Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA99-099
0 0 CITY OF RENTON . CO 0A r, %� �''-.. ' ; .0 Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way Renton Washington 98055 ON Jill `o4 • : ® 30Z Q cc .� * d JMv., U.R, P ITA4E x ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED # DEVci'T°vITB F N RE egVitiCea JUL 16 49 135230 1020 Benjamin Kraght RE`�C�'1VE� 22725 91St Way S Kent,WA 98031 t ImOT DELIVERABLE ---�-.•.t‘ AS ADDRESSED F 1UtdABLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER gm . 7a2. II,I„I„I,II,,,,I,I„I,1,,,11,,,1,1„Il,,,i,I,l,l„I,i„,II,I c: p CITY OF RENTON y %4yt. i-�"'�"' Planning/Building/Public Works o'j► I' 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 W JULat G a'9 S � •3 Q g Q a .. ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED " a �'*�� .S. POSTAGE 07 09 99 FCM PRESORTED SEA WA 981 172305 9033 Columbia&Sound Ry Puget Near Houser Way S ReN\At ,uJ d} cl S 05 5 i,is1„1:1,1;1,,1,1„L,1=.1,1„l,l„1,,11 Il,i„t„i,ih,,►I,I„I,I,,,il,l a 0 CITY OF RENT ON 4.1 01 • mil Planning/Building/Public Works o c-' Jill 9 ° '• ft - CO 1- 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 ..i., co 0 8'9 0305 * cc oc * Q. a: METER * . ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 40% . 2643 U. .POSTAGE : 4. ' °,'-:•'•:' 135230 0720 Warren Vaupel 1-24.0171/164-gt— Renton, WA 98055 / -I I,r .0 \ f i E.'°'."-' s • : - c i • -u"-------i I 1 m--)DriESsc,Er ,.._ it 1°'-‘, Inid ,-,.' !:iNKNOWN l ,..z. -Trwirt i 7.1,-.47...f/.?_ 11,1H1.1,ilituiLLI,H11,,,111..11,,i1,1,1L1,1.111 7 -AA 6 60 --6� 9 litrilkolf > ? g, u jaia,151 a V a thirrg z,a a'�Ial a„pI� a M Z ak_a YiPit a..a1mia a al a mElDiElEM lin,E111 o03,",'l ' ar. i . . m iv;vl mpl[ PARK AVE N. PI,...I .leid, a e m ' "6y GARDEN AVE N ' ?'Is{� �: I 'a;n �q.^xl®a Msj'c,,'AIaI_ ''ISL'stl�a x a ri ,zt CLIR IWI�x la0l ®,'""MOi®ia t1®0f3® p®al't R MEADOW AVEE N n / 2 .1 I--- Y, ®1160,1 1) I ;0 13 1®©-1-' ,.,• ,.�w��® b,-'.. O a a a=a r!Iyyya SC a i .('s sic.- ,d•,2.. yl �y yt i.i I TO r a �Id la®V. ©� j© © i© I '+w.,,4V IS FACTORY 2 a AVE. _u r. Q s yr I x r x .:. Y,r r.x M _ � Y - o .: �'•'. icy - / Fr / :may: 1 -.�. / � P N IS \ 7 I �,ti,�b tr - - �° �`"°"�' try _. ... . N .Ia, ,,:LT,..„771 zil a i A r wor SJ�`�` 121 ic \ . g3 tk^S epn'- r. �4‘EMONT of n f Sit' L s'Y,T' R66]CH,Acr ORNE,SUITE I00 G L. s:_�. - SY6 _�• p-�. PLEA$wrON,G 9.566 'v - - E E � - - - - �\ •'--' ''--- / ' I / .PROTECT INFORMATION: I o / DIRK LUA6ER MIS w�.o,r,r n ®�.u.ro.cm w.ntrz Eo..r•E.r.M—� ]- Y `Y ' 8E29XC285A V I ror / 120 FACTORY AVE.NORTH iE a Sy, 901 RENTON.WA 96055 j E .p I qI.E./(EC ' 3 \ // jRING COUNTY ? ' 6y�' - _ ® 3_ 111.c j,'- ,,r6 E;; R :BMITTALJ / ; S, J wT(w.Wrprwrro. _-... - -REV.:-OATE:—DESCRIPTION:—BY:- z E rT . FT 00 , ANTENNA LAYOUT �— • , I TOWER ELEVATION e® 2 D / IJRE-ISSUED FORW Y 6/22/99 ZONING SUB ITAL RE-ISSUED FOR < 1O,,e 6/2/99 ZONING SUBw2TAL ] L A ] 3 _ _ 5/21/99 zonamc SUBMITTAL ISSUED FOR 90X LL Ie-, 4/15/99 ZONING REVIEW O. ISSUED FOR _.' A/6/99 FEASIBRIry STUDY - 5 PREPARED BY. 3 WEST EOUP.ELEVI-1 ®1 4 E ELEV. ® 3 FRALEY / •ARCHISECTSP _ - DO LAKESIDE AVENUE,SURE NOD o.T.A E, ewe« \..4 SFATTLE WASHINGTON 98112 • •- '.Is ..[. TEL 7[15r11��0 FAX XIV�7R _ r-., _ q, iss'.Ia us`�E.�e1E uM _CONSuLTANr 1 uptEN.e KV Imo' i' V N.v �I MAP FENCE u� {. 4 11f 1 w wrz S Iu•; I _ \ ��I'r.l 1� fit y 11710, N,ucro, 1 Run Our 9M SEE.Rro.e EOUPMENT ELEVATION f ® 5CM.FENCE (1j° [�- ; 1 L�EEI I' PAWN BY: CHR.=APV.. M.9..Hr!' , C URR U[T[ � ` d . , . ,COD DEN BC —__ _ v -EICENSURE: �' _ ars1Wc FENCE / m I COW ON 1 ,t I, sNn.E xs �L7H..6 4�F._y_ ... \yM sue CONC. Kw �' 1 L srwrlr�I 6• •I 1 I•i w SOW.,IX 0 Irerl9rrolE 1 If F�o<r....r Ea.::'t.KTT EOUPMENT ELEVATION ® 6 - / nso.c. ,.fT / OW r _� (PEI1RD'N 'T:SO .SHEET tITLE: SP.,m / �' u'WCE r.ro'E'ro .14 "-"" / / LEASE AREA PLAN AND �. / ELEVATION 'III _ ri- .. % "---- I - '// / / // / / /' / -SHEET NUMBER: REVISION: AL n en IiiL ®'M vr,moon.CORN FR. —� A 2 TOWER ELEVATION { ® f 10 W.ELEV. }� ® 8 N.ELEV. H ® 7 LEASE AREA PLAN A MI6-H.". e® 1 91043 • I I* I a= 'Sprint.1 1 �p� i s y� ; I\ / NMI�OI a�N[IM ___ l j __-_--t /1, • 1 I Y 25 1 I ,) I 11 w - - - 1 Q�P / ER _DUNNtat . p5 / ifD ROOST IM-NORM j IN.16005 / • ft r T�'❑•1 / 23 I' J i =' i �� / 00 COWRY J, • y .ec17 E� • E war Ili N. / ---- - ORATING NSCR OI,^� UMZONINGI� I 4 ZONING l • JeIMIII i i -_ - o� E_ ;•• a ® SITE j 12 Y e I: . 1 / MCC - — tionpel •‘Am • n j a M_,,. _' •i �N�m.s //I /`aaawrIow -d A• I • II rR vKw• / / gitriCni nT..A.. >RIO1<L N f0932 i j .""�` •MC,ma MEC ,� - ONO�. • •aua / PM(7N)3ft-»J6 J • / •• • ■ j/ . B r I*. i •5�i / • 1011f!L OOIIM 65 NOV OVERALL SIZE PLAN w ® 2ENLARGED Sf1E PLAN ®, 1 ss-0260 TOTAL PARCEL STE CENTER OF PROPOSED TONER [07 -MR MAD INSTRUMENTATION as o�m®':MO CCU, �yaw.Pa°°i.1O unTwc-.r1•a.er. e AL nA '.A=.T.�w a we oar+., M.IC a •n.bRR 0• ••V WV.MONK .a...w v-izr ri2i�ui�'m .Aw COI =m.w.a®m A®.wa mm.w aa.sm MIN Pr Asa atm.1n a•.a a•m.Aa in .+rN MC 11•11105 NM 11M .1A a w.m m.v BASS OF BEARING MOM MIAOW 70 e.i.A ICI. ...n.A.., .. a,.a MIT.o..A.a.azra a m.,•a r.C.•.Aw.•. •ma11},•)a mww•n•CO.,a w.c nAx or m.m.woa. BENCH MARK CERTIFICATION Y•r�WN.m A 10 v A .1.10¢lvi LOOM.cr HAT D.NW ELIVATION arr OF WI.IN ppAA�a,mw� aAvn•1 Osman sa MAw•) gyp Q� iv'N •.OA mo nD faO m ... aw`� pawn,..•m tm PAVED AREA-21,898 SO.FT. . 11•• or •mcdnx Avo a..vercAL oAvtir.If BUILDING AREA-I♦,034 SO.FT. —al•. OM.,,,,,� SITE SURVEY P ,....„ PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION LEASE AREA DESORPTION LA1I1U0E s LON0f1U0E NOTES1112.43 • r 1 -----y , -,� 4Sprinr /I I f / f] I / •PlfASWtON.603 rG 945168 LE lao II W- Y ..,PROJECT INYORNATION: U I I fog / i / / / %/% / / / DUPN U1116EFi I tt4 v I \ / I 110 FACTORY AVE.NORTH RENipI,WA 96055 7 / KING COUNTY 7 --CURRENT ISSUE DATE: E I I / [ 6/22/99 = I I 1 1-ssUE0 FOR: T. I 11 \ ZONING RE-SUBMITTAL) 3 I , REV.:=DATE:DESCRIPTION:—BY:— 31 I A, n F i .i. p /1�� I 1. I / • - RE-SSUEO FOR I I i •e r 6/22/99 20NINC SURUIITA • I I •�• RE-ISSUED FOR rE 6/2/99 250111 D SII WIITA I FOR ITTAL � i 2 / 5/21/99 ZISSUED OR NC W90% -� NEW SPR:Nr ' • / 4/1 S/99 ZONING REVIEW I IWr MONOPOLE TELEC03.4 Sat A 11-: ♦/6/99 rCSISSUEB UTYD RSTUDYI OUr000R EOUIPWENr \\I{l =PLANS PREPNtEO BY:L(Ir -- FRALEY / STRIC'I�R I 'iL IMMO I ARCH (T E C T S R ® '7�9' I{!.E -"J- I OD LAIQ'SmE AVENUE SUITE MO / �' 1 I -I SEATTLE-WASH GTON 98U2 I j / / ' ' ' l// I=:I is X& 4-4E0 FAX DNII2- 75 j i I .• =CONSULTANT. / r:. I A• •/ at I 1 - I •• l r I I / Pam Moot-a / r 1,• DRAWN 6V: CNK.:=APv: UCENSURE: T I I . OD ow BC T r I I I a 117. \� —, S. SITE PLAN rr - ® 1 -SHEET TITLE. SITE PLAN -SHEET NUMBER: REWSION: - Al -�, Sprint' CIN 01 .wAlMW a6EA$u(6�a..tONfi3r.,,DRIVE,... .SUITE 100 01 tO PL MI _PROJECr INFORMATION m L' Wf4pr • DUNN LUMBER _ SE2BXC265A fV 120 FACTORY AVE.NORTN REN ON,WA 98055 C NINC COUNTY Sprint PCS 1.1 CUFRENT ISSUE DATE. 6/22/99 z OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT & MONOPOLE r�sueDioR [ZONING RE—SUBMITTAL] _REV-DATE O N—BY:— IN SE29XC265A .—DESCRIPTI . CC CD DUNN LUMBER RE-ISSUED FOR J 6/22/99 ZONING SUBMITTAL 2 6/2/99 RE-ISSUED FOR 120 FACTORY AVENUE NORTH SSUEGO FOR O 5/21/99 2DNING SUBMRTAL ISSUED FOR 90% Z REVIEW e/15/99 ZONING REVIEW W¢ - RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 $$UEDFDR a/6/99 FEASIDnin STUDY i =P1AN$PREPARED BY— z FRALEY / STRICKER - nARCHITECTS REV wal ax .1 SP..I aU99L 41 o TO n..P1.0..N01 '" TI nit s.(n.woo,we 120 LAKESIDE AVENUE SURE 103 j W°s¢l° S.001 CAR ca..owoc ro.« cao<s ,119n.64.11.6064. �51n$r(n SEATILR WASHINGTON 9412 i C.1•1410....a« ..NCEO E...(wmmOR as T 1.e sr, COP ...0 TEL AN7N-Ib0 FAX X16/JII-Y75 LSt 5. J .wOBN M o.CCOn S cmnawn y1.4:23 =CONSUIIAN t: Al STE 4. -. i PROJECT DESCRIPTION CODE COMPLIANCE A2 LEASE NN..w WO n wr u 3- SITE . v i APPLICANT/LESSEE ARCHITECT: D i T .r NroN t eus C..BOT COW.Sot(100 120(w�(sza.a SLATE wc�[[Is DRAWN BY CNN.:=APV.: N Y wuuN10N a s.ses SEut.E.OA 5e122 0 .InNSP. PK.(.251 44.61•011 :e INC.. •+o WO,. PEO.I (OIN.aa 12-0100,. 6.6.....- (2ae1 522 2Rn L DO ODV BC PROPERTY INFORMATION SURVEYOR: LICENSURE 0 TR[0 01 2O..T snss •: rttl0r S00116 I - wa"E (2001 CV. sa.16251 2.2-0250�2 (u (.251 MI-0055 ''0f F�(n LAND ACQUISITION: E.N1 VICINITY MAP 4a.d JOW :.02 NN� KS�P I,, :KT MKS.[BEN:N STE r AST0615 SHEET INDEX ZONING RE—SUBMITTAL D (. 1.251 e51-.eo0 ..)51 c51-uvN P YE.R<COMr,0ct00, yen SO( [SHEET TITLE 1 woo...net 2 PROJECT TEAM DO NOT FrAl F DRAWINGS ' I..E.ti. . Y 0219.0.0 5. ee(INCCmc0 1E CONSTRICT.TSPE r BROMSON 176 MN CO OW.. TR•CwSN[CMNE sR./TO 1.1•0/nr 220*( TITLE SHEET 01INN EIneER r r . NE CU..,20I1N0 Rx VICINITY MAP Q 20N1N[✓n1c.n00 F ..N 01xOY 501 5 POWER: TELCO: .$HEEi NUMBER REVISION:_ QM xE e Mel 225-5,5s .0. (Nql e0s-Yv00 ` 1 1 NT1 DRIVING DIRECTIONS PROJECT SUMMARY UTILITY CONTACTS GENERAL TONING NOTES • 43 .t�q• �i, t=,g ® I@ o =,�I®g p rol®i®I®t ®®®s; 2 r.®® !1 �fi1q tt, awl . x .xnnlr . ..„,@ s...n xxna 2tms at PARK AVE N. 11, ~,' j l Cm 9 -r."' ".7vi%' s�or .r y aT'9 _ 1- r GARDEN AVE. N '.''''''si- n,®iv B M »l® N o Ate Isi, w1 lal� ,+ll � x®3`�ES sl.la a- et y ev%1DI aj=',2t MEADOWAVE' N i-q ® -A? lineugs1 ®® �r - _ . Ell Eliglitt EIT 1 . 1 nil 6. 1 ., ..,,"N, s FACTORY • lilt. . AVE s 0 r .e a©./ 'ld a D :`\. y 1t. I- z � Kr+, 'c'r .�: �3 1 tJ1 Rr ., i� E 'r 1 , p .wk. '«yam _�, 2 AAAA�� ea 1Ill ,ti; �\i (tom Z 12 Sc'r `1`i - Dell 135230 0660 135230 0670 135230 0675 Eugene&Joan Garot Rodulfo Aguiling Daniel Stewart PO Box 5001 242 Meadow Ave N 238 Meadow Ave N Kent,WA 98064 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 135230 0680 135230 0685 135230 0690 Robert Banasky Robert&Diane Banasky Shane Leon Ewer 18445 Se 209Th P1 18445 Se 209Th P1 226 Meadow Ave N Renton,WA 98058 Renton,WA 98058 Renton,WA 98055 135230 0695 135230 0700 135230 0705 Donald Hamblin Frank Podriznik Juanito Delossantos 13025 138Th Ave Se 218 Meadow Ave N 214 Meadow Ave N Renton,WA 98059 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 135230 0710 135230 0715 135230 0720 Fred&Deann Businello Mary Wolfgram Warren Vaupel 208 Meadow Ave N 204 Meadow Ave N 1210 N 2Nd St Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 135230 0725 135230 0730 135230 0735 Tryg&Barb Fortun Tanya&Donald Murphy Joseph&Hiroko Flaherty 16019 Inglewood Rd Ne 247 Factory Ave N 241 Factory Ave N Kenmore,WA 98028 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 135230 0740 135230 0745 135230 0750 Matthew&Julie Meile Duane&Charlotte Thomas Gain Wong&L C Susan 237 Factory Ave N 235 Factory Ave N 5825 22Nd Ave S#A Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Seattle,WA 98108 135230 0755 135230 0760 135230 0780 Randall&Norma White C H Kokko Albert Valesko 225 Factory Ave N 221 Factory Ave N 215 Factory Ave N Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 135230 0785 135230 0790 135230 0795 K LePeter&Martha Pham Ju Quan&San You Zhao DO DU KHAI;TRAN TRAN THE 7817 118Th Ave Se 205 Factory Ave N 201 Factory Ave N Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 135230 0805 135230 0815 135230 0820 BRYANT MOTORS INC BRYANT MOTORS INC BRYANT MOTORS INC 1300 Bronson Way N 1300 Bronson Way N 1300 Bronson Way N Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 135230 0825 135230 0965 135230 0965 TEXACO REFINING&MARKETIN Ronald Roger&Joy Johnson Ronald Roger&Joy Johnson PO Box 7813 1824 Jones Ave Ne 1824 Jones Ave Ne Universal City,CA 91618 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 135230 0965 135230 0980 135230 0985 Ronald Roger&Joy Johnson Dwight&Carol Edwards Dwight&Carol Edwards 1824 Jones Ave Ne 17454 Se 192Nd Dr 17454 Se 192Nd Dr Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98058 Renton,WA 98058 135230 0990 135230 0995 135230 1000 Carol Elizabeth Harvego Christopher&Bonita Butenko Vishnu Deo Sharma 1521 N 3Rd St I 1525 N 3Rd St 16442 111Th Ave Se Renton,WA 98055 1 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 135230 1000 135230 1010 135230 1015 Vishnu Deo Sharma Bruce Arnold Kaylene Green 16442 111Th Ave Se 208 Factory Ave N 204 Factory Ave N Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 135230 1020 135230 1025 135230 1035 Benjamin Kraght Arthur Wood Raymond Wautlet 22725 91St Way S 1510 N Brooks St 1520 N Brooks St Kent,WA 98031 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 135230 1040 172305 9006 172305 9012 Ha Luong&Hang Thi Pham Northm Santa Fe Burlington CITY OF RENTON 1522 N Brooks St 1700 E Golf Rd#400 200 Mill Ave S Renton,WA 98055 Schaumburg,IL 60173 Renton,WA 98055 172305 9033 172305 9038 172305 9073 Columbia&Sound Ry Puget CITY OF RENTON Richard Colonel Near Houser Way S 200 Mill Ave S PO Box 2192 ,WA Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98056 172305 9073 172305 9073 172305 9074 Richard Colonel Richard Colonel GOLDEN PALACE PO Box 2192 PO Box 2192 151 Sunset Blvd N Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98055 172305 9077 172305 9077 172305 9077 Tseng Ming-Lei Tseng Ming-Lei Tseng Ming-Lei 219 Sunset Blvd N 219 Sunset Blvd N 219 Sunset Blvd N Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 172305 9077 172305 9082 172305 9082 Tseng Ming-Lei Ming Lei Tseng Ming Lei Tseng 219 Sunset Blvd N 219 Sunset Blvd N 219 Sunset Blvd N Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 172305 9089 172305 9090 172305 9091 Robert&Tiffany Ciambrone WINDSOR PARK ESTATES RENTO WINDSOR PARK ESTATES RENTO P Ronald 251 Sunset Blvd N 251 Sunset Blvd N 11517 Ne 107Th P1 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Kirkland,WA 98033 r,T oF: ��"� •" • DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY a SEATTLE DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS cl n' P.O.BOX 3755 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98124-3755 REPLY TO - ATTENTION OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Regulatory Branch CITY OF RENTON AUG 13Z 1 RECEIVED Mr. Lowell Anderson 8225 South 128th Street Seattle, Washington 98178 Reference : 1999-2-01393 Anderson, Lowell Dear Mr. Anderson: You are hereby authorized to replace and modify an existing pier and perform shoreline enhancement work in Lake Washington at Renton, Washington. The work will provide improved private boat moorage and fisheries enhancement . The work must be performed as depicted on the revised June 28 , 2001, enclosed drawings (enclosure 1) , and you must meet all of the enclosed conditions (enclosure 2) . We have reviewed your application for a Department of the Army (DA) permit for this work. Our review was made pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 3 , 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act . We determined that your proposal is minor in nature, will not significantly impact environmental values, and should encounter no opposition. We are thus issuing you a "Letter of Permission" for the pier replacement and modification and a Nationwide Permit (NWP) for the shoreline enhancement work rather than using our public notice procedures . The U. S . Army Corps of Engineers began a new appeals process for our Regulatory program on March 9, 1999 . For more information on how it may apply to your project, see enclosure 3 . You should also be aware that any changes in the location or plans for this work will require submittal of a revised drawing to this office, and our written approval , prior to accomplishment . The use of noncreosote piling is required in freshwater. -2- The regulations which govern our permit program contain a series of NWPs . Each NWP authorizes a specific category of work, provided certain conditions are met . The NWP 27 (Federal Register, March 9, 2000, Vol . 65, No. 47) authorizes "Restoration Activities" . The entire text of NWP 27 and its specific regional conditions are enclosed. The NWP 27 authorizes the proposed shoreline enhancement work fronting your property in Lake Washington at Renton, Washington. You must meet specific requirements and all of the enclosed conditions that apply to all NWPs on a national and statewide basis . I have completed the necessary coordination under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) . Conditions of the concurrences from the Services include timing restrictions on the work for the protection of chinook salmon, bull trout, and the bald eagle . The following conditions are added to your DA permit : You must implement the ESA requirements and/or agreements set forth in the July 2000 Biological Evaluation (BE) , entitled Biological Assessment Pier Replacement/Shoreline Restoration Anderson Property and the BE Supplements dated March and July 2001 . On July 13, 2001, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred with a finding of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" based on this document (USFWS Reference Number 1-3-01-1-1494) . The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concurred with a finding of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" based on this document on July 18, 2001 (NMFS Reference Number WSB-99-485) . Both agencies will be informed of this permit issuance and will enforce any known violations of the commitments made in this document pursuant to the ESA. For the protection of chinook salmon and bull trout, inwater work is allowed only during the period from July 16 through December 31 of any year. No inwater work is allowed during the periods from January 1 through July 15 of any year. -3- For the protection of nesting and wintering bald eagles, a vibratory pile driver must be utilized during the periods from July 16 through August 15 and from October 31 through December 31 of any year. The State of Washington has partially denied 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) and Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Consistency Response under certain conditions . You need to check with the Washington State Department of Ecology (State) to determine any further 401 WQC and CZM requirements . Please telephone or send your plans to the following prior to starting work: Washington State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 - 160th Avenue Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 Telephone (425) 649-7145 You must send us a copy of the individual 401 WQC and CZM Consistency Response authorizations for our file. In order for this NWP to be valid, you must comply with any conditions the State includes in their 401 WQC and CZM Consistency Response . You may then proceed to construction. The NWP verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter or until the NWPs are modified, reissued, or revoked. If the authorized work has not been completed by that date, you should contact us to find out what permit requirements are then in effect . Please note the conditions and limitations contained in enclosure 2 . Read them carefully. You should also be aware that any changes in the location or plans for this work will require submittal of re'rised drawings to this office, and our written approval, prior to accomplishment . Extreme care shall be taken to prevent any petroleum products, chemicals, or other toxic or deleterious materials from entering the water. If a spill does occur, or if an oil sheen or distressed or dying fish are observed in the project vicinity, work shall cease immediately and the State shall be -4- notified of such conditions . Contact the State ' s Northwest Regional Spill Response Office at (425) 649-7000 . If the project meets all the conditions, you will need no further authorization from us for the above-described project . You must still comply with other local and State requirements. At a minimum, you must obtain a Shorelines Substantial Development permit determination from the city of Renton and a Hydraulic Project Approval from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and you must contact the Washington State Department of Natural Resources for a determination of leasing requirements for submerged lands before you begin your work. Please also be aware that certain Indian Tribes assert a right to attach nets to piers, docks, wharves, and other structures authorized by DA permits . When you have finished the work, please fill out and return the enclosed compliance statement . If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Jim Green at telephone (206) 764-6906 . BY AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: Sincerely, 2/1/, 4 ,:, ,i . kt,a_,- , , , v, 67, Ralph H. Graves Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer Enclosures Copy Furnished without Encls : Ms . Amy Meyers The Watershed Company Post Office Box 1180 Kirkland, Washington 98033 cc : INTERIOR DNR NOAA STATE COORDINATOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ` y .,l..a.., ;,:�., . —"'.fir .. 1(;,t I:tl i•1 y ii 417, Alt_ `.-� _{. .� Y9i. � 7�`_'yi,F ..• 'f'."ly I s., P u ��. � i '.,4�t a 138> ' . .',.,,tY!'A\ «. ki, 'ice . -}will! ei'a -= I t m+ KENNYDALE . r ,•i , -- � :€; i `• v.a5 •JOB BEACH PARK �r . .,:a-.i.. __-_•�..rt htr{•_v. = Is.'<t a xs'=,° , -14::. 4N3 1,1a rsr a .. " ,� i d" g f { ■E .>%CI y Nii7 Y S. El . e :r.� r'a,'•' _i. a!i•u--_ie t eifitn'±sIGte. ' i_ :;,. rmi;..;. gan , i•c_ ....._.a.c- 17 5f '.' :—... ,� .. l aft • d' .f` ; i , irgit ,:..r• ,: . Q-a.,:fi_ :,C; a,, .fit'' C..+w� a'.4 ::j' rY; !.IiREE .E t • Ah 1 Rg. = 1= ii. li lUA -.c4 xiiN5-irlo)1 I iPk jam,' - �- tt, •°t *• , _ ft n ! N 1�,., Tili h t1�3 r [hw�,v- i � �- \'' -....,,, .rd.1'h... -;, -- VICINI-`( MAP SCALE: NO SCALE LEGAL DESCRIPTION 6, IITED iii. 1/4 SEC: SE 31 -24N-05E ��,Oz el, TAXLOT #: 334210 3880 rwrid \.`-_/ BLK A LOT 54-55 HILLMANS LK WN GARDEN OF EDEN #1 & SH LDS ADJ LAT: 47'-31'-10" LONG: 122'-1 2'-38" 1 1`1 1 - 2- -- 0/ 3i3 ,ADJACENT OWNERS: PROPOSED:CONSTRUCT NEW PIER. APPLICANT:LOWELL ANDERSON 0 LINDBERT, LLOYD REMOVE EXISTING BULKHEAD. SITE ADD:3107 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N 3111 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N INSTALL SHORELINE RESTORATION RENTON, WA. 98056 Q MORGAN, LAURA PURPOSE:PROVIDE FOR PRIVATE MAIL ADD:P.O. BOX 78382 3103 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N MOORAGE & SHORELINE PROTECTION. SEATTLE, WA. 98178 DATUM: C.O.E. 0.0' EST. 1919 PAGE: 1 OF: 9 DATE: 6-1 -00 • EXISTING PIER I 0•q 11 d deck emmrope I z ;%F�, IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII,.IIIIIII III ��° 34.5't O I , 10 LINDBERG, LLOYD Z ~ L� I, ,,,,un I I II 31 1 1 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N 0 Li z _ 65'-3 ± 2060 SQ FT lost Rang _ """' '.nc...'q°"Nie6...., 393.76' N 89'-50'-57" E Q (/) 5' MIN 185.54. •o Q Lti 1 4' —, / �•a w e.... .....«ea. 6' 30" WILLOW — 8' / TO BE REMOVED 1430 SQ Ff W TEMP. SILT FENCE °f JOB 0 B SITE 's -H — ,:--) PROPOSED_1— , 105' (1J `V PIER EXISTING CONCRETE 3107 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE Y = BULHEAD TO BE re PROPOSED O.H.W.M. '°` • Z Le tp _ REMOVED 186.27' I�III�III'ill'II�I III 412.85 N 89'-50'-57" E Q 20' f— Illllllllllilifllll o xmuuuuuuuumuumuuulll.' 40" POPLAR _ Z ► , 12e0 w 11 e/deck cw•.oa• EXISTING PIER I Lon Y 1 L 'A 990 SQ FT 0 105't 20 MORGAN, LAURA 3103 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N KEY ^I ` / PROPOSED STRUCTURES P LAN VIEW SCALE: 1"=50' CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 14' X 105' OVER—ALL. PIER WILL BE A 6' WIDE PIER WIDENING TO 8' AND MAKING A O G JOG TO THE SOUTH. EXISTING LOT I' `-3`� — Z — 0/ 3 '1 3 IkGGv�s` 311,940 SQ FT. EXISTING HOUSE IS PROPOSED:CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 2g�p1 1,560 SQ FT. NOTE: SEE PAGE 6 OF REMOVE EXISTING BULKHEAD RESTORATION 8 FOR SILT FENCE INSTALLATION DETAIL. INSTALL APPLICANT:LOWELL ANDERSON 3107 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N RENTON, WA. 98178 PAGE:2 OF:8 OATE:6-1-00 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SEWER LINE 6' - 105' ----- JOIST CAP PILING / 37'-6" ,,,,� B NAILER Ate. 0 / 5' MIN o 111 GLU—LAM ° Pi 4•I°1 1 1 1 1 fie revel I I I F1 1 1 1 *I I I I I I I 1 IP 6' i4II I l l l l l ,�'I` ° II-I I I I•h Ii {!.I I I I fi I I IQ 1 1 (, I I I �_ O.H.W.M. AT i inI + I I I r ma+r I I I oA \ PROPOSED Cr*„.1, 8' l[11 1 1 I I 'I 11111 I I 1 1111 0 0 0 `��SHORELINE.�,, 1 IIII I I I I I I 1 WI I I_I1 I t ,� g DETAIL VIEW PRISMS rPRISMS FOR CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 14' X 105' OVER-ALL. FOR LIGHT LIGHT PENETRATION PIER WILL CONSIST OF A 6' MAINWALK, WIDENING PENETRATION TO AN 8' WALK AFTER A JOG TO THE SOUTH. KEY SCALE: 1"=16' 0 EXISTING 10"± CREOSOTE TREATED PILES TO BE REMOVED (16 TOTAL) O.H.W. 21.85' I /// / // //\/\/. 16 -6' /\/\i \/\/\\/\\/\//\\/\\/\\/\ 1 z\ \/i�\/\\ \ ELEVATION VIEW /�/jam//� i/ PROPOSED ALL NEW PILING TO BE 4" SCH 80 COATED STEEL SPANNING 18'± AND • 18'± PILING DRIVEN AT 10,000 LBS OR PRACTICAL REFUSAL. / _2. _ O /3`f 3 PROPOSED:CONSTRUCT NEW PIER 1 REMOVE EXISTING BULKHEAD INSTALL SHORELINE RESTORATION 1 as/O APPLICANT:LOWELL ANDERSON 3107 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N RENTON, WA. 98178 PAGE:3 OF:8 DATE:6-1-00 • 2X4 BLOCKING © - 6' 3'0/C MAX (16"0/C FOR 'CHOICE' OR 3/4" GALV COMPRESSION 'TREX' DECKING) RODS SPACED 6'-10' 0/C 2X6 DECKING • 3-1/8" X 18" DQ 7 GLU—LAM BEAM LAG BOLT GLU—LAM TO 2X8 JOIST NAILED TO • STEEL CAP 11,1 2X8 RIM JOIST W/ (5) ASSEMBLY -= 16d GALV NAILS fE 24"± 2-1/2" X 1/2" LAG BOLTS IN PRE— P p DRILLED HOLES O.H.W. 21.85' STEEL CAP ASSEMBLY PILE CAP SADDLE WELDED TO PILE CAP SADDLE (:). __BOLTED TO 4" SCH 80 COATED STEEL PILE SECTION A-A SCALE: 1"=1' REVISED ALL HARDWARE TO BE HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED. REV SE GLU—LAMS TO BE TREATED WITH 28/p1 COPPER-8—QUINOLINOLATE. DECKING TO BE DF 0/ TREATED WITH COPPER-8—QUINOLINOLATE. 2X4 BLOCKING TO BE TREATED WITH CHEMONITE (ACZA). 9`'j`"-j Z — Cj t 3 f 3 JOIST TO BE PRESSURE TREATED. ALL WELDING TO BE PROPOSED:CONSTRUCT NEW PIER DONE BY WABO CERTIFIED WELDERS. 11 REMOVE EXISTING BULKHEAD INSTALL SHORELINE RESTORATION APPLICANT:LOWELL ANDERSON 3107 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N RENTON, WA. 98178 PACE:4 OF:8 DATE:6-1-00 r • 14' 6 8 BEAM SUPPORT GLU-LAMS THRU 2X8 RIM JOIST 2X6 DECKING 2X4 BLOCKING BRACKET BOLTED FOR MUTUAL SUPPORT 2X8 JOIST 3-1/8 X 18 =I -� ) ,,[GLU_LAM 24"± 1 OH,W 21.85' MODIFIED BEAM W6X15 CAP SUPPORT U BRACKET O LOWER I BEAM p I PILE CONNECTION WELDED TO CAP FOR INTEGRITY SECTION B-B SCALE: 1=2' ALL HARDWARE TO BE HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED. GLU-LAMS TO BE TREATED WITH COPPER-8-QUINOLINOLATE. DECKING TO BE DF TREATED WITH COPPER-8-QUINOLINOLATE. 2X4 BLOCKING TO BE TREATED WITH CHEMONITE (ACZA). JOIST TO BE PRESSURE TREATED. ALL WELDING TO BE DONE BY WABO CERTIFIED WELDERS. REVISED 0/22/°1- l�✓`� � -2_ - C' t 3 13 PROPOSED:CONSTRUCT NEW PIER REMOVE EXISTING BULKHEAD INSTALL SHORELINE RESTORATION APPLICANT:LOWELL ANDERSON 3107 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N RENTON. WA. 98178 PAGE:5 OF:8 DATE:6-1-00 O.H.W. SILT FENCE 21 .85' POST 0 H W FENCER TO SILT TO 21 .85' OF POST Ar4r4b,,...,„Nr rrir, rir►i •1. ♦♦ ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦.�♦♦ ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦�♦♦ POST ROCK ANCHOR ♦♦ ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦ WEIGHTS ♦♦ ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦.*** LAKE ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦,♦♦ BOTTOM \/�\/ \j\/\\/�\\/�\\����j�\\/�\\/�\\/�\�f //\/A / \��\ � \ LAKE BOTTOM 6' TO 8' MAX SILT FENCE INSTALLATION DETAIL SCALE: 1 "=4' INSTALL SILT FENCE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. REMOVE SILT FENCE WHEN PROJECT IS COMPLETED.REv,SEp &/2g/D1 /4)' t ? `i3 PROPOSED:CONSTRUCT NEW PIER REMOVE EXISTING BULKHEAD INSTALL SHORELINE RESTORATION APPLICANT:LOWELL ANDERSON 3107 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N RENTON, WA. 98178 PAGE:6 OF:8 DATE:6-1-00 E. 12EMav� �.�cIsT I�ICo r��IG, ___ cs .� � -,PT �►�I WLL�E1 TOIPIS ikl �.il-� • ••.�.�.o l.�bv �XISTII�(o pErat-h�G, ��lnl1 (t to r ) T� t4'1 'Fliv d'o0 o�Wl�i '• il J�. � ��� �� ' 1'l�T `xa-IDDULE O QUANTITY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE CONDITIOh SYMBOL Si 0 /� 2 Vine Maple Acercwanatum 3 4' bare root l j / �� 1`i�1D�k` 10 Red Osier Dogwood Corpus stolonitera 2-3' bare root CD 1 Pacific Willow Sails lasiandra 3-6 bare root _-.-_ _ I 1 . „• 10 �7CIrlflidcinrlidc Arctostaphytos uva-ursi 1 gal. container ID {►r�-��:���{-��^^ r / • I 1,', N7 N L� / 10 Oregon Iris Iris tenax 1 gal. container Q I ! /I CVt/_ O h'(iC.� I to Hardstem Bulrush Saipus acutus 5' I1II L.-!^��'-r plug oNw '�►�- .'A '�� —4' vet&TA1v (rung SARI? 0 44„ i *or. 6DE4--ki-i/ �� <<-.1.-��1-I�AP A-ro B `.. 111i ' t2 vf� -. l IUD 7oSF.b up ID i' v ,11t-1D 40v 4oyp i tt - \ /' t��l, oTN R0: S h f2EL1 OE-- II `. , �o &� F � w/ law+- . 1,12Avl. .6.(2 t\ II ' t4Ei..b-1 - 1- I4 Ek1 Rc6ToR .5�D�. (,li�,� yo :: �Al/; LEI` lE K t JCo I1►,I+ W , w plc �aI .j- v/A71 I �$4� • ���, I erpl�.GE w,%vI GE .Es �� II AI'�° 3 I • % 0 C ,•44 eo* t : oIIA. • V`�� • A -' I.bwt-� I`i a lik NMI op . ..4 , III poi sT� MEtt?&�nvEL 00 „It, , O txKT, 60L1c.IjUULI-I�D1 or; /for° i / _ 0. SI J` 1 I= REM(oAID � 12G�Ls TO •J .:.T.VJ �_ ( �I E A- /4") �°) - Z- or393 LELvE, Exi41- t2Gr.,Ls . -1 e X " 'f 12EE PROPOSED:CONSTRUCT NEW PIER (/p� REMOVE EXISTINGBULKHEAD 1.,6, t,s -k22t-sImp/Jr. 5/ti -5-.\__L-Ff2 4/'i'lf- 1a_ INSTALL SHORELINE RESTORATION APPLICANT:LOWELL ANDERSON 3107 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N RENTON, WA. 98178 PAGE:7 OF:8 DATE:6-1-00 1 1R'Ml y ` 1-62 cog44 4 Ot S'LmM. vE.L -1-2 Mg�D(ol?hv� � r nxwr, 6iot M(o C. L 1 J) LVo(P -,,q�l1=p (J S�pEL 5 7 TIIL (TYPE) s- pocks �, K� ko �Qou1.b fE r-L175 Lj 13PE- STD �ETb 10a►ki1,JK.1, k 1'± bs e-towt,1 01-1k/Ml 2 12c L itJ 5. t2cZ N-102 LILE )E--74,1L 5LcEFIL.t. 1Z:7 -op o f �J�S�O 6< j GGDT I o • /1: PROPOSED:CONSTRUCT NEW PIER REO EXISTING BULKHEAD G��{/ J L I {, I✓ 2IL,(iyp.) ISTALLVE SHOREL NERETION ��lyAPPLICANT:LOWELL ANDERSON 3107 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE N RENTON, WA. 98178 PAGE:8 OF:8 DATE:6-1-QO CONDITIONS FOR LETTERS OF PERMISSION General conditions: 1. The Lime limit for completing the work authorized ends on A`'' 0 200 4 If you find that you need more time to complete the authorized activity, sub- mit your request for a time extension to this office for consideration at least I month before the above date is reached. 2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms and conditions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain the authorized acti- vity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modification of this permit from this office, which may require restoration of the area. 3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit, you must immedi- ately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and State coordination required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 4. If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain a written statement from the new owner in which the new owner agrees to comply with all terms and conditions of this permit. A copy of the written statement must be forwarded to this office to validate the transfer of this authorization. 5. If a conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your project, you must comply with the conditions specified in the certification as special conditions to this permit. For your convenience, a copy of the cer- tification is attached if it contains such conditions. 6. You must_ allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of your permit. Further Information: 1. The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permitte2 or any future transferee. The term "this office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted activity or the appropriate official of that office a( ting under the authority of the commanding officer. RLSR/386 administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations (such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the cost. 6. Extensions. General condition 1 establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this permit. Unless there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the public interest decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension of this time limit. Special Conditions: a. You must provide a copy of the letter of permission and drawings to all contractors performing any of the authorized work. b. Work in or near the waterway will be done so as to minimize turbidity, erosion, and other water quality impacts. c. Your use of the permitted activity must not interfere with the public's right to free navigation on all navigable waters of the United States. d. You must implement the ESA requirements and/or agreements set forth in the July 2000 Biological Evaluation (BE) , entitled Biological Assessment Pier Replacement/Shoreline Restoration Anderson Property and the BE Supplements dated March and July 2001. On July 13, 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred with a finding of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" based on this document (USFWS Reference Number 1-3-01-I-1494) . The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concurred with a finding of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" based on this document on July 18, 2001 (NMFS Reference Number WSB-99-485) . Both agencies will be informed of this permit issuance and will enforce any known violations of the commitments made in this document pursuant to the ESA. e. For the protection of chinook salmon and bull trout, inwater work is allowed only during the period from July 16 through December 31 of any year. f. No inwater work is allowed during the periods from January 1 through July 15 of any year. g. For the protection of nesting and wintering bald eagles, a vibratory pile driver must be utilized during the periods from July 16 through August 15 and from October 31 through December 31 of any year. h. All construction debris shall be properly disposed of on land in such a manner that it cannot enter into the waterway or cause water quality degradation to State waters. i. Skirting is prohibited around the pier unless specifically authorized by a permit. j . The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee will be required, upon due notice from the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States. No claim shall be made against the United States on account of any such removal or alteration. 3 1 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the RENTON,WASHINGTON An Appeal Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on September 14, 1999 at 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 9:00 AM to consider the following petition: APPEAL AAD-99-117 a dailynewspaper seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a le al SPRINTUM PCS MONOPOLE AT DUNN published9 LUMBER newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months Sprint PCS appeals the denial of an prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language administrathe City otive R conditinonalthuseSpr rmtPCit S continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County Monopole project (File No. LUA-99- Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the 099,CU-A,ECF). Sprint PCS proposes State of Washington for KingCounty. placement of a monopole on the Dunn g y Lumber site. Location: 120 Factory Ave. The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County No. Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton. APPCAL AAD-99-117 All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing. as published on: 9/3/99 Publication Date: September 3,.1999 Published in the South County Journal September 3,1999.6533 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publ' 'tion is the sum of$40.25, charged to Acct. No. 80510 Legal Number 6533 Legal Clerk, South ounty Journal Subscribed and sworn before me on this a 4ay of ' 19 5 og111 l i ff0j ```♦♦♦°‘eta t^e. F o�lB p— �B C r p�l�/ V Notary Public of the State of Washington ,t;,UT4Rk �,� residing in Renton —o— = King County, Washington n, L•,C = . . , ♦♦♦'s''4 411;11J1111•��`♦ NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON An Appeal Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on September 14, 1999 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petition: APPEAL AAD-99-117 SPRINT PCS MONOPOLE AT DUNN LUMBER Sprint PCS appeals the denial of an administrative conditional use permit by the City of Renton for the Sprint PCS Monopole project (File No. LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF). Sprint PCS proposes placement of a monopole on the Dunn Lumber site. Location: 120 Factory Ave. No. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing. Publication Date: September 3, 1999 Account No. 51067 aadpub i G CITY F RENTON NAL ( ' - Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman August 19, 1999 Ms. Mei-I Lin W&H Pacific 3350 Monte Villa Parkway Bothell, WA 98021 Re: Appeal of Administrative Decision re Sprint PCS Monopole, File No. LUA99-099 Appeal File No. LUA99-117,AAD Dear Ms. Lin: We received your appeal dated August 11, 1999, and the hearing will be scheduled for Tuesday, September 14, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Should you have any further questions,please contact this office. Sincerely, ,..1.---717-3()_Val \Tr-6' Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney Leslie Nishihira 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 6/8/16/1999 14:33 20636728'c ARPOTTER CONSULTT"'G_ PAGE 02 PACIFIC 3350 Monte Villa Parkway Bothell,Washington 98021 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON AUG 1999 August 16, 1999 RECEIVED Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 S.Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 RE: Appeal of Administrative Conditional Use Decision File no.LUA-99-099 Sprints PCS Dear City of Renton Hearing Examiner: On behalf of Sprint PCS,this letter is to amend our letter dated August 11, 19c.9 to the Hearing Examiner requesting an appeal of the administrative land use decision made on August 5 1999 for the above project. Our appeal request is hereby amended to include only the Administrative Conc itional Use Decision and not the SEPA determination. If you have any questions or need additional information,please contact me at 425-985-0873. Sincerely, Allen R. Potter W&H Pacific,Inc. Representing Sprint PCS cc file Mike McRitchie,W&H Pacific/Sprint (425) 951-4800 Fax(425) 951-4808 Planning • Engineering• Stuveying •Landscape Design 1 LJJ,J9 j i/ 7 PACIFIC 3350 Monte Villa Parkway AUG 2 1999 Bothell,Washington 98021 CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER August 11, 1999 Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 RE: APPEAL OF PROJECT NO. LUA-99-099 SPRINT PCS MONOPOLE Dear City of Renton Hearing Examiner: On behalf of Sprint PCS, we appeal the administrative land use decision made by the Environmental Review Committee on August 3, 1999. A$75.00 application fee is enclosed. We find the proposed project complies with the City of Renton zoning codes and policies based on the following: Administrative Conditional Use Permit When considering the proximity of the site to adjacent residential uses, the site would not be considered an appropriate location for the proposed facility(Report and Decision Part III.C.3). Sprint PCS is proposing to construct a 60' monopole located at 120 Factory Avenue in the CA zone. The property is surrounded by commercial uses to the north, east and south and residential homes to the west. The Burlington Northern right-of-way and Interstate 405 are just east of the site. The proposed monopole is designed to provide capacity support to I-405 and coverage to Sunset Boulevard, Bronson Way and the surrounding community just east of I-405. In order to meet these coverage objectives, Sprint must locate a facility within a"search area"geographically defined area. In this case, the search area boundaries are approximately North 6th Street to the north, Logan Avenue to the west,I-405 to the east and South 2nd Street to the south. This area of Renton is a mixture of commercial and industrial uses with pockets of residential properties scattered throughout.The subject property is surrounded by commercial uses with exception to residential uses to the west. The proximity of a tower to residential uses would essentially have the same impact regardless of where it the monopole was sited in the area. Please refer to the attached zoning map(Attachment 1). Due to the facility's proximity to residential property, there would be potential visual impacts from the upper portions of the monopole which cannot be feasibly screened by landscaping or fencing(Report and Decision Part III.C.2). Sprint is proposing to change the current antenna configuration from a standard triangular platform with twelve(12)panel antennas to a "stovepipe"antenna with three panel antennas completely concealed in a cylindrical tube. The stovepipe antenna is 6' in height and 19"in diameter and will be mounted at the top of the pole for a slender appearance. Please refer to the attached photosimulations (Attachment 2). The pole and antenna can be painted any color as specified by the city. This will assist in minimizing potential visual impacts from the upper portion of the monopole. The base of the monopole will be screened by an existing building on the south property line and by existing landscaping and (425) 951-4800 Fax (425) 951-4808 Planning • Engineering • Surveying • Landscape Design 0 City of Renton Hearing Examiner Page 2 August 11, 1999 fencing along the west property line. Furthermore,the equipment cabinets will be surrounded by a new 6' tall cedar wood fence to enhance the existing buffer and fencing. The monopole structure would be out of character with the height of existing development especially throughout the adjacent residential neighborhood(Report and Decision Part III.C.2). With the change in antenna design,the monopole will appear as a slender element and is located in an area with structures of comparable scale including utility poles and commercial signs and is compatible with surrounding commercial uses.Views from the west show a large commercial building(Dunn Lumber), a large Texaco sign, several utility poles and Interstate 405. The facility is located on a commercial property and does not diminish views of the residential neighborhood to the west. The monopole is not located in a view corridor and will appear as another"utility"in the area. The applicant was not able to demonstrate a thorough consideration of alternative locations on existing support structures (Report and Decision Part III.D.3). Sprint explored the following sites and it was determined that the most feasible site is the subject property at Dunn Lumber: 1. Existing wood utility poles on the subject property The city requires utility lines to be laid underground so locating on the utility poles would lead to a short duration of a site. Sprint needs a permanent site that will provide continuous ongoing service. The existing poles could also not accommodate for collocation of future carriers as the proposed monopole would allow. Furthermore,the aesthetic impacts of locating on the utility poles would be the same. If an antenna were mounted on one of the existing poles,the height of the pole would have to be increased to 60' to meet engineering requirements and the pole need to be replaced with a larger thicker pole to support the antenna. With the change in antenna design,the monopole will appear as an integral part of the site and is essentially another"utility"on the property. 2. Existing steel utility pole at the corner of Bronson Way and Houser There were difficult lease negotiations with the property owner(Burlington Northern). 3. Existing(Boeing)buildings north of the site Sprint's first option was to locate on one of the existing buildings north of the site. However, it was determined that Boeing owned most of the taller buildings Sprint was interested in. Historically, Boeing does not lease space to wireless carriers and the company was contacted by Sprint but there was no response. 4. Existing monopoles approximately 1.5 miles north of the site One of the two existing monopoles north of the site is a Sprint monopole. The proposed site at 120 Factory Avenue will alleviate airway congestion from the monopole, thus collocation is not a feasible option. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Page 3 August 11, 1999 5. Renton Memorial High School Stadium Sprint radio engineers have determined that the stadium is located too west to provide service east of I-405. 6. Light Pole at Liberty Park There is not ground space for equipment cabinets at the park. The taller light poles are located on the outside of the ball field leaving little room for equipment. There is an existing narrow landscape buffer that surrounds the north portion of the field that does not allow enough space to fit in cabinets without adding visual bulk. The space around the main dugout to the south is very limited and the open parking lot does not help with screening and parking would be affected. 7. Old city hall building on Mill Avenue South Upon further engineering analysis,it is determined that the existing trees along the north side of the building will interfere with radio signals. The existing building is approximately 65' in height and has a row of trees approximately 75' in height along the north side of the building. Due to the limitations of digital wireless communication,PCS technology requires a clear path in order to connect to neighboring facilities. There must be a clear path from customer to transmitting facility to ensure adequate coverage. Trees,hills and buildings can block signals so they fade out sooner than desired. Coverage to the north and onto I-405 would be diminished due to the trees on the property. If antennas were mounted on the rooftop,they would need to be extended a significant height resulting in a visually obtrusive facility. Comprehensive Plan The subject proposal is not consistent with the policies established by the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and Utilities Element, specifically policies LU-175, LU-181, U-100 and U-101 (Report and Decision Part III.D.4). The base of the monopole will be screened by an existing building on the south property line and by existing landscaping and fencing along the west property line. In addition,the equipment cabinets will be surrounded by a new 6' tall cedar wood fence to enhance the existing buffer and fencing. The antenna type will create a slender design and diminish aesthetic impacts in the area. Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance(Ord.4689) The facility would substantially and negatively impact the character of the adjacent residential neighborhood(Report and Decision Part III.C.10.c). The monopole is located on a commercial property. Surrounding uses are developed as commercial to the north, south, east and residential to the west. The monopole will appear as a slender element and is located in an area with structures of comparable scale including utility poles and commercial signs. Views from the west show a large commercial building(Dunn Lumber),a large Texaco sign, several utility poles and Interstate 405. The antenna type will create a slender design and diminish aesthetic impacts in the area. The monopole will not have adverse impacts on the neighborhood because it is not located in a view corridor and does not diminish views from the west. The monopole will simply appear as another"utility"in the area and is compatible with surrounding commercial uses. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Page 4 August 11, 1999 Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. I can be reached at 425-985-6361. Sincerely, W&H PACIFIC representing Sprint PCS /1/ Mei-I Lin Project Planner cc: Leslie Nishihira, City of Renton Planning Department Attachments: Renton zoning map (Attachment 1) Photosimulations (Attachment 2) REPORT City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works DECISION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW& ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION DECISION DATE: August 3, 1999 Project Name: Sprint PCS Monopole at Dunn Lumber Applicant: Sprint PCS Contact: Mei-I Lin, W&H Pacific Owner: Tom Dunn, Dunn Lumber File Number: LUA-99-099, ECF, CU-A Project Manager: Lesley Nishihira Project Description: The applicant, Sprint PCS, is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the placement of a 60-foot monopole in the southwest corner of the Dunn Lumber site. The monopole would support 12 panel antennas used for wireless communication. The project would also include the placement of five (5) equipment cabinets and an emergency back-up generator adjacent to the pole's base. A 6-foot wood cedar fence is proposed to provide security and screening for the equipment area. Project Location: 120 Factory Avenue North Exist. Bldg. Area SF: N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area SF: N/A Site Area: 74,500 sf Total Building Area SF: N/A Q b 9 Q _• 9 'S 9 ®6 21 E+ L=+6 ,15J V \ 7® 'J r f a6r:, ‘5")t l i� : a®' Er, n® 1 N MA�RION ST,e,wAab r.4. / 4: atti , S u '®its n h!• N IA i . . .+0 4/ :� `�yu• ( ®,may _if DM 29 p� �g�1 L, yl Lg , g '� �UY i. 13 .r Is J6. Y Q LF 6119O .Id tl / Via '°44 1 t '. N. 3-0 ST • ;tee 4 i t• •: Lrilt6jx. l 1�d W�9 a®' 1°�1• i:iL. iIY4rv' olrsi •O1z �a®e K®arc , a�®b Q.®II ��'.'� 5..Q--03 L® Q ®7 16 pa '@I 9i , -H�6 -A- 1'214 6 ro. �°N BROOKS4 Sr .M/®� CITY OF a tt m n ., m .Q,21, t .®a -Eli'. r l p< ..;. ,,. An wok,. 3 „, a V °�°I � "i, F. i., �.: ��. r''i;, mi t n ► A '`t. a \�� „w,. ,.v: 1 'MUM j� .o e !—a Iola- p it 7 44. IT �e a • r // .. ,.. ,„ �o9 ocA �. tom%'' M to a.•.rr. e. d I <.;� ` II �t e iv ' 6f I ,.e< II .,� ��. WAY 1 , �� is Est ailt1 PH!, co • v u--' © •.• 0• Q� i JCS \~/,.. 1 ce / gm ' • Project Location Map erccua Grriy of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Conditional Use&Environm Review Committee Staff Report SPRINT PCS MONOPOLE AT DUNN LUMBER LUA-99-099, ECF, CU-A REPORT AND DECISION OF AUGUST 3, 1999 Page 2 of 10 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicant, Sprint PCS, is requesting Environmental Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the installation of a wireless communications facility and supporting equipment at the Dunn Lumber site. The facility would provide capacity support to Sprint PCS users within the communities surrounding, as well as those traveling on, Interstate 405. The proposed facility would consist of a 60-foot steel monopole structure with 12 attached panel antennas. The antennas would be mounted near the top of the monopole and would not exceed the monopole's height. Each of the antennas would be 5 feet 5-inches tall, 8 feet 7-inches wide and would be configured in three sectors with four antennas per sector. The proposal would also include the placement of 5 radio equipment cabinets and an emergency backup generator at the base of the monopole structure. The cabinets, which are 5 feet tall and 21/2 feet wide, would be placed on a 225 square foot concrete slab. In addition, the facility would support a lightning rod, a global positioning satellite (GPS) antenna, and lighting for facility maintenance. The proposed wireless facility would be located on a 74,500 square foot property owned and occupied by Dunn Lumber and presently zoned Commercial Arterial (CA). The property contains an existing 14,034 square foot warehouse and retail building as well as associated parking, landscaping, and a fenced storage area. The wireless facility would occupy a lease area of approximately 560 square feet in size and would be located within the fenced storage area along the site's southern property line. A 6-foot high cedar wood fence is proposed to surround the facility for screening and security purposes. No fill or grade is required for the construction of the project and no additional impervious surfaces would be created. The facility is proposed to operate 7 days a week, 24 hours a day and would be unattended. Since maintenance visits would be infrequent, no additional parking spaces are proposed. Construction of the project is anticipated to begin upon the completion of the land use and environmental review process. The proposal is regulated by the City's Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance (Ord. 4689). Monopole I facilities are typically considered a permitted use in the CA zone unless located within 100 feet of residentially zoned property in which case an Administrative Conditional Use Permit is required. Approximately 60 feet west of the site is property zoned Residential —8 (R-8) and Residential — 10 (R-10) dwelling units per acre. Therefore, an Administrative Conditional Use Permit is required. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21 C.240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: (1) Earth Impacts: The subject site is currently paved with asphalt and is relatively level. The project would require the removal of asphalt materials for preparation of the tower and equipment cabinet foundations. The applicant would be required to install and maintain temporary erosion control measures pursuant to RMC section 4-4-030C. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Policy Nexus: Not applicable. erccua City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Conditional Use &Environm Review Committee Staff Report . ' SPRINT PCS MONOPOLE AT DUNN LUMBER LUA-99-099, ECF, CU-A REPORT AND DECISION OF AUGUST 3, 1999 Page 3 of 10 (2) Aesthetics Impacts: The proposal would result in the installation of a 60-foot monopole directly across (approximate 60-foot distance) and southwest of properties zoned Residential — 8 (R-8) and Residential — 10 (R-10) dwelling units per acre. The subject site is developed with an existing 5-foot landscape strip along the property's Factory Avenue North street frontage. At the south end of the site, a slatted chain link fence is located behind the landscape strip. The fence borders border the perimeter of the storage area located south and east of the existing building. The 560 square foot area to be leased to the proposed facility would be located within the storage yard and enclosed entirely within a proposed 6-foot high cedar wood fence. The cedar fence would screen the base of the facility on the west, north and east sides. The existing structure abutting the site's south property line would screen the south side of the facility. The applicant has provided photosimulations depicting the view of the monopole from five locations surrounding the site. Although the existing and proposed fencing would adequately screen the base of the monopole structure and the equipment cabinets, there would be potential visual impacts from the upper portion of the monopole. The portion of the structure which would pose the greatest visual impact could not feasibly be screened with fencing or landscaping. In addition, the possible future collocation of additional facilities would intensify the visual obtrusiveness of the structure. In order to diminish or eliminate the aesthetic impacts of the proposal, the monopole would need to be relocated. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended above and beyond existing code provisions. (These impacts will be addressed under the review of the Administrative Conditional Use criteria pursuant to the City's Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance - Ord. 4689). Policy Nexus: Not applicable. B. Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF X NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON- SIGNIFICANCE- MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal X Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with a Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. C. Mitigation Measures No further mitigation above and beyond existing code provisions is recommended. Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Building 1. The applicant is required to comply with all recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Report prepared by ADaPT Engineering, Inc., dated June 11, 1999. Airport 1. Submitted plans state that monopole is 85 feet, not 60 feet. Applicant needs to establish that top of monopole, or antennas, whichever is highest, does not exceed the horizontal surface around airport. Plans do not show ground elevations at site. erccua • City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Conditional Use&Environm f Review Committee Staff Report SPRINT PCS MONOPOLE AT DUNN LUMBER LUA-99-099,ECF, CU-A REPORT AND DECISION OF AUGUST 3, 1999 Page 4 of 10 2. Although the antenna structure does not appear to be greater than the horizontal surface, the construction is to take place within 4,000 feet of the centerline of the runway. A Notice of Proposed Construction from the FAA is required for any alteration or construction exceeding a 100:1 slope from the runway centerline. If considered exempt by Section 77.15, notice would not be required. Planning 1. If approved, the plans submitted for the building permit will need to be corrected to show the correct height for a monopole I structure pursuant to the definitions contained in RMC section 4-11-230. For example, some plans indicate 85-foot height, others show 60-foot height— in either case height must be less than 60-feet to be considered a monopole I support structure. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any wireless facility, the applicant would be required to submit an inventory of existing sites, an applicant agreement statement, and a draft lease agreement for the City's review pursuant to RMC section 4-8-120.C. 3. If the Notice of Proposed Construction to the FAA discussed under Airport comment no. 2 is necessary, the notice must be submitted to the FAA a minimum of 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. If the facility is approved, the proposed light fixture for service calls to the facility must be down cast and shielded so as to prevent undue glare to adjacent properties and keep the light within the site area (RMC section 4-4-140.F.6). Environmental Review Committee 1. Although ERC has determined that the proposal would not result in a significant adverse environmental impact, it is felt that from a land use standpoint the monopole is not compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. PART THREE: ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION - REPORT & DECISION This decision on the administrative land use action is made concurrently with the environmental determination. A. Type of Land Use Action XX Conditional Use Binding Site Plan Site Plan Review Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Special Permit for Grade&Fill Administrative Code Determination B. Exhibits The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication, and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 2: Drawing No. LS1, Site Plan/Details (Received June 29, 1999). Exhibit No. 3: Drawing No. A2, Elevations (Received June 29, 1999). Exhibit No. 4: Neighborhood Map (Received June 29, 1999). Exhibit No. 5: Photosimulations (Received June 29, 1999). C. Consistency with Conditional Use Criteria Section 4-9-030.1 lists 10 factors that the governing authority shall consider in determining whether to issue a conditional use permit (although the governing authority may waive or reduce the burden on the applicant of one or more of these criteria if the governing authority, concludes that the goals of RMC 4-4-140, Wireless Communication Facilities, are better served thereby). The 10 factors are as follows: erccua • City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Conditional Use &Environrr Review Committee Staff Report SPRINT PCS MONOPOLE AT DUNN LUMBER LUA-99-099, ECF, CU-A REPORT AND DECISION OF AUGUST 3, 1999 Page 5 of 10 1. Height of the proposed tower. The Wireless Communications Ordinance (Ord. 4689) permits monopole I support structures less than 60 feet in height in commercial zones, provided the structure is in compliance with Airport zoning regulations. Macro-facilities are the largest attached communication facility permitted on a monopole I structure and are allowed to exceed the height of the monopole by a maximum of 15 feet. The proposal includes twelve (12) 6-foot panel antennas to remain below the top of the monopole structure. However, the proposal for a 60-foot high monopole exceeds the permitted height specifications by 1-foot as defined by RMC section 4-11-230. In order to consider the proposal a "monopole I" structure as intended by the applicant, the plans would need to be revised so that the height of the monopole structure would be less than 60 feet. The revised height of the monopole appears to be possible and, if approved, would be required prior to the issuance of building permits. Therefore, for the purposes of reviewing the proposal throughout the following criteria, the proposed structure will be considered a monopole I. 2. Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries: The site of the proposed facility is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation. However, there are existing residences located on property zoned Residential — 8 du/ac (R-8) and Residential — 10 du/ac (R-10) 60 feet west of the subject site. As the site is presently developed, there is adequate landscaping and fencing to provide a sufficient visual buffer of the equipment shelters and the base of the monopole to adjacent residential properties. The proposed 6-foot high cedar wood fence around the perimeter of the 560 square foot lease area will enhance this buffer. However, due to the facility's proximity to residential property, there would be potential visual impacts from the upper portions of the monopole which cannot be feasibly screened by landscaping or fencing. Furthermore, the monopole structure would be out of character with the height of existing development, especially throughout the adjacent residential neighborhood. Although the proposed and existing fencing could screen the base of the facility, the monopole would be a dominant vertical element as demonstrated by the applicant's photosimulations. Residents of the area have expressed concerns regarding the aesthetic impacts and have emphasized the necessity of exploring options which utilize existing structures as alternatives to the proposed location. The applicant provides some discussion on alternative sites, including collocation with wireless facilities as well as locating on existing structures. The applicant contends that due to uncertainties with structural integrity and/or lease negotiations on the alternative sites, the proposed location is the only feasible option. However, the applicant has not presented a compelling argument for the abandonment of alternative sites and has not provided sufficient justification for siting the monopole within such a close proximity to the existing residential neighborhood. 3. Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties: The subject site is presently developed with the Dunn Lumber retail and storage facility. In addition to the residentially zoned property west of the site, the property is surrounded by commercially developed property to the north, east and south. The railroad right-of-way and Interstate 405 are also located just east of the site. The proposed facility would occupy a 560 square foot lease area on the property. Although the site is commercially zoned, the conditional use criteria for wireless facilities requires a thorough evaluation of potential impacts to surrounding properties, specifically residential erccua • City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Conditional Use&Environm 'Review Committee Staff Report • SPRINT PCS MONOPOLE AT DUNN LUMBER LUA-99-099, ECF, CU-A REPORT AND DECISION OF AUGUST 3, 1999 Page 6 of 10 uses. When considering the proximity of the site to adjacent residential uses, the site would not be considered an appropriate location for the proposed facility. 4. Surrounding topography: The project site is relatively flat with no perceptible slope orientation. Surrounding properties are of a similar topography with the only noticeable difference beginning with the elevated interstate. 5. Surrounding tree coverage and foliage: No land clearing of foliage or tree cutting is included with the proposal. An existing 5-foot landscape strip, consisting of low lying shrubs, borders the western property line and provides some screening from the west. There are a number of street trees located along the sidewalk within the Factory Avenue right-of-way. Although the existing landscaping and proposed fencing would screen the base of the facility, the majority of the monopole structure would remain unscreened and would present an adverse visual impact. 6. Design of the tower, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness: The proposed facility would utilize a slim-line galvanized steel monopole. The monopole support structure would result in an adverse visual impact to adjacent residential uses. Any attempt to screen the upper portion of the monopole, the portion of the facility with the greatest visual impact, would only exacerbate the obtrusiveness of the structure. In addition, the potential for collocation of other facilities at this site would intensify the negative visual impacts of the monopole. The placement of the facility in a different location would be the only way to effectively eliminate the structure's visual obtrusiveness on adjacent residential uses. 7. Proposed ingress and egress: Access to the proposed facility would be off Factory Avenue North via the existing driveway entrance to the property. Access to the site would only be needed on an infrequent basis for maintenance visits. The applicant's lease agreement with the property owners would need to establish access and parking rights to the property for purposes of maintenance without restrictions on time. The City's review of the proposed lease agreement would be required prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. Potential noise, light and glare impacts: The facility would contain small equipment cooling fans which only turn on when it is necessary to cool the equipment. The amount of noise generated by the fans would not be substantial. If approved, the facility would be located adjacent to 1-405 and the noise from the cabinets would not be heard over the ambient noise in this location. No lighting of the tower is proposed, unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The applicant would be required to provide a copy of the FAA Notice of Proposed Construction prior to the issuance of building permits. The facility would include a service light for maintenance visits to be located above the proposed equipment cabinets. Pursuant to RMC section 4-4-140.F.6, the applicant would be required to ensure the lighting is down cast and shielded so that only the site area is lighted. The applicant's compliance with this code requirement would prevent glare to adjacent properties. 9. Availability of suitable existing towers and other structures: There are existing wireless communications facilities near the subject site, including two monopoles near the Boeing facility 11/2 miles to the north and antennas on Renton High erccua City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Conditional Use&Environm P Review Committee Staff Report SPRINT PCS MONOPOLE AT DUNN LUMBER LUA-99-099, ECF, CU-A REPORT AND DECISION OF AUGUST 3, 1999 Page 7 of 10 School '/4 mile to the west. Although these facilities are close to the subject site, the applicant contends they are not capable of providing the service capacity required for this portion of Interstate 405 and surrounding areas. The proposed facility would provide signal strength and capacity to areas currently without enough coverage. The applicant has considered a number of alternative locations and structures, including existing wood utility poles on the site and in the area, Boeing buildings to the north, Renton Memorial Stadium, light poles at Liberty Park, and the old City Hall building on Mill Avenue South. Some alternatives were abandoned due to their location outside of the desired area for service coverage. The applicant contends the other alternatives did not provide feasible options due to uncertainty of structural integrity, possible short-term accommodation, and difficulty in obtaining lease agreements. After the evaluation of these alternatives, the applicant concluded that the proposed site would be the most feasible location for Sprint's desired coverage and engineering criteria. Based on the information provided with the application, it does not appear as though alternative locations, especially existing structures in the vicinity, were adequately considered before being abandoned as options. With a more thorough investigation of alternative sites, the applicant may find an existing structure (or one that can be changed out) located within the desired coverage area that can feasibly accommodate the proposed facility. When considering the number of suitable alternatives for the proposal, staff cannot support the location of this facility at this site. 10. Compatibility with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinances and any other plan, program, map or ordinance of the City: (a) Comprehensive Plan, its elements and policies The subject site is designated as Employment Area — Commercial (EAC) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The following are applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies: Policy LU-175. Landscape buffers, additional setbacks, reduced height, and other screening devices should be employed to reduce the impacts (e.g., visual, noise, odor, light) on adjacent, less intensive uses. Policy LU-181. Development should be designed to be compatible with adjacent, less intensive uses, e.g., lighting, fences, landscaping, setbacks should all be considered during site design. Policy U-100. Require that the siting and location of telecommunications facilities be accomplished in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on the environment and adjacent land uses. Policy U-101. Require that cellular communication structures and towers be sensitively sited and designed to diminish aesthetic impacts, and be collocated on existing structures and towers wherever possible and practical. The subject site is located adjacent to property currently developed with residences. For this reason, substantial consideration must be made for the proposal's compatibility with the adjacent uses. The existing and proposed screening for the proposal would adequately screen the base of the facility. However, as previously discussed, the impacts from the full height of the monopole structure could not be reasonably alleviated without requiring the siting of the facility elsewhere. erccua City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Conditional Use &Environm 'Review Committee Staff Report SPRINT PCS MONOPOLE AT DUNN LUMBER LUA-99-099, ECF, CU-A REPORT AND DECISION OF AUGUST 3, 1999 Page 8 of 10 (b) Zoning Code The site is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation. The CA zone permits monopole I facilities with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit if located within 100 feet of residentially zoned property. A monopole I structure is permitted at a maximum height of less than 60 feet regardless of the height limitations of the zone provided it is in compliance with the Airport zoning regulations. The proposed equipment cabinets would have a 12-foot setback from the front (west) property line and a 7-foot setback from the side (south) property line. The monopole structure itself would have a 24-foot setback and a 5-foot setback from the front and side property lines, respectively. Both, the monopole and equipment cabinets, would have a setback of greater than 30 feet from the rear (east) property line and would have an approximate setback of 90 feet from the existing structure. The proposed facility, in addition to the existing building, would arrive at a lot coverage by buildings of less than 19%. With the exception of the conditional use criteria, the proposal appears to comply with the applicable development standards established in the CA zone. (c) Ordinance 4689 —Wireless Communications Facilities The proposal is regulated by the City's Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance (Ord. 4689). Monopole I facilities are permitted at a maximum height of less than 60 feet and can support an attached facility 15 feet above the height of the monopole. The size of the attached facility can not exceed the size of a macro-facility. According to the definitions established by this ordinance, the proposed facility would include a monopole I support structure with an attached micro-facility (smaller in size than a macro-facility). The proposed monopole would have a total height of 60 feet with the attached micro-facility below the full height of the structure. Monopole I structures located within 100 feet of residentially zoned property must satisfy the conditional use criteria for wireless communications facilities (RMC section 4-4-140.G). As discussed throughout the criteria contained in this report, the applicant has not provided sufficient justification for the approval of the proposed facility in this location especially when considering the impacts to adjacent residential properties. Furthermore, the wireless regulations contain provisions which require collocation, including reasonable efforts in evaluating existing support structures. Specifically, RMC section 4-4- 140H states that "no new wireless communications support structure shall be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the governing authority that no existing tower or structure can accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna." The wireless regulations also include the reduction of visual impacts in the standards and requirements for all types of wireless facilities (RMC section 4-4-140.F.2). The provision states, "site location and development shall preserve the pre-existing character of the surrounding buildings and land uses." As proposed, the facility would substantially and negatively impact the character of the adjacent residential neighborhood. Due to the proposal's adverse impacts to the adjacent residential uses as well as the applicant's lack of justification for the proposed location and the abandonment of alternative sites, staff must recommend the denial of the conditional use permit. XX Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. D. Findings, Conclusions & Decision Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now enters the following: erccua City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Conditional Use &Environrr I Review Committee Staff Report • SPRINT PCS MONOPOLE AT DUNN LUMBER LUA-99-099,ECF, CU-A REPORT AND DECISION OF AUGUST 3, 1999 Page 9 of 10 1) Request: The Applicant has requested Environmental Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for a wireless communications facility at the Dunn Lumber site, 120 Factory Avenue North. 2) Environmental Review: The applicant's file containing the application, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation, the comments from various City departments, the public notices requesting citizen comment, and other pertinent documents was entered as Exhibit No. 1. 3) Administrative Conditional Use Permit: The land use application does not provide adequate justification for the conditional use criteria for a wireless facility. Specifically, the applicant did not present a compelling argument for siting the facility within a close proximity to residential uses when considering the structure's adverse visual impacts. In addition, the applicant was not able to demonstrate a thorough consideration of alternative locations on existing support structures. The applicant's site plan and other project drawings are entered as Exhibits No. 2 through 5. 4) Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is not consistent with the policies established by the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and Utilities Element, specifically policies LU-175, LU-181, U-100, and U-101. These policies require that consideration be given for a wireless facility's adverse impacts to adjacent uses, specifically its compatibility with less intensive uses. The policies also encourage collocating facilities on existing structures so that they reduce adverse impacts. 5) Zoning: The proposal is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) Zoning designation. The proposed facility requires an Administrative Conditional Use permit if located within 100 feet of residentially zoned property. 6) Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance (Ord. 4689): The land use application does not comply with the requirements of the City's Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance, specifically the ordinance's requirements for collocation and minimizing visual impacts. 7) Existing Land Use/Zoning: Land uses and zones surrounding the subject site include: North: Residential single family property zoned R-8; East: Commercial property zoned CA; South: Commercial property zoned CA; and West: Residential single family and duplex property zoned R-8 and R-10. E. Conclusions 1) As noted in the findings above, the subject proposal does not comply with the policies and codes of the City of Renton, including those contained within the Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance (Ord. 4689). 2) The proposal does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Employment Area - Commercial, and the Zoning designation of Commercial Arterial. F. Decision The Administrative Conditional Use Permit for Sprint PCS Monopole at Dunn Lumber, File No. LUA-99-099, CU-A, ECF, is denied. EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: August 5, 1999 SIGNATURES: /-Th Jana Hanson,Zoning Administrator date erccua • City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Conditional Use &Environm 'Review Committee Staff Report - SPRINT PCS MONOPOLE AT DUNN LUMBER LUA-99-099, ECF, CU-A REPORT AND DECISION OF AUGUST 3, 1999 Page 10 of 10 TRANSMITTED this 9th day of August, 1999 to the applicant and owner: Tom Dunn, Dunn Lumber(owner) 120 Factory Avenue North Renton,WA 98055 Sprint PCS(applicant) 4683 Chabot Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Mei-I Lin,W&H Pacific(contact) 3350 Monte Villa Parkway Bothell,WA 98021 TRANSMITTED this 9th day of August, 1999 to the following parties of record: Mike and Virginia O'Donin Lori and Ray Gigmetti Eunice Gotti 423 Pelly Avenue North 323 Pelly Avenue North 322 Pelly Avenue North Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Sue Brown Jane Foster Bonnie Benson 1203 North 2nd Street 1207 North 2nd Street 237 Garden Avenue North Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Jim Ashurst George Daniels Denyse Foster 223 Garden Avenue North 215 Garden Avenue North 210 Garden Avenue North Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Linda and Kirk Leonard Mae Kokko Marge Richter 217 Garden Avenue North 221 Factory Avenue North 300 Meadow Avenue North Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Francis Pieper 345 Meadow Avenue North Renton,WA 98055 TRANSMITTED this 9th day of August,1999 to the following: Larry Meckling, Building Official C. Duffy, Fire Prevention Neil Watts, Public Works Division Lawrence J.Warren, City Attorney South County Journal Environmental Determination and Land Use Decision Appeal Process Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3),WAC 197-11-680]and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM August 23, 1999. If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. 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 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning the land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial decision, but to appeals to the Hearing Examiner. All communications after the decision/approval date must be made in writing through the Zoning Administrator. All communications are public record and this permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence in writing. Any violation of this doctrine could result in the invalidation of the decision by the Court. erccua i if 0 si i Po IN - 1 1 II I if il 114 ..11111 ! re t 1 I 9 1" ° I i W 0___ fig hil 1 Ilia i 1 ' 'kip lisp A ).- i1 " iiiI!ill \,, q ! T\ s p i 'dy 1 a S' Ons> \ \ T.\` o 1 VJ d:ki1 d i \\ � _ _� ,i iyj Y nCIONTMEN., q miA:40s s � s AA t y_1 �Ji N q C§� p'i l R 4—� z N I. b ,_ b Z6 9xY e� A A �ag n #e H rig 1 --s-b r• p 4. - --- 3e Eg �,�� • 11 6a I 4. of ...,„, :P! , V --) \CI\ , \ 1 t, I ..,,,,, 11L---1 -`... � ' i ri• i. If b Rs i 7 ------------- q 1 \ A l 0 4 — A it IA q Ili gl CI rK,oRrAVeK ! a :g e I C T , T , a L g T i ��`! R=�® a A if yy�� r 11 w R c i J iif1e IliM ;g gill , �� I --ems r I I E , ,I / -. Sptinr:\ TI E / t r' S�+ // E603 CTIA00I ORM.SWIE 100 dFIE/S.N10N.CA 94566 Li ■IY a / .PROJECT IMFORw N:I10 01 1'/ /'2 / ,11 SE29XC265A V j — / 120 FACTORY AUG.NORM RENTON.WA 96055 KING CIXiN1Y / I' (CURRENT ISSUE DATE. I \ /r L 6/22/99 = I ` t_ , ; ISSUED FOR: 4 [ZONING L , RE—SUBMITTAL] • -- , 11 ../ _REV.:=OAtE:—OESCRIPTgN:—gY:— ,—.f / 1 6/22/99 ZOrRNGU5U0Y1TIAl IE /- r. 2010MG EO lr+P ] j 11:1/' 6/2/99 20600 SURE l I 55UF0 FOR d J 5/21/99 ZONING SUB1 I Y I ' ISSUEO!OR I tJL SPRMI 1 /I 4/I5/99 ZONING REVIEr tELE[OM vrz w/(SO' J r' ISSUED FOR I •6r MONOPOEE ARO Ir ! OUTDOOR EOUrvuENT / / 4/6/99 FEASIBILITY STUDY _ r =PLANS PREPARED BY: I ilr / -- 4 FRALEY / STRICKER �• 1SAE!- i/ I I. •ARCHITECTS = ' ES --P. 1 tl0 UIQ'SIDE AVENUE SlR1E KO j �S SFATTLE.wA96NGTON NM / lir 7H.106/II4-4100 FAXm =CONSULTANT. / 1 I / // uA rar.a! / —CRAWN BY' CNN.'.=APV.: 1 j / OD _OM J BC -- / / / / / / / F —LICENSURE i• ‘ �, / , 2 SITE PLAN ,a m y ?4grn. 1 =SNE(I TITLE. SITE PLAN =SHEET NUMBER. REV1510N:Ai .. • 9412.43 —�} ® --Iv:Sprint; 2, al • I, , 71 L. ,p rF-°_N°_ -.. .- , e - .663 CHABOT DRIVE.SOAK 1DD 0 I r'-•• _! r-•• rr• ,E 11. E RfASAN1UN,CA 9•SM t PROJtct IrtFORwrIDrt. q\_ „J ' - ." / DUNNL \ am.. w ®/—.rra•cte rnclRa[Lfrw_r. I f. Y - pt w• , v \ �j ® I v YY / 120 EX AVE NORTH \ tNG mw�,p, I M.[•/f AC c. .V ; I 94M \\ NING cowireRENION.WA 5S ' / C.� II ill f VV // \ ./ / � r 1 V I__ ••C � -1RIRENt ISSUE DAIC: / �. :. t II .............. / 6/22/99 ISSUED Fql. -.[.. Lrc arrs [70NING_ �,�"aaf a. 11 - :1 j RE—SUBMITTAL] i . . / :'y/� , »,/ / , , / [wstNc»urt 7 ..rt...wra...rro. _ / y , / -REV.:=MfE:=DESCRnI10R:-9f:- ' .t.•.1.IrI[xV3 rt.rV6 ttMrlp. MKTG OTT i / c le :a ! 2 40 FT TOP ] ANTENNA LAYOUT R� 9 TOWER ELEVATION r�o 2 • \ �"� • �� • • •-•. • RE-ISSUED FOR J 1. I~ 6/I2/99 IOwNG SUBwrtAE 1,1 RE-ISSUED F-- < IT; 6/2/99 ZWANG SUED _ 5/21/99 ZOfaNG suet :1I LL I ❑. ISSUED FORv1 909: I 4/I5/99 20NG REV REVIEW s KSUEO FOR A/6/99 FEASIB•.ITV STUDY =PLANS PREPARED Br: s1 EY WEST EOL P.ELEV1- � , 14 E.ELEV. "'"' ® 3 FRAL / SIRIC : •ARCHITECTS • _ .• n — VA LADE AVENUE SUTTE 100 =o0Temm co•G.Ro- \ ».rr SPwTfl$WASHINGTONFAXMI Y TEL bNt24-tl00 FAX 2DVID-RA _ _ I s.y Lauri(. I Lart PTS.m L� I I CONSUEI.W r. � I ..P.wR aNCUP ell; II Mar fRroa I l I I /CUPP.at 'Y 44 L:-FI{p' 1131 .o-:.N rt.xca+ I L /r. — \ —^�t ttro r[r —- f± 1 1 EQUIPMENT ELEVATION ® 5 I [-�pOp I I I K. mat .w.. 11yF11p .... ,:,, 11 4S j I 1 RAwN BV: OK-ARV. SPII MSC.. 00v BC I, _ r :__ y lI 'II / 1 -LIE ENSURE: .r WI ro wra ;�•� _�MoSONG FENS m I f:. I. ............. ' / 9.c.-uP • tar II I I • _..__ _ uL6Yr0• • 1 I,Y f.,,n a, .t'•t•s��1'-- r � ,,� mac - r! � I 111I M w:ao • ® / .'aiaai w° [wsroa.' I I a.N�'[N I: EQUWMENT ELEVATION �0 6 s...L.— [.m.c w.PNG • I I I I �� • • • / f•t.L(sort arrctfl / • , srle.s KS 9rR9.NDRIr.2r -SNEE1 TITLE. RI (!I I. ti.a[[m i.INGM.fp° .__ 1_ / jII, 1-....,...: i / LEASE AREA PLAN AND ELEVATION Ii iF7 l'Eh {_ _ () 1 --- S' ®w / / ,/ NEf S r NUMBER.--REVISOR O t_ -IL..• ,, v�oeY,,.K CIO...r.cr A 2 TOWER ELEVATION t�..110 W.ELEV. H . . 18 N.ELEV. H . 17_ LEASE AREA PLAN I - ral l• (I u • CITY OF RENTON CURRENT;PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICEBY MAILING On the Lam' day of IAtuiu-St , 1999, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing E RC. deter rimy\att- documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Department of Ecology Don Hurter WSDOT KC Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher Washington Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman Department of Natural Resources Shirley Lukhang Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Indian Tribe Rod Malcom Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Joe Jainga Puget Sound Energy (Signature of Sender) Sardva. le-. Se.copic1e— STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Za A:'- )_c (c 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: 14, Ic1`6 J r ri lc / ._ Notary Public id/and f6r the State of WasheVon MARILYN KAMCHEFF ► Notary (Print) KAMCHEFF NOTARY PUBLIC ! My appointment expiN STATE OF WASHINGTON ©Mi1Al8 ! EXPIRES PrQ9•a (.N t133 k. PCS rAov‘orok. eEt DIA.hvN LuvvnbeY" Project Number: LU . 99 -D°tq EC-f, CU^A NOTARY.DOC CITY F RENTON : I,L jI � Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator August 5, 1999 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia,WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC)on August 3, 1999: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE SPRINT PCS MONOPOLE AT DUNN LUMBER LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF The applicant, Sprint PCS, is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the placement of a 60-foot monopole in the southwest corner of the Dunn Lumber site. The monopole would support 12 panel antennas used for wireless communication. The project would also include the placement of five (5)equipment cabinets and an emergency back-up generator adjacent to the pole's base. A 6-foot wood cedar fence is proposed to provide security and screening for the equipment area. Location: 120 Factory Avenue North. Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3),WAC 197-11-680] and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM August 23, 1999. If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. 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 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at (425)430-7270. For the Environmental Review Committee, (zcZ �� D Lesley Nishihira Project Manager cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources Don Hurter, Department of Transportation Shirley Lukhang, Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Joe Jainga, Puget Sound Energy agncyltr\ 1055 South Grady Way- Renton, Washington 98055 r a CITY _ F RENTON IL ,� Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator August 5, 1999 Ms. Mei-I Lin W & M Pacific 3350 Monte Villa Parkway Bothell, WA 98021 SUBJECT: Dunn Lumber Monopole Project No. LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF Dear Mr. Lin: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to inform you that they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. The Committee, on August 3, 1999, decided that your project will be issued a Determination of Non.Significance. The City of Renton ERC 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). This decision was made by the ERC under the authority of Section 4-6-6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information, on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM August 23, 1999. If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. 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 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning the land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial decision, but to appeals to the Hearing Examiner. All communications after the decision/approval date must be made in writing through the Zoning Administrator. All communications are public record and this permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence in writing. Any violation of this doctrine could result in the invalidation of the decision by the Court If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425)430-7270. For the Environmental Review Committee,1(4/4)Lesley Nishihira Project Manager cc: Mr. Tom Dunn/Owner Parties of Record dnsltr 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 6i2 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF APPLICANT: Sprint PCS PROJECT NAME: Sprint PCS Monopole at Dunn Lumber DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Sprint PCS, is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the placement of a 60-foot monopole in the southwest corner of the Dunn Lumber site. The monopole would support 12 panel antennas used for wireless communication. The project would also include the placement of five (5) equipment cabinets and an emergency back-up generator adjacent to the pole's base. A 6-foot wood cedar fence is proposed to provide security and screening for the equipment area. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 120 Factory Avenue North Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Building 1. The applicant is required to comply with all recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Report prepared by ADaPT Engineering, Inc., dated June 11, 1999. Airport 1. Submitted plans state that monopole is 85 feet, not 60 feet. Applicant needs to establish that top of monopole, or antennas, whichever is highest, does not exceed the horizontal surface around airport. Plans do not show ground elevations at site. 2. Although the antenna structure does not appear to be greater than the horizontal surface, the construction is to take place within 4,000 feet of the centerline of the runway. A Notice of Proposed Construction from the FAA is required for any alteration or construction exceeding a 100:1 slope from the runway centerline. If considered exempt by Section 77.15, notice would not be required. Planning 1. If approved, the plans submitted for the building permit will need to be corrected to show the correct height for a monopole I structure pursuant to the definitions contained in RMC section 4-11-230. For example, some plans indicate 85-foot height, others show 60-foot height— in either case height must be less than 60-feet to be considered a monopole I support structure. Sprint PCS Monopole at Dunn Lumber LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF - Advisory Notes (continued) Page 2 of 2 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any wireless facility, the applicant would be required to submit an inventory of existing sites, an applicant agreement statement, and a draft lease agreement for the City's review pursuant to RMC section 4-8-120.C. 3. If the Notice of Proposed Construction to the FAA discussed under Airport comment no. 2 is necessary, the notice must be submitted to the FAA a minimum of 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. If the facility is approved, the proposed light fixture for service calls to the facility must be down cast and shielded so as to prevent undue glare to adjacent properties and keep the light within the site area (RMC section 4-4-140.F.6). CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF APPLICANT: Sprint PCS PROJECT NAME: Sprint PCS Monopole at Dunn Lumber DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Sprint PCS, is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the placement of a 60-foot monopole in the southwest corner of the Dunn Lumber site. The monopole would support 12 panel antennas used for wireless communication. The project would also include the placement of five (5) equipment cabinets and an emergency back-up generator adjacent to the pole's base. A 6-foot wood cedar fence is proposed to provide security and screening for the equipment area. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 120 Factory Avenue North LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3),WAC 197-11-680] and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM August 23, 1999. If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. 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 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning the land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial decision, but to appeals to the Hearing Examiner. All communications after the decision/approval date must be made in writing through the Zoning Administrator. All communications are public record and this permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence in writing. Any violation of this doctrine could result in the invalidation of the decision by the Court PUBLICATION DATE: August 9, 1999 DATE OF DECISION: August 3, 1999 SIGNATURES: ile Weear/Obeed4 / G g Zi f erma /Administrator DATE 1 Departm n1 of PI nnin /Buildin /Public Works p 9 9 i 75.4.---.1 ( ,„y4e....‘e, (-137 ? ;,Jim Shepherd, Ad xnistrator DA Community Services Department 1 / // t.dt �' Lee Wheeler, Firethief , ` DATE Renton Fire Department / dnssig CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NUMBER: LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF APPLICANT: Sprint PCS PROJECT NAME: Sprint PCS Monopole at Dunn Lumber DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Sprint PCS, is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the placement of a 60-foot monopole in the southwest corner of the Dunn Lumber site. The monopole would support 12 panel antennas used for wireless communication. The project would also include the placement of five (5) equipment cabinets and an emergency back-up generator adjacent to the pole's base. A 6-foot wood cedar fence is proposed to provide security and screening for the equipment area. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 120 Factory Avenue North Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Building 1. The applicant is required to comply with all recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Report prepared by ADaPT Engineering, Inc., dated June 11, 1999. Airport 1. Submitted plans state that monopole is 85 feet, not 60 feet. Applicant needs to establish that top of monopole, or antennas, whichever is highest, does not exceed the horizontal surface around airport. Plans do not show ground elevations at site. 2. Although the antenna structure does not appear to be greater than the horizontal surface, the construction is to take place within 4,000 feet of the centerline of the runway. A Notice of Proposed Construction from the FAA is required for any alteration or construction exceeding a 100:1 slope from the runway centerline. If considered exempt by Section 77.15, notice would not be required. Planning 1. If approved, the plans submitted for the building permit will need to be corrected to show the correct height for a monopole I structure pursuant to the definitions contained in RMC section 4-11-230. For example, some plans indicate 85-foot height, others show 60-foot height— in either case height must be less than 60-feet to be considered a monopole I support structure. Sprint PCS Monopole at Dunn Lumber LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF - Advisory Notes (continued) Page 2 of 2 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any wireless facility, the applicant would be required to submit an inventory of existing sites, an applicant agreement statement, and a draft lease agreement for the City's review pursuant to RMC section 4-8-120.C. 3. If the Notice of Proposed Construction to the FAA discussed under Airport comment no. 2 is necessary, the notice must be submitted to the FAA a minimum of 30 days prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. If the facility is approved, the proposed light fixture for service calls to the facility must be down cast and shielded so as to prevent undue glare to adjacent properties and keep the light within the site area (RMC section 4-4-140.F.6). ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: SPRINT PCS MONOPOLE AT DUNN LUMBER PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF The applicant,Sprint PCS,Is requesting Environmental(SEPA)Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the placement of a 60-foot monopole M the southwest corner of the Dunn Lumber site.The monopole would support 12 panel antennas used for wireless communication.The project would also include the placement of five(5)equipment cabinets end an emergency back-up generator adjacent to the pole's base.A 6-foot wood cedar fence is proposed to provide security and screening for the equipment area.Location:120 Factory Avenue North. 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 either the environmental determination[RCW 43.21.0075(3),WAC 197.11.680j and/or the land use decision must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 PM August 23,1999. If no appeals are filed by this date,both actions will become final.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 4.8.11B. Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)430-6510. Es- ,,,.itl 3s1s r. ii^ N AMMON S.l .. + Y Mill7 . W�q � t4. o ■ sco \ A r 3 , f a O a�' ? e :AEI j� 'i / 1, O ! k F~ •Q W htr�f` f `` w dnr n ' _ IL {{r y 6"-i art �:r 1Y.._�T,•TY N . 111iii^ / ii '}ff{} • `�'^�� nil** r it // `N1 • �. ,7D T FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION 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, LEStel N t ' , hereby certify that copies of the above document ere posted byme in conspicuousplaces on or nearby P the described property on MpreffkNi iANI-1„ •}- c, l q e7 7 • Signed: lit4,,(,, fil2;•72 ) ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me,a Nortary Public, m and for the State of Washington residing in e y,--, , on the ,--,-7.1' day of Q,, /1 `' G�� �F NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON MARILYN IG41NE COMMISSION MYAPPOINTM.EXPIR JUNE 29,2O93IRES AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH TI 1 COUNTY 1 V TY JOURNAL NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 ENVIRONMENTALRMINATION REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON,WASHINGTON a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non- newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months Significance for the following project under prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language the authority of the Renton Municipal continuallyas a dailynewspaper in Kent, KingCount Washington. The South CountyCode. Y, 9 SPRINT PCS MONOPOLE AT DUNN Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the LUMBER State of Washington for King County. LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF Environmental review and conditional use The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County permit for placement of monopole on the Journal (and not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers Dunn Lumber site. Location: 120 Factory during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Ave.Appeals oof either the environmental deter- mination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197- LUA-99-099, CU_A, ECF 11-680] and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM August 23, 1999. If no appeals are filed by as published on: 8/9/99 this date, both actions will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$46.00, with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, charged to Acct. No. 8051067. 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA / 98055.Section Appeals4811B,to the ExaminerAdditionalinformation are gov- Legal Number 0y 5C' erned by City of Renton Municipal Code /1-1: regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Legal C e , South County Journal Office,(425)430-6510. Publication Date: August 9, 1999 Published in the South County Journal ''�'J August 9, 1999.6450 Subscribed and sworn before me on this y of ,U ( , 19 oo01aecca,po ') ,`��:.c.)-- t', %`, Notary Public of the State of Washington .;Q;" _,�: `:OT4R ' `:ti residing in Renton —0— King County, Washington �• PCo Vic, C v 4 cs '' o▪ `'1,4"Pj ►▪0,0 u A S NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. SPRINT PCS MONOPOLE AT DUNN LUMBER LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF Environmental review and conditional use permit for placement of monopole on the Dunn Lumber site. Location: 120 Factory Ave. No. Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM August 23, 1999. If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. 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 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430- 6510. Publication Date: August 9, 1999 Account No. 51067 dnspub 464 E6MVED • fr? odr,„:77 „ire, 6661 6, 5 ) 7-ip' Orb CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: July 28, 1999 TO: Jennifer Toth Henning FROM: on Erickson,Neighborhood Liaison SUBJECT: Cellular Tower at Dunn Lumber Site I met with the North Renton Community group last Thursday, July 22, 1999 at the Renton Senior Center and after our regular business discussed the above referenced project. Generally, those in attendance did not understand why the applicants could not set the proposed cellular tower back the required 100' from the residential zone. They are concerned about a proliferation of such structures wondering if this is only the first? Why can't those in the wireless phone business share towers just as those in the wire phone business do, someone asked? Others wondered aloud why the tower could not be screened to look like a clock or bell tower so that it would not be so obvious. One person wondered why it could not go across the street on top of the baseball stadium in Liberty Park? They liked the white finish shown in the photos as opposed to the plain galvanized finishes on some towers that turn a dirty gray color as they age. If the proposed tower looks like the one at the Greater Highlands Shopping Center at 1261 and Sunset across from the bingo hall they think it will have a negative aesthetic impact on the abutting homes. (That one has an unattractive chainlink fence with wood slats.) Some residents in the neighborhood said they are already impacted by unattractive trash dumpsters that spill trash into their yards and feel some abutting businesses could do more to be better neighbors. Conclusion: The idea of a temporary installation using a telescoping tower would give the community a better opportunity to visualize the tower and determine whether it aesthetically impacts their neighborhood or not. cc: \\TS SERVER\SYS2:\COMMON\-Document2\d 7 7 2 PAOVE -kJ fi/i /e_G/,d44 Zaiii 71. °ISA _ _3Z 3 41/7 41,te- _6•12.S) iz SeA-c-6-12,57()A) IU3 ,c/2-4)0 _ _ 227- C-26 c4rs-- 42/ ,F2, ekev-7- 5-5--4-27 7 -.-- 6/51VA 027:r 44-e 3-vat„, v_altd,„a„ .. _ �w.�aYiipro-. _ • yy _ -eta. • City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: I 1� :t COMMENTS DUE: JULY 21, 1999 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 07, 1999 APPLICANT: Sprint PCS PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira PROJECT TITLE: Dunn Lumber Monopole WORK ORDER NO: 78559 LOCATION: 120 Factory Avenue North SITE AREA: 560 sq.ft. BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Sprint PCS, is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the placement of a 60-foot monopole in the southwest corner of the Dunn Lumber site. The monopole will support 12 panel antennas used for wireless communication. The project also includes the placement of five(5)equipment cabinets and an emergency back-up generator adjacent to the pole's base. A proposed 6-foot wood cedar fence will provide security and screening for the equipment area. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Histonc'Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet \ �!pad- on B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS 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 information is needed to properly assess this proposal. bOcne Signature of Director pr thorized Representative Date devapp Rev.10/93 .,:..des ,_ .a.a.+ors+4Hs...wRss.3ra..��w�t�• -" `- _ -.^7. a� _ _ - -- , City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: purport COMMENTS DUE: JULY 21, 1999 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 07, 1999 APPLICANT: Sprint PCS PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira PROJECT TITLE: Dunn Lumber Monopole WORK ORDER NO: 78559 LOCATION: 120 Factory Avenue North SITE AREA 560 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Sprint PCS, is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the placement of a 60-foot monopole in the southwest corner of the Dunn Lumber site. The monopole will support 12 panel antennas used for wireless communication. The project also includes the placement of five(5)equipment cabinets and an emergency back-up generator adjacent to the pole's base. A proposed 6-foot wood cedar fence will provide security and screening for the equipment area. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth '� Housing Air ✓ Aesthetics Water ► ' Light/Glare Plants ✓ Recreation re- Land/Shoreline Use V Utilities be- Animals ✓ Transportation Environmental Health ✓ _ Public Services V Energy/ ✓ Historic/Cultural V.-- be- Natural Resources _ Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet ". 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS Submitted plans state that monopole is 85' height, not 60' . Applicant needs to establish that top of monopole, or antennas, whichever is highest, does not exceed the horizontal surface around airport. Plans do not show ground elevation at site. C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS Although the antenna structure does not appear to be greater than the horizontal surface, the construction is to take place within 4,000 feet of the centerline of the runway. A Notice of Proposed Construction is required for any alteration or construction exceeding a 100"1 slope from the Runway Centerline. If considered exempt by Sec 77. 15, notice would not be required. 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 whe dditional inf ation is needed to properly assess this proposal. �j .32 if-712"edi / iff Signatur f Director or Authorized Representative Date devapp Rev.10/93 lb 14M' " ' 4 A / L_ iliff' l' g..- 1 Mg f ( e«a. *�L � [nett -, f f alf: 6[1:12 NiliAt„, \. M . ( " iv. ibill r -,P1P"'") 11-1—,.1—,,i--- ' , , 1111, , i " - cji-A.,* , - 1 0 01116 0i lipi, •-..,i I -'''' VilaiigainfZiM, PM * _mil . m ] 1 :. -I V?T 7._1,1)--. "4,. . - A 0, ,, . .. -, f ..„: ;, dihohillil -4) .., .. N:2,,. ; . Lan' :*4,411*,, ,\\`\.:0;',./.. :II*/1 ''''' ,,,A 1 7.-.7.` iila ill V-Il 2 ij in minisimcww",..,....„, .000y -.__.\_.,_ IL:11-11a. ,-- n „._._ a I IL-116111L \ • /WA .. iv", 13„, _. ,ziiiii, . ---- iii Is L: áIL5iJ A .0. 1 „ a. • I, ,0 •].•et 30 01 A •.mo t )i-7 [ii „ to pg. ri . � n [ro, / tl• fr 1.1t1r14741444010.11, , 4.\,)<a• LrL .., p i1 �,� "Amay !dW9 ®'� � �.� ICr.] � �, ::.,��}} � r a:,,d�r,4 I:. pli4fftg., .m r i:if iil' - ( ik t • eir, i ii:ii at iM it4i. 54 \ lUttaCc2• ir r it -4.._ .„, ... , 7. / 'Yr1:1 I killb "" 1 -'. s- ii... es ! „,,,,. ji., 4 101410*171r4,, Ii — '''*"..2 IT itIV--E .....4iit4 . p: I ),,.. f ..z. .),„.,Npii t-, 1_1., pcmcA 'ilk t lit LAC 111211k11d ©:i®_�� r"1 �jarts_ -_- �V :. K. I.C��71tll M �p �i ���n����D` : 6•+• - , I i���� �..,.�r Ir \ITI1�L xl����_ `t , 7In! R'�1� RO�_1, � • -- �a-'n"[� i7® p ' 'tee.1. .mt _ I O ari p '66`i 1 i . -_-:-:::::::::::::f-:-:::::::_:::::_:_:::E::_::-:::__--:-::::_:__ . q , lia,_.,,,,,,, __,„.7.,„.„_,..,:::::„.„_,:_::::::::::::::::ft,:__:::::::::::,_,01„,,,.. , rd 1_ {\--1--) • / v -.L--.,--dt,- -------- -------\\ 4,4 ,_ ir, ., __::::::::::_:::__ ____________________ _______ ..„,.._ , . E____I • :::::::::::::::::::-:-H-:-:-.7-:-:-:-:-_--:-:-:-.}:-.7-:-_ %. ,,,,&Nrp;., ,urinn . -TwIr 4 _ I __ ____ _____ __________ ,-:-- -:-:-:-:----_ (igyhe Ai - -IL MI V 2t..i'.,a.t1_,_1_1114_4‘t\-L-:t: \ `, _Y t T _[ f,■ 11IIf rJ t .slaI N:-_=_ __��••_-�'_y1,_yr-�I_'y�_�•_ __�__:_-l_yY_Yy_Y_T�4 _-_ _ _ l + '+ k 0\• _- i::::E::::_t.::::::::_::_:::::_::_:E:::_::::_::::::::_:::::-:::: ::_-::-::_::____-: _- n11 i11Z 1 11. I k1 i'I j1 ..‘ -.n ram——4 '_____________—:—___ _-a-r =____ rr=-„'====_ --_ 4 '1 2 ,..', .1-1 s..- �i !t-; _® - _- ______-__ -_---- -- - .- -_ _ _ _ 1i II sum I I ___3' a ro x* ' '''"' -:,.- --1-41s.._....11!Ti''' . 1111111WArMillinft_____:::____:_______- --- -- -----------------:::__ ir , - -_-.—F' -------------:-:-H-------------H-H-H-H-:-.7-:-:-:-::-:-:-:-.7-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:- - -:-:-.7-:-.7.-:-:-:-.-:-H-7.-:-:-.7-:-:-:-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-w. ■ aw r iwiv ^__________=_ _ _ __ __ _C��__ aTrr] M I NOT :---------- --------- I ::::----------------:-:-7:::-- A------:-:-:-:.-:-..-.---- _-:::.-:----.---::::::::::::::::::::::-.."-:,:_:-:,:,:_:_., (: % - :LI, em ] O i i ILI,: 1 I - __ ____ -_____ _ a-• -_ __________ ____ _ _ _ __ b/ ,,____.:_:_,_,.:_,_:_,_:_,_:_:_:_ __ Ir ' � 1 - == ..'tea _',, .„„), \ ._ -=_ ____ ,_ �fIJJ :fl ' 9 I I 26 � 11 24 I. 2 13 1 v .5 ;6 „); , 1 MO I2 Z7 2 2? 4. 0 , w�ti Te /.... .to — 1 . 1 . ... ti �� RV�1 3 • I 13 Z8 1 31013 281 1• '3 I4 .� Ii : ' t sE I0N /: ° , 76 ® ---� W t ,►•; stet z I _ - to ® a 14 29 s PIP \ x, •,. o 1 ®, L. la 'a� la 4, ---rJ d c, ;, 15 30„ Ai Q l-1ge; .4o i 7 1 4° " • i•ai •• 7:e 4c�h So-_ a /9/ rA V R L� ,`�. ® 2 IS ® �4.4 gill(11-: ; 11 24/. L&i -air-- -'Ll 2� }I5 ©Si' 4 5 6 1 „V i' r r \`'4� :v o r , Mr• �a !sT[��s , Q •• 2�e 3 16 _ Q IQ 3 16 ® . •!� Q \(PsAvicF ' `�`/ �z �_� 1 ' — 9 (1 37 • Q 10 IS �si- \ i io 4 r Tao ® S 18 2� - - �r p��� ksl 18 (la - qc. •'�° C. 0 1. o 1- 9 .ac�312 "�, ® ® 6 19 ® ® 6 ybi7i�i w�a' C` \ L. o t� 17 �_N. BROOKS .4'. 7 11 E213 ' ` `® I a1 tit .. r o�f� �,7 l 2ZJ _' 6i 9 22 � - s 22 U 1 / / r $ ' 401 8 lU 23{Zs)• OO y ^,PiI( 24 ® Q ; fit. I 24 --- J� ♦ . gwr`1 :Yoe:: ' 12 25 ao / O • 10280 zl • f,1R 12 15 �o :® � �� C :a', e., . n I J5 1 al V 13 C {ut4 a[ 1I3 ^.ro J g / '. ka` ' s ' ST • • ,41. 10 [lift MO II:LW.' • • - r ................:. ..„,- .(I''. r- I o nzs - 10 ® • wy T I, ` 13 � l�'� _ ® h � 0 3 I 3 •�r� + 10 : i/ I.I+fr r oQ 12 I0 4 . It ® , me4 \ \ $ '. 12 2 ml� li9 ® o ' c . i17 , I 11131 ---._...._._._ Lam-^' 13 • �J 1 I2 e v O . 115.84. 4 o 9 � '.I L . c',; \ O .,I 163 :\ minima , t . ., . _...t. ..,....:•,_ :......".„...:- ... :.....• 4 0 .• .. . ,,ic., "`liki 6 PARK/Na G • / Y ' •o 7 � � O� I I i� \ � a \` 11 I , \\ I n 4 . :r xf .:, . (, .3 5 0 ' GV t .•( 1& \, /j' ;\• 11 '+ 5 4 a Q 5' �� I p / iII - is. l� d 6 --_ I &ALL GROUNDS i �O •i1/ LOt • ,_ \ "• •\s• , Ob j_ ' i [] j O /°' �Iv Qj .., \\ ! 8 ' NOTICE OF PI DSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION §77.13 Construction or alteration requiring notice. §77.15 Construction or alteration no airing notice. (a) Except as provided in§77.15,each sponsor who proposes any of the following No person is required to notify the Administrator for any of the following construc- construction or alteration shall notify the Administrator in the form and manner tion or alteration: prescribed in§77.17: (a) Any object that would be shielded by existing structures of a permanent and (1)Any construction or alteration of more than 200 feet in height above the ground substantial character or by natural terrain or topographic features of equal or greater level at its site. height and would be located in the congested area of a city, town, or settlement (2)Any construction or alteration of greater height than an imaginary surface extending where it is evident beyond all reasonable doubt that the structure so shielded will outward and upward at one of the following slopes: not adversely affect safety in air navigation. (i) 100 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of (b)Any antenna structure of 20 feet or less in height except one that would increase the nearest runway of each airport specified in subparagraph(5)of this paragraph the height of another antenna structure. with at least one runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length,excluding heliports. (c)Any air navigation facility, airport visual approach or landing aid,aircraft arrest- (ii) 50 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet from the nearest point of ing device, or meteorological device, of a type approved by the Administrator, or the nearest runway of each airport specified in subparagraph(5)of this paragraph an appropriate military service on military airports,the location and height of which with its longest runway no more than 3,200 feet in actual length,excluding heliports. is fixed by its functional purpose. (iii) 25 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet from the nearest point of (d)Any construction or alteration for which notice is required by any other FAA regulation. the nearest landing and takeoff area of each heliport specified in subparagraph (5)of this paragraph. §77.17 Form and time of notice. (3) Any highway, railroad, or other traverse way for mobile objects, of a height which,if adjusted upward 17 feet for an Interstate Highway that is part of the National (a) Each person who is required to notify the Administrator under §77.13 (a) shall System of Military and Interstate Highways where overcrossings are designed for send one executed form set of FAA Form 7460-1,Notice of Proposed Construction a minimum of 17 feet vertical distance, 15 feet for any other public roadway, 10 or Alteration,to the Manager,Air Traffic Division,FAA Regional Office having jurisdiction feet or the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse the over the area within which the construction or alteration will be located. Copies of road, which aver is greater, for a private road, 23 feet for a railroad, and for a FAA Form 7460-1 may be obtained from the headquarters of the Federal Aviation waterway or any other traverse way not previously mentioned, an amount equal Administration and the regional offices. to the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse it, would (b)The notice required under§77.13(a)(1)through (4) must be submitted at least exceed a standard of subparagraph(1)or(2)of this paragraph. 30 days before the earlier of the following dates— (4) When requested by the FAA, any construction or alteration that would be in (1)The date the proposed construction or alteration is to begin. an instrument approach area(defined in the FAA standards governing instrument (2)The date an application for a construction permit is to be filed. approach procedures)and available information indicates it might exceed a standard However, a notice relating to proposed construction or alteration that is subject`o • of Subpart C of this part the licensing requirements of the Federal Communications Act may be sent to the FAA at the same time the application for construction is filed with the Federal (5)Any construction or alteration on any of the following airports(including heliports): Communications Commission,or at any time before that filing. (i)An airport that is available for public use and is listed in the Airport Directory of the current Airman's Information Manual or in either the Alaska or Pacific (c)A proposed structure or an alteration to an existing structure that exceeds 2,000 Airman's Guide and Chart Supplement feet in height above the ground will be presumed to be a hazard to air navigation (ii)An airport under construction,that is the subject of a notice or proposal on and to result in an inefficient utilization of airspace and the applicant has the burden file with the Federal Aviation Administration, and except for military airports, it of overcoming that presumption.Each notice submitted under the pertinent provisions is clearly indicated that that airport will be available for public use. of Part 77 proposing a structure in excess of 2,000 feet above ground,or an alteration (iii)An airport that is operated by an armed force of the United States. that will make an existing structure exceed that height must contain a detailed showing directed to meeting this burden.Only in exceptional cases,where the FM concludes (b) Each sponsor who profn. s construction or alteration that is the subject of a that a clear and compelling showing has been made that it would not result in an notice under paragraph(a)of this section and is advised by an FAA regional office inefficient utilization of the airspace and would not result in a hazard to air navigation, that a supplemental notice is required shall submit that notice on a prescribed form will a determination of no hazard be issued. to be received by the FAA regional office at least 48 hours before the start of the construction or alteration. (d) In the case of an emergency involving essential public services, public health, Each or public safety,that requires immediate construction or alteration,the 30 day require- (c)notice under who undertakes construction or alteration that is the subject of ment in paragraph (b) of this section does not apply and the notice may be sent a paragraph(a)of this section shall,within 5 days after that construction by telephone,telegraph, or other expeditious means, with an executed FAA Form or alteration reaches its greatest height,submit a supplemental notice on a prescribed 7460-1 submitted within five (5) days thereafter. Outside normal business hours, form to the FAA regional office having jurisdiction over the area involved,if— emergency notices by telephone or telegraph may be submitted to the nearest FAA (1) The construction or alteration is more than 200 feet above the surface level Flight Service Station. of its site;or (e) Each person who is required to notify the Administrator by paragraph(b) or (c) (2) An FAA regional office advises him that submission of the form is required. of §77.13, or both, shall send an executed copy of FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration,to the Manager,Air Traffic Division, FAA Regional Office having jurisdiction over the area involved. ADDRESSES OF THE REGIONAL OFFICES Western Pacific Region Southern Region Great Lakes Region New England Region Hi,CA,NV,AZ,GU KY,TN,NC,SC,GA,AL, ND,WI,MI,SD,IL,OH,MN,IN MA,NH,VT,RI,CT,ME Western-Pacific Regional Office MS,FL,VI,PR Great Lakes Regional Office New England Regional Office Air Traffic Division,AWP-530 Southern Regional Office Air Traffic Division,AGL-530 Air Traffic Division,ANE-530 15000 Aviation Boulevard Air Traffic Division,ASO-530 2300 East Devon Avenue 12 New England Executive Park Hawthorne,CA 90260 3400 Norman Berry Drive Des Plaines,IL 60018 Burlington,MA 01803 Tel.310-297-1365 East Point,GA 30344 Tel.312-694-7568 Tel.617-273-7143 Mail Address: Tel.404-763-7646 Southwest Region Eastern Region AWP-530 Mail Address: NM,TX,OK,AR,LA NY,PA,WV,VA,DC,MD,DE,NJ P.O.Box 92007 Federal Aviation Administration Worldway Postal Center Southern Regional Office Southwest Regional Office Eastern Regional Office Los Angeles,CA 90009 Air Traffic Division,ASO-530 Air Traffic Division,ASW-530 Air Traffic Division,AEA-530 Alaskan Region P.O.Box 20636 4400 Blue Mound Road JFK International Airport Atlanta,GA 30320 Fort Worth,TX 76193 Fitzgerald Federal Building AK Tel.817-624-5534 Jamaica,NY 11430 Alaskan Regional Office Northwest Mountain Region Mail Address: Tel.718-553-1228 Air Traffic Division,AAL-530 WA,OR,MT,ID,WY,UT,CO Department of Transporation Fax:718-553-1384 222 West 7th Avenue Northwest Mountain Regional Office Federal Aviation Administration Anchorage,AK 99513 Air Traffic Division,ANM-530 Fort Worth,TX 76193-0530 Tel.907-271-5893 1601 Lind Avenue,SW Central Region Mailing Address: Renton,WA 98055-4056 NE,IA,MO,KS Federal Aviation Administration • Tel.206-227-2530 Alaskan Regional Office Fax:206-227-1530 Central Regional Office Air Traffic Division,AAL-530 Air Traffic Division,ACE-530 222 West 7th Avenue,Box 14 601 East 12th Street Anchorage,AK 99513-7587 Kansas City,MO 64106 Tel.816-426-3408 k Form 7460-1 (1-93)Supersedes Previous Edition _ r. '_t. .. ♦ _r a C �". ,� :may. City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: LcovvAAA IC. DCue€ opi'V COMMENTS DUE: JULY 21, 1999 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 07, 1999 APPLICANT: Sprint PCS PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira PROJECT TITLE: Dunn Lumber Monopole WORK ORDER NO: 78559 LOCATION: 120 Factory Avenue North SITE AREA: 560 sq.ft. BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Sprint PCS, is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the placement of a 60-foot monopole in the southwest corner of the Dunn Lumber site. The monopole will support 12 panel antennas used for wireless communication. The project also includes the placement of five(5)equipment cabinets and an emergency back-up generator adjacent to the pole's base. A proposed 6-foot wood cedar fence will provide security and screening for the equipment area. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water LighVGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic./Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS 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 -- = a..1 ion. , . ation is needed to properly assess this proposal. . iftR• 7/9499 Signature of I ector or (thori -. Representative Date devapp Rev.10193 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: preucAA,tion COMMENTS DUE: JULY 21, 1999 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 07, 1999EN.N FRE UE.t' 1 APPLICANT: Sprint PCS PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihir'gc nDE ,EM!TInN BUREAU PROJECT TITLE: Dunn Lumber Monopole WORK ORDER NO: 78559 JUL 0 81999 LOCATION: 120 Factory Avenue North SITE AREA: 560 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A .Jt I V ED SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Sprint PCS, is requesting Environmental(SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the placement of a 60-foot monopole in the southwest corner of the Dunn Lumber site. The monopole will support 12 panel antennas used for wireless communication. The project also includes the placement of five (5) equipment cabinets and an emergency back-up generator adjacent to the pole's base. A proposed 6-foot wood cedar fence will provide security and screening for the equipment area. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS kit 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 informati n is needed to properly assess this proposal. OY/f (1,1)n ' /�Ml"il Signature of irector or Authorized R resentative Date devapp Rev.10/93 *'r - ..... .-. .�.� _.. -., i..,. is-.. - M City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Pia-in QeUie ; - (0 ( COMMENTS DUE: JULY 21, 1999 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 07, 1999 APPLICANT: Sprint PCS PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira PROJECT TITLE: Dunn Lumber Monopole WORK ORDER NO: 78559 � Y LOCATION: 120 Factory Avenue North C'/' o SITE AREA: 560 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Sprint PCS, is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and ang/ inistrative eV� Conditional Use Permit for the placement of a 60-foot monopole in the southwest corner of the Dunn Lumber site. lonopolr3-yvill support 12 panel antennas used for wireless communication. The project also includes the placement of five(5) eq ent cabin*and an emergency back-up generator adjacent to the pole's base. A proposed 6-foot wood cedar fence will provide send screening for the equipment area. ,tt,fiTh A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS Al - Cc v 6v1 w«' 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. ? (, if (1, ,•i 7///1 A% Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date devapp Rev 10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: It,v 4, ,, COMMENTS DUE: JULY 21, 1999 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 07, 1999 APPLICANT: Sprint PCS PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira PROJECT TITLE: Dunn Lumber Monopole WORK ORDER NO: 78559 LOCATION: 120 Factory Avenue North SITE AREA: 560 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Sprint PCS, is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the placement of a 60-foot monopole in the southwest corner of the Dunn Lumber site. The monopole will support 12 panel antennas used for wireless communication. The project also includes the placement of five(5) equipment cabinets and an emergency back-up generator adjacent to the pole's base. A proposed 6-foot wood cedar fence will provide security and screening for the equipment area. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet e-�yf�� t_/1_- ! LCi d�✓Y 76 � / — B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS Le.y&C., (Ye/LC-. AO a441fi"/S 71' ;1 /6C2--- 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 wher additional information i iteeded to properly assess this proposal..- .7 1 - ignature of Director or A onzed Representative Date devapp Rev 10/93 !flit i City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: -irke,tiispoY atkrif) COMMENTS DUE: JULY 21, 1999 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 07, 1999 APPLICANT: Sprint PCS PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley NishiPkity Or- PROJECT TITLE: Dunn Lumber Monopole WORK ORDER NO: 78559 LOCATION: 120 Factory Avenue North JUZ U SITE AREA: 560 sq.ft. BUILDING AREA(gross): la[[����ik4.. 194 ; ,1i SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Sprint PCS, is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and1rf Acji nistrative Conditional Use Permit for the placement of a 60-foot monopole in the southwest corner of the Dunn Lumber site. `The monopole will support 12 panel antennas used for wireless communication. The project also includes the placement of five(5)equipm'ent cabinets and an emergency back-up generator adjacent to the pole's base. A proposed 6-foot wood cedar fence will provide security and screening for the equipment area. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Ut/iitles Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Histori.JCu/tural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS 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 information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 7Ave,7 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date devapp Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public l,..., ENVIRONMENTAL 8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: JULY 21, 1999 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-099,CU-A,E F DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 07, 1999 APPLICANT: Sprint PCS PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira PROJECT TITLE: Dunn Lumber Monopole WORK ORDER NO: 78559 C/n, OF LOCATION: 120 Factory Avenue North �a,. .- I•OP SITE AREA: 560 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A jU4 OP i SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Sprint PCS, is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Revi e an AdministraiVe Conditional Use Permit for the placement of a 60-foot monopole in the southwest corner of the Dunn Lumber site.j he monopole will support 12 panel antennas used for wireless communication. The project also includes the placement of five (5)eq�bipfnent cabinets and an emergency back-up generator adjacent to the pole's base. A proposed 6-foot wood cedar fence will provide seOUrity9gnd screening for the equipment area. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Lancl/Shoreline Use Utililies , Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS A 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. jo,A4ey, Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date devapp Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:iC c d-tom Sek' (el) COMMENTS DUE: JULY 21, 1999 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 07, 1999 APPLICANT: Sprint PCS PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira PROJECT TITLE: Dunn Lumber Monopole WORK ORDER NO: 78559 CI`,' LOCATION: 120 Factory Avenue North 11. =lid SITE AREA: 560 sq.ft. f BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant, Sprint PCS, is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Revfitty and anAsOrniqi@tirapoN Conditional Use Permit for the placement of a 60-foot monopole in the southwest corner of the Dunn Lumber site. The monopole will support 12 panel antennas used for wireless communication. The project also includes the placement of five(5)equipment cabinets and an emergency back-up generator adjacent to the pole's base. A proposed 6-foot wood cedar fence will provide security and screening for the equipment area. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water LightGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 1 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS / ZT_fie ►���C.GGt.d 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. / C�' -e-j--tc-A--ct, Si ature of Director o uthorizx�resentative Date devapp Rev 10/93 ORIGINAL CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS within 300 feet of the subject site PROJECT NAME: SPlri nt PCS YYIOVNOrolt I pWAV\ APPLICATION NO: L-U A .91 • OR a < GV ' p EL The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 5e6o -rdus-1- NN�NG MEN�EN�N o0,0- �t of R A. y\ \ 'es kG° (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) I - atroScan / King (WA) ) Parcel Number Owner Name Site Address YB Owner Phone 135230 0660 07 Garot Eugene 0/Joan L 1421 N 3Rd St Renton 980 1977 135230 0670 05 Aguiling Rodulfo V 242 Meadow Ave N Renton 1911 425-277-0093 135230 0675 00 Stewart Daniel G 238 Meadow Ave N Renton 1924 135230 0680 03 Banasky Robert G 236 Meadow Ave N Renton 1925 425-432-4871 135230 0685 08 Banasky Robert G & Dia 230 Meadow Ave N Renton 1913 425-432-4871 135230 0690 01 Ewer Shane Leon 226 Meadow Ave N Renton 1935 425-271-7760 135230 0695 06 Hamblin Donald E 222 Meadow Ave N Renton 1956 135230 0700 09 Podriznik Frank J 218 Meadow Ave N Renton 1910 425-255-2924 135230 0705 04 Delossantos Juanito 214 Meadow Ave N Renton 1910 206-226-6739 135230 0710 07 Businello Fred/Deann 208 Meadow Ave N Renton 1907 425-226-5231 135230 0715 02 Wolfgram Mary 204 Meadow Ave N Renton 1907 135230 0720 05 Vaupel Warren F 1402 N 2Nd St Renton 980 1937 425-255-3684 135230 0725 00 Fortun Tryg & Barb 251 Factory Ave N Renton 1912 425-488-6519 135230 0730 03 Murphy Tanya S/Donald 247 Factory Ave N Renton 1915 135230 0735 08 Flaherty Joseph M/Hiro 241 Factory Ave N Renton 1940 425-204-1606 135230 0740 01 Meile Matthew J/Julie 237 Factory Ave N Renton 1940 425-255-2696 135230 0745 06 Thomas Duane A & Charl 235 Factory Ave N Renton 1915 135230 0750 08 Wong Gain M/Susan L C 229 Factory Ave N Renton 1990 206-767-3326 135230 0755 03 White Randall C/Norma 225 Factory Ave N Renton 1933 425-271-3520 135230 0760 06 Kokko C H 221 Factory Ave N Renton 1917 425-255-6297 135230 0780 02 Valesko Albert D 215 Factory Ave N Renton 1956 425-255-4464 135230 0785 07 Le Peter K;Pham Martha 209 Factory Ave N Renton 1996 135230 0790 00 Zhao Ju Quan/San You 205 Factory Ave N Renton 1996 425-226-1451 135230 0795 05 Do Du Khai;Tran Tran T 201 Factory Ave N Renton 1996 135230 0805 03 Bryant Motors Inc *No Site Address* Renton 425-255-3478 135230 0815 01 Bryant Motors Inc 118 Meadow Ave N Renton 1907 425-255-3478 135230 0820 04 Bryant Motors Inc 116 Meadow Ave N Renton 1911 425-255-3478 135230 0825 09 Texaco Refining And Ma 1408 Bronson Way N Rento 1989 135230 0965 09 Johnson Ronald Roger & 1503 N 3Rd St Renton 980 1930 425-228-1342 135230 0965 09 Johnson Ronald Roger & 1503 N 3Rd St Renton 980 1930 425-228-1342 135230 0965 09 Johnson Ronald Roger & 1503 N 3Rd St Renton 980 1930 425-228-1342 135230 0980 00 Edwards Dwight W/Carol 1513 N 3Rd St Renton 980 1922 135230 0985 05 Edwards Dwight W & Car 1517 N 3Rd St Renton 980 1995 135230 0990 08 Harvego Carol Elizabet 1521 N 3Rd St Renton 980 1922 425-226-8676 135230 0995 03 Butenko Christopher R/ 1525 N 3Rd St Renton 980 1923 135230 1000 04 Sharma Vishnu Deo 1531 N 3Rd St Renton 980 1928 425-226-8368 135230 1000 04 Sharma Vishnu Deo 1531 N 3Rd St Renton 980 1928 425-226-8368 135230 1010 02 Arnold Bruce C 208 Factory Ave N Renton 1929 425-226-0099 135230 1015 07 Green Kaylene 204 Factory Ave N Renton 1929 135230 1020 00 Kraght Benjamin J 200 Factory Ave N Renton 1929 206-850-3156 135230 1025 05 Wood Arthur 1510 N Brooks St Renton 1909 425-255-4878 135230 1035 03 Wautlet Raymond 1520 N Brooks St Renton 1920 425-255-5389 135230 1040 06 Luong Ha;Pham Hang Thi 1522 N Brooks St Renton 1934 425-228-5356 172305 9006 04 Burlington Northrn San 1500 Bronson Way N Rento 172305 9012 06 City Of Renton *No Site Address* Renton 172305 9033 01 Columbia & Puget Sound Near Houser Way S Renton 172305 9038 06 City Of Renton 100 Mill Ave S Renton 98 172305 9073 02 Colonel Richard C 209 Sunset Blvd N Renton 1954 172305 9073 02 Colonel Richard C 209 Sunset Blvd N Renton 1940 172305 9073 02 Colonel Richard C 209 Sunset Blvd N Renton 1940 172305 9074 01 Golden Palace 151 Sunset Blvd N Renton 1971 425-235-1818 172305 9077 08 Ming-Lei Tseng 219 Sunset Blvd N Renton 1946 172305 9077 08 Ming-Lei Tseng 219 Sunset Blvd N Renton 1946 172305 9077 08 Ming-Lei Tseng 219 Sunset Blvd N Renton 1946 172305 9077 08 Ming-Lei Tseng 219 Sunset Blvd N Renton 1946 172305 9082 01 Tseng Ming Lei 217 Sunset Blvd N Renton 1958 17?305 9082 01 Tseng Ming Lei 217 Sunset Blvd N Renton 1942 172305 9089 04 Ciambrone Robert J/Tif 225 Sunset Blvd N Renton 172305 9090 01 Windsor Park Estates R 251 Sunset Blvd N Renton 172305 9091 00 Windsor Park Estates R 251 Sunset Blvd N Renton 1985 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. e: /1 •0',,Ft ji.. .:..1 "G . —3.: ::- • .1 ci: • .). _ . ..) ...,,:-. as•rc ‘, 1)..•.,, .. .., 1, — 11 01,0 ee . ± 1 . /3 .•r....: 04.5,3 '''"(.1 l' 1 '." .16 c. s-.!.....:9, 7•' : ....,, 4.s. . R3 • u > ,3 i • i '' a.S.i le , /7 , /8 /9 2.) z. .. ..7.--.5„ ,. ;',.-'5' 3 43 0 K ! I 4/ ,3 3 40 - - •I •• . 1 •- -- • •31"/ ,) ,// _,•3/15 '''-t 04 .3.,• 5 T 0 ? 4, bi• — t . ..... . /c4/ 41 P " • •1:5;,0•:A.-,4,c3-14. i I1 Ii•7 -. I ,. - 3' -•. <)• 1 t 1 ,1V /i' •PC•a l „.,9, _IV. '2I. 3-8e•4-•:531,'-iL.Ri, , 3•n Ave ? 6 . ' 2... - 4: , • 0 v /./ "4 . / 1. i / s "r• .••-•-7• • -1'".•..• -.•f.-.,- ,-. ier- s 0 LLJ I '• ..."... 01/ .,* ...‘.. 5 1.4.° (:......3 . .! ,...t, j %...1 0...lir 0 . 1 .... :,,, "› z c ,zr ....5 > 1 - .;.•• ,:',-A`' I, 1; C, ' ts \.".....> ... .:,:t4 0.1.• 4 "... 1):-. , N. .• 3 v .., .e. . . •:, 3 f ei.,,,-,. :74,5 Nti ,•1 • - ..0 ' .") ..14 . 0''' A --4--------, • . 10 IE.& • 1, „,..---• 3, J' .3.5 ,.c2> S• ...' i o l',/J•••••• ''‘C ..` • " -• •Z.. ) 74 ' 7 ' ..t.' '- I I.' ...- -/,../ •..,- . ! .., / ,o•• c W • l' ,° lir /a , . Zio•ii, [7.10;14.:5- \j,a : .. '1 Lj44.„ 2 t ;1S I V „, • . CO f i I- N' , :"••-• X '-:':-• 1 :.:•..... , • 2 ..// I'7 - j•.•f i•0 4.3 -'4. 1/5 4 , ...... 75: \ , 0 'V'9 . - )0 0 '5:• I:, • I 10 ..,Z. . i 7 N. BROOKS S T _...... r) tl..fi)f-1/ •L' . ,..."4,,...T•4.6*••• V se OC X .%. , # ° . - \''': CO •e: : ,,,,,„,, C.95 , V i '• '^- ).- . ' • •,, 3 , .$ •." 1. -- X ' ' „___:"----...__4 - ..... 0 - t•k• (_4"--9v 2 2 • 0 . : ' i' -----°- , no /3_P4"l•i 5 z J - 1 , 7,'-\ ‘w„°-o_)•Z CIo')Vk.4-` ‘\,C i..1 ii)0 24 ' k V C 7': I. - - - -r- •.5-.• •-• I\ " :::; 4-, 2 4 CP.I /? c). .' a. :cc ..... , .,. o ,i, ., 'I. 25 '`) 1 ' /2 -715 - /1 7 1 %. • 14 "a•.-.'2 : • '; • k • . - / s • / .i 1 ,,,••;„1, ,..„ e 1..7:2 •fii .... • ,. ' 1.Ill T ,26 , o V ic, /, / II+ 1 3 - ..?: .53 ! t5 . •0.3 -.., . , I. ....-, '—, 2 N D •.— . n ... . 1. / T•:1‘... ..' -'439.•49 * ' 714 — , * /0 ' • • . / i /,..V Li 0 ••J 51 : .• ‘....., /•••••?4 IN' 44 1 • , a '•% . C.,1 --, „.! ,, , , 4 ...0 : // . , - • •a P ;9' :45....9 '4' 4- / : ''1 5-..".•'-. ;.•,.., T..1•7e4 S ') .4, •7 0 • ' A .--.77-- •-- • 1 3 2 11 e 3-6—..- s' f /-1.... ....v5.::- /0 - 9 , • 1 2 • -....,e., :. , ....4 . ',2.- \i. 0905 cus.: . / gAn, ‘ ,.: ' '4..- 1 I.I\/4 i2.,.„.C.:1.S:•.9:i.-:.'.-'--s.." —/ ...—.•1;•.7.4'.+".".. . /, ...71• •, 4)I,r.•t• .i I •,, - > i • J . • . 1 c Ir 5•' -4 11 , a'''' C-ZDs•' 0•• no:. __. i 3 ' • 5 v 44.....„.------- /G ''. • ,..,0 C/ • - .. 0 / , CO. 71 !. 1. . ,7 :el. .."2 ..) V' .s \I" .. • Z AkS ' .,4. 1+ ••• ‘, .> -• - 74 0 , 6 t \ l% \,,e925 ,3 t'• \ C.,• -': 4( s^ , . \ _- 0. / ..• i .. 6.1 ' 1. 77/ , •' '' 3 -.. , •'s : k 7 ‘I \I : •i. ....... : - .... .. i--• 4.1 3- Jo N I - -,.....4 . — _ .. - ,• • W / "... ....... rt . -. ---- ....... A ,3 3. ?..* ....._ ...... -I.-- 4 ,i.P.1."7;....... -••••• •--• .\\,,, „.,...", .., •---4 . ---... ,., • ... ,...•••• r Avf A‘ ..., ,...e. . - -... ,,., .... ., ,......_. ..,..„:5........ ..z... . 02. r _ . A ,V &• A , • C.) ' ' [ c9 Z pt• , P . ,. . • Y every NOA shall Include a determination of the projed's consistency with the coning.comprehensive plan end o4 development regulations. • A Land Use: The subject site Is designated Employment Area-Commercial on the City, " Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Commercial Arteri Ion the City Zoning Map.The proposed wireless facility falls within the'monopole I support � stnldure•definition and is allowed within the CA designation provided its location is at least 100 feel from a residentially zoned parcel.If located within NOTICE OF APPLICATION the required 100 fool boundary,an Administrative Conditional Use Permit Is required.The proposed monopole Is located within 100 feet of residentially AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- zoned parcels to the west and must,therefore,obtain an Administrative Conditional Use Permit.Although the proposed height of the monopole is typically exempt from Environmental(SEPA)Review,the required Conditional SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) Use Permit removes the project from the exempt classification. Environmental Documents that DATE: July 07,1999 Evaluate the Proposed Project: None known. LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF Development Regulations Ueed For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance,Zoning Code,Public Works Standards,Uniform Building Code,Uniform Fire Code,Wireless APPLICATION NAME: DUNN LUMBER/SPRINT PCS MONOPOLE Communications Ordinance and other applicable codes and regulations as PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant.Sprint PCS,U requesting Environmental(SEPA)Review and an appropriate. Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the placement of a 60-fool monopole in the southwest comer of the Dunn Lumber site.The monopole will support 12 panel antennas used for wireless communication. The project also includes Proposed Mitigation Measures: the placement of five(5)equipment cabinets and an emergency back-up generator adjacent to the poles base. A proposed 6-foot wood cedar fence will provide security and screening for the equipment area. At this time,the analysis of the proposal does not reveal any potential impacts requiring mitigation above and beyond existing code provisions.However,further review may Indicate the need for additional mitigation measures. PROJECT LOCATION: 120 Factory Avenue North OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE(DNS):As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Ms.Lesley Nishihira,Project Manager.Development determined that significant environmental Impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project.Therefore,as Services Division,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 9e055.by 5:00 PM on July 21,1s99. If you have questions permitted under the RCW 43.21C,110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS-AA boutthis at posal or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail,contact me Project is likely to be Issued.Comment periods for the project and me proposed DNS are integrated Into a single comment be Managernotified a(425)430-I27 on Anyone who submits written comments will automaticallybecome a partyof record and will period.There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Delemdnation of Non-Significancey prof (DNS).A 14 day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. CONTACT PERSON: MS.LESLEY NISHIHIRA(425)430-7270 PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: June 29,1999 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 07,1999 ., Cl to fa.- \'air' 1r 1J a Pennils/Review Requested: SEPA Environmental Review;Administrative Conditional Use Permit 4 File..�.r I 1 r s gj e air ♦ ; I? ire ' ,,,.. / Other Permits which may be required: Building Permits,FAA Approval tit II"T'm_matil a .a�•'� µprpt .4'4., iMf F , A .- .p Requested Studies: Geotechnical Report,Photosimulalions I•Z- yq'a. n 01,1 �49 ,•.� Location where application may • u LLUU —"'•(f."' •� Ds reviewed: Pianning/BuiWIrg/Public Works Division,Development Services Department. �� I, s 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 95055 t . L �u 3�i u �' >L•-• PUBLIC HEARING: Not required. e i 11 t-i. J. C• • CERVIEW: t with adopted and applicable development regulationson In t•, ' r/ /_- . 'VAR• their absence,comprehensive plan policies.RCW J8.70B.110(2)(g)provides that the Notice of Application(NOA) =➢o -. I b /' y Include a statement or the preliminary determination of a projed's consistency with the type of land use.level of 49 ,31 F a r / •! r. iL development.infrastructure and character of development if one has been made at the lime of notice.At a minimum. ¢] " irks+ ;Ivy- ♦L¢� �a • a „S•i_a k" :1,40,...pli �w � s►i7�2•' CERTIFICATION I, a f i Vi,.i J IY , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document ere posted by me in conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on TilvIrs6ttil )11 ei (QR't. • Signed: ATTEST: Subcribed . .. sworn before me,a Nortary Public, in and for tge State of Washington residing II,,,,yyft ,,-. ,on the 19 ' day of(---)tc :6-- 1GI9c/ " MARILYNmfi,RILYN KAMCHEFF /' NOTARY PUBLIC ✓U�(��, ���� n�/�Yv � STATE EXPIRES MARILYN KAMCHEFF DUNE 29, 2003 MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 get is • NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: July 07, 1999 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF Sl-% APPLICATION NAME: DUNN LUMBER/SPRINT PCS MONOPOLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Sprint PCS, is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and an Administrative Conditional Use Permit for the placement of a 60-foot monopole in the southwest corner of the Dunn Lumber site. The monopole will support 12 panel antennas used for wireless communication. The project also includes the placement of five (5) equipment cabinets and an emergency back-up generator adjacent to the pole's base. A proposed 6-foot wood cedar fence will provide security and screening for the equipment area. PROJECT LOCATION: 120 Factory Avenue North OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A 14 day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: June 29, 1999 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 07, 1999 Permits/Review Requested: SEPA Environmental Review; Administrative Conditional Use Permit Other Permits which may be required: Building Permits, FAA Approval Requested Studies: Geotechnical Report, Photosimulations Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division, Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: Not required. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Analytical process Project consistency refers to whether a project is consistent with adopted and applicable development regulations, or in their absence, comprehensive plan policies. RCW 36.70B.110(2)(g) provides that the Notice of Application (NOA) include a statement of the preliminary determination of a project's consistency with the type of land use, level of development, infrastructure, and character of development if one has been made at the time of notice. At a minimum, genmalot every NOA shall include a determination of the project's consistency with the zoning, comprehensive plan and development regulations. Land Use: The subject site is designated Employment Area— Commercial on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Commercial Arterial on the City's Zoning Map. The proposed wireless facility falls within the "monopole I support structure" definition and is allowed within the CA designation provided its location is at least 100 feet from a residentially zoned parcel. If located within the required 100 foot boundary, an Administrative Conditional Use Permit is required. The proposed monopole is located within 100 feet of residentially zoned parcels to the west and must, therefore, obtain an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. Although the proposed height of the monopole is typically exempt from Environmental (SEPA) Review, the required Conditional Use Permit removes the project from the exempt classification. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: None known. Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance, Zoning Code, Public Works Standards, Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Wireless Communications Ordinance and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: At this time, the analysis of the proposal does not reveal any potential impacts requiring mitigation above and beyond existing code provisions. However, further review may indicate the need for additional mitigation measures. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms. Lesley Nishihira, Project Manager, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on July 21, 1999. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager at (425) 430-7270. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: MS. LESLEY NISHIHIRA (425) 430-7270 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION "`Z i� s '� ®e 21:. C7s fill (��S}�\~w '® ' . •, �r 1 4, F,sl 1713 213.' IIIE ®s netaw 8•n® ,, N MAR/ON ST N MaPZOH !® F : r.N 01 • e®. ilig IF'�'iCl�.Mil ManiaiMill ®Ite n0 i R 1t J :-'�. ao lea�,.' j k" Vqi,,,,,,. g mmi S W r i ®rsi ® L$N ; a r ,nl e � } 0 ,,.� N ,3"D ST • ° : •' M1 ,`r' ",`I, • a11 °s,; El u'•r. �°❑O it )a®a IS®°j• 7 'IS at -, . r',S l A. �F j rail Q•®II _ ,r4.F,Q�) r®Q ®] .— '4 'n u..P y;�+ .L+° r"' ,+g� A 'a,� � 8 uY •!AMU wiz 9�'r- �8 -�- c:[7{;"�.�J ���� y 6 . . p m® ISR. 7 ®�N BROOKS s ST 3 '►�.9 ►®6 ' m- s—Ur a®®:3"��4�1 Arm; • /�'7 . { it''' ,�� L��ii •41111( :IL' S p. cr H., Mom" cr g%1 �o�lh ,,,,A O >T13 �y RS�� r . mi .e,�12 lu'"R A ri/i'° Ow, : * ' CRY OF OF/ 25 �-,,..1 44l53 2 '$ , 991 .V&n .. .-.1 C C U Eii°lL t,17 f� /: ,00' it MQ: .. --1%1. ig. ty ST i .-- ' VA „, .: '' el ..„,h N. 2 i : I® ve ��Rffl .ni — e laiBSI ---._ . :.',.,:'k4' . kil I I 7 ��) � R � y/,// \ 0 I 6 i�y m . 9® ®q l� Eon- a i / ., / x �OQ O� • ...�a . 'i/� cy� °. ;.:�.;.....�: tt; Off` . i i ' .. �7 . c WAY N' `'.:. �/ '� o`et ilzoA l i g \„. , . JIM RI genmalot 'IfrIIQ la »• : «41 :� im, 7,:. .., 75. _ �J ,,,- :SEE:.: , m i -1 ,i. rr, ... _r.. - ..-_Ja.K. ♦:fir y CITY 4L,F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator July 7, 1999 Ms. Mei-I Lin W& M Pacific 3350 Monte Villa Parkway Bothell,WA 98021 SUBJECT: Dunn Lumber Monopole Project No. LUA-99-099,CU-A,ECF Dear Mr. Lin: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on August 03, 1999. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me, at(425) 430-7270, if you have any questions. Sincerely, 2.1 cAtts fi 7.>e Lesley Nishihira Project Manager cc: Mr. Tom Dunn/Owner Sprint PCS accept 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 Thie nnnn.rnnla ine cflo rnririnei mnrnn�l 7no%nno rnne mnr Jul. [;. 1991 W. "IS/3 Y. 1 41(kr6ii? alum _ 1 t1Li�} a 1999, AIRSPACE SAFETY ANALYSIS CORPORATION "1 'a'xcu a YOu Ntrd it Avivar,fm June 7, 1999 Site ID#/Name: SE29XC265A/Dunn Lumber To Whom It May Concern: Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration form must be filed with the FAA and FAA approval must be obtained prior to beginning construction. Airspace Safety Analysis Corporation (ASAC) has conducted an aeronautical study on June 7, 1999 for Sprint PCS. The study was to determine a proposed structure's effect, if any, on navigable airspace. ASAC's study is conducted in accordance with Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR (14 C.F.R. Subchapter E, Part 77) and Part 17 of the Federal Communications Commission, FCC Rules and Regulations (47 C.F.R. Part 17). The proposed construction site is located in the Seattle, Washington MTA. The NAD 83 site coordinates are Latitude 47° 29' 04.89" North, Longitude 122° 11' 52.12" West. The site has a surface elevation of 43 feet above mean sea level (MSL), the structure has a proposed height of 95 feet above ground level (AGL). which includes the additional height of any antennas, etc. This gives an overall structure height above mean sea level of 138 feet AMSL. The site is located 4.179 feet or 0.69 nautical miles on a True Bearing of 95.50 degrees from the approach end of Runway 33 at Renton Municipal Airport, the nearest landing surface for regulatory compliance purposes. The runway elevation at this point is 28 feet AMSL. The site is located 5,395 feet or 0.89 nautical miles on a True Bearing of 124.77 degrees from the airport reference point (ARP) of this public use, instrumented Airport. FAR Part 77 prescribes various airspace surfaces and slopes established at and around airports. Part 77.13 prescribes slopes and surfaces which, if exceeded, require the sponsor of the structure to provide the Federal Aviation Administration with Notice of Proposed Construction. FCC Rules Part 17 also specifies this requirement. Additionally, Part 77 Subpart C prescribes various Two Crown Center 1745 Phoenix Boulevard Suite 120 STV 24239 99 AtionIa, Georg 30349 Page I 770/994-1557 • FAX 770/994-1637 asacinc@osacinc.com CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION= LAND USE •PERMIT ' �,. MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) • PROJECTINFORMATION Note: If there is more than one legal owner,please attach an additional` notarized Master Application for each owner. PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: Td� ►JUn/� 'lu/!� L.u,s•,�er" 5(�r►'flfi PCS M611 It, SC-14�c 2-OA PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDREESS(SI/LOCATION: ADDRESS: Zv r ry AlGnu J?i() Pt(cIthai NeAlc C CITY: sal �/J ZIP: g���j KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): ?sail-pin 135 23o-D 15 TELEPHONE NUMBER: EXISTING LAND USE(S): 1,25-255- 31-f21 CA-r,.ntn i 4 ( I I b4r 5ive, APPLICANT Cif other•than owner).. ' ';'':.: PROPOSED LAND USES: NAME: NIG+ -1 Lin 414.4.h i Cu.-"►osi 5 '�")!1 COMPANY(if applicable): 5 f nr c. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Y I N j4 ADDRESS: +i(off 3 (Ali '1" �i S ��o PROPOSED applicable): COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if licable): ha � dG � u:-fG IA CITY: P1tasGt ill GA, ZIP: GL1 �j�� EXISTING ZONING: (1 1 1 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING G A CITY OF RENTON TELEPHONE NUMBER: I,- r'o�- �jjb PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): JUN 2 9 1999 CONTACT PERSON 14 1 A RECEIVED SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): NAME: i M (4'-1 L n 714 50° SF COMPANY (if applicable): 4, I� C4 [- PROJECT VALUE: , 1 I (Oc, 000. 00 ADDRESS: 3350 A^M -f-G VI,►Ia e' r, , IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? titd CITY: b e C �� ZIP: !ry" 1 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY t D SENSITIVE AREA? TELEPHONE NUMBER: NJ a • f l Fidelity National Title Company of Washington ALTA Commitment , Page 2 Order No. N407909 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 through 13, Block 9, CAR WORKS ADDITION TO RENTON, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 15 of Plats, Page 47, records of King County, Washington; TOGETHER WITH that portion of vacated alley in said Block 9 by City of Renton Ordinance No. 2722; AND TOGETHER WITH the Westerly 1/2 of Houser Way North, adjacent to Lots 5, 8, 10, 11 , 12, 13 and alley of said Block 9, as vacated by City of Renton Ordinance No. 2722. Situate in the County of King, State of Washington. NOTE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: The following may be used as an abbreviated legal description on the documents to be recorded, per amended RCW 65.04. Said abbreviated legal description is not a substitute for a complete legal description within the body of the document. Lts 1-13, Blk 9, CAR WORKS ADD TO RENTON, tgw alley & W 1/2 Houser Way N T ,NNING DEVE�OPIJIE RE�TN CITY OF 3012 g 1999 REGEI Project Narrative Project name: Sprint PCS Site SE29XC265A—Dunn Lumber Project size: Approximately 550 square feet Location: 120 Factory Avenue Parcel No.: 135230-0875 Zoning: CA Current use: Commercial lumber store Special site features: No special site features. Proposed use: The proposal calls for a 60' tall monopole to be located in the southwest corner of the property. A maximum of 12 panel antennas will be mounted at the top of the monopole. The antennas are 5'5"tall by 8'7"wide and . will be configured in three sectors with four antennas per sector. Site development also includes 5 radio equipment cabinets to be located next to the monopole. The cabinets are 5' tall by 2'5"wide and will be placed on 23'6"by 9'6"concrete slab. A backup emergency generator will also be placed within the project area. The site will be surrounded by a new 6' tall solid wood fence and will encompass an area of approximately 550 square feet. The site will operate 24 hours a day 7 days a week and will not be accessible to the public. The site is designed to provide capacity support to I-405 and coverage to Sunset Boulevard, S. 3`d St. and the surrounding community west and just east of I-405. Proposed off-site improvements: None. Estimated construction cost and value: $75,000 Quantities and types of materials: 23'6"by 9'6"pre-cast concrete slab. No fill or excavation is proposed. Trees to be removed: None. Land to be dedicated to the City: Not applicable. ��VELOPN1ENT PIA Nl�{.iG ClT`(OF RENTO N 311N 2y 1999 RECEIVED Construction Mitigation Description Proposed construction dates: Immediately following building permit approval. Hours of operation: 24 hours a day, 7 days a week(site is unmanned). Proposed transportation routes: Access to the site is from Factory Avenue. Mitigation measures: None. Specialty hours for construction: None. Construction will be during daytime hours. Preliminary traffic control plan: None. IANNtiNG °EVE1nMFNE"SON UN 2 Ag99 .0 vE3 ReGe ORIGINAL CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project: Sprint PCS Telecommunications Site SE29XC265A—Dunn Lumber 2. Name of applicant: Sprint PCS 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant Contact Sprint PCS W&H Pacific 4683 Chabot Drive,Suite 100 3350 Monte Villa Parkway T PI_AS141NG Pleasanton, CA 94588 Bothell, WA 98021 MEN 925-468-7978 425-985-6361 DEVElj° OFCfrt OS Contact: Carol Quan Contact: Mei-I Lin 1 1ggg 4. Date checklist prepared: June 23,1999 `lUN D 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton Development Services Division 6. Proposed timing or schedule(including phasing,if applicable): Immediately following building permit approval with approximately one month construction time. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions,expansion,or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Geotechnical report. 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. No. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal,if known. Administrative conditional use permit,building permit. 11. Give a brief,complete description of your proposal,including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. The proposal calls for a 60'monopole to be located in the southwest corner of the property. A maximum of 12 panel antennas will be mounted at the top of the monopole. The antennas are 5'5"tall by 8'7"wide and will be configured in three sectors with four antennas per sector. Site development also includes 5 radio equipment cabinets to be located next to the monopole. The cabinets are 5'tall by 2'5"wide and will be placed on 23'6" by 9'6"concrete slab. A backup emergency generator will also be placed within the project area.A new 6'tall wood cedar fence will surround the equipment area. The project area will encompass an area of approximately 670 square feet. The site will operate 24 hours a day 7 days a week and will not be accessible to the public. Environmental Checklist 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. The address is 120 Factory Avenue. Township 23; Range 5; Section 17NW. The parcel number is 135230-0875. See attachment for legal description. 2 • Environmental Checklist B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site(circle one): Flat,rolling,hilly steep slopes,mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site(approximate percent slope)? The project area is flat. 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 not any prime farmland. The site is paved. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate sources of fill. None. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,construction,or use? If so,generally describe. No. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction(for example,asphalt or buildings)? New impervious surface for the concrete slab will be approximately 225 square feet or less than 1%of the site. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion,or other impacts to the earth,if any: None. 2. Air a. 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. None. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air,if any: None. 3 Environmental Checklist 3. Water a. Surface: 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. No. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes,please describe and attach available plans. No. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands or indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate source of fill material. None. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose,and approximate quantities if known. No. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so,note location on the site plan. No. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so,describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground: 1. Will ground water be withdrawn,or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description,purpose,and approximate quantities if known. No. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. . .; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system,the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s)are expected to serve. None. c. Water Runoff(including storm water): 1. Describe the source of runoff(including storm water)and method of collection and disposal,if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so,describe. None. 2. Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so,generally describe. No. 4 Environmental Checklist d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,ground,and runoff water impacts,if any: None. 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 _x_shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail,buttercup,bullrush,skunk cabbage,other water plants: water,lily,celgrass,milfoil,other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site,if any: None. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk,heron,eagle,songbirds,other: mammals: deer,bear,elk,beaver,other: fish: bass,salmon,trout,herring,shellfish,other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,if any: None. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy(electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing,etc.. Electricity is provided on site. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. 5 Environmental Checklist c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List • other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts,if any: None. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards,including exposure to toxic chemicals,risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste,that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards,if any: None. b. Noise I. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment,operation,other)? None. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example; traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Construction will be during day hours(8am—5pm)or any other times specified by the county Construction will take approximately one month. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts,if any: None. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Current use of the site is a commercial lumber store. North-Residential South—Commercial East—Commercial West—Residential b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,describe. Not known. c. Describe any structures on the site. Lumber store. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so,what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? CA. 6 Environmental Checklist f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Not known. 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. No. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None. The facility is unmanned. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts,if any: None. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and project land uses and plans,if any: None. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided,if any? Indicate whether high,middle,or low-income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units,if any,would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts,if any: None. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s)proposed? The monopole will be 60'tall. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts,if any: None. 7 Environmental Checklist 11. Light and Glare • a. What type of light and glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light or glare impacts,if any: None. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant,if any: None. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation 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. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,archaeological,scientific,or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts,if any: None. 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. Access to the site is from Factory Avenue.. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not,what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Public transit is not applicable to the project. 8 Environmental Checklist c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project • eliminate? None. 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. Access will be from an existing driveway. e. Will the project use(or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water,rail,or air transportation? If so,generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. One maintenance visit per month. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts,if any: None. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in a n increased need for public services(for example: fire protection, police protection,health care,schools,other)? If so,generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services,if any: No. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available to the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone,sanitary sewer,septic system,other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project,the utility providing the service,and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity will be provided by Puget Sound Energy. Telephone service will be provided by USWEST. All utilities will be provided on site. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and completed to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make'ts decision. Signature: Date Submitted: -23-q I 9 OEELOPME CITyOF REN oN 1NG JUN 2 9 1999 Conditional Use Permit Criteria RE CF►V A. The proposed use shall be compatible with the general purpose, goals, bjectives,and standards of the comprehensive plan,the zoning ordinance,and any other plan,program,map or ordinance of the City of Renton. The city encourages siting wireless communication facilities in non-residential areas. The proposed monopole is located on a commercial property surrounded by a mixture of commercial and residential uses. 1-405 is just east of the site. The monopole is located in an area with a mix of uses including structures of comparable scale such as large utility poles and commercial signs and is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses. The proposed facility will provide adequate public service and utilities for the community by providing digital wireless communication capacity support to 1-405 and coverage to Sunset Boulevard, S. 3rd St. and the surrounding community west and just east of 1-405. B. There shall be a community need for the proposed use at the proposed location. In the determination of community need,the Hearing Examiner shall consider the following factors among all other relevant information: 1. The proposed location shall not result in either the detrimental over-concentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. The proposed location will not result in a detrimental over-concentration of this particular use because digital wireless networks must consist of several sites within a geographic area to provide enough signal strength and capacity to meet the demand for service. Due to the limitations of digital wireless communication, PCS technology requires a "line of site"in order to connect to neighboring facilities. There must be a clear path from customer to transmitting facility to ensure adequate coverage. The minimum height needed at this location is 60'. Like any communications company, Sprint plans its network capacity needs in advance of anticipated growth based upon forecasts. While customer interest and desire for a new wireless service were factored into their forecasts, Sprint did not anticipate the explosive growth of the Puget Sound market. As a result, network capacity must be upgraded to address the dropped and blocked call attempts faced by customers. Upgrading the capacity for a given area entails adding an additional facility(or "cell site') to support the busy airways. The proposed site is intended to provide capacity support to 1-405 and coverage to Sunset Boulevard, S. 3rd St. and the areas west and just east of 1-405. Capacity sites and coverage sites cannot be compared since their purposes are not the same. A capacity site is designed to handle a large volume of calls within a defined area. A coverage site handles the same number of calls, but the geographic service area is much larger. To meet capacity requirements, several communication facilities are required to serve densely populated areas. To illustrate, even if one community facility could deliver a strong signal to all of Renton, one facility would not have the capacity to handle all the customers. As a result callers would receive a busy signal due to airway congestion. For example, one regular land line phone switch cannot handle all of Renton's phone calls, so phone companies place several switch offices within the city to meet capacity requirements. Due to the volume of calls experienced on 1-405 and Sunset Boulevard, calls from existing sites in north and south Renton (SE03XC381 and SE03XC380 on attached coverage maps) will be routed through the proposed site to alleviate congestion on the airway. The proposed site is needed to meet the overall network design requirements and deliver strong effective wireless service to a large capacity within the facility's coverage area. An inventory of the area shows that there are existing antennas on the high school stadium approximately '/mile west of the proposed site. There are also two existing monopoles approximately 1'/ miles north of the proposed site close to the Boeing facilities. Sprint has two existing sites within the general area (see attached coverage maps) that are located in commercial areas, including one close to the Boeing facilities. Sprint has looked a number of sites in the area, including(1)an existing wood utility pole on the subject property(2)a steel utility pole on Burlington Northern property at the corner of Bronson and Houser(3)several buildings owned by Boeing north of the proposed site(4) the existing monopoles near Boeing facilities(5)Renton Memorial High School Stadium (6)a light pole at the Liberty Park and(7) the old city hall building on Mill Ave S. The city has an ordinance that requires utility lines to be laid underground so locating on the existing utility poles is not feasible due to the short duration of the site. In addition, the existing poles could not accommodate for collocation of future carriers as the proposed monopole would allow. There were also leasing difficulties with the property owner(Burlington Northern)for the steel pole which forced Sprint to look into alternatives. The buildings owned by Boeing north of the proposed site were also explored, however, Boeing does not lease space to wireless carriers. One of the two existing monopoles near the Boeing facilities is a Sprint monopole. The proposed site at Dunn Lumber will alleviate congestion on the airways from this site near Boeing. Sprint radio engineers have determined that the high school stadium is located too far west to provide service east of 1-405. The light pole at Liberty Park and the old city hall building are suitable for coverage objectives, however, due to the uncertainty of the structural capacities of the pole and the building, having enough space for equipment and the uncertainty of lease negotiations, Sprint has abandoned these alternatives. 2. That the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. The monopole is located on a commercial property along Factory Avenue. Surrounding zoning and uses are developed as residential and commercial. There are several tall utility poles and commercial signs and billboards in the area that are of similar scale and size. The monopole will be placed in the southwest corner of the property surrounded by a new 6'tall solid wood fence to shield the base of the facility. The existing building south of the property will also help shield the facility from the south. The monopole will be compatible with other commercial uses in the area. Please refer to the attached photosimulations. C. The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. Surrounding uses the north are a mixture of residential and commercial. Uses to the south are commercial. To the east are railroad tracks, commercial and 1-405 and to the west is residential. The area is has several tall utility poles and large commercial signs and ` y billboards. The monopole will not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent properties because it is located in an area with compatible commercial uses and structures of similar size and scale. CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works • MEMORANDUM DATE: July 7, 1999 TO: Project File No. LUA-99-099, CU-A, ECF FROM: Lesley Nishihira, Assistant Planner, x7270‘1t SUBJECT: Additional Submittal Requirements Pursuant to the Wireless Communications Ordinance for the Dunn Lumber Sprint PCS Monopole I In addition to the submittal requirements necessary for Administrative Conditional Use Permits and Environmental (SEPA) Review, the City's adopted Wireless Communications Ordinance also lists requirements necessary for land use applications and building permits. The following submittal requirements are required with both the land use and building permit applications: • Applicant Agreement Statement • Draft Lease Agreement At this time, these submittal requirements are not necessary for the review of the land use application and are waived for purposes of accepting the application as complete. The submittal of these items will be required prior to the issuance of building permits. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE • APPLICATIONS • LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL WAIVED MODIFIED COMMENTS REQUIREMENTS Calculations, Survey, o Drainage Control Piari;z ;;: ', ':; • Drainage Report 2 Elevations Architectural3ANoe • Elevations, Grading 2 Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy)+ Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) 4 Flood Plain Map, if applicable 4 . Floor Plans 3AND4 • Geotechnical:Re portz.Ar+o3 .. Grading Plan, Conceptual 2 Grading Plan, Detailed z >', King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site 4 Landscaping:Plan, Conceptual4 l✓ Legal Description 4 List of:Surrounding Property Owners4 Mailing Labels for Property Owners 4 Map of Existing Site Conditions 4 Master Application Form 4 Monument Cards.(one per monument) , Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4 Id'i(/►'1\J Plan Reductions (PMTs) + Postage 4 Public Works Approval Letter 2 Title Report or Plat-Certificate 4 Topography Map (5' contours)3 • Traffic Study 2 Tree CuttingNegetation Clearing Plan: V e Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 Wetlands Delineation Map Wetlands Planting Pian : 1 t4t4 - Wetlands Study: 1/1tiW This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: cp 'T 14--G0 Q'4I!? Li/ri ggeil Public Works Plan Review Section 3 Building Section DATE: likQ/41 1 4 Development Planning Section • Y pr.R�M.oM . E90 vcri MEMORANDUM• DATE: 6-d--/'671 TO: Construction Services, Fire Prevention, Plan, Review, Project Planner FROM: Jana Hanson, Development Services Division Director SUBJECT: New Preliminary Application: ,5pri of Mono )e .L C DUnn LUmhe4 Sid LOCATION: IZo VaC--for j 4-v-e, [\f PREAPP NO. qq - iH A meeting with the applicant has been scheduled for /0.W 4/1 , Thursday, /01- , in one of the 6th floor conference rooms (new City Hall). 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. Please submit your written comments to l-4S,/ 4 'le&� /fc at least two (2) days before the meeting. Thank you. / 7 � - I-C°N �N�NG 6 .65M O LOpM°r REN 2 y 1999 30 Rec° Preapp2 • =BEN T OP FIRE -;pc DREvFNTWN BUR~AI MAY 2 1999 F= FIVE: MEMORANDUM • DATE: TO: Construction Services, Fire Prevention, Plan, Review, Project Planner FROM: Jana Hanson, Development Services Division Director SUBJECT: New Preliminary Application: ,5prinf fr orrvro} -1- U± Dint-) I-Urmhec LOCATION: 120 tC-for j Aye N PREAPP NO. cq - 4'4' A meeting with the applicant has been scheduled for /0.W 4i1 , Thursday, /6}"Pl- , in one of the 6th floor conference rooms (new City Hall). 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. Please submit your written comments to /-e5/�f q. Ji4, /71 _ at least two (2) days before the meeting. Thank you. / 100 S'O-e • Preapp2 ikt4Y 2 1,9y9 MEMORANDUM N DATE: TO: Construction Services, Fire Prevention, Plan, Review, Project Planner FROM: Jana Hanson, Development Services Division Director SUBJECT: New Preliminary Application: ,5-,rinf. l(orioro (J- Dunn L-vmk ex Sire LOCATION: IZO C-far J Aye !y PREAPP NO. 91 - 4'4' A meeting with the applicant has been scheduled for /0.(Z) . , Thursday, \%LJre. /(- , in one of the 6th floor conference rooms (new City Hall). 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. Please submit your written comments to l-e5,/ /O JJ7, hfc at least two (2) days before the meeting. Thank you. 'Jo public wo✓kc ►ssu 0-7 ussoc-iulei( tti4 (t((U'eiu • A) (1 V2:7A • Preapp2 r _ CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works MEMORANDUM DATE: June 10, 1999 TO: Pre-Application File No. 99-44 FROM: Lesley Nishihira, Assistant Planner, x7270 SUBJECT: Sprint Monopole I at Dunn Lumber Site We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above-referenced development proposal. 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 modification and/or concurrence by official decision makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Board of Adjustment, Board of Public Works, 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. 1. General: The proposal is to construct a 60 foot monopole in the southwest corner of the Dunn Lumber site (addressed as 120 Factory Avenue SW). The wireless structure will support 12 panel antennas of 5 feet 5 inches in height and 8 foot 7 inches wide. Included with the proposal is the �� �� installation of an emergency backup generator and 5 equipment cabinets at the base of the pole. cpti (*PI 2. Zoning: The subject site is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA)with residentially zoned property aP.t-91,4 adjacent to the north and west property boundaries. The proposed location of the monopole appears to be within 60 feet of residential property. If located less than 100 feet from a residentially zone parcel, monopole I support structures are only permitted in the CA zone with an Administrative Conditional Use permit. If the monopole's location is greater than 100 feet from a residential parcel, it is considered outright permitted in this zone. The attached RMC section 4-9-0301 lists the nine criteria used in evaluating wireless facility conditional use permits. 3. Development Standards: Monopole I support structures have a maximum allowed height of 60 feet and can support facilities equal to or less than a macro facility (definition attached). Antennas may not exceed more than 15 feet above the permitted height of their supporting structure. The ad,.,;ytrZ, proposed facility falls within these requirements. 15 y, AI. and eq p ,,e,,,.t c-(?& W^ vueile, The wireless regulations require a 15 foot wide sight obscuring landscape buffer around accessory equipment and facilities. The landscaping should include trees, shrubs, and ground cover as well as Jno I[Y� underground irrigation systems. The proposed fencing must be painted or coated with a nonreflective 5 color. 170-( cr Security lighting for the equipment cabinets is permitted as long as it is adequately down cast and Vie* shielded to keep light within the boundaries of the site. The monopole itself should not be artificially pc,,, fur lit, unless required by the FAA. If lighting is required, the design that causes the least disturbance to the surrounding view is required. 4td6 tw,11041.14v1 .(`rwn eAA y sco The only applicable development standards of the CA zone are the required 10 foot setback from streets and the maximum lot coverage by buildings of 65%. The proposed equipment cabinets —cdd (at-G,.iva' 5ij a l PRE9944\ h k 1 I ds il 9f c rvC/ar' appear to satisfy the setback requirement. However, the lot coverage on the site could not be calculated from the information provided. 4. Application Requirements: The proposal will require an Administrative Conditional Use permit and SEPA Environmental Review. Both land use permits can be processed concurrently in an • estimated timeframe of 8 weeks. An application fee of$1,500 plus postage for notification to surrounding property owners will be required. In addition to the standard submittal requirements for conditional use permits and environmental review, specific information is necessary for wireless communication facility land use permits. Please refer to the attached lists for more detailed information. The site plan submitted for formal application will need to include the total site area as well as the ground floor square footage of the existing and proposed structures. All items on the lists are required unless waived on a formal waiver sheet. Where items are duplicated on the two lists, please provide the highest number specified—not an additional 12 set of copies. We highly encourage the applicant to submit one set of plans for a pre-screening prior to making additional copies. • If the applicant revised the proposal so that the location of the monopole is greater than 100 feet from a residentially zoned property, no land use permits would be necessary. The applicant would only be required to obtain building permits as well as satisfy all development standards for wireless communications facilities (see attached). 1. Additional Requirements: As a condition of approval for the land use permit, the applicant will be required to provide documentation from the FAA regarding lighting requirements for the structure. In addition, a "notice of proposed construction" must be submitted to the FAA a minimum of 30 days in advance of building permit issuance. Please refer to the attached code sections for a complete list of the applicable standards (e.g., building, radio frequencies, etc.) and requirements (e.g., collocation, obsolescence) for wireless facilities. C: Jennifer Henning, Principle Planner PRE9944\ RECEIVED MAY 2 7 1999 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. NEIGHBORHOODS. MEMORANDUM AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DATE: 6 -P-7- qci TO: Long Range Planning FROM: Jana Hanson, Development Services Division Director SUBJECT: New Preliminary Application: 5 rir* flo-K)p:ge (1+ Dv,1r1 1-.fhott r Sf- LOCATION: )2 F c c fZr(-1 Av- N PREAPP NO. qq -41. Please review the attached preliminary project plans for consistency with applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies. Please submit your written comments to 1-LDS/et) no later than . Thank you. We will not be able to include comments received after this date in the presentation/summary we prepare for the applicant. ? c. &I-/75 � o�-fs� ,�a�r/s��jot� �z'U ' Cl! '/ 4L Caf/ .-1 yr �� (� ` . ' G (9/4,- 5L /L�/i 7l/ . T�'�C..F.I (e (// i'le.-„L /2p ow. ai9exe,c-7, /L U Lc{ /4"/ ,jflcle.-/ -/ . 2, (4k..7/ ) GflZi�l/CG-2 �f� .�/GL/4,,4.£) 55/t't,dd ( s/Cud, d/e4 io preapp 5 6Z 9)C 4•2 65,q — "reek-text CaJ ca j L. PLANET V2.8 Mobile Systems International Inc Fri Jun 04 09: 33:59 1999 I, i 7 I Centre Long: 122 11'58.0"W Lat: 47 29'05.6"N - Scale: 1: 45950 Water ` 1 — Primary-Road Secondary-Road —Connecting-Road Neighbourhood-Road Road ' ! — Other-Road-Feature it,:_ ��-" V Coverage � ' Portable-On Street Level: -104dBm ��5a'. III In Vehicle Level: -96dBm �ba* ° _ Suburban-In Bldg Level: -94dBm ¢ ir //� Urban-In Bldg Level: -B9dBm - •_J- _, _�.I S file/n Dense Urban-In Bldg Level: -84dBm f— 3XC462, T i 111Bmor == • =4.,_wt. . 11 gnu • I „14 . ,. . _ 9„ . 'IF +. �1 ;C-` 411110. � w %Ile I ' • ‘ "Yr iii .. r SE03XC388•Ma. -Wood • SE03XC3:y'• •ton -- .- gprAA111 lilk - vairli 1 Prriligiv FP ��1R ! '1r ., 7tG91(Cz-1. ii- usicraiG L?tor-) Site, PLANET V2.8 *' Mobile Systems International Inc Fri Jun 04 09: 36: 24 1999 < e •r f•' a Centre Long: 122 11'58.0"W Lat: 47 29'05.5"N Scale: 1: 45950 • Water • . _fi J Primary-Road a: I� ■ Secondary Road ?. ti - • t i ,i — Connect ing-Road ( • Neighbourhood Road !. '•h �� r ' . Road i 4 �i Other-Road-Feature ',• j .. - 1 T Coverage • Portable On Street Level: 104dBm .Ili% , i , In Vehicle Level: -96dBm ( 4-' - Suburban In Bldg Level: -94dBm SE03xC381 t*cthRen •n rt 41 Urban In Bldg Level: 89dBm 11 ' Dense Urban-In Bldg Level: -84dBm 3.\\ ilitiv•3xC462. IcyWsy i_ , - i '.1 : . ... -- s • t 1 ' .• 04 i . , :. _ .. Y SE29XC 5A, Dunn, 1. l -, I •' 1 NI . illifil • ,, .. • III ,, if .�' a SE03XC380 Renton F• 3 3�+ r �•d E14/[C.265A - CoJt1ttl G t.3.01h0 I Site,- "Iii1IP1 k111d—I k4l71 PLANET V2.8 "•WwiVkl m i:1r,I s..-1k11%'6'o11•11/p M ..1:Ik.- t1)il".- ,i"I Itc 1 *, Mobile Systems International Inc 4tiii•i1.o 110. I,I, _mft.1.4 u r Fri Jun 04 09: 39:02 1999 • A . 71 Centre Long: 122 11'58.0"W Lat: 47 29'05.6"N Ai, i 1 Scale: 1:45950 d B '� I•• 1 Imo_ - Water ' — Primary-Road L 1 � �A �m� G• �� — Secondary-Road • �, ��t � �_ ` — Connecting-Road I .�_`` / '• l• _ j Roadhbourhoo11-Road �• 1 ak i i4 — Other-Road-Feature ����, d• Coverage S4 I. Portable-On Street Level: 104dBm J ••• L , In Vehicle Level: -96dBm �•• •� L i Urban-In Bldgldg Level: -89dBm ,r. r \ -tE03X' hRen..n ' . 1 ' - . Dense Urban-In Bldg Level: -B4dBm r d • 7 _ kyWay -f�AM 1' /.s IA LS:111111N ' "11111117 n1111111-i :44 Sib •Cril ... 1.111, r . —"ow irij 2 : 7 ...Edam all1"-' A ' --IN r gted. .01* * Ni. s_ i #145:,Z16 llopli . 01, _ i _. . • .. ;3L mu m1,-_, Ire 1 3 388,Ma ood C.11: I. . sil .---I. SE03XL380 Rent4 �' kkiir k\b",76. 2.. 111.11N4 _.k. 1 _f i : '. °'''' 4 o 11444ild *be IfijI.. . .4 SPRINT PCS SE20XC002—Microsoft, Building 411 ' 15563— 156t°NE, 31 St. • a( jey{ 4, . '34 . ;z t , 4,,E y dIii,+•2 i-f fr iir • 1 A Photo#1: View looking west 1. 1.,,,,,. .A.i , 446 ..,,; , mac. • . 1 Photo#2: View looking northeast SPRINT PCS SE29XC265A—Dunn Lumber • 120 Factory Avenue • �. t� • Photo#3: View looking south , • •• 4 4 4 ■ 1Ii1* g , .. . y 1 ; its i • ".01,,,, Photo#4: View looking southwest SPRINT PCS SE29XC265A— Dunn Lumber • 120 Factory Avenue f=1 dit Photo#5: View looking southeast PHOTO VICINITY MAP SPRINT PCS SE29XC265A—Dunn Lumber cr SITE O Z 1 b� O ru— BRONSON WAY /69 441.4 F � I—405 1(44 ti NORTH S76C SSA Sprint PCSV W&H PACIFIC - a I 46 ii 1 1 ' ii•116; s.i pit , ..w . i____. wok 4 . A NM i . sr. i .. . , ., . . : .. el 6.- 2,.. . . . . . _ . . r- View looking Southwest Sprint PCS W&H PACIFIC 1 1 1 1 ,lc,.. , . . . : 1 , it • A 1 i . 1 ( r°, .1t (1111 n ."'• a . ' --„, A ytif.• • t . ' s.71.05:nswo 0 1 • 1 i _ ....... ....... . ,7,..,„,... tiniiii 4 .:.1°6. *e."..., • . - . —diaimim: _ lirm71 -111 - 611111r. View looking Southeast Sprint PCS W&H PACIFIC i M".uoyor 'AO"Illeftirt 11114 111°L1711 ,�,. f !_ ['• ��W . .�'1/�.R;t ,�'/, �.� ,�" •�•� %..„)• • •• /t} :� 3 1; , •i> • • • ' e/r, tre View looking West Sprint PCS. W&H PACIFIC 1 i I (.. ..._, 't le 11, ! ` ,k � a 44 - a v.rr • . � , . N al •�il 1 • 41111Zstb, ''''_7,. lip • '''t* ••• 104 4 . ,.. . • .t r �- yr w View looking Northwest Sprint PCS W&H PACIFIC°I.1111fiti r .4,111 . . ......, . ,Iiii, lilt i I d - :nellell. iiimi "- -.,` __.- _"`:_ _ ram; . View looking South 'VI - O cIfyl ADaPT Engineering, Inc. 800 Maynard Avenue South, Suite 403 Seattle, Washington 98134 '* Tel (206) 654-7045 DaPT Fax (206) 654-7048 June 11, 1999 ADaPT Job No. WA99-2072 Sprint PCS 4683 Chabot Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Attention: Mr. Miro Milosevich Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Sprint PCS DEVELOPMENT PLANIJING CITY OF RENTON Renton/Dunn Lumber, SE29XC265 120 Factory Avenue North JUN 2 4 1999 Renton, Washington RECEIVED Dear Mr. Milosevich: Pursuant to your request, ADaPT Engineering, Inc. (ADaPT) is pleased to submit this report ' describing our recent geotechnical engineering evaluation for the above-referenced site. The purpose of this study was to interpret general surface and subsurface site conditions, from which we could evaluate the feasibility of the project and formulate design recommendations concerning site preparation, equipment pad and tower foundations, structural fill, and other considerations. • Our scope of services consisted of a surface reconnaissance, a subsurface exploration, ;�#,+` geotechnical analyses, and report preparation. Written authorization to proceed with our study yt, 4 was given via facsimile by Mr. Miro Milosovich of Sprint PCS on May 27, 1999. This report has � ;, , .. .� ;.' been prepared for the exclusive use of Sprint PCS, and their agents, for specific application to this .,;�:y, .,a in accordance with generallyaccepted geotechnical engineering practice. -°� project P g g g :t r Yr %r o t q_ ,. r., !�Mf C' :•Y sY k i. ' .l ADaPT Engineering, Inc. Sprint PCS ADaPT Job No,WA99-2072 June 11, 1999 Page 2 This report is provided for the information of the client only. Reproduction and transmittal of this report or any section of this report, to a third party,by any means, except in full, without the written permission of ADaPT Engineering, Inc. is prohibited. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance to you,please contact us at(206) 654-7045. ADaPT Engineering,Inc. Respectfully submitted, Air c Yq Ngoc H.Vu Geotechnical Engineer .V.Lew,P.Eng. • Senior Geotechnical Engineer �'`f,T,t ZAN.Air cnJ Kurt W.Groesch,P.E. ' ♦ 1 �O -w01�rrg4 Senior Geotechnical Engineer t 1" "• Senior Reviewer (K WIRES . 15r0 KVL/nhv Attachments: Figure 1 Location Map Figure 2 Site and Exploration Plan Appendix A Boring Log B-1 and B-2 Appendix B Soil Resistivity Test Results Sprint PCS Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Renton / Dunn Lumber SE29XC265 Renton, Washington WA99-2072 June 1999 ADaPT Engineering, Inc. Sprint PCS ADaPT Job No,WA99-2072 June 11, 1999 Page 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Sprint site is located at 120 Factory Avenue North in Renton,Washington. The host parcel is occupied by a Dunn Lumber store. The proposed lease area measures 35 by 16-feet and is located at the southwest corner of the host property. The proposed lease area can be accessed via an asphalt paved driveway leading to the lumber yard, with access off of Factory Avenue North. The topography of proposed site is fairly level and is covered by asphalt. We understand that site development would include the construction of a 60-foot monopole tower and associated cellular equipment cabinets. The project site and surrounding area are shown on the attached site vicinity map (Location Map, Figure 1). The attached Site and Exploration Plan (Figure 2) shows the approximate location of the proposed cellular tower lease area. It should be emphasized that the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on our understanding of the currently proposed utilization of the project site, as derived from written information supplied to us by Sprint PCS. Consequently, if any changes are made to the project, we recommend that we review the changes and modify our recommendations, if appropriate, to reflect those changes. EXPLORATORY METHODS We explored surface and subsurface conditions at the project site on June 3, 1999. Our surface exploration consisted of a visual site reconnaissance. Our subsurface exploration consisted of advancing two soil test borings, B-1 and B-2, to a depth of 34 and 4-feet below the existing site grade, respectively. The locations of the soil test borings are shown on the attached Site and Exploration Plan(Figure 2). The specific location and depth of the explorations performed were selected in relation to the proposed site features, under the constraints of budget and site access. The relative location of the boring and other site features shown on Figure 2 were obtained by hand taping from existing site features. As such, the exploration location shown on Figure 2 should be considered accurate to the degree implied by the measuring methods used. Boring Methods The soil borings were advanced on June 3, 1999 using a truck mounted hollow-stem auger drill rig. The drill rig was operated by an independent company working under subcontract to ADaPT. A geotechnical engineer from our firm continuously observed the boring, obtained representative soil samples, and logged the subsurface conditions. After the boring was completed, the borehole was backfilled with a mixture of soil cuttings and bentonite chips. ADaPT Engineering, Inc. Sprint PCS ADaPT Job No,WA99-2072 June 11, 1999 Page 2 During drilling, soil samples were obtained on 5-foot depth intervals using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) procedure (ASTM: D 1586). This test and sampling method consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside diameter(OD) split-barrel sampler a distance of 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer, free-falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each of the three, 6-inch intervals is noted. The total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches of penetration is considered the Standard Penetration Resistance, or "blow count". If 50 or more blows are struck within one 6-inch interval, the driving is ceased and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual number of inches of penetration. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values provide a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the relative consistency of cohesive soils. Because of the presence of shallow subsurface utilities in close proximity to or beneath the equipment platform, a hand-auger was used to advance boring SB-1 The boring logs appended to this report describe the various types of soils encountered in the boring, based primarily on visual interpretations made in the field. The boring logs also indicate the approximate depth of the contacts between different soil types, although these contacts may be gradational or undulating. Where a change in soil type occurred between sampling intervals, we inferred the depth of contact. In addition, the logs indicate the depth of any groundwater observed in the boring; the Standard Penetration Resistance at each sample location, and any laboratory tests performed on the soil samples. Soil Resistivity Test In accordance with your request, field soil resistivity testing was also conducted at the Renton / Dunn Lumber PCS tower site. The field soil resistivity test was performed in accordance with ASTM method E-57 (IEEE Standard 81)using Wenner electrode configuration with electrodes spaced in close proximity to the tower center at 5, 10, 15, and 20-foot spacing. The results of the field soil resistivity testing are presented in Appendix B. The proposed lease and surrounding areas was covered by asphaltic materials, therefore, field soil resistivity testing was completed in the planter area located north of the proposed lease area. For testing the four electrodes were inserted into loose fine sand layer underlying topsoil materials in the planter. Laboratory Testing ADaPT has retained the soil samples from the test borings accomplished for this study. We contacted Mr. Miro Milosevich of Sprint regarding the soils at the site. In our opinion, considering the nature and density of the soils encountered at the site, laboratory testing would not be required. ADaPT Engineering, Inc. Sprint PCS ADaPT Job No,WA99-2072 June 11, 1999 Page 3 SITE CONDITIONS The following sections describe our observations, measurements, and interpretations concerning surface, soil,groundwater,and seismic conditions at the project site. Surface Conditions The proposed Sprint site is located at 120 Factory Avenue North in Renton, Washington. The host parcel is occupied by a Dunn Lumber store. The proposed lease area measures 35 by 16-feet and is located at the southwest corner of the host property. The proposed lease area can be accessed via an asphalt paved driveway leading to the lumber yard, with access off of Factory Avenue North,. The topography of proposed site is fairly level and is covered by asphalt. We understand that site development would include the construction of a 60-foot monopole tower and associated cellular equipment cabinets. The project site and surrounding area are shown on the attached site vicinity map (Location Map, Figure 1). The attached Site and Exploration Plan (Figure 2) shows the approximate location of the proposed cellular tower lease area. Subsurface Conditions On June 3, 1999, two exploratory soil borings were drilled to depths of 34 and 4-feet below the existing site grade. The locations of the soil borings, designated as B-1 and B-2, are shown on Figure 2, the Site and Exploration Plane. Subsurface conditions consisted of 2-inches of asphalt overlying very loose, moist, fine sand. At 12 feet below ground surface (bgs), soils were logged as dense grading to very dense, fine sand with interbedded gravel which extended to the full depth explored in boring B-1. Oversize gravel, cobbles or boulders were encountered between 26 and 34 feet bgs, based on choppy drilling action and high blow counts for the last two soil sample intervals. Groundwater was encountered at 18 feet bgs at time of drilling. However, it should be recognized that groundwater levels could fluctuate due to factors such as seasonal variations in precipitation, changes in site utilization, or other factors. The following parameters are based on available correlation between soil type and texture, as well as density and consistency inferred from Standard Penetration Test values. ADaPT Engineering, Inc. Sprint PCS ADaPT Job No,WA99-2072 June 11, 1999 Page 4 TABLE 1 Depth Interval Soil Type Range of SPT Value C(psf) 0° (pcf) 0-0.2 Asphalt N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.2- 12 V.Loose Fine 1 -5 N/A 25 120 Sand 12—34 M.Dense to V. 17->50 N/A 350 125 Dense Sand W/ Little Gravel Seismic Conditions According to the Seismic Zone Map of the United States contained in Figure 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), the project site lies within Seismic Risk Zone 3. Based on our subsurface exploration, we interpret the site conditions to correspond to a seismic Soil Profile type SD, for Stiff Soil, as defined by Table 16-J of the 1997 Uniform Building Code, based on the observed range of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow counts. The shallow soil conditions were assumed to be representative for site conditions beyond the depths explored. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Current development plans call for construction of a 60-foot monopole tower and associated cellular equipment cabinets. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in our boring, the proposed tower could be supported on either a mat or drilled pier foundation. Design criteria for compressive, uplift and lateral support of mat and drilled pier foundations are presented below. Our specific recommendations concerning site preparation, equipment cabinets or building platform, tower foundations, access driveway and structural fill are presented in the following sections. Site Preparation Site preparation will involve the removal of the asphaltic materials, following by grading,preparing tower foundation and equipment cabinets or building platform. The following comments and recommendations apply to site preparation: Clearing and Grubbing: We do not anticipate that significant grade changes will be required to achieve proposed site grades. Clearing and grubbing are not required at this site. At this location, site preparation will largely involve the removal of asphaltic materials, followed by foundation preparation for the monopole cellular tower and equipment cabinets or building platform. Backfill materials, where required, ADaPT Engineering, Inc. Sprint PCS ADaPT Job No,WA99-2072 June 11, 1999 Page 5 should be placed and compacted according to the recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section of this report Wet Conditions: Because of the relatively fine grained nature of the near surface site soils, these soils are both moisture-sensitive and prone to disturbance when wet. The contractor should minimize traffic above the prepared subgrade areas to minimize disturbance and softening which would require removal of the unstable soils. During wet conditions, the use of a working surface of quarry spalls or clean sand and gravel may be required to protect the subgrade, especially from vehicular traffic. Frozen Subgrades: If earthwork takes place during freezing conditions, we recommend that all exposed subgrades be allowed to thaw and be recompacted prior to placing subsequent lifts of structural fill. Equipment Cabinet Foundation It is our understanding that the foundation for the proposed equipment building or cabinets will consist of a poured in place concrete slab-on-grade with thickened edges. We anticipate that the pad bearing pressure will be relatively light. However, we recommend that the thickened slab edges be designed as spread footings. The following recommendations and comments are provided for purposes of footing design and construction: Subgrade Conditions: Even with light loads, foundation support directly above the very loose to loose sands is not recommended. We recommended that the proposed equipment pad may be supported by thickened slab edges extended to bear above 2 feet of structural fill, underlain by a layer of geotextile (filter fabric), after the subgrade soils have been compacted in place resulting in a firm and unyielding subgrade condition. We anticipate the subsoil encountered at the proposed foundation grade will likely consist of very loose fine sand. The near surface fine sand is relatively fine grained. It may be difficult to achieve a specified compaction should moisture contents above the optimal moisture condition be encountered. We recommended that 2 feet of soil below the footing bearing elevation be removed. In consideration of the light loads imposed by the equipment, we recommend the overexcavation extend no deeper than 2-feet below the thickened slab bearing elevation. A layer of geotextile is recommended to separate the structural fill soils from the underlying subgrade materials. Footings should never be cast atop soft, loose, organic, or frozen soils; nor atop subgrades covered by standing water. A representative from ADaPT should be retained to observe placement of structural fill and the condition of footing subgrades before concrete is poured to verify that they have been adequately prepared. Bearing Pressure: At the location of boring B-2,the near surface soil should be stripped, and excavated to a depth of 2 feet below the proposed bearing elevation. The soils at that elevation should be compacted in place if the moisture content allows, resulting in a firm and unyielding subgrade condition, then 2 feet of ADaPT Engineering, Inc. Sprint PCS ADaPT Job No,WA99-2072 June 11, 1999 Page 6 structural fill should be placed above a layer of geotextile (filter fabric) back to the footing bearing elevation. The cabinets foundations should be designed to extend a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,200 pounds per-square-foot for static footing loads. This bearing pressure can be increased by one-third to accommodate transient wind or seimic loads. An allowable base friction coefficient of 0.30 and an allowable passive earth pressure of 200 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), expressed as an equivalent fluid unit weight, may be used for that portion of the foundation embedded more than 1 foot below finished exterior subgrade elevation. Settlements: We estimated that the total post-construction settlements of property designed footings bearing on property prepared subgrades could approach 1-inch, with differential settlement approaching one-half of the total. Access Driveway The existing asphalt paved driveway off of Factory Avenue North can be used as a construction access driveway,therefore construction of an access driveway does not appear necessary. Tower Mat Foundations To prevent the caving of existing building foundation next to the proposed lease area boundary and site constrain, we do not recommend the construction of mat foundation. The construction of mat foundation is feasible but not economical. Tower Drilled Pier Foundations The tower could be supported on a drilled pier foundation. The following recommendations and comments are provided for purposes of drilled pier design and construction: Compressive Capacities: We recommend that the drilled pier penetrate at least 15-feet below the ground surface at the location of boring B-1. For vertical compressive soil bearing capacity, we recommend using the unit end bearing capacity presented in Table 2 below. The allowable end bearing capacity, presented in Table 2, includes a safety factor of 1.5 or more. ADaPT Engineering, Inc. Sprint PCS ADaPT Job No,WA99-2072 June 11, 1999 Page 7 Table 2 Allowable End Bearing Capacity Depth((feet) Allowable BearingwCa a44ty(tsf) ;Limiting Point Resistance(tsf) 12-25 2.8 D/B 15 TSF .. 25-34 6.0 D/B 35 TSF Notes: D=the embedment depth(in feet)into the bearing layer. B=pier diameter(feet). Frictional Capacities: For frictional resistance of the drilled piers, acting both downward and in uplift, we recommend using the allowable skin friction value listed in Table 3. We recommend that frictional resistance be neglected in the uppermost 2 feet below the ground surface. The allowable skin friction value presented includes a safety factor of 1.5. Table 3 Allowable Skin Friction Capacities Depth(feet) Allowable Skin Friction(tsf) 0-2 0.0 2-12 0.10 12-28 0.70 Lateral Capacities: For design against lateral forces acting against the drilled pier, two methods are typically used. The parameter used to select the appropriate design method is the length to pier stiffness ratio (L/T), where L is the pier length in inches, and T is the relative stiffness factor. The relative stiffness factor(T) should be computed by: En 0.2 T (n h where E=modulus of elasticity(psi) I=moment of inertia(in4) nh=constant of horizontal subgrade reaction(pci) The factors E and I are governed by the internal material strength characteristics of the pier. A representative value of nh for the soil types encountered at this site is presented below in Table 5. Piers with a L/T ratio of less than 2 may be assumed to be relatively rigid and acting as a pole. The passive ADaPT Engineering, Inc. Sprint PCS ADaPT Job No,WA99-2072 June 11, 1999 Page 8 pressure approach may be used for this condition. For piers with a L/T ratio greater than 2, the modulus of subgrade reaction method is typically used. Both of these methods are discussed below: Passive Pressure Method: The passive pressure approach is conservative by neglecting the redistribution of vertical stresses and shear forces that develop near the bottom of the pier and contribute to resisting lateral loads. We recommend using the allowable passive earth pressure (expressed as equivalent fluid unit weights)listed in Table 4. Table 4 Allowable Passive Pressures Depth(feet) Allowable Passive Pressure(pcf) 0-2 0 2-12 175 12-18 350 18-34 200 The allowable passive earth pressure presented in Table 4 may be assumed to be acting over an area measuring 2 pier diameters in width by 8 pier diameters in depth, neglecting the uppermost 2 feet of embedment below the ground surface. According to the NAVFAC Design Manual 7.02 (1986), a lateral deflection equal to about 0.01 times the pier length would be required to mobilize the allowable passive pressure presented above. Higher deflections would mobilize higher passive pressures. When developing the allowable passive pressure listed in Table 4,we have incorporated a safety factor of at least 1.5, which is commonly applied to transient or seismic loading conditions. Modulus of Subgrade Reaction Method: Using this method, the pier is designed to resist lateral loads based on acceptable lateral deflection limits. For sandy soils, the coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction (kh) is considered to be directly proportional to the depth along the pier. The formula to determine kh is kh=nhx, where x is the depth below the ground surface in inches. We recommend using the value for the constant of horizontal subgrade reaction(nh) for the various soil types presented in Table 5 below Table 5 Constant of Horizontal Subgrade Reaction(nh) Depth(feet) nh(pci) 0-2 0 2-18 30 2-28 70 ADaPT Engineering, Inc. Sprint PCS ADaPT Job No,WA99-2072 June 11, 1999 Page 9 Construction Considerations: At this site, the two inches of asphaltic materials is underlain by very loose fine sand grading to very dense fine sand with interbedded gravel. The foundation-drilling contractor should be prepared to case the excavation to prevent caving and raveling of the piers shaft sidewalls. Groundwater was encountered at about 18 feet bgs during drilling. Depending on the required depth of pier penetration, dewatering of the drilled shaft may be required. Should unanticipated heavy groundwater flows be encountered during pier drilling, it may be necessary to pump the accumulated groundwater prior to pier concrete placement. Alternatively, the use of bentonite slurry could be utilized to stabilize the drilled pier excavation. The drilling contractor should be prepared to clean out the bottom of the pier excavation if loose soil is observed or suspected, with or without the presence of slurry or groundwater. As a minimum, we recommend that the drilling contractor have a cleanout bucket on site to remove loose soils and/or mud from the bottom of the pier. If groundwater is present and abundant within the pier hole, we recommend that the foundation concrete be tremied from the bottom of the hole to displace the water and minimize the risk of contaminating the concrete mix. The Drilled Shaft Manual published by the Federal Highway Administration recommends that concrete be placed by tremie methods if more than 3 inches of water has accumulated in the excavation. Structural Fill The following comments, recommendations, and conclusions regarding structural fill are provided for design and construction purposes: Materials: Structural fill includes any fill materials placed under footings, pavements, driveways, and other such structures. Typical materials used for structural fill include: clean, well-graded sand and gravel (pit-run); clean sand; crushed rock; controlled-density fill (CDF); lean-mix concrete; and various soil mixtures of silt, sand, and gravel. Recycled concrete, asphalt, and glass, derived from pulverized parent materials may also be used as structural fill. Placement and Compaction: Generally, CDF, and lean-mix concrete do not require special placement and compaction procedures. In contrast, pit-run, sand, crushed rock, soil mixtures, and recycled materials should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, and each lift should be thoroughly compacted with a mechanical compactor. Using the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM: D-1557) as a standard,we recommend that structural fill used for various on-site applications be compacted to the following minimum densities: ADaPT Engineering, Inc. Sprint PCS ADaPT Job No,WA99-2072 June 11, 1999 Page 10 Fill Application Minimum Compaction Slab/Footing subgrade 90 percent Gravel drive subgrade(upper 1 foot) 95 percent Gravel drive subgrade(below 1 foot) 90 percent Subgrades and Testing: Regardless of location or material, all structural fill should be placed over firm, unyielding subgrade soils. We recommend that a representative from ADaPT be retained to observe the condition of subgrade soils before fill placement begins, and to perform a series of in-place density tests during soil fill placement. In this way, the adequacy of soil compaction efforts may be evaluated as earthwork progresses. Fill Content: Soils used for structural fill should not contain individual particles greater than about 6 inches in diameter and should be free of organics, debris, and other deleterious materials. Given these prerequisites,the suitability of soils used for structural fill depends primarily on the grain-size distribution and moisture content of the soils when they are placed. When the "fines" content (that soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 200 Sieve) increases, soils become more sensitive to small changes in moisture content. Soils containing more than about 5 percent fines (by weight) cannot be consistently compacted to a firm, unyielding condition when the moisture content is more than about 2 percentage points above optimum. The existing near-surface fine sand soils at this site are relatively fine-grained and should be considered somewhat moisture sensitive. The use of"clean" soil is necessary for fill placement during wet-weather site work, or if the in-situ moisture content of the sandy silt soils is too high to allow adequate compaction. Clean soils are defined as granular soils that have a fines content of less than 5 percent(by weight)based on the soil fraction passing the U.S.No.3/4-inch Sieve. CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the explorations that we performed for this study. If variations in subsurface conditions are discovered during earthwork, we may need to modify this report. The future performance and integrity of the tower foundations will depend largely on proper initial site preparation, drainage, and construction procedures. Monitoring by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. We are available to provide geotechnical engineering services during the earthwork and foundation construction phases of the project. If variations in the subgrade conditions are observed at that time, we would be able to provide additional geotechnical recommendations, thus minimizing delays as the project develops. We are also available to review preliminary plans and specifications before construction begins,and to provide geotechnical inspection and testing services during construction. k.L 1411W ' ?' ialati ;Yti 111 iiTi.-7—•.---...-17 i lip • .. ::, --,.7, ./ ) ,..,,,, , .. I; MA* -- I ) ri a a,..4..zeti. 8,0 I a.% Nikeiar:/t-.e::=7:-°-4---•4r'e.- z---;----i- .c`.-' .,i)• &': • •Aiit'A)arIVsi.‘•':',--., , I-:s-I' ff'' : 0 CI e:t . 11 }}I \ ;" /f! L1 ,._. • • ' (-;_ l ALM N i± NIAk._ ,* P.014 k :.vim "' er'N/„- „:„.,,,:,;:i.a. , . . ve:-,.\-. r _ _ �.��r16 't illefiV -' I IVO iill X VP r I * *r"tframit-tila Ili 1 • "Alla I,i 1 I 6 p _ , if lr.4l 0 \7'',' 1." .N \ i \ ank•a - -1 A 11 ,\.'c 1ILt N' K p M1 II III il1e.i,a3ma1li l thr ':,,,-' ''i .'fra'7v,-4f-iv4l1F iA1 EL, � Y"�`'� '� W -w'', I •I Rtii, . li, 1‘01-11ir i VI& i m Wt.L 4it .. ta•iu iiiii... eer,„ 0... �141144, ,.. ...11 �- Atests :. . 11 Vr I 1 ; IVIW\ 1 \?...\V 41141!IIIW Ilre , ?0 Z klpiklik. _ �� :it a••k\._ ALL •aii kilfly; �� .,,IL "6 IsZlivi I. Filti.. . ii 7't 1 ii5Liimuniq � rjvatkt •Il . t,: •.. �'r I' Park/ // %'� 11: Perk I 1 ,,4,. 4 •� \ • /pit ir,pft, k-- ®Uaillll®ar -41,1 /IV '---- •‘‘‘. k,., ), ,-.- -- ---c.-i' A � `� . � :0„ kIt _,, I: ..$00-.).:ii 11 '--4 l'- \,. -,....„,,-,Ato - .-T;LI._ !nI V.;_.____,0ir,.._- '�, ' .1I . t 1/Awiti:r ,..-. -. -._t__,:: �� -:.-�u�,..•711A'..!'.1-,Alik.e;-4 P'r`Ai w.1., k,iV'p.io-'t_-o.-..- . I A.' ®try. _ati' ' I ii1 t ik : - ; 1 .•It -1 r ar.rtc- _r-r(-_34-;1: 1 Ij , sn �- am. .1! . S IN ""humor* ' + �/ m� _--- Power, ti � , . „i-1-��.'�!��� �/`((��,I ►-. „ it.. E .. Plant IcwiRliS ._. v' !./ ...�S►J_ 2'•, i✓ 12kai *-1_ .L, ''• - f fik 1 rift".111L' NfIkVilbA Vkik "1- -.7.1-egrailitia . 1 IFIVI1 Iterfrook:4-4%11044011,- Al • . . .1 r -Nkortisi ', , 'it,\NNt . ii 4. 14 r. A 6% . va li FIN py . 0 1n 1 MLE 0 1000 FEET 0 SOOm MOO m Printed from TOPO!01999 Wildflower Pmductone www.to••co.. ADaPT Engineering, Inc. FIGURE 1 - Location/Topographic Map 800 Maynard Avenue S., Suite 403 Location : Renton / Dunn Lumber Seattle, Washington 98134 120 Factory Avenue North Renton, Washington 98055 Client : Sprint PCS SE29XC265A Ph 206.654.7045 Fax 206.654.7048 Date : 06/07/99 Job * :S-WA-99-2072 EXISTING BUILDING / Y B-2 SITE h V B-1 F O z w z w > EXISTING ¢ BUILDING O F U U. LEGEND: B-1 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION NOT TO SCALE ADaPT Engineering, Inc. FIGURE 2 - SITE PLAN 800 Maynard Avenue S., Suite 403 Location :Renton / Dunn Lumber Seattle, Washington 98134 120 Factory Avenue North • Renton, Washington 98055 Client : Sprint PCS SE29XC265A Ph : 206.654.7045 Fax : 206.654.7048 Date : 06/07/99 Job * : S—WA-99-2072 ADaPT Engineering, Inc. APPENDIX A BORING LOG ADaPT Engineering, Inc. BORINGLOG 800 Maynard Avenue South,Suite 403 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 TEL:206.654.7045 FAX:206.654.7048 PROJECT : Renton/ Dunn Lumber Job Number : WA99-2072 Boring No. : B-1 120 Factory Avenue North SE29XC265A Renton, Washington 98055 Sprint PCS Elevation Reference: WA Well Completed: N/A AS-BUILT DESIGN TESTING Ground Surface Elevation: N/A Casing Elevation: N/A c `J`w z z cc o o Qua aM 88 q a u)2 E.'. O G3 0 2" asphalt Brown, moist, very loose, fine SAND s-i 1 _— Ti0 i 1 -5- - - - 2I[S-2 1 0 -10- - - - Brown, moist, dense, gravelly fine SAND S-3 10 I 20 20 - -15- - - - Brown, moist, medium dense, fine SAND S-4 8 - - - 8 9 Groundwater -20- - - - , Black, saturated, dense, gravelly SAND T 3 10 20 -25- — - - T S-6 20 Choppy drilling action I 31 506 (Cobbles and boulders should be anticipated) -30- - - - LEGEND I 2-hrh O.D.Spte-Spoon Sample Static Water Level at Drilling j Grab Sample DATE 1'Geoproye V Static Water Level rk Type of Anetylical Testing Used DATE X Sample not Recovered �_ Perched Groundwater NR No Recovery Page d ATD At Time of Drilling 1 of 2 Drilling Start Date: 06/03/99 Drilling Completion Date: 06/03/99 Logged By: NHV ADaPT Engineering, Inc. BORINGLOG 800 Maynard Avenue South,Suite 403 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 TEL:206.654.7045 FAX:206.654.7048 PROJECT :Renton/Dunn Lumber Job Number : WA99-2072 Boring No. : B-1 120 Factory Avenue North SE29XC265A Renton, Washington 98055 Sprint PCS Elevation Reference: WA Well CompletBd: NIA AS-BUILT DESIGN TESTING Ground Surface Elevallon: N/A Casing Elevation: WA x n z z¢ -30- i` o oc 0; Black, saturated,very dense,fine SAND with interbedded sandy gravel — - S-7 15 30 50/6 - Boring terminated at 34'feet -35- — - - -40- — - - -45- — - - -50- — - -55- — - - -60- — - - LEGEND I e1d,o D.a,..,m,aea. .Z abl.Wr LANNI atDibq Dn4 Sanyo DATE } """b. aedo Wr.lard wag.DA Typo a Aro//Nar Twin;Ur!j DMZ /1x Sam*Sam*rot m..a � ..ra.eanrr.d... err No Amway Page ! - ATD A,NemdDAWN 2 of 2 Drilling Start Date: 06/03/99 Drilling Completion Date: 06/03/99 Logged By: NHV ADaPT Engineering, Inc. BORINGLOG 800 Maynard Avenue South,Suite 403 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 TEL:206.654.7045 FAX:206.654.7048 PROJECT : Renton/ Dunn Lumber Job Number : WA99-2072 Boring No. : B-2 120 Factory Avenue North SE29XC265A Renton, Washington 98055 Sprint PCS Elevation Reference: N/A Well Completed: N/A Ground Surface Elevation: N/A Casing Elevation: N/A AS-BUILT DESIGN TESTINGGround Z ¢ 7 0 ' aw o. i 3 �w NF- thz m00 0¢ [¢73 0 2"asphalt Brown, moist, very loose, fine SAND s-i 1 3 --- 2 Boring terminated at 4' —5— — - -10- — - - -15- — - -20- — - - -25- — - -30- — - - LEGEND _ 2-Inch O.D.Split-Spoon Semple Static Wader Leval at Dr iIr j Grab Sample DATE -TI-- 1.Geoprobs Statics Wafer feel ae ea Type ol Analytical Testing Ud _1111_ DATE I roe Sample not Recovered Parched Groundvater NR No Reurrery Page = ATD At Time of DrIllIrq 1 of 1 Drilling Start Date: 06/03/99 Drilling Completion Date: 06/03/99 Logged By: NHV ADaPT Engineering, Inc. APPENDIX B SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS Resitivity Survey Results ADaPt Job No.: WA 99-2072 Project Name: Renton/Dunn Lumber(SE29XC265A) Project Address: 120 Factory Avenue North, Renton, Washington Date: 6/4/99 Time: 12:00 PM Weather: Sunny, 55 F Distance between Ohmic Meter Reading Calculated Resistence electrodes (Ohms) (Ohm-cm) Test 1 5 13.0 12,447.50 10 7.7 14,745.50 15 5.2 14,937.00 20 3.2 12,256.00 The Resistivity survey was completed using a 4-pin Wenner array in general accordance with ASTM method E-57 (IEEE Standard 81), using a Nilsson soil Resistance meter, Model 400.