 sec = 33.3% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% MVMT TOTALS SB Approach WB Approach NB Approach EB Approach Int Param:Units RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total AdjVol: vph 313 614 78 54 547 129 74 312 160 114T 455 309 3159 Wid/Ln:ft/# 12/1 24/2 12/1 0/0 24/2 12/1 0/0 24/2 12/1 0/0 24/2 24/2 g/C Rqd@C:% 24 20 7 0 19 11 0 14 13 0 19 11 g/C Used: % 26 26 14 0 21 12 0 26 14 0 22 13 SV @E: vph 420 941 246 0 737 204 0 914 246 0 757 440 4905 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Svc Lv1:LOS C+ C+ C+ C C B C C+ C C+ Deg Sat:v/c 0.75 0.65 0.31 0.00 0.81 0.61 0.00 0.42 0.64 0.00 0.75 0.70 0.68 HCM Del:s/v 27.4 21.4 24.0 0.0 29.8 30.5 0.0 18.7 30.1 0.0 26.2 30.1 25.9 Tot Del:min 36 55 8 0 75 16 0 30 20 0 62 39 341 # Stops:veh 72 137 18 0 143 31 0 80 38 0 133 74 726 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Queue 1:veh 10 9 2 0 11 4 0 5 5 0 9 5 11 Queue 1: ft 242 232 57 0 264 104 0 134 128 0 237 133 264 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BOULEVARD & DUVALL AVENUE NE EXISTING PM PEAR HOUR VOLUMES SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - Evaluation of Intersection Performance APPR TOTALS Param:Units AdjVol: vph Svc Lvl:LOS Deg Sat:v/c HCM Del:s/v Tot Del:min # Stops:veh Queue 1:veh Queue 1: ft 09/04/07 09:20:29 Int SB Approach WB Approach NB Approach EB Approach Total 1005 730 546 w Y878 3159 C+ C C+ C C+ 0.65 0.78 0.49 0.73 0.68 23.5 29.9 22.1 27.6 25.9 99 91 50 101 341 227 174 118 207 726 10 11 5 9 11 242 264 134 237 264 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BOULEVARD & DUVALL AVENUE NE 2010 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - HCM Input Worksheet Intersection # 1 - 1 I I II ! 321 I 631 I 80 II 112.0 124.0 112.0 II I 1 1 2 1 1 II I I I I I -------------- 325 24.0 2 / ------------------- 478 24.0 2 -- ------------------- 119 0.0 0 --------------------- I I I Heavy veh, %HV Pk-hr fact, PHF Pretimed or Act Strtup lost, 11 Ext eff grn, e Arrival typ, AT --------------- Ped vol, vped Bike vol, vbic Parking locatns Park mnvrs, Nm Bus stops, NB Grade, %G 1 I 09/04/07 11:00:14 Area Location Type: NONCBD I Key: VOLES -- > I I WIDTHS I v LANES --------------------- 1 56 0.0 0 -- -------------------- 568 24.0 2 / ------------------- 134 12.0 1 II I I II 149 1 290 I II 12.0 124.0 1 II 1 I 2 I II I I SB RT TH LT .5 .5 .5 .94 .94 .94 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 3 3 -------------- 0 NO 0 0 .0 / -------------- I 69 I Phasing: 0.0 I 0 I I WB RT TH LT .5 .5 .5 .95 .95 .95 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 3 3 -------------- 0 NO 0 0 .0 NB RT TH LT .5 .5 .5 .85 .85 .85 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 3 3 -------------- 0 NO 0 0 .0 /11 l f North I SEQUENCE 48 PERMSV N N N N OVERLP N N N N LEADLAG LD LD RT EB TH IT .5 .5 .5 .96 .96 .96 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 3 3 -------------- 0 NO 0 0 .0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sq 48 1 Phase 1 I Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1 Phase 5 1 Phase 6 1 **/** --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I + I*+ I " I I I I I + I*+ I ++++1 ****I I I I I I v I ****I I I ! I I I " I v I !**** I I North 1 <* 1 ++>I 1++++> I++++> I I I I * I ++ I I++++ 1++++ I I I * I ++ I I v I v I i ------------------------------------------------------------------------- C= 60"1 G= 8.2" 1 G= 15.5" I G= 6.9" 1 G= 1.8" 1 G= 7.5" I G= 0.0" I I Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.011 I Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 0.0" I ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BOULEVARD & DUVALL AVENUE NE 2010 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - HCM Volume Adjust & Satflow Worksheet volume Adjustment Volume, V Pk-hr fact, PHF Adj my flow, vp --------------- Lane group, LG Adj LG flow, v Prop LT, PLT Prop RT, PRT --------------- Saturation Flow Rate SB RT TH LT 321 631 80 .94 .94 .94 341 671 85 -------------- RT TH LT 341 671 85 .000 .000 1.00 1.000 .000 .000 SB RT TH LT Base satflo, so 1900 1900 1900 Number lanes, N 1 2 1 Lane width, fW 1.000 1.00 1.00 Heavy veh, fHV .995 .995 .995 Grade, fg 1.000 1.00 1.00 Parking, fp 1.000 1.00 1.00 Bus block, fbb 1.000 1.00 1.00 Area type, fa 1.000 1.00 1.00 Lane util, fLU 1.000 .952 1.00 Left -turn, fLT 1.000 1.00 .950 Right -turn, fRT .850 1.00 1.00 PedBike LT,fLpb 1.000 1.00 1.00 PedBike RT,fRpb 1.000 1.00 1.00 Local adjustmnt 1.000 1.00 1.00 Adj Satflow, s 1607 3600 1796 RT TH LT 56 568 134 .95 .95 .95 59 598 141 RT+TH LT 657 141 .000 1.00 .090 .000 -------------- WB RT TH LT 1900 1900 2 1 1.000 1.00 .995 .995 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 .952 1.00 1.000 .950 .987 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 3551 1796 NB RT TH LT 69 290 149 .85 .85 .85 81 341 175 -------------- RT+TH LT 422 175 .000 1.00 .192 .000 -------------- NB RT TH LT 1900 1900 2 1 1.000 1.00 .995 .995 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 .952 1.00 1.000 .950 .971 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 3496 1796 SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.071 - HCM Capacity and LOS Worksheet Capacity Analysis Lane group, LG Adj Flow, v Satflow, s Lost time, tL Effect green, g Grn ratio, g/C LG capacity, c v/c ratio, X Flow ratio, v/s Crit lane group --------------- Sum crit v/s,Yc Crit v/c, Xc SB RT TH IT RT TH LT 341 671 85 1607 3600 1796 4.0 4.0 4.0 15.5 15.5 8.2 .258 .258 .137 415 930 247 .822 .722 .344 .212 .186 .047 -------------- 0.592 .807 WB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 657 141 3551 1796 4.0 4.0 12.7 6.9 .212 .116 753 208 .873 .678 .185 .079 NB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 422 175 3496 1796 4.0 4.0 15.5 8.2 .258 .137 904 247 .467 .709 .121 .097 09/04/07 11:00:14 EB RT TH LT 119 478 325 .96 .96 .96 124 -------------- 498 339 RT+TH LT 622 339 .000 1.00 -------------- .199 .000 EB RT TH LT 1900 1900 2 2 1.000 1.00 .995 .995 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 .952 .971 1.000 .950 .970 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 3492 3488 EB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 622 339 3492 3488 4.0 4.0 13.3 7.5 .222 .126 774 438 .804 .774 .178 .097 ---------------- -------------- -------------- Total lost, L 16.0 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BOULEVARD & DUVALL AVENUE NE 2010 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.071 - HCM Capacity and LOS Worksheet Delay and LOS Lane group, LG Adj Flow, v LG capacity, c v/c ratio, X. Grn ratio, g/C Unif delay, dl Incr calib, k Incr delay, d2 Queue Delay, d3 Unif delay, d1* Prog factor, PF Contrl delay, d Lane group LOS Final Queue,Qbi --------------- Appr delay, dA Approach LOS Appr flow, vA --------------- Intersection: SB RT TH LT RT TH IT 341 671 85 415 930 247 .822 .722 .344 .258 .258 .137 20.9 20.3 23.4 .36 .28 .11 12.5 2.8 .8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 1.00 33.4 23.1 24.3 C C+ C+ 0 0 0 -------------- 26.4 C+ 1097 Delay 28.7 WB RT TH IT RT+TH IT 657 141 753 208 .873 .678 .212 .116 22.9 25.5 .40 .25 11.0 8.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 33.9 34.0 C C 0 -------------- 0 33.9 C 798 LOS C NB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 422 175 904 247 .467 .709 .258 .137 18.8 24.7 .11 .27 .4 9.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 19.1 33.8 B. C 0 0 -------------- 23.4 C+ 597 -------------- 09/04/07 11:00:14 EB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 622 339 774 438 .804 .774 .222 .126 22.1 25.4 .35 .32 6.2 8.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 28.3 33.8 C C 0 -------------- 0 30.2 C 961 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE 09/04/07 NE SUNSET BOULEVARD & DUVALL AVENUE NE 11:00:14 2010 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.071 - Evaluation of Intersection Performance Intersection # 1 - -------------------------------------------------------------- Sq 48 1 Phase 1 I Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1 Phase 5 1 **/**------_-------------------------------------__----------------- I + I*+ I I AI I 1 + 1 * + I ++++1 ****I I /11 I +> !<* + I <++++I <****I I I I I v I ****I I AI I I I ! v I 1**** I North 1 <* 1 ++>I I++++> I++++> I I I * I ++ I I++++ I++++ I * I ++ I I V I v I ---------------------------------------------__--------------- J G/C=0.137 I G/C=0.258 1 G/C=0.116 1 G/C=0.030 I G/C=0.126 I 1 G= 8.2 1, I G= 15.5 " I G= 6. 9 -1 I G= 1. 8 " ( G= 7.5 " 1 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" 1 I Off= 0.0% I Off=20.4% 1 Off=52.9% 1 Off=71.2% I Off=80.8% 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- C= 60 sec G= 40.0 sec = 66.7% Y=20.0 sec = 33.3% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% MVMT TOTALS SB Approach WB Approach NB Approach EB Approach Int Param:Units RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total AdjVol: vph 341 671 85 59 598 141 81 341 175 124 498 339 3453 Wid/Ln:ft/# 12/1 24/2 12/1 0/0 24/2 12/1 0/0 24/2 12/1 0/0 24/2 24/2 g/C Rqd@C:%- 25 21 8 0 21 11 0 15 14 0 20 12 g/C Used: % 26 26 14 0 21 12 0 26 14 0 22 13 SV @E: vph 415 930 245 0 753 202 0 904 245 0 774 438 4906 --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Svc LVl:LOS C C+ C+ C C B C C C C Deg Sat:v/c 0.82 0.72 0.34 0.00 0.87 0.68 0.00 0.47 0.71 0.00 0.80 0.77 0.74 HCM Del:s/v 33.4 23.1 24.3 0.0 33.9 34.0 0.0 19.1 33.8 0.0 28.3 33.8 28.7 Tot Del:min 47 64 9 0 93 20 0 34 25 0 73 48 413 # Stops:veh 80 153 19 0 159 34 0 89 42 0 147 82 805 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Queue 1:veh 11 11 2 0 12 5 0 6 6 0 11 6 12 Queue 1: ft 281 264 62 0 305 117 0 149 145 0 268 152 305 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BOULEVARD & DUVALL AVENUE NE 2010 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - Evaluation of Intersection Performance APPR TOTALS Param:Units AdjVol: vph Svc Lvl:LOS Deg Sat:v/c HCM Del:s/v Tot Del:min # Stops:veh Queue l:veh Queue 1: f t 09/04/07 11:00:14 Int SB Approach WB Approach NB Approach EB Approach Total 1497 798 597 961 3453 C+ C C+ C C 0.72 0.84 0.54 0.79 0.74 26.4 33.9 23.4 30.2 28.7 120 113 59 121 413 252 193 131 229 805 11 12 6 11 12 281 305 149 268 305 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BOULEVARD & DUVALL AVENUE NE 2010 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - HCM Input Worksheet Intersection # 1 - I I I II I 324 1 631 1 80 II 112.0 124.0 112.0 11 I 1 1 2 1 1 II I I II -------------- 327 24.0 2 / ------------------- 481 24.0 2 --- ------------------- 120 --------------------- 0.0 0 I I heavy veh, %HV Pk-hr fact, PHF Pretimed or Act Strtup lost, 11 Ext eff grn, e Arrival typ, AT --------------- Ped vol, vped Bike vol, vbic Parking locates Park mnvrs, Nm Bus stops, NB Grade, SSG u 1 I 04/29/08 14:36:38 Area Location Type: NONCBD I Key: VOLUMES -- > I I WIDTHS I v LANES --------------------- 56 0.0 0 -- ------------------- 573 24.0 2 / ------------------- 134 12.0 1 II I I 151 1 290 I II 12.0 124.0 1 II 1 I 2 I II I I SB RT TH LT .5 .5 .5 .94 .94 .94 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 3 3 -------------- 0 NO 0 0 .0 / -------------- I 69 I Phasing: 0.0 I 0 I I WB RT TH LT .5 .5 .5 .95 .95 .95 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 3 3 -------------- 0 NO 0 0 .0 NB RT TH LT .5 .5 .5 .85 .85 .85 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 3 3 -------------- 0 NO 0 0 .0 /11 I I North I SEQUENCE 48 PERMSV N N N N OVERLP N N N N LEADLAG LD LD EB RT TH LT .5 .5 .5 .96 .96 .96 A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 3 3 -------------- 0 NO 0 0 .0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sq 48 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1 Phase 5 1 Phase 6 1 **/** ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 +*+ I A I A I I I 1 + 1*+ I ++++I ****I I I /11 I +> 1<* + I <++++I <****I I I I I ! v I ****I 1 I I I ! IA I v 1 1**** I I North I <* I ++>I I++++> 1++++> 1 ! I ! * I ++ I I++++ 1++++ 1 { ! * I ++ I I v I v I ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- C= 60"1 G= 8.3" 1 G= 15.5" I G= 6.9" 1 G= 1.8" 1 G= 7.5" 1 G= 0.0" I I Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.011 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.01, 1 Y+R= 4.011 1 Y+R= 0.0.. 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUNSET BOULEVARD MILD USE NE SUNSET BOULEVARD & DUVALL AVENUE NE 2010 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - HCM Volume Adjust & Satflow Worksheet Volume Adjustment Volume, V Pk-hr fact, PHF Adj my flow, vp --------------- Lane group, LG Adj LG flow, v Prop LT, PIT Prop RT, PRT --------------- Saturation Flom Rate SE RT TH LT 324 631 80 .94 .94 .94 345 671 85 -------------- RT TH LT 345 671 85 .000 .000 1.00 1.000 -------------- .000 .000 SB RT TH LT Base satflo, so 1900 1900 1900 Number lanes, N 1 2 1 Lane width, fW 1.000 1.00 1.00 Heavy veh, fHV .995 .995 .995 Grade, fg 1.000 1.00 1.00 Parking, fp 1.000 1.00 1.00 Bus block, fbb 1.000 1.00 1.00 Area type, fa 1.000 1.00 1.00 Lane util, fLU 1.000 .952 1.00 Left -turn, fLT 1.000 1.00 .950 Right -turn, fRT .850 1.00 1.00 PedBike LT,fLpb 1.000 1.00 1.00 PedBike RT,fRpb 1.000 1.00 1.00 Local adjustmnt 1.000 1.00 1.00 Adj satflow, s 1607 3600 1796 WB RT TH LT 56 573 134 .95 .95 .95 59 603 141 -------------- RT+TH LT 662 141 .000 1.00 .089 -------------- .000 WB RT TH IT 1900 1900 2 1 1.000 1.00 .995 .995 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 .952 1.00 1.000 .950 .987 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 3551 1796 NB RT TH LT 69 290 151 .85 .85 .85 81 341 178 RT+TH LT 422 178 .000 1.00 .192 .000 NB RT TH LT 1900 1900 2 1 1.000 1.00 .995 .995 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 .952 1.00 1.000 .950 .971 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 3496 1796 SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - HCM Capacity and LOS Worksheet Capacity Analysis Lane group, LG Adj Flow, v Satflow, s Lost time, tL Effect green, g Grn ratio, g/C LG capacity, c v/c ratio, X Flow ratio, v/s Crit lane group --------------- Sum Grit v/s,Yc Crit v/c, Xc SB RT TH LT RT TH LT 345 671 85 1607 3600 1796 4.0 4.0 4.0 15.5 15.5 8.3 .259 .259 .138 416 931 247 .829 .721 .344 .215 .186 .047 -------------- 0.598 .815 WB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 662 141 3551 1796 4.0 4.0 12.7 6.9 .212 .115 753 206 .879 .684 .186 .079 NB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 422 178 3496 1796 4.0 4.0 15.5 8.3 .259 .138 904 247 .467 .721 .121 .099 04/29/08 14:36:38 EB RT TH LT 120 481 327 .96 .96 .96 125 501 341 RT+TH LT 626 341 .000 1.00 .200 .000 -------------- EB RT TH LT 1900 1900 2 2 1.000 1.00 .995 .995 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 .952 .971 1.000 .950 .970 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.00 3492 3488 EB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 626 341 3492 3488 4.0 4.0 13.3 7.5 .222 .125 776 436 .807 .782 .179 .098 -------------- -------------- -------------- Total lost, L 16.0 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BOULEVARD & DUVALL AVENUE NE 2010 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.071 - HCM Capacity and LOS Worksheet Delay SB and LOS RT TH LT Lane group, LG RT TH LT Adj Flow, v 345 671 85 LG capacity, C 416 931 247 v/c ratio, X .829 .721 .344 Grn ratio, g/C .259 .259 .138 Unif delay, dl 21.0 20.3 23.4 Incr calib, k .37 .28 .11 Incr delay, d2 13.2 2.8 .8 Queue Delay, d3 .0 .0 .0 Unif delay, dl* .0 .0 .0 Prog factor, PF 1.00 1.00 1.00 Contrl delay, d 34.2 23.0 24.3 Lane group LOS C C+ C+ Final Queue,Qbi 0 0 0 Appr delay, dA 26.6 Approach LOS C+ Appr flow, vA --------------- -------------- 1101 Intersection: Delay 29.0 WB NB RT TH LT RT TH LT RT+TH LT RT+TH LT 662 141 422 178 753 206 904 247 .879 .684 .467 .721 .212 .115 .259 .138 22.9 25.5 18.8 24.8 .41 .25 .11 .28 11.6 9.0 .4 9.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 34.5 34.6 19.1 34.6 C C B C 0 0 0 0 34.5 23.7 C C+ 803 600 LOS C 04/29/08 14:36:38 EB RT TH LT RT+TH LT 626 341 776 436 .807 .782 .222 .125 22.1 25.5 .35 .33 6.3 9.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.00 1.00 28.4 34.4 C C 0 0 30.5 C 967 SUNSET BOULEVARD MINCED USE 04/29/08 NE SUNSET BOULEVARD & DUVALL AVENUE NE 14:36:38 2010 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - Evaluation of Intersection Performance Intersection # 1 - ------------------------------------------------------------- Sq 48 1 Phase 1 I Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1 Phase 5 1 **/**------------------------------------------------------------- + I*+ I I " I I I + I * + I ++++I ****I I I I I v I ****I I I I I I I v I I**** I North 1 <* I + +>I I++++> 1++++> I I I * I ++ I I++++ I++++ I I * I ++ I I v I v I ------------------------------------------------------------- I G/C=0.138 I G/C=0.259 I G/C=0.115 1 G/C=0.031 I G/C=0.125 I I G= 8.3" I G= 15.5" I G= 6.9" I G= 1.8" 1 G= 7.51, I 1 Y+R= 4.011 ( Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" I I Off= 0.0% I Off=20.4% I Off=53.0% I Off=71.1% I Off=80.8% I ------------------------------------------------------------- C= 60 sec G= 40.0 sec = 66.7% Y=20.0 sec = 33.3% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% MVMT TOTALS SB Approach WB Approach NB Approach EB Approach Int Param:Units RT TH LT RT TH IT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total AdjVol: vph 345 671 85 59 603 141 81 341 178 125 501 341 3471 Wid/Ln:ft/# 12/1 24/2 12/1 0/0 24/2 12/1 0/0 24/2 12/1 0/0 24/2 24/2 g/C Rqd@C:% 26 21 8 0 21 11 0 15 14 0 20 12 g/C Used: % 26 26 14 0 21 11 0 26 14 0 22 12 SV @E: vph 416 931 245 0 753 200 0 904 245 0 776 436 4906 -------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Svc Lvl:LOS C C+ C+ C C B C C C C Deg Sat:v/c 0.83 0.72 0.34 0.00 0.88 0.68 0.00 0.47 0.72 0.00 0.81 0.78 0.74 HCM Delis/v 34.2 23.0 24.3 0.0 34.5 34.6 0.0 19.1 34.6 0.0 28.4 34.4 29.0 Tot Del:min 49 64 9 0 95 20 0 34 26 0 74 49 420 # Stops:veh 81 153 19 0 160 34 0 89 43 0 148 83 810 -------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Queue l:veh 11 11 2 0 12 5 0 6 6 0 11 6 12 Queue 1: ft 286 264 62 0 309 118 0 149 148 0 270 154 309 SUNSET BOULEVARD MIXED USE NE SUNSET BOULEVARD & DUVALL AVENUE NE 2010 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 2.70.07] - Evaluation of Intersection Performance APPR TOTALS Param:Units AdjVol: vph Svc Lvl:LOS Deg Sat:v/c HCM Del:s/v Tot Del:min # Stops:veh Queue 1:veh Queue 1: ft 04/29/08 14:36:38 Int SB Approach WB Approach NB Approach EB Approach Total 1101 803 600 967 3471 C+ C C+ C C 0.73 0.85 0.54 0.80 0.74 26.6 34.5 23.7 30.5 29.0 122 115 60 123 420 253 194 132 231 810 -------------- 11 -------------- 12 --------------- 6 -------------- 11 ----- 12 286 309 149 270 309 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information nalyst Intersection en /Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 191412007 Analysis Year nal sis Time Period Project Descri tion 2010 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES WITH PROJECT Sunset Blvd & Entrance East/West Street: NE Sunset Boulevard! North/South Street: Entrance Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments a'or Street Eastbound Westbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Oltveh/h 0 984 7 9 1040 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 1093 7 10 1155 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 _ 0 Median type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume vehfi 4 0 6 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0,90 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 4 0 6 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I I LR Control Delay, Queue Lsn thLevel of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR Volume, v (vph) 10 10 Capacity, cm (vph) 642 311 /c ratio 0.02 0.03 Queue length (95%) 0.05 0.10 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.7 17.0 LOS S C ,Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 17.0 pproach LOS -- -- C HC820007M Copyrighl 0 2003 University of FloA4 All Rights Reserved Version 4. Id a om TACOMA SEATTLE Preliminary technical Information Report PREPARED FOR: Sunset Highlands, LLC 15007 Woodinville -Redmond Road #A Woodinville, WA 98072 PROJECT Sunset Highlands City of Renton, Washington 207383.10 PREPARED BY: Glenn C. Hume, P.E. Project Engineer REVIEWED BY.• J. Matthew Weber, P.E. Principal December 2007 Civil Engineers • Structural Engineers • Landscape Architects • Commuoity Planners • Land Surveyors • Neighbors ail �xP��cs ��rrr I hereby state that this preliminary Technical Information Report for Sunset Highlands has been prepared by me or under my supervision and meets the standard of care and expertise that is usual and customary in this community for professional engineers. I understand that the city of Renton does not and will not assume liability for the sufficiency, suitability, or performance of drainage facilities prepared by me. Preliminary Technical Information Report PREPARED FOR; Sunset Highlands, LLC 15007 Woodinville -Redmond Road #A Woodinville, WA 98072 PROJECT - Sunset Highlands City of Renton, Washington 207383.10 PREPARED BY - Glenn C. Hume, P.E. Project Engineer REVIEWED BY.- J. Matthew Weber, P.E. Principal December 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 Project Overview......................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose and Scope........................................................................................1 1.2 Existing Conditions........................................................................................1 1.3 Post -Development Conditions.........................................................................2 2.0 Conditions and Requirements Summary .....................................................................2 2.1 Core Requirements........................................................................................2 2.2 Special Requirements....................................................................................4 2.3 Preliminary Plat and SEPA Conditions.............................................................. 5 3.0 Off -Site Analysis......................................................................................................5 3.1 Downstream Analysis....................................................................................5 3.2 upstream Analysis.........................................................................................6 4.0 Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design ........................................ 6 4.1 Water Quality System.................................................................................... 6 5.0 Conveyance System Analysis and Design...................................................................6 6.0 Special Reports And Studies......................................................................................7 7.0 Conclusion..............................................................................................................7 APPENDICES Appendix Figures A-1.................. Vicinity Map A-2.................. Soils Map A-3.................. Existing Conditions Map A-4.................. Developed Conditions Map A-5.................. Downstream Drainage Map A-6.................. FEMA Flood Map A-7.................. Aquifer Protection Map Appendix B TIR Worksheet Appendix C Hydrologic Analysis C-1.................. Drainage Basin Map C-2.................. Existing Conditions Basin Summary C-3.................. Existing Conditions 100-year, 24-hour Hydrograph C-4.................. Developed Basin Summary C-5.................. Developed Basin 100-year, 24-hour Hydrograph C-6.................. Bio-Retention (West) Basin Summary C-7.................. Bio-Retention (West) Hydrograph C-8.................. Bio-Retention (West) Level -Pool Summary C-9.................. Bio-Retention (East) Basin Summary C-10................ Bio-Retention (East) Hydrograph C-11................ Bio-Retention (East) Level -Pool Summary 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.1 Purpose and Scope This report accompanies the site development application for the Sunset Highlands Project. The project site is located in the City of Renton in the southwest quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. This site is located at 4409 NE Sunset Boulevard (see Appendix A, Figure A-1 for Vicinity Map). The Sunset Highlands project is located on parcel 0223059090, totaling approximately 0.82 acres with the proposed disturbed area totaling approximately 0.75 acres. The southern portion of the project will be left predominately undisturbed by the project. The proposed project includes a new mixed use building, including commercial and residential units. Commercial space is located on the north side of the building adjacent to NE Sunset Boulevard. Parking is provided in a parking garage under the residential portion of the building and also in surface parking stalls. An asphalt drive/fire lane is provided around the perimeter of the building. The project will also include stormwater improvements, water, sanitary sewer, and dry utilities. The design for this project meets or exceeds the requirements of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KC5WDM), which establishes the methodology and design criteria used for this project. 1.2 Existing Conditions Existing Soils: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils map identifies the site soils as Ragnar-Indianola associating, sloping (RdC). This soil is classified as about equal parts of Ragnar and Indianola type soils. A Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc., generally confirms the NRCS soils classification. Hydrologic classifications for Ragnar and Indianola are Type B and A, respectively. However, the Geotechnical Engineering Study discovered dense till soils ranging from 3.5 to 4.5 feet below existing ground surface. Therefore, the soils should be modeled as Type C soils. In order to provide conservative calculations, the on -site soils are being modeled as Type B in the existing and developed conditions. Existing Vegetation/Cover: The existing site has been clearing in the past and there is only one significant tree located near the southwest corner of the property. There are several trees located adjacent to the western property line. The site consists primarily of light brush and grasses with a gravel and asphalt area located adjacent to NE Sunset Boulevard. The existing vegetated area is modeled as pasture with light brush. The existing paved area adjacent to NE Sunset is modeled as gravel. The existing project area breakdown is as follows: Total Site Area: 35,593 square feet (0,817 acre) Gravel Area: 4,300 square feet (0.099 acre) Pasture/Brush Area: 31,293 square feet (0.718 acre) lomme An existing sanitary 8-inch sewer main runs along the western portion of the project site with an existing manhole located near the southwest corner of the parcel. There is an existing 12-inch water main north of the site on the north side of NE Sunset Boulevard. Power and other utilities are located adjacent to the project site. The NRCS Soils Map indicates that Urban Land (Ur) is the predominant soil class on the site. For stormwater modeling purposes, Urban Land is considered a Type C soil. The site lies within the May Creek sub -basin of the Cedar River/Lake Washington (Appendix A, Figure A-5 for the Downstream Drainage Map). 1.3 Post -Development Conditions The Sunset Highlands project is located on parcel 0223059090 totaling approximately 0.82 acres, with the proposed disturbed area totaling approximately 0.75 acres. The southern portion of the project will be left predominately undisturbed by the project. This area will be set aside as open space for Honey Creek and its associated buffer. The proposed project includes a new mixed use building, including commercial and residential units. Commercial space is located on the north side of the building adjacent to NE Sunset Boulevard. Parking is provided in a parking garage under the residential portion of the building and also in surface parking stalls. An asphalt drive/fire lane is provided around the perimeter of the building. The project will also include stormwater improvements, water, sanitary sewer, and dry utilities. The proposed project area breakdown is as follows: Total Site Area: 35,593 square feet (0.817 acre) Building Area: 9,890 square feet (0,227 square feet) Asphalt Pavement Area: 12,893 square feet (0.296 acre) Sidewalk Area: 3,200 square feet (0.073 acre) Landscape Area: 6,720 square feet (0.154 acre) Pasture/Brush Area: 2,890 square feet (0.067 acre) — existing undisturbed stream buffer area 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Core Requirements 2.1.1 C.R. #1 —Discharge at the Natural Location Currently, runoff from the project site flows south to Honey Creek, which flows through the southeast corner of the site and continues west. 2 [DIDION 2.1.2 C.R. #2 — Off -Site Analysis AHBL staff performed a Level 1 off -site drainage analysis in November of 2007. The analysis included: • Defining and mapping the study area; • Reviewing available information on the study area; • Field inspecting the study area; and • Analyzing the existing drainage system, including its existing and predicted problems, if any. To our knowledge there are no existing downstream restrictions and the project site will only slightly increase the flows through this system. Therefore, the downstream conveyance system should have adequate capacity to convey the additional flows from this project. 2.1.3 C.R. #3 — Runoff Control The 100-year, 24-hour existing conditions and developed peak runoff rate are 0.1838 cfs and 0.6259 cfs, respectively. This is a difference of 0.4421 cfs. The increase is less than 0.50 cfs for the 100-year, 24-hour storm event; therefore, stormwater quantity control facilities are not required for this project. The existing condition and developed peak runoff rates were determined based on the project area breakdowns provided above. Basin summaries and hydrographs are provided in Appendix C, Exhibits C-2 through C-5. Water quality will be provided by two proposed bio-retention areas. 2.1.4 C.R. #4 — Conveyance System The proposed project includes the construction of minimal new conveyance systems. Runoff from the project site will be directed to the proposed bio- retention areas via curb cuts. Closed -pipe conveyance is provided from the bio- retention area to the discharge to Honey Creek. Roof drains will also be provided to convey roof runoff. Conveyance system calculations will be provided as part of the final engineering submittal. 2.1.5 C.R. #5 — Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan A preliminary erosion and sediment control plan has been included with the site plan submittal package. A final erosion control plan and report will be included with the final engineering submittal. 2.1.6 C.R. #6 — Maintenance and Operations A maintenance plan for the stormwater management system will be provided as part of the final engineering submittal. famme 2.2 2.1.7 C.R. #7 — Bonds and Liability This project will provide for a Drainage Facilities Restoration and Site Stabilization Financial Guarantee and a maintenance and defect bond. 2.1.8 C.R. #8 —Water Quality Water quality is proposed to be provided by two proposed bio-retention areas. Detailed discussion of the water quality system is provided in Section 4.1. Special Requirements 2.2.1 S.R. #1 — Critical Drainage Areas The project does not lie within a critical drainage area. 2.2.2 Compliance with an Existing Master Drainage Plan The project does not lie within an area covered by an approved Master Drainage Plan. 2.2.3 Conditions Requiring a Master Drainage Plan The project does not meet any of the conditions requiring a Master Drainage Plan. 2.2.4 Adopted Basin or Community Plans The project does not lie within an area with an adopted Basin or Community Plan. 2.2.5 Special Water Quality Controls The project is located within the Aquifer Protection Area Zone 2. The water quality control system is designed to treat the fully developed 2-year, 24-hour storm runoff event. This is an additional requirement above the typical 6-month water quality design event. 2.2.6 Coalescing Plate Oil/Water Separators The project does not meet any of the conditions requiring a coalescing plate oil/water separator. 2.2.7 Closed Depressions The project does not discharge to a closed depression. 2.2.8 Use of Lakes, Wetlands or Closed Depressions for Peak Rate Runoff Control The project does not use lakes, wetlands, or closed depressions for peak rate runoff control. 4 rR H-1B_ L] 2.2.9 Delineation of 100-Year Floodplain To our knowledge, there are no floodplains associated with the project site. 2.2.10 Flood Protection Facilities for Type i and Type 2 Streams The project does not meet any of the conditions requiring flood protection facilities. 2.2.11 Geotechnical Analysis and Report The project site does not include steep slopes. A geotechnical engineering report has been prepared for the project as is being submitted separately. 2.2.12 Soils Analysis and Report The soils underlying the project have been accurately mapped by the NRCS; an additional soils analysis and report has been prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. and is being submitted separately. 2.3 Preliminary Plat and SEPA Conditions To be determined. 3.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS 3.1 Downstream Analysis The project will discharge to Honey Creek where it crosses the southeast corner of the project site. The stream continues to flow to the west through a 71-inch by 47-inch elliptical culvert. The streambed just west of the culvert is heavily overgrown with blackberry vines and other brush. The stream flows behind neighbor's outbuilding/shop. The property was marked with "No Trespassing" signs. Once it passes the building it immediately flows into two 36-inch by 60-inch arched pipe culverts. From this point it flows underground across the neighboring lot and then across NE Sunset Blvd to the north where exits the two arched pipes. From this point, the runoff flows into a ditch line then rounds the corner and flows north along the east side of Union Avenue. Once it has turned this corner it flows a short distance approximately 30 feet to two more arched pipes and it continues to flow to the west across Union Avenue. Once across Union, the creek exits the culverts and flows into a gravelly stream bed that borders the back side of the lots that front NE Sunset Blvd. This stream bed drops in elevation considerably and flows between a number of apartment complexes and eventually flows into the Honey Creek Open Space. This is a treed park -like area approximately 3/4 mile downstream from the subject property. The steam is at the bottom of a very deep canyon at this point. To our knowledge there are no existing downstream restrictions and the project site will only slightly increase the flows through this system. Therefore, the downstream conveyance system should have adequate capacity to convey the additional flows from this project. 3.2 Upstream Analysis The project site does not receive runoff from off -site properties except for the flows through Honey Creek which flows through the southeast corner of the project site. The current flow pattern will not be modified by this project. 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN As stated earlier, stormwater peak discharge controls are not required per the 0.5 cfs increase exemption. Stormwater quality control systems are provided for the project. The stormwater components of this project were analyzed with the assistance of StormSHED2G'. The following is a summary of the assumptions made and data used in the conveyance, treatment, and detention calculations. Methodology: Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph (SBUH) Rainfall Distribution: Type 1A Rainfall Depth: 2-year, 24-hour = 2.00" 100-year, 24-hour = 3.90" 4.1 Water Quality System The developed stormwater runoff will be treated by two proposed bio-retention areas, also known as bio-infiltration swales, as described in the 2002 Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual for Western Washington. The primary treatment function of the system is through plant uptake and filtering through the bio-infiltration soil mix, which is 18 inches thick in the bottom of the swale. Because the underlying native soils are compacted with limited infiltration rate, an underdrain system is provided below the bio- infiltration soil mix to collect the treated runoff and convey it downstream. The swale is designed to have a maximum ponding depth of 6 inches during the 2-year, 24-hour storm event. The entire volume of the 6-month event is infiltrated through the soil mix using a design infiltration rate of 2.4 inches per hour. Runoff from the parking lot is introduced to the bio-retention areas through curb cuts. During larger runoff events, a catch basin is provided to allow overflow from the swale to the downstream conveyance system. The design summary for the two bio-retention areas is provided in Appendix C, Exhibits C-6 through C-11. 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The proposed project includes the construction of minimal new conveyance systems. Runoff from the project site will be directed to the proposed bio-retention areas via curb cuts. Closed -pipe conveyance is provided from the bio-retention area to the discharge to Honey Creek. Roof drains will also be provided to convey roof runoff. Conveyance system calculations will be provided as part of the final engineering submittal. The calculations will show that the proposed conveyance system has adequate capacity to convey the 25-year, 24-hour and the 100-year, 24-hour runoff events. The conveyance basins will be based on full project build out areas. A minimum scouring velocity of 2 feet per second will be provided in all pipe reaches. 6 10M190 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES No special reports or studies have been prepared at this time. 7.0 CONCLUSION This project is designed to meet the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual guidelines for stormwater management. This analysis is based on data and records either supplied to or obtained by AHBL, Inc. These documents are referenced within the text of the analysis. The analysis has been prepared utilizing procedures and practices within the standard accepted practices of the industry. We conclude that this project, as proposed, will not create any new problems within the existing downstream drainage system. AHBL, Inc. Glenn C. Hume, P.E. Project Engineer GCHJIah December 2007 Q:\2007\2073831WORDPROC\REPORTS120071211_Rpt_(Storm )_207383. doc 010180 APPENDIX A Figures A-1 Vicinity Map A-2 Soils Map A-3 Existing Conditions Map A-4 Developed Conditions Map A-5 Downstream Drainage Map A-6 FEMA Flood Map A-7 Aquifer Protection Map sr 5 E VICINITY MAP SCALE 1`=1/4 MILE wo'! sn"Fv�m SUNSET VLANDS 2070 TACQMA SEATTLE ��� 2215 ItMh 3M Suaol. SWO 399. Twon, WA 9NO3 253M2722 TEL 1MO ShCi Areruo Sadh, 5�I61620. Sedlle, Wh 9A101 2062572l25 TEL Rognar—Indianola association, sloping (RdC).— This association is about equal parts Ragnar fine sandy loom and Indianola loamy fine sand. Slopes are 2 to 15 percent and ore mostly convex. Areas are irregular to somewhat rounded in shape and range from 30 to about 300 acres in size. Both soils occupy similar parts of the landscape and have similar vegetation. Some areas are up to 15 percent inclusions of the very gravelly Everett and Klaus soils. These sails ore used for timber. Rognar soil in capability unit We-3, woodland group 4sl; Indianola soil in Q capability unit IVs-2, woodland group 40. Ragnar Series The Ragnar series is made up of well —drained, gently sloping to strongly rolling soils on dissected glacial outwash terraces. The vegetation is mostly conifers. Slopes are 2 to 25 percent. The annual precipitation is 35 to 65 inches, and the mean annual air temperature is about 50' F. The frost —free season is 150 to 210 days. Elevation ranges from 300 to 1,000 feet. a In a representative profile, very dark grnyiishbrown, dark yellowish --brown, and yellowish —brown fine sandy loam Z cc d extends to a depth of about 27 inches. The substratum is olive —brown loamy sand. It extends to a depth of 60 inches or more. Ragnar soils are used for timber and for urban development. CSr" i = r� ri do Ragnar fine sandy loom, 6 to 15 percent slopes F—LLJ Nit (RoC).--This undulating to rolling soil is on glacial terraces. It is in irregularly shaped tracts that range from 5 to V) do more than 300 acres in size. Z The A horizon ranges from black to very dark grayish brawn. The B horizon is sandy loam and fine sandy loam that is dark yellowish brown to brown. The ;IC horizon, below a depth of 20 inches, is very dark grayish brown to alive brown. Lenses of loam and silt loam occur below a depth of 36 to 40 inches in many places. Any one horizon can be as much ns 15 percent gravel. Some areas are up to 15 percent inclusions of the very deep, sandy Indianola soils; some are up to 15 percent the very gravelly Everett and Klaus soils; and some are up to 10 percent Alderwaod gravelly sandy loam. Permeability is moderately rapid in the upper part of this soil and rapid in the substratum. Silty lcye•s in the substratum are slowly permeable. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Available water capacity is moderately high. Runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is moderate. This soil is used for timber and for urban development. Capability unit IVe-3; woodland group 4sl Indianola Series The Indianola series is made up of somewhat excessively drained soils that formed under conifers in sandy, recessional, stratified glacial drift. These undulating, rolling, and hummocky soils ore an terraces. Slopes are 0 to 30 percent. The annual precipitation is 30 to 55 inches, and the mean annual air temperature is about 50' F. The frost —free season is 150 to 210 days. Elevation ranges from about sea level to 1,000 feet. In a representative profile, the upper 30 inches is brown, dark yellowish —brown, and light olivebrown loamy fine sand. This is underlain by olive sand that extends to a depth of 60 inches or more (pl. I, right). Indianola sails are used for timber and for urban development. Indianola loamy fine sand, 4 to 15 percent slopes (InC). This undulating and rolling soil has convex slopes. It is near the edges of upland terraces. Areas range from 5 to more than 100 acres in size. U.1M There is a thin, very dark brown Al horizon at the surface in some places. The B horizon ranges from very dark grayish brawn to brown and dark yellowish brown. The C horizon ranges from dark grayish brown to pale olive and ' F ,; 3: g from loamy fine sand to sand. Thin lenses of silty material ore at a depth of 4 to 7 feet in some places, q Soils included with this soil in mapping make up no more than 25 percent of the total acreage. Some areas are W � up to 10 percent Alderwood soils, on the more rolling and undulating parts of the landscape; some ore up to B S 0 percent the deep, gravelly Everett and Neilton soils; some are up to 15 percent Kitsop soils, which hove platy lake 49 sediments in the subsoil; and some are up to 15 percent Rognor soils, which have a sandy substratum. in J3 Q— e• Permeability is rapid. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Available water capacity is moderate. Runoff is to the hazard is to This is for timber for 2 slaw medium, and erosion slight moderate. soil used and 0 urban development. U 1 ral Capability unit IVs-2; woodland group 43. Q X I- N 1 SUNSET HIGHLANDS 207W3.10 T A G O M A '$ E A T T L E EWTWO A= 1200 EMM 30m Shah, Sine 3 M Temme, WA 10i 2062672425 T& ON 42009GNAvenwSpRh,SyPe182QSmlle,WA9B104 2052fi72925 T& �°" � - 'y. �IIIIIIIIIII11111 - Opp op � I !f� 100 030 r. JB 1 � I III II IIIIIIIIIIII 1 1 co 1 aARBL I : 1 I W. I raw 1 i � 1 Z6' Fri k r 1 L ROCS FEKE TRAM - r SUNSET HIGHLANDS 2073W.1 D T A C O M A • S E A T T L E 1200 h ffi 90N S mjhl. Si Ae liN0. Tacoma, WA 91 206ZT2422 TEL OM CM up 1206 9h;lhAveua Snub, Stile 152E1, SeaAle, WA 9B1a1 2pfiT6T.1425 iEl r Laid &Yvejm TACOMA SEATTLE 2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403 253.3832422 TEL 1200 Sixth Avenue South, Suite 1620, Seattle, WA 98t01 2W.2672425 TEL -71 nil co" Pw� LawswvaW3 TACIOMA S E A T T L E 2215 North 301h Street, Suk 300, Tacoma, WA 98403 253,383,2422 TEL 1200 Sixth Avenue South, Sufte 1620, Seattle, WA 98101 206.267.2425 TEL -- - 1 -- - - < NE 23RD z !� CITY OF RENTON NLIE couRr NE 23RD AvENUE SE SE 10!ST STREET STREET 530088 COURT z BE N APPROXIMATE SCALE IN EEET z NE 22NI] NCOIT' AVVENUEUE NEE M I PLACE .�"' S00 0 SOU NE 22ND HPLACE ME CORPORATE LIMITS P`` PLACE PACE NE z I yr.. N NE 215T \ 4 NE 22ND STREET ng STREET w BREMERTON w REDMOND "+ 3 n COURT NE HARRINGTON JEFFERSON AVENUE SE z D '25TH p C 9L ,COURT NE AVENUE NE AVENUE SE NE 2157 STREET n ryOURTH I NATIONAL ROOD INSURANCE PROGRAM Z REDMOND Q 1;4PK1�`U >� T AVENUE NE = NE 2OTH ST 71 � Q C L�r1 } SE 105TH I 4 STREET HARRINGTON �� 2 PLACE VASHON FIRM s e o AVENUE NE N AVENUE NE Z M SE 106TH STREET NE TSTH FEET z FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP NE 187H NF i WHITMAN NE isTH STREET 77���7����rr 2 hORI �\ 4 COURT NE NJ COURT SE 107TH KING COUNTY, M�cQs >� STREET Z WASHINGTON AND Z "T" p,Aur \ INCORPORATED AREAS nENJE N Ni n1H z N,t. r AVENUE NE COUNTY '� fI � eyE A'J: Nc co TT'ti SiPi. E7 �' NE 1ETF! rn STHEFiSTREET ` Z i!E 1-7- �AEH�N � PANEL 668 OF 1725 S-R�F- N'E-iJ?OP.' \ AYFNJE NE KLNU COUN"_ ISEE NJ,G �-11 sC11 1ANC-S NC: -I PRIWED(� '�, AVENUE NE `\ LrN1YL0RCOR4TEI) AREAS \NE 15TH SUNSET `IiE 1S1h j sTRLET Clll OF RENTON f- PLACE CONTAINS. \ NE 157H ICOMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX r. STRCE- � I c z I KIM1G cauoln mNE 14TH = NE 14TH gU4 1111NaITY 11ri'n �aen5 S3 M s5s F y STREET STREET (EGS m z 9� ANACORTES NL 13TH 4. W AVENUE NE _ m STREET 2 ¢ PIERCE CUECN _w o -LACE NE AVENJL NE i 4 � � ZONE X WHITMAN H I .COURT NE C _F__7NE 2Tr ST iEET MAP DUMBER 53033CO668 F CORPORATE LIMITS - KING COUNTY MAP REYISM. LIIZTNODRf+OlL47EU AREAS MAY 16,1995 5315071 9 10 oAr W z z J°a O 1 I V E Fcderai Emergency Management Agency " 8 47 JOINS PANEL 09HI 30 The ik en ofioial copy Mepmw oftW a5ora,eAetenced400d map. It 122°09'22" y ektnatad wig FWITOn-Ume. TINS map doao not reaegl cfienpee /I m amend<ner to oftch may here heap mode au6aequert to the dote w the M m 10. block. F. the 10—t product infpm 0- Rbp of Nrlignaf Flppd lriaprerke y Pf gvvm flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map 9lon rt W�xu.map Nma.po� Q 0 APPENDIX B TIR Worksheet King County Department of Development and Environmental Services TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner: Sunset Highlands, LLC Mr. Dale Fonk Address: 15008 Woodinville -Redmond Rd #A Woodinville, WA 98072 Phone Project Engineer: Glenn Hume, P.E. Company AHBL, Inc. Address/Phone 253 383 2422 APPLICATIC3hi Subdivison Short Subdivision X Grading X Commercial Other Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Name: Sunset Highlands Location Township 23N Range 5E ...........Section SW % 3 Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS DFW HPA Shoreline Management COE 404 Rockery DOE Dam Safety Structural Vaults FEMA Floodplain Other COE Wetlands Part 5 SiTE COMIIMU0,1TY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Newcastle Drainage Basin May Creek/ Cedar River/Lake Washington Part 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS River Floodplain Wetlands X Stream Honey Creek Seeps/Springs Critical Stream Reach High Groundwater Table Depressions/Swales Lake Groundwater Recharge Steep Slopes Other Part 7 SOILS Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential Erosive Velocities RdC 2-15% Moderate Additional Sheets Attached Part 8 DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT Additional Sheets Attached Part 9 ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION X Sedimentation Facilities X Stabilize Exposed Surface X Stabilized Construction Entrance X Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities X Perimeter Runoff Control X Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris X Clearing and Grading Restrictions X Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities X Cover Practices X Flag Limits of SAO and open space preservation areas X Construction Sequence Other Other Part 10 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM Grass Lined Tank Infiltration Method of Analysis Channel SBUH Vault Depression X Pipe System p y Energy Dissapator Flow Dispersal Compensation/Mitigati on of Eliminated Site Open Channel Wetland Waiver Storage Dry Pond Regional Wet Pond K Stream Detention Brief Description of System Operation Stormwater runoff is from pavement areas is directed by sheet and gutter flow to two proposed bio- retention facilities for treatment prior to discharge through an underground pipe to Honey Creek. The roof drainage will be directly connected to the conveyance system discharging to Honey Creek, bypassing the bio-retention facilities. Facility Related Site Limitations Reference Facility Limitation .Part 11 , STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Cast in Place Vault Retaining Wall Rockery > 4' High Structural on Steep Slope Other Part 12 EASEMENTS/TRACTS X Drainage Easement X Access Easement Native Growth Protection Easement Tract X Other Utilities Part 13 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I or a civil engineer under my supervision my supervision have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate - Le B-3 APPENDIX C Hydrologic Analysis C-1 Drainage Basin Map C-2 Existing Conditions Basin Summary C-3 Existing Conditions 100-year, 24-hour Hydrograph C-4 Developed Basin Summary C-5 Developed Basin 100-year, 24-hour Hydrograph C-6 Bio-Retention (West) Basin Summary C-7 Bio-Retention (West) Hydrograph C-8 Bio-Retention (West) Level -Pool Summary C-9 Bio-Retention (East) Basin Summary C-10 Bio-Retention (East) Hydrograph C-11 Bio-Retention (East) Level -Pool Summary �� 3 Av dOop .�. � �� _ I�N111111fllllll y P 400in r " TMs 30 �i lu BASIN BR (EAST IIIIIIlaIJllllllll IMP.—O. M =+d PERV.— ■AHHL ■ ROOF ARIA-0.227 AC N BR (WEST BYPASSES TREATMENT — . 73 AC rm4W " .191 AC (EA BR (WEST r� -" dux . �•6, re. r - ROCKERY DIARGE TO HONEY CREEK D SUNSET HIGHLANDS 207W3.10 TACOMA - SEATTLE Cs1 2215 NOM M Sheol. Stile W. Te , WA 984M 2932&i2422 TEL DRMMO UM MR 1200 SAAvn*So ih, Sek IUO. $Wk WA OSIDI M2872128 1EL EXISTING CONDITIONS Event Summary :Event ;Peak Q (cfs) ;Peak T (hrs) lHyd Vol (acft) Area (ac) ;Method 6Raintype `100 yr , 0.1838 8.50 0.1277 0.8170 SBUH TYPEI Record Id: EXISTING CONDITIONS Design Method SBUH ;Rainfall type TYPEIA ,Hyd Intv - - i 10.00 min : Peaking Factor F— 484.00 Abstraction Coeff 0.20 (Pervious Area (AMC 2) T 0.72 ac l 3CIA i. 0 10 ac �Perviaus CN 78.00 DC CN $5 00 jPervious TC 50-45 min ADC TC 50.45 min Pervious CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn PASTUREILIGHT BRUSH 0.72 ac $ 00 �.._ _ ___.....__-.._.. Pervious Composited CN (AMC 2) E 78.00 ------------ Pervious TC Cale Type Description Length Slope F Coeff Misr , - TT - Sheet !Woods or forest with light underbrush-: 0.40 230.99 ft 2.25O/ 0.4000 2.00 in 150.45 min Pervious TC 150.45 min Directly Connected CN Cale Description S ip i ubArea Sub cn ! GRAVEL 0 1 —�--- - • 0 ac � 85.00 F DC Composited CN (AMC 2) ._.... 85.00 Directly Connected TC Calc Type E Description Length Slope , C�oeff Misc TT _. Sheet [Woods or forest with light underbrush_: 0.40 230.00 ft 2.25% 0.4000 2.00 m 50.45 min Directly Connected TC 50.45min C-2 Hydrograph ID: EXISTING CONDITIONS - 100 yr Area :0.8170 ac ; Hyd Int j 10.00 min ;Base Flow Peak flow i0.1938 cfs ! !Peak k Tune !8.50 hrs hrs Hyd Vol D,':27? acft jl,ii(hr) ;Flow (cfs) ......_. ' T m (hr) Fow (ds) Time (hr) f -- f Flow (cfs) j-367 0,0001 12.33 0.0903 �2D67 0.0608 3 83 0.0002 123E1, r0 0891.83 _.._ .._ Q.0607 4.40 0.0004 12 67 j 0.0.878 r 31.04 0.4606 0.0008 13 iiQ 1 0.0853 .33 0.0606 4 M I Moll-i .19 0.0844 21 50 - U.0606 4 5 ; 1 0 0014 13.33 . 1 0.0838 - 1 67 0.0606 4-83 , .0.0017 13-ii .0.0834 F53 0.0606 5 Qf1 0.0023 13t67 0.0826 22.00! D D6U7 5.17 0.0033 �13t$3 0.0817 22-17 I 0-0603 533 0048 l$t 0.0810 F. 2.33 r 0.0595 --- ��.:: E 0.0064...' .....14 !7:.: „ 0.0804..�..�-._32.50_ 0.0589 67 0.0085 1 33 0 0600 -67 r 0.(1584 I 3 8 0 0108 14; 0.9797 .83 70.0580 0.0133 14G7=,_ 0.0791 33.0D 0.0577I b 3�. ; j 0. 9 1S�14 0.0776 23.33 I 0.0572 R.0571�3 °1xs67 's 0.0279 i [_ O.R767 [7] 3 7 0.0570 63 0.0332 1rS Iir1_ 0.0765 83 ry 0 0569 7 i0 0.0384 7 3 67- . 0:0758 24 00 0.0569 - -7 17 0.0447 15 .0.0750 Fii7F 0.0517_ I 7 33 00522 '1f.Q D.D743 ?g4.33 0.0424 ! 7 Sp 0.0594 1{+ !7. 0.0737 F f i _ .. _ 24.50 0.0347 7�67 . ` 10.0833 F16.13 I 0.0733 F 0.0285 i I'0 1235 1b 5A: _ R.R73083 0.0233 $ Q0 OA 627 I1 6 0 :0728 moo 0.0191 $1? t..0.� ll;$3 0.072717 0.0f57 'I 83 0.1 B24 17d)i? : 0.0726 33 ; 0.0129 0105 fi�l 0 1811 13: OA7133.67 _ Fj- Q.0086 F, F 0.1746 i 9-9- -7 E 7.-v-83 i 00 071 R 1699 17 �7 0.4702 % oR Q 0058 : 3?-__. L O 0.0698.._ .'`5 00048 ( 0.1543� i 0696 33 i 0 0.0039 `; ()1474 I it 0.0669 ; . 20 -. F-0.0032 9 0.i�409 x$3 0.0664 .67 0002t, 01348 j 1 0 06726.83 �� 0.0021 s_a .:. 0.0666 f10 1-6.0018 1 f D 1250€$- 00661ji 17 T0.(1Qla-1 y9 D 1201 .' W0.OD12 0,06 i a#50 0.0010 D] 123 ' I g 0 0644 W .67 0.0008 i & 4 i 086 0:0632 .83 0.0006 bumkvt0 1056 ng 0.0626 I ()0005 [ H 01004 7� 0.0616 .33 F 0.0003 4 0985 0.0613'_ 54 ! 0.0003 d T$ •, . 0 0947 _N 1 D 0609 83 0.0002 j C-3 DEVELOPED Event Summary vent ;Peak Q (cfs) ;Peak T (hrs): Hyd Vol (acft) Area (ac) Method Raintype 100 r 0.6259 8.00 y am', 0.2173 0.8170 SBUH �TYPEIA,� i Record Id: DEVELOPED iDesign Method ! SBUH rRainfall type TYPEIA Myd Intv 10.00 min �_ _ ;Peaking Factor _ . F—4§4,00 f . - Abstraction Coeff 0.20 — jPervious Area (AMC 2) 1 0.22 ac DCIA 0.60 ac (Pervious CN j -- 79.39 €DC CN 98.00 (Pervious TC ------- — 5.00 m in ` DC TC min Pervious TC Cale Type Description Length Slope Coeff Misc - TT - _.- Fixed None Entered 1,5 min Fervious TC —' 5.00 min Directly Connected CN Calc i Description SubArea I Sub cn Proposed Asphalt 0.30 ac 98.00 Proposed Sidewalk 0.07 ac 98.00 — Proposed Roof Area 0.23 ac 98.00 DC Composited CN (AMC 2) 98.00 Type Descnphon DirectlyLength Connected i -c Ca -I E.'�"� TT Fixed IINone Entered S.DO min _ ._ _ _.. .....-- Directly Connected TC 5.00min C-4 Hydrograph ID: DEVELOPED - 100 yr __....._-... - - -- _- _;:SBse . ............. Area i8170 ac Hyd lnt }10.00 min 'I. 0. Flow . Peak flow i0.6259 cfs (Peak Time ",S.DO hrs :Hyd Vol 0.2173 acft '. (Time (hr) iFlow (efs) ! Time (hr) IF-low(cis) [Time (hr) : Flow (cfs) -0 67 ' 0. 0016 8 67 10.26 1] }6 33 0- 0897 i 0.$3 0.0067 0.2260 15 50 0.0897 1 00 0.0131 j 9.(3D i 0 2268 16 67 0.0898 1.33 0.0277 9:33 r0.1711 a7.0(1 1 0.0899 ;1 3D r 0 0319 9 Sd 10.1716 �17 17 _. 0 0969 - . 167 0.0373 9.67 0.1633 17 33 I 0.0940 1 $ 0.042Z 9 83 - 0.1551 17 50 o.asaa � Q0 i 00 0453 0.1554 1 ;67 ; O.QB4Q . 217 .101�0 F 0.0496 F 10 i?,; i 0.1470 (7 $3 0.0841- 233 "c-0 0536 1D 3 r0.1386 18 00 0.0841 2 5O 1 0.055E if158„ 0.1389 1:8,17 i 0 Q- 12 2.67 .=', 5576 i#? sF D.1333 �33 W �0.0782 1 2 $3 i 0.0592 1Q g l" 0.1277 16 5D 0.0782 3.(76 0.0 i isfl '. 0.1279 `1-8,67-. ! 0.0789 "" 3 17 ; 76.0618 11 T7.: 0.1251 1i5i i 0.0783 3 33 0.0629 1d 33 F 0.1224 19 00 0.0783 E „ 0.0638 : (- 1 0.1225 F 1119 1`7 0.0753 167 _:: k 0.0667._... _p.1198 1+ 33 (...._0.(7724. 0.1170 19.,50 0.0724 j 0.0703 i 0.1171. f 4 67 0.0724 1�4 ! F O.D751 ]' -j7 0.1 143 1 83 0.0724 1 ! O 0$0023 O.l 115 00 0,0725 -j `4-- . j 0.0807 1239 : 0.1116 Z(,17 0.0725 j 4 57 ` I D 0859 12fi' 0.1088 33 0 0725 0.0914 }3`. 0.1059 �JI).50 `. 0.0725 { SEk# i" 0.0927 33 0.1060 67 0.0726 517 0.0985 131 :. 0.1061 83 0 072f) m W53.... 04 ! Q 12 13 33 0 _] 062 21�0 l 0.0726 } 77, 0 1055 -9 0.1063 17 0.0726 5 '.. WM1 " .11 014 } : 0.1035 - -:33 j 0 7 -E $3 0 1174 }3 $3 10 0.06i 50 0.0727 ..:. 1 T , F0 1186 1 0.1007F. 67 " i-0.0727W a6 .: 0.1295 "1 0.1007 :83 0.0727 3 0 14D5 141 O.lODB- i 0.0728 b 0.1420 -�1'*^S-Q-�r D.1009 17 r 0.0698 I r7 . 0.1583 ^J4�" (0 09�80 2i 33 i 0.0667 0 748 051 }. .09;3�0 �O�.Q668 - <' ...0 1765 O.D952 G7 - r-0.0668 ;7Yt 0 1461 1? 3 0 0952 3 -0.0661 - - ;, 3" 0 168 i 0� 68 7 ..: i.0.2180 ;r 0..0954F 0.0668- h i 0 9} 0 09243 _. i i u.066y a Tt,48 i _ l + 0.0895 0.0669 F O br 2599 F,,'7 .0896 j 0.0669 0 4680 } 0.0896 50669 � '3 .�'t 0-3059 ' I _ OA897 j s Y. �6.0669 C-5 BR (WEST) Event Summary Ivent'Peak Q (cfs) Teak (hrs) Hyd Vol (acft) Area (ac) IMethod iRamtype Ik 2 yr ', 0.0974 ? 8.00 0.0334 0.2640 SBUH .ff YPEIA. Record Id: BR (WEST) ;Design Method SBUH - jRainfall type TYPElA 10.00 min !Peaking Factor 484.OD 'Abstraction Coeff 0.20 ;Pervious Area (AMC 2) 0.07 ac DCIA I_....... ( 0 19 ac ,Pervious CN 86.0098-00 _ .__ . .._ ... `Pervious TC 5.00 min ADC TC 5.00 min ....._. E Pervious CN Calc Description SubArea Sub cn _ ... F LANDSCAPE 0.07 ac 86.00 € Pervious Composited CN (AMC 2) 86.00 Pervious TC Calc -- - T y Ppe---Descri ti g on I Length ; Slope Coeff Misc TT Fixed FNonc Entered € 55.90 Amin - Pervious TC -- i 5.00 nun I Directly Connected CN Calc fDescription J l SubArea Sub en - - Proposed Impervious 0 19 ac 98.00 _- DC Composited CN (AMC 2) 98.00 Directly Connected TC Calc Type Description ;Length Slope - Coeff Mist s _ TT_. IFixed INone Entered ' S 00 min j Directly Connected TC S.00min G-6 Hydrograph ID: BR (WEST) - 2 yr .............._ -_ . -- - - Area 10.2640 ac --__.._.._-_._.._ ' Hyd Snt ' 10.00 min 'Base Flow 'r----- 'Peak flow 0.0974 cfs - :-- :Peak Time 18.00 hrs 11yd Vol ;0,0334 acft ;Time (hr) ,Flow (cfs) : Time (hr) JFlow (efs) Time (hr) ', Flov (cfs) j 1.17 0,0004 ' 9:0[1 0.0358_ lf:.59 0.011. 45 1,31 0.0012 9.17 0.0315 16.67 _.. 0.0145 1.50 0.0020 933. ; 0,0271 I 1G.83 0.0145 1 67 0.0028 r954 ! 0.0272 17.UT O.0145 1710 0.0035 957 0,0259 F 1717 0.0140 _ 200 0.0(142 9.83 ; 0.0246 17 33 i O.0 135 17- 1 ...4A049 � 0.0247 F174P 0,0135 233 0:0056 10:17 0.0234 17 0.0136 ;g 5£► 0046]U,33 ��� 022 07119 0.0136 0[1 ii7 ! 0 6S 'So.�.��-0 19- .022 ] tf� �E1 �0.0136 0.0 2S3 069 ]967.. -� 0.0212 117 00131 F.O. 0203 21133 0.0126 0.0076 11 Ot]_.. ` 0.02041$ St) ; . j 0.0126 0.0079 ] 1 0.0200 =1133&7 f 0.0126 3 50 l . Q.0081 fi O.0 995 1 B3 O.0 t 26 0.0087 ]# !1 0.4196 a 0.0t26 3.83 115 l 0 1 1 j 0.0122 .: _ 4110 ; ; 0.0094 . _ . 1.1:33 0.0187 1 1" ', O.OI 17 417 0,0102 13 0.0187 iS11 0.0117 A33 0.0110 [[ �#L17`� 0.0193 9(r9 j 0.0117 4 5U -ITI: 12.33 0. 8 15t 0.0117 7 0.0120 --- i2 3t1 0. 701 9 20 R 1 - 0.01 17 t�. _. r ; 4.012s !2&; ) 0.0174 o.0 i 17 { {IO O 0130 f 12 83 0.0170 EI 33 0.01 17 , ]7 0138 13,00 F 0.0170 17Q, _ 0.0117 " L 0.0146 F131 0.017D 711€s7-0.0117 50 , 0.0150 ]3 33 0,0170 5 0.0117 °"6T ? 0.0159 13,5R. OA171 . "1Qli ! 0-0117 1�3 0.0169 13l6? 0.0166# j 0.0117 . 0.0172 #3 8: 0.01611�3 [ [i U 118 51T 0.0189 1�¢OQ ' 0.0162 30 �! O.OI 18 0.0206 ij I 0.0162 � � 0.0118 ...-i_ 0,0210 �9 33 0 Q162 8 0.0115 0 0235 0 0162 0.0118 , 09113 F 7 + 0.0265 #3 J , 0 0153 _ 0.0108 rfa#7 I. 4.029G 1.Q 0.0153 i 0.0108... J.. 8' 0.0153-..i 0.0108 -'.. _04 0 i 3 0 0153 - --0.0108 ii7 0 4635- ]3f 0 Q153 0. 0 F--j 0.0949 1� Q.01a97 00108 j 0 0974 0 014a 0.0108 FpUF 0.9731 . p 91 FEM 0.0108 F- OA480 I� 6-0144 F 0.0 " a 0.0464.. ,°�.W., 0.0144 rFO .0.0108 V-7 LPOOLCOMPUTE [BR -LP (WEST)] SUMMARY using Puls Start of live storage: 394.5000 ft ;Event ]Match Q (cfs) IPealc Q (cfs} ;Peak Stg (ft) lVol (cf) ,Vol (acft} Time to Empty; i 2 yr F 0A974 ; 0.0300 394-9996 i 22 3 0.0052 ; 26.17 - ___..._._ - W _ =----- Summary Report of all Detention Pond Data FEvent Precip (in);', ,22yyr j2.00 0 ._._. _ ' � r Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol (ac- Area BasinlD Event ! Method/Loss IRaintype' l (hrs (cfs) ) cf) (ac) IBR �I i !(WEST) i 2yr 0.0974 I 8.00 0.0334 0.26 SBUH/SCS �TYPEIA _.._.. HydID Peak Q (cfs) Pea T (hrs);Peak Vol (ac ft)Cant Area (ac)` 2 yr out (WEST) _ 0.0300 _.I _-_.9.17 0,0334 _0.?640 Record Id: BR (WEST) Descrip: IBIO RETENTION CEL F; crer ent 0.10 ft Start El. 394.5000 ft Max El. �'396.0000 ft' Len h t� 9 111.0000 ft ;Width 35 0000 ft ,Length ss1 r3A0v:1 h ]Length ss2.3.0000v:1 h' Width ss1 j3.00v:1 h 'Width ss2 13.00 Record Id: BR (WEST) Descrip: FTREATMENT SOIL MIX ilncrement 0 10 ft Start EI. 394.5000 ft ,Max El. 102.0000 ft �f Infiltration rate 2.4000 in/hr FWP Multiplier,i 00 Lem BR (EAST) Event Summary ;Event;Pea�) [Peak )'Hyd Vol (acf0 Area (ac) iMethod !Raintype 2 yr OkW IF 8.00 0.0296 0.2400 .1 SBUH ITYPElA Record Id: BR (EAST) Design Method SBUH Rainfall type TYPEIA Hyd Into 10.00 min !Peaking Factor _.. '1 484.00 Abstraction Coeff 0.20 — Pervious Area (AMC 2) 0.08 ac - ;DCIA ............ - 0.16 ac Pervious CN 86.00 !DC CN WOO Pervious TC j 5.00 rrun 1DC TC j 0 n PerviousCN Calc SubArea - .I .... ,Description _ LANDSCAPE _.. _ - 0.08 ac _ _ 6 Pervious Composited CN (AMC 2) 86 00 E Pervious TC Calc { Type Description Length Slope Coeff Mist TT 'Fixed None Entered �- 15 000 min _ _. Pervious TC 5.00 min - ........... _ - — Directly Connected CN Cale Description SubArea Sub cn Proposed Impervious 0.16 ac 98.00 DC Corripasited CN (AMC 2) 98-00 i Directly Connected TC Cale Type Description Length Slope Coeff Mrsc TT- [--- --- Fixed None Entered - - —� 5.00 min Directly Connected TC 5 00rrun C-9 Hydrograph ID: BR (EAST) - 2 yr Area 0.240D ac Hyd int i 10.00 min ?Base Flow Peak flow 10.0860 cfs 'Peak Time F--00 hm i Hyd Vol 0.0296 acft -- - r Time 'Flow (cfs) '; Time (hr) Ik7ow (cfs) i Ime (hr) ; ----- . .. Flow (cfs) I J7 " 0.0003 MO: i 0.0319 16.50. _ 0.0130 .- 1.33 0.0010 '9� i 6.6 86 F 16.67 - D 013D -t50 UDo17 .33 j aA24]683 0.0130 1.67 a.0024 �s 50 5.0242 1Z 00 0.0130 { 183W� 0.0030 9.67 0.0231 1717 0.0126� Oa - i . 0.0036 9.83 ` o -6219 17�_ 0.0121 _ i7 (0( 0 t10f1R , 0.0220 0.0)22 83 ;, 0 0048 9--- -, O.9208 67 0.0122_ _. ,50 i 0.0052 i0 33 , 0-0197 f7,783 0.0122 " 505b ", r lU S0 0.0197 '_18A0 0.0122 283 11 0.0059 i0.67 _ j 0_ 8 D-0�062 i0 83 U_D182 ", 33 j O.O 113 0 ()MS0.0182 983© j D 0113 ;x3 I 8 11 i .. O.Di78$67 - a.0113 ^; 0. 0070:17i133` 0.0174 18.83 00114 tx 0.0074 0.0114 3j 10. 7Q0 9 11$. `a 0.01719 17 0.0109 -.-� p0-- 0 008113 L..., 0.0105 $3 i 0.0094 T211 : O.a163 i±aa� O.O105 4 50 0.0096 12 33 0.0150 19 $3 r 0.0105 " j 0.0103 12.SA. 10.0160 [7721100 , " 0.0105 i o.0 12.$1, I .0 oi561. Qp17 00105 i3 0.0112 i2 83.' 0.0152 �.33 i - 0.0105 " 519 00119 1300 0.0152 mO.OlUS 0 0126 13.jT 0.0152 d7 0-0105 (i 0�" .0129 €3.33; 0- 1152 1$3 0.0106 7 : F0.0137 ' y 13 0.0153 1 b0 i 0.0106 $3.�...:: 0 01463 Q 0149P7 _. i.. 0.0106 ; O6149 t i4 OA145 T3 - 0.0106' - "'0.0164 1lE�)�ry 0.0145 50 0 O l ob -. 3 } 0�0179 1 0 0745 M57 0 0106 - 0 0182a D 01453 0106 0 0205 0.0145 0.01 U6 0.0141 1 7.17 I 0 i F 33 . 0.0097 -i 0 l 0.0097� a # 33 D.0287 }'C 0,0137 a. 7 0.0097 ,, 0.02413 D.O137 83 �0.0097 K7 � 0 550 0.0097 .,....1. 0 08 6 _� .0 0133 17 a a850 -0 0129 ;33, `� U.0097 1) 0 0647 yr 4 0129 .50 F 0.0097 +; 1, 00098 ti.: Q.0129 Q. ... D D429._ �; -- 7D13o�o.009a; '. 0.0374 0.O 130j, . i M F 0.0098 G-10 LPOOLCOMPUTE [BR -LP (EAST)] SUMMARY using Puls Start of live storage: 394.5000 ft Event !Match Q (cfs) Peak fs) Peak Stg (ft) Vol (cf)'Vol (acft) !Time to Empty f 2 yr i 0.0860 ( 0.0264 394.9994 201.53 1 0.0046 26.17 Summary Report of all Detention Pond Data ;Event Precip (in) !2 yr !2.0000 Peak a Peak T Peak Vol (ac- ' Area i BasinlD Event;! i Method/Loss Aaintype i .(cfs) (hrs) Cf) _. I(ac) i_ BR0.24 SBUHISCS TYPEIA' EAST 2 yr 0.0860 8.00 0.029fi ( ) i HydlD Peak Q (cfs) (Peak T (hrs) Peak Vol (ac _) Cont Area (ac) i2 yr out (EAST) 00 2 46 F 9.17 ; 0.0296 0.2400 Record Id: BR (EAST) IDescrip: BIO-RETENTION CELL Fir r enT i0.10 ft Start El394.5000 ft Max EI. 096.0000 ft'� Length 126.0000 ft - Width 113.1500 Length ss1 3,00y:1 h Length ss213 00 0 l Widt- --h ss1 3.DOv:1 h rWidth ss2 3.0000v 1 h'. Record Id: BR (EAST) Descrip: TREATMENT SOIL MIX ,Increment �0.10 1 ,!Start EL 394.5000.ft Max El. 102 0000 k Infiltration rate 2.4000 in/hr WP Multiplier' 1 00 C-11 1 V) z =O z LLJ F- bi Cn Of�.-- z z m O V +► 1 �zz CA z Z a� W J !1 LLJ 4 Dw Q Lu W 0 iIL z O iii z EXST. FIRE HYDRANT CATCH BASIN RIM 398.80 12: CONC NE 394.86 IE 12 CONC N 394.84 IE 12" CONC SW 394.91 IE SUNSET HIGHLANDS A PORTIN OF THE SW QUARTER OF THE SW QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAM E MERIDIAN CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ��- CUT --IN CONNECTION TO EXISTING 12" WATER MA 120 CONC NE 388.08 8" PVC S 388.91 12" CONC SW 388.08. OVERBUILD PROPOSED MH-� ON EXISTING 8" SEWER ;ljjq.�EWER MANHOLE MAIN 2" CONC NE 386.00 IE IE=389.87 2 CONC SW 385.95 IF PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT (TYP. 3 LOCATIONS) �r �Ln ` i d Q d 1 2"FIR 2-4" I R 1 G"FIR is 64 2 FIR 6"FIR& 2,11.0 FI R SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE RW 396.32 8 PVC S 393.35 IE 8. PVC SE 393.38IE 8 PVC N 393.27 IE 1 attFIR 9 FENCE TRANSITI CUT -IN CONNECTION TO ► EXISTING 12" WA1�A DDCVA IN VAULT WITH PIV AND FDC, SPRINKLER SUPPLY SIZE TO BE DETERMINED �� �=^ ROCKERY DISCHARGE TO STREAM s: �RETE IE-391.50 E PROVIDE ROCK PROTECTION 6 N w AHB L s �L w . GRAPHIC SCAB 20 0 10 2D 40 ( INS) I inch W 20 & �C44 O0) 00 00 J �O .� � j ��/ 0 r r.� �// � 3:cd C z a S; w 0 > z r. (16 "6 4 o 0 0 c 00 0) 8 O � � _ � r z O .r 1 w 0 z O3:: O so r, C0'Q� CT] RECOMMENDED CHECKED FOR COMPLIANCE CITY OFF RENTON FOR al��Rov TO CITY STANDARDS 0 BY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS BY DATE b DATE UTILITY PLAN C4.1 z BY DATE m �` -- -- -- — DESIGNED: GCH DATE: 3/21 /2008 FILE NAME: 207383—C4.1 DRAWN: GCH CHECKED: JMW SCALE: 1" = 20' FELD 90OK,— PAGEi— APPROVED: Urge of rua= waft" SHEET: 5 OF:6 NO, REVISION BY APPR. DATE D 10 20 30 40 SCALE.• I"=20' 2,191 SF STREAM BUFFER ENHANCEMENT 11 376 SF STREAM BUFFER REDUCTION CROSS SECTIONA-B: SCALE 1 r'_ 10' `r ■ ,rr �■ ■ ■_ �■ 'r ■ ■■��--------------- A AM Mm PA m PA MAP &W N mm&��Nmflmp _.�! ii OHWM CL OHWM CROSS SECTION C-D: SCALE I "= 10' `r ■ •rr ■ ■ ■ ■■ PARANARRAN �r .. ■ CL r �OHWM NO TE: BASF DRA WING PRO VIDED B Y JON GRA VES ARCHI TEC TS & PLANNERS, PL L C Sewall Wetland consulting, Inc. 1103 West Meeker Street Ste. #101, Kent, Wa 98032 253-859-0515 Fax 253-852-4732 a w y0 X H �rr Z W N O Q W UO ¢Zd W ¢�i !-O�W W a�n�n a�jQ fU 0o J Ffn0�j ¢ MU �r Wi' h �(4 m WW'~ ,yy,, AR OC Or3z W} W Q-1 Oi 1z Z u W ozz zu NZW F~- 3 J F- aN-10 063 u 0PW a Z, a} ...J W QWs3 Z �J 0aLa (K3 =1 1 0 imy zpQJ W UOQt74 r f- Z Vl a W =d F^ m aw ¢ WPe. E= A0.w�A JWOfA J 2l7 Z a�a a Job No. 99247 Designed by: TS Drawn by: TS Checked by. Date: FEB 2008 SHEET W1 0F W-3 - i i AGO �. G' '- ° �1G� `GPt. S 009 p f » 1' I\.-. , o � oo. Fv SIN �E SANITARY SEWER - 99 ANHAG`�� 3 3�� 30 RIM 0 7E ' 3 GP, &013' 1514, 12" CONC NE 388.80 IE \k� pNG 12" CONC SW 388.61 IE EXISTIt - 007 �j (DASHE - GRAVEL 39a CREIF SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE RIM 400.43 12" CONC NE 388.08 IE 8" PVC S 388.91 IE 12" CONC SW 388.08 IE /f 3B99.93 5.33 IE 395.21 / Liz _ w - T1/JB�y �� Q �1 f 0�2 . f . TYP 015 I _ v _ � / Y 0 08 Q < ! Q LO ¢ . Q _¢ c. J l I i EXISTING ASPF ADJACENT PR( �PARKI NG LOT V � U EXTRUDED CURB( ADJACENT PROPE 40"FIR 51 CONCRETE 30"FIR ❑ .� . 0o U � a _ WEO PROPOSED MIXED USE ' r Q . m Ln 3-STORY BUILDING- EXTRUDED CURB @ oIL I __—,21 RESIDENTIAL UNITS 4 � ADJACENT PROPER o ._ » - 3 NONRESIDENTIAL UNITS ; • ' w _ - ENCLOSEDRESIDENTIAL PARKING / z Z) \ Y 1 ` _ ,/ If f y� � i CD M Ln _ m x —6 rr i w 12"FIR ; I _ a c� LLJ Ln IMF 97 — �-Q m z cn Q U) O � U EXISTING ASPHALT @ v U ADJACENT PROPERTY O r PARKING LOT (TYP.) 24"FI71- �. - - - - - Z)/ Ln f SPLIT RAIL FENCE (TYP. ) & BOUNDARY 20°Fr � !� 015 OF NA TI VE GRO WT - . RD PRO TEC TION A REA 16"FIR RAP STORM DRAIN CULVERT 21t+ FI Sl� + i RECORD NO. 8511131467 + V r n 48 CMP CULVERT 389.11 IE t �R V o -i-4 _A 4 Cr '-- S (D- 0 C �- I A7 EXlST G - IN 6 FT ! R � � 2 — A8- CH a AiNLINK FE S= o W r < TYP. �. J 0 `� 0 WF AA�3F-- "' ^ EXTRUDED Qfj 3011FIR +,-S8903758"E 164.55' W�� _ `k ROCKERY 10WAS�30" 8"�<11RETF16"FIFA r �`�.iP��,�i CULVERT OF,FStfE STANDARD�35' \ _ 1-11 S R6!AM-BUFFERF 3 9 2 - ---- ���$`� �' -- �---_' � � it rr ,'__• -' ^� � /,: ,�' /� ,'������� i j r + WF,A3 ROCKERY \ , FENCE TRANSITION • }}r i , �24 CEDAR EXISTING 6 FT TALL l C i F r / C O HAINLINK FENCE �. e f i r O � '��6 v� -: -� ',',.. i`;�// �,� (TYP.) 00 m 48" POPLA4 Z `� _ __ WF,AAY W F AAA m \ 48" CMP 48" CMP ,- CULVERT —-"CULVERT / 388.891E 388.971E�, ,/7 2" (TYP.) Cut & remove burlap I from top 112 of ball (burlap to be rottable) 0 (typ.) Finish grade 2 112 min. Mulch or sterile straw for spring planting, wood chips for fall planting. CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL Top soil fertilizer NOT TO SCALE 0 10 20 30 40 SCAL E.- 1 " = 20' PLANTING LIST QNTY PLANT NAME SIZE TREES SPACING 2 Western Red Cedar 2gal. as shown Thuja p/icata SHRUBS 2 Vine Maple 2 gal. as shown Acer circlnatum U 5 Snowberry 2 gal. as shown Symphoricarpos albus 29 Nootka Rose 2 gal. as shown Rosa nutkana 20 Salmonberry 2 gal. as shown Rubus spectabilis NO TES: • ALL NON:NA TI VE INVASIVE SPECIES TO BE REMOVED FROM STREAM BUFFER. • PLANT L OCA TIONS MAYBE CHANGED INFIELD DEPENDENT UPON DENSI T Y OF EXISTING NATIVE PLANTS. AS -BOIL T TO BE PREPARED BY LANDSCAPER. • ALL CLEARED AREAS AND ALL AREAS DISTURBED DURING MITIGATION CONS TRUC TION AND ENHANCEMENT A CTI VI TIES TO BE S TABIL IZED WI TH 4-6 INCHES OF ARBORIS T MUL CH; MUL CH IS NO T TO TOUCH S TEMS. • BA SE SUR VEY INFORMA TION PRO VIDED B Y CENTER POINTS CONSUL TING, INC. CROSS SEC TION A-B: SCALE 1 if- 10' 402 400 398 396 394 ......i 392 390 388 A 25' PL g OHWM OHWM CROSS SECTION C-D•• SCALE 1 10, 402 400 398 396 394 nor. 392 390 388 c 25PL OHWM OHWM CL 2" (TYP.) QQ Cut & remove burlap from top 112 of ball (burlap to be rottable) 2 x root ball (min) 6" berm (typ.) . Finish arade TREE PLANTING DE TA NOT TO SCALE �-- 2 112 " min. Mulch or sterile straw for spring planting, wood chip s for fall Plantin . 9' Top soil & fertilizer IL rol Balled & burlapped or containierized plant as specified Cut & remove burlap f from top 1/2 of ball (burlap to be rottable) I 2" (TYP.) n 3" 201x 6"x 8'ra# (Typ) i 4' 6"x 6' post 18" baaknr inarresoil (ryo) p�24 ilI II=111TII1—III—III=I �� I=' ',e• Ell I I —I 1=III—.111=1=III—I —da;n�x 1 I 1=1 I I1 1 11 I I-1 III I I-1 I I-1 Nola: Install habitat fence as shown FENCE DETAIL NOT TO Wetland Critical Area Boundary Help protect and care for this area. 2 1/2"m1n. Mulch or sterile straw for spring planting, wood chips for fall planting. Finish grade Tap mil& fertilizer SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL 2 x's Root 3ALL MIN., NOT TO SCALE WETLAND SIGN NOTES Glue siggn to 1/2" CDX plywood and attach 9 8- 4 -A cedar or pressure treated post with 5/I6 x3 la bolt o oe ost 3 t minimum be l p w jrade. Wetla nd si n to sit t a approximately 5' height above finish grade. y tland/stream9' e sign s shall be posted ..p at the boundary between the Critical The w Area Buffer Setback Area or Setback Tract and the Building Setback Area. One sign shall be poste per lot fare very I00 o Critical Area Bu er and shall be stationed in a prominent location i e. at the closest pant to the proposed development. Signs may also be attached securely to fences. WETLAND SIGN DE TA IL NOT TO SCALE Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. 1103 West Meeker Street Ste. #101, Kent, Wo 98032 253-859-0515 Fax 253-852-4732 LLI H H � Z� W a� tn0- F- F(�, a~ Z W F- WUMa aLjD�' a a of z-J>.o ¢ wiz L) FWa J _n� tiNW� = F Uoz o �_ly FU a Val 0 zZo ci Z�FRA RAa ti � W �3J J OW.VJQ w63u L3 C]y Z 33 r W ce W!{! 3 3z z �J O pJ � W, VW1 fff Z;iM h U []a F �r­ W Z l7 ~ J W IXX Ca(L� W a�a a ,Job No. 99 247 Designed by: AW Drawn by: AW Checked by: Date: DUNE 2009 SHEET w2 OF w3 c E :.... .. .. ._ ,�,. ..,. -. .. .� ., . +. ,3 .' - .. : :. . s' .:„ � ;v�3•: is {.. a� A ::/. :r } 7 1� �-. W •, �. :.. ... .. .. ::... ..,,. ... .' � .:.... . � ..-.� .. ....- '.� '., � -. ,. . - Y. .gyp[ :�i" ,i] _ ... •.. -.C. . y . i'�. .. � Y,... k .... � . ... .. ti. ., -... .: .'.. .._,. .. .... .r, .. ..: ..:' ..� f..� • _ .. ...,. aF .., :. .. i :.. s .,. -, I} ... I-.:-. C. ,. �. .. 4..Y .. .. n � r .. -i - ..•r.# i t.. 1.0 WETLAND MITIGATION CONCEPT AND GOALS 1.1 MITIGATION CONCEPT The proposed ADF-Sunset Highlands Mixed Use Development includes the construction of 21 residential units and 2,209sf commercial space with 58 parking stalls, 21 of which will be located within surface parking. As part of the proposed development, the Class 4-Stream buffer will be reduced and the remaining portions of the onsite buffer enhanced with native tree and shrub species. Specifically, the stream buffer will be reduced from the standard 35-foot buffer to 25-feet, resulting in 1,400sf of buffer reduction in return for 2,248sf of buffer enhancement. As part of the proposed enhancement, all invasive species will be removed from the buffer and the entire stream and reduced buffer will be placed within a native growth protection easement bordered by fencing and sensitive area signage, The mitigation area will be monitored for 5 years as required by the City of Renton. 1.2.0 MITIGATION GOALS 1.2,1 Enhancement of 2,248sf of Class 4 stream buffer. 2.0 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE The construction sequence of this project will be implemented as follows: 2.1 Pre -construction meeting 2.2 Construction staking 2.3 Construction fencing and erosion control 2.4 Clearing and grading 2.5 Stabilization of mitigation area 2.6 Plant material installation 2.7 Permanent sign installation 2.7 Construction1 inspection 2.8 Agency approval 2.9 Monitoring inspection and reporting 2.10 Silt fence removal 2.11 Project completion 2.1 Pre -construction Meeting A pre-constructionmeeting will be held on -site prior to commencement of construction, to include the Owner's biologist, the contractor, the Owner and the City Biologist. The approved plans and specifications will be reviewed to ensure that all parties involved understand the intent of the construction documents, specifications, site environmental constraints, sequences, and inspection requirements. 2.2 Construction Staking The limits of cleating and grading will be marked in the field by a licensed professional land surveyor prior to commencement of construction activities. 2.3 Constructi0n Fencing & Erosion Control All erosion control measures adjacent to the mitigation area, including silt fencing and orange construction fencing will be installed. Erosion control fencing will remain around the mitigation area until clearing is complete. 2.4 Clearing & Grading No grading is to take place within the stream buffer, Clearing will be limited to the removal of invasive species. All material removed from the buffer will be stored and or disposed of outside of critical areas and their buffers on or off -site at an approved facility/property. 2.5 Stabilization of Mitigation Area All areas disturbed as part of the clearing process will be stabilized with mulch per 3.4.2. 2.6 Plant Material Installation All plant material will be planted by hand per detail and Construction and Planting Notes. The Mitigation Plan specifies the required size, species, quantity, and location of plant materials to be installed. The contractor will re -seed or over -seed all hydroseeded areas disturbed during the planting process. Upon completion of the planting, the erosion control fencing will be restored and repaired. Plant substitutions or modifications to locations shall be approved in writing, by the Owner's biologist prior to installation. 2.7 Permanent sign installation Upon acceptance of the plant material installation by the Owner's biologist, Critical Area signs will be placed on -posts as noted on the ADF-Sunset Highlands Final Mitigation Plan. 2.8 Construction Inspection Upon completion of installation, the Owner's biologist will conduct an inspection to confirm proper implementation of the Mitigation Plan. Any corrections, substitutions or missing items will be identified in a "punch list". Items of particular importance will be soils in pits, pit size, plant species, plant size, mulch around pits, and tree staking. Upon completion of planting, if installation or materials vary significantly from the Mitigation Plan, the contractor will submit a reproducible "as -built" drawing to the Owner. 2.9 Agency Approval Following acceptance of the installation by the Owner's biologist, a letter will be prepared for the City Biologist requesting approval of the installation, 2.10 Monitoring Inspection and Reporting The monitoring program will begin in the first growing season (approximately one year) following installation sign -off and approval by the City Biologist. The subsequent monitoring inspections will be conducted in accordance with the approved Monitoring Program, 2.11 Silt Fence Removal Erosion control fencing adjacent to the mitigation area will remain in place until all areas adjacent to the mitigation area have been stabilized. 2.12 Project Completion If, after the final year of monitoring, the project has satisfied the objectives and goals of the approved Mitigation Plan, the Owner's biologist will prepare a letter to the City requesting final approval & closure of the mitigation plan. 3.0 CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING NOTES 3.1 SITE PREPARATION 3.1.1 The Landscape Contractor will approve existing conditions of subgrade prior to initiation of any mitigation installation work. The Landscape Contractor will infonn the Owner of any discrepancies between the approved construction document and existing conditions. 3.1.2 The General Contractor will flag the limits of clearing with orange construction fencing and will observe these limits during construction. No natural features or vegetation will be disturbed beyond the designated "limits of clearing". 3.1.3 The Landscape Contractor will hand grub all invasive species and blackberry varieties as specified in Section 4.13 of the approved Wetland Mitigation plan. Weed debris will be disposed of off site. 3.2 PLANT MATERIALS 3.2,1 All plant materials will be as specified in the plant schedule. Only vigorous plants free of defects, disuses and infestation are acceptable for installation. 3.2.2 All plant materials will conform to the standards and size requirements of ANSI Z60.1 "American Standard for Nursery Stock", All plant materials will be native to the northwest, and preferably the Puget Sound Region. .Plant materials will be propagated from native stock; no cultivators or horticultural varieties will be allowed. All plant materials will be grown from nursery stock unless otherwise approved. 3.2.3 All nursery grown plant materials will be in containers or balled and burlapped. Bare root plantings will be subject to approval. 3.2.4 All plant materials stored on -site longer than two (2) weeks will be organized in rows and maintained by the contractor at no additional cost to the owner. Plant materials temporarily stored will be subject to inspection and approval prior to installation. 3.2.5 Substitution requests must be submitted in writing to the Owner and approved by the Owner's biologist in writing prior to delivery to site. 3.2,6 All plant materials will be dug, packed, transported and handled with care to ensure protection from injury. All plant materials to be stored on site more than 24 hours will be heeled into topsoil or sawdust. Precautionary measures shall be taken to ensure plant materials do not dry out before planting. Wetland plants will be shaded and saturated until time of installation. Immediately after installation the mitigation planting area will be saturated to avoid capillary stress. 3.23 The contractor will verify all plant materials, the quantities shown on the planting plan, and the plant schedule. The quantity of plant materials shown on the plan takes precedent over the quantity on the plant list. 3.3 PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION 3.3. l All plant materials mast be inspected prior to installation to verify conformance of the materials with the plant schedule including size, quality and quantity. Any plant materials deemed unsatisfactory will be rejected. 3.3.2 All plant materials delivered and accepted should be planted immediately, as depicted on the plan. Plant materials not planted within 24 hours will be Heeled -in per note 3.2.6. Plant materials stored under temporary conditions will be the sole responsibility of the contractor. Plants will be protected at all times to prevent the root ball from drying out before, during, or after planting, 3.3.3 All planting pits will be circular with vertical sides, and will be sized per detail on the mitigation plan and filled with pit soils approved by the Owner's biologist. If native soils are determined to be unacceptable by the Owner's biologist, pit soils will be amended with Cedar Grove mulch or equivalent. 3.3 ;4 No Fertilizers to be used in mitigation area. 3.3 , 5 All containerized plant materials will be removed from their containers carefully to prevent damage to the plant and its roots. Plants removed from their containers will be planted immediately. 3.3.6 All plant materials will be placed as shown on the approved mitigation plan. If the final installation varies from the approved mitigation plan, the contractor will provide a reproducible as --built of the installed conditions. All plant material will be flagged by the contractor. 3.4 PLANTING SCHEDULE AND WARRANTY 3.4.1, A fall -winter installation schedule (October 1 st - March 15th) is preferred for lower mortality rates of new plantings. If plant installation occurs during the spring or summer (March 15th - Oct. 1 st ) the plantings will be irrigated by hand, with water from a watering truck, for 15 minutes every day until fall rains can provide adQq gate r moisture to support plant materials. 3.4.2 All disturbed areas will be mulched or seeded with mixes as specified on the plans as soon as the mitigation area grading is complete. The seed must be germinated and a grass cover established by October l st. If the cover is not adequately established by October 1 st, exposed soils will be covered with approved erosion control material and the contractor will notify the Owner in writing of alternative soil stabilization method used. 3.4.3 The installer will warrant all plant materials to remain healthy and alive for a period of one year after :final acceptance. The installer will replace all dead or unhealthy plant materials per the approved plans and specifications, 3.5 SITE CONDITIONS 3.5.1 The installer will coordinate with the Owner and the Owner's biologist for construction scheduling., 3.5.2 Landscape installation will begin after the City acceptance of grading and construction. The Owner will notify the Owner's biologist of acceptance of final grading. 3.5.3 Silt fences will be installed as shown on the approved mitigation grading plans. The installer is responsible for repair and replacement of silt fences disturbed during plant installation. No equipment or soils will be stored inside the silt fences. 3.5.4 After clearing is complete in the mitigation area, exposed soils will be mulched. Orange construction fence will be placed around the mitigation area to prohibit equipment and personnel in the mitigation area. 3.5.5 Final grading will be based upon soil conditions found during excavation of the fill material and will be verified by the owners biologist on -site prior to planting, 3.5.6 All plant material will be planted with suitable soils per planting details 4.0 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM INTRODUCTION This maintenance program outlines the program, procedures and goals for mitigation of the wetland impacts at the mitigation site. This maintenance program will be the responsibility of the project owner through the duration of its ownership of the mitigation area, or throughout the duration of the monitoring period, whichever is longer. The maintenance contractor will complete the work as outlined below. 4.1 MAINTENANCE WORD SCOPE 4.1.1 The primary goal of the mitigation plan is to enhance 2,248sf of Class 4 Stream Buffer. To accomplish this goal, nonnal landscaping methods must be modified to include: a. No mowing or trimming of ground cover or vegetation in the mitigation area except for control of reed canary grass and other tall growing grasses in and around plantings. Reed canary grass as well as other tall grasses such as fescue, quackgrass etc. shall be cut away from base of installed plant to avoid overgrowth of the native planting. Alternatively, a water permeable fabric or cardboard disk 12"-18" in diameter may be placed around base of plant to block tall grass growth from competing with planting. b. No placement of fertilizers in the mitigation area. c. No placement of bark mulch or equivalent in the mitigation area, except as noted in the planting details. d. No placement of grass clippings, landscape debris, fill or ornamental plant materials in the mitigation area. 4.1.2 Work to be included in each site visit: a. Remove all litter including paper, plastic, bottles, construction debris, yard debris, etc. b. Remove all blackberry varieties, scotch broom, and Japanese Imotweed within the mitigation area. All debris is to be removed from site and disposed in an approved landfill. C. Repair silt and/or permanent fencing and signage as needed. 4.1.3 Work to be completed on an annual basis includes: a. Areas containing Himalayan blackberry should be controlled by hand cutting the blackberry and treating the remaining cut stems only with an herbicide approved for use in aquatic ecosystems by the Washington Department of Ecology. Herbicides shall be applied per manufacturer specifications and used in confonmance with all applicable laws and regulations. b. Replace dead or failed plant materials. Replacement plantings are to be of same species, size and location as original plantings. Plantings are to be installed during the dormant period. c. Remove tree staking and guy wires from all trees after one year. 4.2 MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE The Owner will conduct all items listed in the Maintenance Work Scope on an annual basis. Additional work may be required per the Monitoring Report and as approved by the City Biologist. Additional work may include removal of the grasses around each shrub and tree, installation of wood chips at each shrub and tree base, reseeding the mitigation area, re -staking existing trees and erosion control protection, 4.3 WATERING REQUIREMENTS 4.3.1 If plantings are installed within the dormant period throughout the winter months (October through March 15th) watering is not required. 4.3.2 If plantings are installed during the summer months (March through October 1 st ) a temporary irrigation system will be required. The temporary irrigation system may be removed after the first year providing the plantings are established and acclimated to on -site conditions per Construction and Plantings Notes Sec. 4.0. 4 4.3.3 Irrigation will continue from initiation through October 1 st , or between June 1 st and Oct. I st for any subsequent year. Irrigation, if required, will provide head to head coverage for 15 minutes per day every day. 4.4 CLOSEOUT OF FIVE YEAR MONITORING PROGRAM Upon completion of the monitoring program and acceptance of the wetland mitigation by the City Biologist, the maintenance of the project will be reduced to include removal of litter and debris, repair of perimeter fencing and signage, removal of noxious weeds and undesirable vegetation, and repair of vandalized areas. i 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 1 M 5,1 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY The enhanced buffer will be monitored eight times over a 5-year period as required by the City of ROnton.,.., Monitoring will be conducted using the techniques and procedures described below to quantify the survival, relative health and growth of plant material as well as the successful creation of an area meeting wetland vegetation and hydrology criteria. A monitoring report submitted following each monitoring visit will describe and quantify the status of the mitigation at that time. .5.1.1 Vegetation The vegetation monitoring consists of inspection of the planted material to determine the health and vigor of the installation. All, the planted material in the wetland and buffer will be inspected during each monitoring visit to 'determine the level of survival of the installation, 5.2 STANDARDS OF SUCCESS { 5.2.1 Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an 80% survival of all planted woody vegetation at the end of Year 3. 5.2.2 By Year 5, there should be 80% cover by woody plants including installed species and desirable, native species. By Year 5, no single woody species (installed or desirable volunteer) should have more than 30% cover. Additionally, both of the 2 original tree speciest and at least 4 of the original 6 shrub species should be present at the closeout of the 5-year monitoring period. 5.2.3-Voltinteer native, non-invasive species will be included as acceptable components of the mitigation. 5.2ANot more than 10% non-native invasive species within the mitigation area at all tunes during the monitoring period. Japanese Knotweed and Morning Gory (field bindweed) are to have 0% cover at all times during the monitoring period. 5.3 CONTINGENCY :PLAN A contingency plan can be implemented if necessary to include replacement of dead or missing plants, additional plant installation, erosion control, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location. If the monitoring results indicate that any of the perfonnance standards are not being met, it may be necessary to implement all or part of the contingency plan. Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not arise. Should any of the site fail to meet the success criteria, a contingency plan will be developed and implemented with the City approval. Such plans are prepared on a case -by -case basis to reflect the failed mitigation characteristics. Contingency/maintenance activities will include, but are not limited to. • Replacing all plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary. • Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate with the same species or similar species approved by the City Biologist, • irritating the enhancement area only as necessary daring dry weather if plants appear to be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water. • Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the wetland and buffer areas as necessary per 4.0 Maintenance Program. Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. 1103 West Meeker Street Ste. #101, Kent, Wa 98032 253-859-0515 Fax 253-852-4732 q W zzfYY d� NQ- F- y UFy �W C]d WUIL =a H OC L.! A�_ a>-o iWiz a WN,X Q© WL. N �WW ra aF"W W" W40 CIF] Z ICU �Kl CUZ M~ 0Z¢ 3 �uW y � Z} Q� J a3i � _© a New g�� ©� ZWN y W _HM oa�a QQQ< Job No. 99247 Designed by: TS Drawn by: CML Checked by: Date: JUNE2008 SHEET W-3 OF W-3 P W F- o r ' 009 SANITARY SEWER 0rMANHOLE C+�lid \95 �to RIM 400.71 - - • 12" CONC NE 388.80 IE 12" CONC SW 388.61 IE EXISTINI 007 / �/ WASHEI I 07 J GRAVEL lit�fi 014 M_ J SANITARY ANHOE E _ i I RIM 400.43 / /' 012 EXISTING ASPHi 12" CONC NE 388.08 IE 8" PVC S 308.91 IE 12" CONC SW 388.08 IE, VV 3991.93 5.33 IE 395.21 / �00 JBix ' ■ // w� I � TVJB p_=ULA $ 1 f_ I -Z / 01 i Go 0 M, 8� ti 3� a _Icl U-1 4- Lt- r'. .. PROPOSED FIXED USE to to 3-STORY BUILDING I . RESIDENTIAL UNITS - o w - ,_.-21 IDE NITS 31V0iV,-RES NTIAL U C2 _ ENCLOSED�RESIDENTIAL PARIUNG - _ 39� ' 12"FIR 240FI R�� � � i Q u r, ,e. Qr II IIIII�I IIIIIIIIIIIIII 0 10 20 30 40 SCALE: 1 20' / ADJACENT PRO PARKING LOT (T 018 PLANTING LIST �W'WXIDJAC QN7Y PLANT NAME SIZE SPACING TREES EXTRUDED CURB Cc ADJACENT PROP£ CY • 2 Big LoafMOO 29al. as shown 40"FIR Acermamphyllum 1^41 2 Douglas Fir 2 gal. as shown ' r, V i%ddobuga medlZif�5 11�1 CONCRETE �0) SHRUBS �� I«�L �� @ 3 Vine Maple 2 gal. as shown ti Acar di dnalum LO 04 3 3 Indian Plum t gal! as shown 0' oemlena C813MM18 ' 1 I dDJAC O 4 RWoming Cunant 1 1. as shown RI s sangummm C 30"FIR O 4 Nooika Rose I gal. as shown ��\' /_ � Rasa nutkana 397 5 Oregon Grape 1 gal. as shown : Mahonia aqulfollum EXTRUDED CURB @ ADJACENT PROPER 6 salal 4pots ',5 on center �Ui� s+T>ia>�In I"" I� w z W LI_ w z EXISTING ASPHALT @ >_ ADJACENT PROPERTY PARKING LOT (TYP.) 18'FIR - r / SPLITRAIL FENCE � (TYP.) AWUNDAA � 1 �, 2WFIR�, ,/ r ' 015 _ _ ----- ' - ` OFNATNEGROW7 . RD " PROTECTIONAW 160FIR '� _ _w- 6r� , \' / rJynS� +) FIR STORM DRAIN CULVERT `e 9 NO. 8511131467 o " 48 CMP - -- CULVERT `r - • �- 389.111E \ v _ s O i \ q k7 -' ~r - EXISTING 6 FT GHAINLINK FEP wF Air° 4 LOWUNF WF Ara� ;_ -18"' :� .' , EXTRUDED CURB 30'FIR , - W9037'53"E 164.55' ; ; � g �, - _ - - ' _ ROCKERY �slr F — - 3 wF A51: ;:' �. aRETFf 19'FII /-'4` CULVERT Z'/ ! � J Y �l � -' , � 3,93.56 IEWF S I wF,A3� ROCKERY FENCE TWSMON 'f / ' CEDAR I 1 / ' ' ' / / %% % % F EXISTING 6 FT TALL �' CHAINLINK FENCE TYP. INNS 4W POP WF AAA - 48" CMP 48" CMP r - CULVERT ----'CULVERT � 388.1391E 3$$.97 IE � � z•mP� 6'� I I I Cut & remove burlap � I �=f 11-1 from top 112 ofbell (burlap to be mdable) To soTI feffilzer AM) Knish grade 2117m1n. MuIM orsterile sGa w for sprite planting, ►rwdchipsfarfall planbn9 CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE NOTES: • ALL NON -NA TI VE INVASI VE SPECIES TO BE REMOVED FROM SMEAM BUFFER. • PLANT LOCATIONS MAYBE CHANGED INFIELD DEPENDENT UPONDENS17Y OF EXISTING NA TI VE PLANTS. AS-BUIL T To BE PREPARED BYLANDSCAPER. • ALL CLEAREDAREASANDALL AREAS DISTURBED DURING MITICri4TION CONSTRUCTIONAND ENfMCEMENTACTIVITIES TO BESTABILIZED INIT14-6 INCHES OFARBDRIST MULCH; MULCH IS NOT TO TOUCH STEMS. • BASE SURVEYINFORMATION PROVIDED BYCENTER POINTE CONSULTING, INC. 25' 2'r(IYP.) CROSS SECTIONA-Br• SCALE 1'=10' CROSS SECTION C-D: SCALE 1 10' OHWM I-0/4M CL V�berin (typl .,� Finish .orade �-21/2"min. Mu/dr orsteri/e 8�� for�fell nwoodd�, to Cut& move bu 2xrootb�(min.) Topsoil & fmmtop 1/2ofb�sllP feiti/izer (burlap bberoGable) TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE Ba11ed A buAWd or axj&Wei&WPb7t8s Cut If iwww burlap fmm Cop 1/2 of f---� (budep to be rouble) _.._ 3* 6' 2 x's Root 2'x6'x8'►a►I (TIP.) b V// WOWtare soil (Tpp.) �• ' •i . .• • __...Note.` Insl�llli fence a8 sh�wrf } NCE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE Wetlands 21/2'min. Mulch orsbile obw for *,rind► plan8ng, woad drips fbrrfall pllan ft. Tip app8 RVNm SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 4'x rx6'post WETLAND SIGN NOTES re sbn f _1%Z_'_CDX nlvrotW and WETLAND SIGN DETAIL NOT roSCALE Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. 1103 West Meeker Street Ste. #101, Kent, Wa 98032 253--859---0515 Fax 253-852-4732 M PEI 1-4 Ld a� W yd h a� z W 0 LLJ a~a°' HaW 1.� RWH� H zrIr(C3 QI+1Z U Jsr Pz �,d' HMO x WW�E.. F� L W 1- W � Ix ZZaa~ pzz~` F�a � HHW 0z¢u �z Lj W IXLJ >X o- UMC3 r".. z 0f LJ "a-z AILWw -Itl� JSl7Z aF¢ a Job N o. XL247 Designed by. TS Drawn by: 1S Checked by:, Date: JUNE2M SHEET W-1 OF W-1 D 1.0 WETLAND MITIGATION CONCEPT AND GOALS 1.1 MITIGATION CONCEPT The proposed ADF-Sunset Highlands Mixed Use Development includes the construction of 21 residential units and 2,209sf commercial space with 5 8 parking stalls, 21 of which will be located within surface parking. As part of the proposed development, the Class 4-Stream buffer will be reduced and the remaining portions of the onsite buffer enhanced with native tree and shrub species. Specifically, the stream buffer will be reduced from the standard 35-foot buffer to 25-feet, resulting in 1,400sf of buffer reduction in return for 2,248sf of buffer enhancement. As part of the proposed enhancement, all invasive species will be removed from the buffer and the entire stream and reduced buffer will be placed within a native growth protection easement bordered by fencing and sensitive area signage. The mitigation area will be monitored for 5 years as required by the City of Renton. 1.2.0 MITIGATION GOALS 1.2.1 Enhancement of 2,248sf of Class 4 stream buffer. 2.0 CONSTRUCTION SEOUENCE The construction sequence of this project will be implemented as follows: 2.1 Pre -construction meeting 2.2 Construction staking 2.3 Construction fencing and erosion control 2.4 Clearing and grading 2.5 Stabilization of mitigation area 2.6 Plant material installation 2.7 Permanent sign installation 2.7 Construction inspection 2.8 Agency approval 2.9 Monitoring inspection and reporting 2.10 Silt fence removal 2.11 Project completion 2.1 Pre -construction Meeting A pre -construction meeting will be held on -site prior to commencement of construction, to include the Owner's biologist, the contractor, the Owner and the City Biologist. The approved plans and specifications will be reviewed to ensure that all parties involved understand the intent of the construction documents, specifications, site environmental constraints, sequences, and inspection requirements. 2.2 Construction Staking The limits of clearing and grading will be marked in the field by a licensed professional land surveyor prior to commencement of construction activities. 2.3 Construction Fencing & Erosion Control All erosion control measures adjacent to the mitigation area, including silt fencing and orange construction fencing will be installed. Erosion control fencing will remain around the mitigation area until clearing is complete. 2.4 Clearing & Grading No grading is to take place within the stream buffer. Clearing will be limited to the removal of invasive species. All material removed from the buffer will be stored and or disposed of outside of critical areas and their buffers on or off -site at an approved facility/property. 2.5 Stabilization of Mitigation Area All areas disturbed as part of the clearing process will be stabilized with mulch per 3.4.2. 2.6 Plant Material Installation All plant material will be planted by hand per detail and Construction and Planting Notes. The Mitigation Plan specifies the required size, species, quantity, and location of plant materials to be installed. The contractor will re -seed or over -seed all hydroseeded areas disturbed during the planting process. Upon completion of the planting, the erosion control fencing will be restored and repaired. Plant substitutions or modifications to locations shall be approved in writing, by the Owner's biologist prior to installation. 2.7 Permanent sign installation Upon acceptance of the plant material installation by the Owner's biologist, Critical Area signs will be placed on -posts as noted on the ADF-Sunset Highlands Final Mitigation Plan. 2.8 Construction Inspection Upon completion of installation, the Owner's biologist will conduct an inspection to confirm proper implementation of the Mitigation Plan. Any corrections, substitutions or missing items will be identified in a "punch list". Items of particular importance will be soils in pits, pit size, plant species, plant size, mulch around pits, and tree staking. Upon completion of planting, if installation or materials vary significantly from the Mitigation Plan, the contractor will submit a reproducible "as -built" drawing to the Owner. 2.9 Agency Approval g y pp Following acceptance of the installation by the Owner's biologist, a letter will be prepared for the City Biologist requesting approval of the installation. 2.10 Monitoring Inspection and Reporting The monitoring program will begin in the first growing season (approximately one year) following installation sign -off and approval by the City Biologist. The subsequent monitoring inspections will be conducted in accordance with the approved Monitoring Program. 2.11 Silt Fence Removal Erosion control fencing adjacent to the mitigation area will remain in place until all areas adjacent to the mitigation area have been stabilized. 2.12 Project Completion If, after the final year of monitoring, the project has satisfied the objectives and goals of the approved Mitigation Plan, the Owner's biologist will prepare a letter to the City requesting final approval & closure of the mitigation plan. 3.0 CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING NOTES 3.1 SITE PREPARATION 3.1.1 The Landscape Contractor will approve existing conditions of subgrade prior to initiation of any mitigation installation work. The Landscape Contractor will inform the Owner of any discrepancies between the approved construction document and existing conditions. 3.1.2 The General Contractor will flag the limits of clearing with orange construction fencing and will observe these limits during construction. No natural features or vegetation will be disturbed beyond the designated "limits of clearing". 3.1.3 The Landscape Contractor will hand grub all invasive species and blackberry varieties as specified in Section 4.13 of the approved Wetland Mitigation plan. Weed debris will be disposed of off site. 3.2 PLANT MATERIALS 3.2.1 All plant materials will be as specified in the plant schedule. Only vigorous plants free of defects, diseases and infestation are acceptable for installation. 3.2.2 All plant materials will conform to the standards and size requirements of ANSI Z60.1 "American Standard for Nursery Stock". All plant materials will be native to the northwest, and preferably the Puget Sound Region. Plant materials wilt be propagated from native stock; no cultivators or horticultural varieties will be allowed. All plant materials will be grown from nursery stock unless otherwise approved. 3.2.3 All nursery grown plant materials will be in containers or balled and burlapped. Bare root plantings will be subject to approval. 3.2.4 All plant materials stored on -site longer than two (2) weeks will be organized in rows and maintained by the contractor at no additional cost to the owner. Plant materials temporarily stored will be subject to inspection and approval prior to installation. 3.2.5 Substitution requests must be submitted in writing to the Owner and approved by the Owner's biologist in writing prior to delivery to site. 3.2.6 All plant materials will be dug, packed, transported and handled with care to ensure protection from injury. All plant materials to be stored on site more than 24 hours will be heeled into topsoil or sawdust. Precautionary measures shall be taken to ensure plant materials do not dry out before planting. Wetland plants will be shaded and saturated until time of installation. Immediately after installation the mitigation planting area will be saturated to avoid capillary stress. 3.2.7 The contractor will verify all plant materials, the quantities shown on the planting plan, and the plant schedule. The quantity of plant materials shown on the plan takes precedent over the quantity on the plant list. 3.3 PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION 3.3.1 All plant materials must be inspected prior to installation to verify conformance of the materials with the plant schedule including size, quality and quantity. Any plant materials deemed unsatisfactory will be rejected. 3.3.2 All plant materials delivered and accepted should be planted immediately, as depicted on the plan. Plant materials not planted within 24 hours will be heeled -in per note 3.2.6. Plant materials stored under temporary conditions will be the sole responsibility of the contractor. Plants will be protected at all times to prevent the root ball from drying out before, during, or after planting. 3.3.3 All planting pits will be circular with vertical sides, and will be sized per detail on the mitigation plan and filled with pit soils approved by the Owner's biologist. If native soils are determined to be unacceptable by the Owner's biologist, pit soils will be amended with Cedar Grove mulch or equivalent. 3.3.4 No Fertilizers to be used in mitigation area. 3.3.5 All containerized plant materials will be removed from their containers carefully to prevent damage to the plant and its roots. Plants removed from their containers will be planted immediately. 3.3.6 All plant materials will be placed as shown on the approved mitigation plan. If the final installation varies from the approved mitigation plan, the contractor will provide. a reproducible as -built of the installed conditions. All plant material will be flagged by the contractor. 3.4 PLANTING SCHEDULE AND WARRANTY 3.4.1 A fall -winter installation schedule (October 1 st - March 15th) is preferred for lower mortality rates of new plantings. If plant installation occurs during the spring or summer (March 15th - Oct. 1 st ) the plantings will be irrigated by hand, with water from a watering truck, for 15 minutes every day until fall rains can provide adequate moisture to support plant materials. 3.4.2 All disturbed areas will be mulched or seeded with mixes as specified on the plans as soon as the mitigation area grading is complete. The seed must be germinated and a grass cover established by October 1 st. If the cover is not adequately established by October 1 st, exposed soils will be covered with approved erosion control material and the contractor will notify the Owner in writing of alternative soil stabilization method used. 3.4.3 The installer will warrant all plant materials to remain healthy and alive for a period of one year after final acceptance. The installer will replace all dead or unhealthy plant materials per the approved plans and specifications. 3.5 SITE CONDITIONS 3.5.1 The installer will coordinate with the Owner and the Owner's biologist for construction scheduling. 3.5.2 Landscape installation will begin after the City acceptance of grading and construction. The Owner will notify the Owner's biologist of acceptance of final grading. 3.5.3 Silt fences will be installed as shown on the approved mitigation grading plans. The installer is responsible for repair and replacement of silt fences disturbed during plant installation. No equipment or soils will be stored inside the silt fences. 3.5.4 After clearing is complete in the mitigation area, exposed soils will be mulched. Orange construction fence will be placed around the mitigation area to prohibit equipment and personnel in the mitigation area. 3.5.5 Final grading will be based upon soil conditions found during excavation of the fill material and will be verified by the owners biologist on -site prior to planting. 3.5.6 All plant material will be planted with suitable soils per planting details 4.0 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM INTRODUCTION This maintenance program outlines the program, procedures and goals for mitigation of the wetland impacts at the mitigation site. This maintenance program will be the responsibility of the project owner through the duration of its ownership of the mitigation area, or throughout the duration of the monitoring period, whichever is longer. The maintenance contractor will complete the work as outlined below. 4.1 MAINTENANCE WORK SCOPE 4.1.1 The primary goal of the mitigation plan is to enhance 2,248sf of Class 4 Stream Buffer. To accomplish this goal, normal landscaping methods must be modified to include: a. No mowing or trimming of ground cover or vegetation in the mitigation area except for control of reed canary grass and other tall growing grasses in and around plantings. Reed canary grass as well as other tall grasses such as fescue, quackgrass etc. shall be cut away from base of installed plant to avoid overgrowth of the native planting. Alternatively, a water permeable fabric or cardboard disk 12"-18" in diameter may be placed around base of plant to block tall grass growth from competing with planting. b. No placement of fertilizers in the mitigation area. c. No placement of bark mulch or equivalent in the mitigation area, except as noted in the planting details. d. No placement of grass clippings, landscape debris, fill or ornamental plant materials in the mitigation area. 4.1.2 Work to be included in each site visit: a. Remove all litter including paper, plastic, bottles, construction debris, yard debris, etc. b. Remove all blackberry varieties, scotch broom, and Japanese knotweed within the mitigation area. All debris is to be removed from site and disposed in an approved landfill. C. Repair silt and/or permanent fencing and signage as needed. 4.1.3 Work to be completed on an annual basis includes: a. Areas containing Himalayan blackberry should be controlled by hand cutting the blackberry and treating the remaining cut stems only with an herbicide approved for use in aquatic ecosystems by the Washington Department of Ecology. Herbicides shall be applied per manufacturer specifications and used in conformance with all applicable laws and regulations. b. Replace dead or failed plant materials. Replacement plantings are to be of same species, size and location as original plantings. Plantings are to be installed during the dormant period. c. Remove tree staking and guy wires from all trees after one year. 4.2 MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE The Owner will conduct all items listed in the Maintenance Work Scope on an annual basis. Additional work may be required per the Monitoring Report and as approved by the City Biologist. Additional work may include removal of the grasses around each shrub and tree, installation of wood chips at each shrub and tree base, reseeding the mitigation area, re -staking existing trees and erosion control protection. 4.3 WATERING REQUIREMENTS 4.3.1 If plantings are installed within the dormant period throughout the winter months (October through March 15th) watering is not required. 4.3.2 If plantings are installed during the summer months (March through October 1 st ) a temporary irrigation system will be required. The temporary irrigation system may be removed after the first year providing the plantings are established and acclimated to on -site conditions per Construction and Plantings Notes Sec. 4.0. 4.3.3 Irrigation will continue from initiation through October 1 st , or between June 1 st and Oct. 1 st for any subsequent year. Irrigation, if required, will provide head to head coverage for 15 minutes per day every day. 4.4 CLOSEOUT OF FIVE YEAR MONITORING PROGRAM Upon completion of the monitoring program and acceptance of the wetland mitigation by the City Biologist, the maintenance of the project will be reduced to include removal of litter and debris, repair of perimeter fencing and signage, removal of noxious weeds and undesirable vegetation, and repair of vandalized areas. 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 5.1 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY The enhanced buffer will be monitored eight times over a 5-year period as required by the City of Renton. Monitoring will be conducted using the techniques and procedures described below to quantify the survival, relative health and growth of plant material as well as the successful creation of an area meeting wetland vegetation and hydrology criteria. A monitoring report submitted following each monitoring visit will describe and quantify the status of the mitigation at that time. 5.1.1 Vegetation The vegetation monitoring consists of inspection of the planted material to determine the health and vigor of the installation. All the planted material in the wetland and buffer will be inspected during each monitoring visit to determine the level of survival of the installation. 5.2 STANDARDS OF SUCCESS .2.1 Evaluation of the success gf1br,,witigation project will be based upon an 80% survival of all planted woody vegetation at the end of .2.2 By Year 5, there should be 80% cover by woody plants including installed species and desirable, native species. By Year 5, no single woody species (installed or desirable volunteer) should have more than 30% cover. Additionally, both of the 2 original tree speciest and at least 4 of the original 6 shrub species should be present at the closeout of the 5-year monitoring period. 5.2.3 Volunteer native, non-invasive species will be included as acceptable components of the mitigation. 5.2.4Not more than 10% non-native invasive species within the mitigation area at all times during the monitoring period. Japanese Knotweed and Morning Glory (field bindweed) are to have 0% cover at all times during the monitoring period. 5.3 CONTINGENCY PLAN A contingency plan can be implemented if necessary to include replacement of dead or missing plants, additional plant installation, erosion control, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location. If the monitoring results indicate that any of the performance standards are not being met, it may be necessary to implement all or part of the contingency plan. Careful attention to maintenance is essential in ensuring that problems do not arise. Should any of the site fail to meet the success criteria, a contingency plan will be developed and implemented with the City approval. Such plans are prepared on a case -by -case basis to reflect the failed mitigation characteristics. Contingency/maintenance activities will include, but are not limited to: • Replacing all plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary. • Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate with the same species or similar species approved by the City Biologist. • irritating the enhancement area only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water. • Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the wetland and buffer areas as necessary per 4.0 Maintenance Program. Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. 1103 West Meeker Street Ste. #101, Kent, Wa 98032 253-859-0515 Fax 253-852-4732 J as CD N (/) w z A E:1 u H Y H W CL LLl 0 Z o� z> �� A w F- M LZ QW W a~ o w WU�0 a Ww= w c q- z-1} o d Jz U H yM Ld L` �F- F-� W U1- 40 Wes- ujQ:W 0 zao� Zzz~ -� z 0ZW (0,Z3 64 U ZR w A>W� 3 s J� 3 awn. twn 1Z F- 3QO� a� W d_z � Haw¢ WUXs �a�a¢ y of RENTON Of 91 III DING NI1 Job No. 99Z47 Designed by: TS Drawn by: CML Checked by: Date: JUNE2008 SHEET W2 OF W-2 > v) 0 rn W 00t a � y � 4 O T z� ,zz � z a z �^ o aL w z a a o � ui a� s � GS 1Uil oe u LLJ tj ?C 0 c G.; W � SUNSET HIGHLANDS A PORTIN OF THE SW QUARTER OF THE SW QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 12: CONC NE 394.86 IE 12M CONC N 394.84 IE 12 CONC SW 394.91 IE NI ANITARY SEWER MAN OLE CONC NE 38.E 4IE „ 8" PVC S 38A.91 IE ter.. 12 CONC SW 388. 8 • ,}. q 5 16" I=IR �j i$r jj 5.0 1 IR 1 6"Fi R 24it FIR 14"FIE vvyw SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE RIM 396.32 84 PVC S 393,35 IE 8„ PVC SE 393.3E IE 8 PVC N 393.27 IE BIO—RETENTION CELL 12 BOTTOM ELM = 394.50 1O"FIR 30'. FENCE TRANSITICI I r�N " c;A _ 011 m Q LLJ LLJ C) ME J BIO--RETENTION CELL #1 BOTTOM ELEV. = 394.50 _c- CBig TYPE 1 RIM-395.00 IE=392.18_ BEEHIVE GRATE DISCHARGE TO STREAM ZETE IE=391.50 PROVIDE ROCK PROTECTION EARTHWORK SITE AREA; 35,593 SF PROPOSED DISTURBED AREA: 3ZB50 SF PROPOSED CUT: 45 CY (90 TONS) PROPOSED 171W 1,080 CY (2,160 TONS) NET EARTHWORK 1,035 CY (2,070 TONS) IMPORT SOIL DISPOSAL SITE: N/A EARTHWORK QUANTITIES PROVIDED ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY, CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE EARTHWORK QUANTITIES FOR CONSTRICTION 404 402 400 398 398 394 392 1}' AA ��`�N' rr I PLQ1�1N GRAPHIC SC A ( IN FEET ) I inch = 20 fL - --- - - Bel I_ ARC -- ING WALE SEE ITECTURAL PLAN - --- — ce W B LDING SLAB, °c� RR _ GUTTER ITECTURAL P NS GU 11R __ __ ---..._ '.' 20, _ :1--DAYU EXST. GRAI — VARI 20.00 EXISTING GR ' E ........_._-...____..�.. _ — .OQ ' � CONC. APRON 77 C w'7 L 3CD r'ri r� rr7 1+00 GRADING SECTION 'A 2+00 IT TO E SCALE. HORIZONTAL; 1" =20' VERTICAL: 1"=v 0 a) 0 E C co 0-00 fo- J a:0) j 0 im 0 00 (Li .c 0 #j � errco) c: cd c.. :)0) 0z U) L .0) 0 (1) 0 =" ,> • C) 00) o o �o =0 0 so Lo Iac (1) . N 0 .. w z 1 0 w J W m c-s _j f 4 S W d 0 U oN a < UN A wPAA 0 9 vmwi 9 NDl D RECOMMENDED FOR CHECKED FOR COMPLIANCE CITY OF RFNTON APPROVAL TO CITYDE:PARTMEN'T CV BY OF PUBLIC WORKS a BY - ------ DATE n 6 d DATE GRADING & DRAINAGE C3.1 z p� BY DATE m p 0 DESIGNED: GCM PATE; 3/2/loos FILE NAMEc _ 20a383 Ci. `0 -- - - - - DRAWN GCH CHECKED: JMW SCALE; 1 " = 20' FIELD 0001Ct_ PAGE:_ ,.f_.� NO, REVISION BY APPR. DATE APPROVED: �aaFa�rca�e rrt Mt�c cs SHEETS 4 OF-.6 ��.�x # (o C."`f- M s ;ul aPa��t H Al I /I;:o: ry IhP N CPI , ;1 *TO L4I�f—•II �2'FiR } -wt 24` R f 14*F1f r 176celloo Co- ��,�4,0, WFMI LANDSCAPE SCHEMATIC DESIGN 41 1W 20" 40' W AND . 161 SCALE: 11f=20t f t NORTH BASE MAP FROM JOB GRAVES ARC CTS; TACOMA, WA. tip SCHEMATIC PLANT MATERIAL LEGEND - * DROUGHT "TOLERANT LANDSCAPE PLANT MATERIAL ECIDUOUS STREET TREES T 7' caliper, B&B at 28' o.c. * Sunset Red MaplelArer rubrum "Sunset Red" f' Bowllall MaplelAcerrubrurn "RowH211" } * European HornbeamlCarpinus betulus "Fastr'gata" FLOWERING ACCENT TREE -- 11/2" caliper, B&B at 15' o.c. • Chantiller Flowering Pear 1Pyrus calleryana "Chantiller" * Red BudlCereis Canadensis 1 * Ratsura Xercldlphylfumjaponlcum CONIFER TREES - 8$ height, B&B at 12' o.c. * Western Red Cedar/T'huja pficata * Hollywood JuniperlJuniperous chirrensis 11Torulosa" * Shore PinelaPxnus eontorta MEDIUM EVERGREEN FLOWERING SHRUBS -- 24" height, B&B at 4' o.c. * Orchid Rock Rosel Cistus purpureus s * Julia Phelps Ceanothusl Ceanothus "Julia Phelps" * Winged EuonymuslEuonymus alata "Compacta" Spring Bouquet Viburnum/ Viburnum tinus "Spring Bouquet" ' * Helleri Chinese Holly/Ilex cornuta "Helleri * David Viburnum/ Viburnum davidii * Anthony Waterer SpiraealSpiraea x bumalda "Anthony Waterer" ,- � ri GROUND COVERS - 4" pots at 18" ox * 'nnikinnicklAretos h Ilos uvi ursi Pachysandra/Pachysandra terminalis ' HypericumlHypericum calyeinum PERENNIAL COLOR- 1 gal. Cont. at 36" oc Basket of Gold/Aurina saxatile * Candytuftl.fberis sempervirens * Day Lilly/ Herneroeallis "Stella de Orra" oL�PN7 V1Mi'f 0F • r � Aovelaolc*l 1 oil SCHEMATIC NATIVE PLANT MATERIAL LEGEND * DROUGHT TOLERANT LANDSCAPE PLANT MATERIAL DECIDUOUS TREES — TV caliper, B&B * Oregon AshlFraxinus latifolis * Vine Maple/Acer eircinatum CONIFER TREES - ` height, B&B at 12' o.c. * Sitka Spruce Picea sitchensis * Douglas Fir/.l'"seudotsuga meaziesia' x Western Red Cedarl T by ja pflcata LARGE NATIVE SHRUBS - 1$" to 24" height, at 4'o.c. " Red Osier DogwoodlC"ornus stolonifera Strawberry MadronelArbutus unedo * Oregon Grape/Mshonia aquifolium * Red Flowering Current/gibes sanguineurn * Nootka RoselRosa nutkans * Evergreen Huckleberry/ Vaceinium ovatum GROUND COVERS --1 gal./cost. at 361' ox * KinnikinnicklAretostyphyllos uvi-ursi * Low Oregon GrapelMahonia nervosa * Salall Gaultheria shallop GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. All work performed shall conform to the City of Menton landscape and irrigation requirements, codes and specifications. 2. Owner to secui-e all necessary permits for required work per Landscape and Irrigation Plan. 3. Locate, protect and avoid disruption of all above and below grade utilities and site features prior to construction. Contractor is responsible for. any resulting damages during construction. Cali to locate before you dig at 1 800424-5555. 4. Clean subgrade by removing all undesirable vegetation including grasses, weeds, blackberries, scotch broom and poplar seedlings including roots. Leave subgrade minimum 9" below paving in shrub areas and 5" below grade in lawn areas. Remove all debris from site. 5. Provide minimum 6" depth 60-40 mix from Puget Sound Topsoil NO EXCEPTIONS (253) 833-0374 In all shrub beds. Scarify subgrade by rototilling and add topsoil on surface. Add additional topsoil as needed to contour shrub beds including required berms. 6. Provide minimum 4" depth 60-40 mix from Puget Sound Topsail NO EXCEPTIONS (253) 833-0374 in all lawn beds. Scarify subgrade by rototilling and add topsoil on surface. Add additional topsoil as needed to contour and level lawns. 7. Provide minimum 2" depth fine blend hem -fir mulch to all planting beds. Mulch from Sawdust Supply, Kent, Washington. Fill all planting beds and lawn areas to within 1" of top of all curbs and walks. Slope all planting beds and lawn areas to drain. 8. Landscape Contractor to maintain site prior to Final Acceptance from Owner. Work to include mowing lawns, weeding beds and disposing of all debris from site. Provide one (1) year warranty for all plant materials and workmanship. 9. Hold all plant material minimum 3'-01' away from building to allow For plant growth and future maintenance around plant material. 10. Verify all quantities shown on the plant list and plans. If discrepancies exist between the graphic representation and the numeric totals, the graphic representation shall rule. IL All plant materials to be specimen quality with full, symmetrical trunk and foliage, unless otherwise noted. Fertilize plantings with "Osmacote 17-7-12" plant granules by Scott. Install by placing at grade level after planted. Amounts to bet 2 cups per trey; larger than 3"cal., 1 cup per 2 `/x" -- 1" cal tree, 1/2 cup per 5 gal.,'/a cup per 2 & 1 gal., 1/8 cup per C" & 4" pots. Osmacote to be placed at the base of plant after the mulch has been installed. 12. Insure proper drainage of all planting holes prior to installing plant materials. if planting holes do not drain or if heavy clay sails are evident -con tact landscape architect. _ 13. Coordinate drainage, irrigation and lighting with planting plan. 14. Remove construction debris from beds and asphalt to be removed 3" from behind extruded curb. 1.5. Place all berms, rock outcrops and/or dry creek beds prior to installation of plant material and irrigation. 16. Owner to provide hand water of proposed plant material for minimum of two years to establish plants and root development. FOR SUBMITTAL ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION USE LU N W x J m W N z rNarea �27175 MIM aaneeee SCHEMATIC D6$iGN low" WL 12IM2007 0111111W scent Ulm =I= 1"SHF.. � 04 brt,