Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA00-040 i. REPORT City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION Decision Date: July 30, 2001 [The Administrative Land Use Action was originally approved on September 15, 2000. Two subsequent appeals of the site plan approval were upheld by the Hearing Examiner. On February 26, 2001, the Hearing Examiner remanded the site plan, subject to conditions, back to staff. The applicant submitted a revised site plan, which was reviewed by staff. The result of that review is included herein and revisions, reflecting the site plan revisions, have been made to the original report.] Project Name: Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Applicant: Gerald Rieker and Soung Hee Rieker Cambridge Homes NW 12228 NE 112th Place#A-1 Kirkland WA 98033 Owner: (same) File Number: LUA-00-040, ECF, SA-A Planner: Elizabeth Higgins, AICP Project Summary: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for nine, two-story, townhouses to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). The project also requires environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. Project Location: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE Exist. Bldg. Area SF: N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area SF: 7,057 sf Site Area: 37,585 sf(0.86 acre) Total Building Area SF: 7,057 sf - S __s___1+ 6M JOHH L. p, [viol YNIATTA®.�.. i t SITE A CONDOMINIUM a j �����r�**'���yyy�777 a Ws3 i ¶ `IM UNITS 0 r~ U • —.�_�I: .. ._.! • . \:,, ,._,. --1. 4f IM ;;.f qq!.;ti q?$•:•ac;:Sic:.lcati ► Mit lit . liar—. " • AwhAdwprit.. c • • i4-R D-Efi- il .4 - t: 1 dtt • la 10: 0 , ?C % : ! ; a71' O.SD AC. i t c _ o `s; YerI w . e04.t.7 WV s . Project Location Map sitepinrev(revised).doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department . Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEEN APARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY30,2001 Page 2 of 11 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for nine town house units, in three buildings. The project is located on a 37,585 square foot property at 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE. The property is 62.5 feet wide and approximately 600 feet long. The property fronts on Aberdeen Avenue NE, north of its intersection with Sunset Boulevard NE. The building would be situated on the eastern half of the site, which is more gently sloping (5 percent to 10 percent)than the western half, which has slopes in excess of forty percent and are, therefore, regulated by the City of Renton. The building coverage of the site would be approximately 18.8 percent and the total impervious area would be about 38.9 percent. _ The wood-framed building would be approximately 36 feet in height. The roofline would be . staggered, matching the angle of slope and the roofs articulated with peaks and architectural details. Vertical walls would be surfaced in a horizontal siding of unspecified material composition. The nine townhouses would have approximately 784 sf on the main floor and 796 sf on the second floor. The basement would provide parking for two vehicles and storage space. The total size of the basement level would be approximately 244 sf. The property is 37,451 sf in size and has approximately 10,097.83 sf of protected slopes. The net acreage is 0.63 acre. Therefore, the proposed project, at 9 units, has a density of 14.29 dwelling units per net acre. Parking for each unit would be in individual two-vehicle garages under the living space of each townhouse. Three additional parking spaces would be on site at uncovered, surface parking areas. The total parking available on site would be 21 spaces. The property is located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). Abutting,zones are all residential. They are the same zone (RM-I)to the north, south, and east and Residential 1 (R-1)to the west. R-1 allows residential development at 1 dwelling unit per net acre, but the area may be too environmentally sensitive to make development feasible. The project requires environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. The Environmental Review Committee made a Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated for the proposed 12 unit apartment building project. Staff has recommended that the previous review of the environmental conditions be upheld for the revised, nine unit townhouse project based on a probable decrease in environmental impacts. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971, as amended, on July 18, 2000, the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee made a Determination of Non- Significance, Mitigated for the project. Two appeals of the Determination were filed with the Hearing Examiner prior to the close of the appeal period. These appeals were heard at a public meeting on January 23, 2001. (continued from November 28, 2000), following the close of the appeal period for the site plan review decision. The Hearing Examiner upheld the environmental determination. sitepinrev(revised).doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEEN APARTMENTS L UA-00-040,SA A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY 30,2001 Page 3 of 11 The Environmental Review Committee placed the following mitigation measures on the proposed project. 1. Site construction activities shall be limited to the months of April through October. 2. The recommendations of the geotechnical report, "Aberdeen Apartments Project No. T-4479", by Terra • Associates, Inc., dated November 30, 1999, shall be incorporated into the project design and construction. 3. The applicant shall pay the applicable Transportation Mitigation Fee at the rate of$75.00 per each new average weekday trip attributable to the project, estimated to be 5.86 average weekday trips per townhouse unit. The Transportation Mitigation Fee is due prior to issuance of building permit. 4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$388.00 per multi-family unit. The fee is due prior to issuance of building permit. 5. The applicant shall pay the Parks Mitigation Fee equal"to $354.51 per multi-family unit. The Parks Mitigation Fee shall be paid prior to issuance of building permit. PART THREE: ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION - REPORT& DECISION A. Type of Land Use Action xx Site Plan Review Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Conditional Use Binding Site Plan Special Permit for Grade &Fill Administrative Code Determination B. Exhibits Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication, environmental review and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 2: Drawing No. 3, Site Slope Analysis (Received June 21, 2000) Exhibit No. 3: Zoning Map (dated January 11, 2000) Exhibit No. 4: Site Plan (revised) Exhibit No. 5: Typical Unit Elevation (revised) C. Consistency with Site Plan Criteria In reviewing the proposal with respect to the Decision Criteria for Level I Site Plans as set forth in Section 4-9-200(E) of the Renton Municipal Code, the following issues have been identified by City Departmental Reviewers and Divisional Reviewers: 1. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its objectives and policies The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for the property is Residential Multi-Family— Infill. The objective and policies of this land use element are as follows: Objective LU-L: Encourage the development of infill parcels in existing multi-family districts with compatible projects. sitepinrev(revised).doc • City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ' ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY 30,2001 Page 4 of 11 The neighborhood of the proposed project has both single family houses and multi-family apartment and condominium developments. The Sunset Garden Condominiums (60 units) are located to the south, abutting the proposed project. There are three single family houses on two parcels located to the north. A 168 unit condominium development, Renton Ridge, is north of the single family houses. Staff has been working with a potential applicant for a proposed 9 unit condominium project that would be located south of, and abutting, the Renton Ridge development on the parcel having two single family residences. Adjacent to the project, across Aberdeen Avenue, are both multi-family developments and single family houses. This project is compatible with the other multi-family projects in the area, although the neighborhood has not completely transitioned entirely from single family residential. Staff believes three 3 unit townhouse buildings would be more compatible with the transitioning neighborhood than the previously proposed single 12 unit apartment building. Policy LU-64: Development density should generally be in the range of ten to twenty dwelling units per acre. The proposed project, at 9 units, has a density of 14.29 dwelling units per net acre, which is in the middle of the allowable density range. Policy LU-65: New development in Residential Multi-family Infill designations should be compatible in size, scale, bulk, use, and design with other existing multi-family developments. The proposed project is compatible with other multi-family developments in the area, although it is not as compatible in scale with the existing single family houses. The single family houses are single story and smaller in bulk that both the proposed project and other multi-family projects that have been developed in the vicinity. The architectural style, scale of buildings, and reduction in the total number of units proposed is more compatible with existing single family residential than the original plan. Policy LU-66: Design standards should be applied that reflect present development patterns and are sensitive to unique features and differences among established neighborhoods. Although design standards have not been developed in the Renton Municipal Code for this land use zone, the proposed project meets the requirements of the Development Standards (RMC Section 4). These standards address building height, lot width, and building setbacks. Policy LU-67: Siting and design of new structures should be sensitive to site constraints and adjacent uses. Provision of adequate buffers or setbacks or scaling down building heights may be required to transition from Residential Multi-family Infill designations to adjacent lower density uses. The proposed project would be built on the eastern half of the property that is not constrained by protected slopes. The stormwater control system would be designed to carry run-off away from both the developed portion of the property and the adjacent properties. The revised site plan meets the condition of the Hearing Examiner's remand of the original site plan approval. The revised plan proposes building at the same grade as the single family residence to the north, rather than raising the grade three to four feet above the grade to the north. This eliminates the need for a retaining wall between the two properties. There are three buildings, not a single building, so the overall mass of the structure has been reduced considerably. The space between the middle building and the east building has been positioned to serve as a "corridor"to allow light to the existing greenhouse on the abutting property, which is located directly north of this space. • sitepinrev(revised).doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY 30,2001 Page S of 11 2. Conformance with existing land use regulations The following development standards apply in the RM-I Zone: Density: minimum 10 dwelling unit per net acre (du/a), maximum 20 du/a The project has a net density of 14.29 du/a. This is at the middle of the allowable range. All of the density will be located on approximately half of the property,.due to steep slopes on the other half. Minimum lot width: 50 feet The property is 62.5 feet wide. No new parcels will be created. Minimum lot depth: 65 feet The property is 607.61 feet deep. Setbacks (minimums): front— 20,feet; rear— 15 feet; side— greater of 5 feet or 10% of lot width (rounded up to next whole integer); additional 1 foot for each story in excess of two The proposed project would have setbacks above the front and rear setback minimums. The side setbacks must'be 7 feet each, based on lot width of 62.5 feet. Height: 35 feet or 2.5 stories. In all Residential Multi-family Zones (except"U'), more stories and an additional 10 feet in height may be obtained through the provision of additional amenities such as pitched roofs... The proposed building has two levels of residential units above one level of parking. This meets the Uniform Building Code definition of two story building. The total height is 36 feet above finish grade. Although the proposed building height is one foot above the maximum height allowed, the revised plan indicates a high level of architectural detailing and articulation (see Exhibit No. 12). Staff recommends approval of increased height as proposed, based on site plan review. Building coverage (maximum):35% The proposed building would have 18.8 percent coverage of the property. Impervious area (maximum): 75% The proposed project would result in 38.9 percent impervious area. Landscaping: Setback areas and open space areas shall be landscaped unless otherwise determined through the site plan review process. Landscaping has been proposed for the front and south side setback areas. The north setback, abutting the single family residence, does not have landscaping proposed. A 6 foot fence has been proposed along the north property line. Staff recommends that this fence, although proposed, be made a condition of the site plan approval. The purpose of this fence would be to provide a transition between the existing single family home and the proposed project and buffer noises somewhat from the driveway that abuts the property line and from the garages that open to the north. 3. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses There are several potential impacts to surrounding uses by the proposed project. An increase in impervious area could cause a corresponding increase in existing drainage problems on adjacent properties. To avoid this, the applicant would be required to install a stormwater control system that carries all stormwater runoff away from the developed property to the south and the single family residential property to the north. Stormwater would be dispersed by means of a sitepinrev(revised).doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEEN APARTMENTS L UA-00-040,SA-A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY30,2001 Page 6 of 11 spreader in the northwest corner of the project property (see "Notes to Applicant" section of this report). Although the property to the north is also within the Residential Multi-family—Infill Zone, there would be an impact to the single family residence located to the north, caused by the proximity of the building and adjacency of driveway. The proposed building meets the setback requirement on the north. A condition has been proposed whereby a fence will be required in order to buffer the existing home from the new development. The revised site plan is for three smaller buildings, rather than one large building. The length of the apartment building originally proposed was 205 feet. The revised plan has two buildings at 82 feet each and one at 87 feet. The three buildings have spaces between them, of 25 feet and 40 feet, to allow light and air to circulate. This reduces the overall impact on the abutting properties, even though the developed portion of the site extends farther to the west than the original plan. The revised plan extends approximately 350 feet into the site from Aberdeen Avenue NE. A site lighting plan must be submitted as a condition of approval prior to issuance of a building permit. This plan would be evaluated to avoid light"spill over"from the new project onto the abutting property. 4. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site The proposed project, planned for only the more gradually sloped east half of the project, is sited to minimize the impact to the property by avoiding the very steep western half. The revised plan extends the paved driveway and dumpster area into a portion of the property that is sloped approximately 48 percent. The vertical increase in the area proposed for development is approximately 12 feet in height. Slopes greater than 40 percent, with a vertical increase of 15 feet or more are deemed to be "protected" slopes. The proposed filling of this approximately 350 sf area would not be regulated by the City Critical Areas Ordinance. 5. Conservation of area-wide property values Development of the property should not have a negative impact on area-wide property values. In fact, there should be an increase in area-wide property values following the development of this property because the property has not been maintained in the past, with vegetation allowed to become overgrown. In addition, the property to the north has very low density, with one single family home and the property to-the south has condominium units.- The proposed project would have nine townhouses, which will be larger in size and more comparable to single family homes at 1,800 sf each. 6. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation It does not appear from review of the site plan that a walkway, separated from the driveway, will be provided to connect the project to the sidewalk that will be located along the street frontage. Staff recommends a site plan revision that demonstrates that a walkway, physically separated from the driveway by either a curb or raised curb abutting the sidewalk, be provided. The dumpster enclosure would located at the west boundary of the developed portion of the site, near the vehicle turn-around. It should not conflict with pedestrian traffic. I- sitepinrev(revised).doc • City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEEN APARTMENTS L UA-00-040,SA A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY 30,2001 Page 7 of 11 7. Provision of adequate light and air It appears that this criteria would be met by the proposed project. The revised plan meets this requirement to a greater extent than the previously proposed project by allowing light and air to circulate between the three buildings. 8. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions It appears that this criteria would be met by the proposed project. The dumpster would be located at the west boundary of the developed portion of the site, at the farthest point from the residential units. Code requires screening of dumpsters and recycle areas. 9. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use Public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use are available in Aberdeen Avenue NE. 10. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight It appears that this criteria would be met by the proposed project. The project improvements, as proposed,would be consistent with plans, policies, and regulations of the.City of Renton. 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: 1. Request: The Applicant has requested Site Plan Approval for the Aberdeen Apartments, LUA00-040, ECF, SA-A. The applicant has requested review of a revised site plan and an Administrative Site Plan Approval. 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. A Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated was issued on July 18, 2000. The appeal period ended on August 7, 2000. Two appeals were filed, but the Determination was'upheld by the Hearing Examiner in his decision of February 26, 2001. 3. Site Plan Review: The applicant's site plan application complies with the requirements for information for site plan review. The applicant's site plan and other project drawings are entered as Exhibits No. 2, 3, and 4. 4. Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential Multi-family— Infill (RM-I). sitepinrev(revised).doc • City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY 30,2001 Page 8 of 11 5. Zoning: The proposed project complies with the zoning requirements and development standards of the Residential Multi-family— Infill (RM-I) Zoning designation, with the. The zoning map is entered as Exhibit 5. E. Conclusions 1. The subject proposal complies with the policies and codes of the City of Renton. 2. The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential Multi-family — Infill (RM-I); and the Zoning designation of Residential Multi-family— Infill (RM-I) Zoning. F. Decision The Site Plan for Aberdeen Apartments, File No. LUA-00-040, is approved, as revised, subject to the following conditions: 1. A site lighting plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Department and approved prior to building permit approval. 2. A solid wood fence, design and materials to be approved by the Development Services Division, at the maximum height allowed, shall be installed along the north property line. Such installation shall be completed prior to occupancy of the building. 3. A site plan revision shall be submitted prior to building permit, that demonstrates that a walkway will be provided that connects to the public sidewalk and that is physically separated from the project driveway by either a curb or raised curb and sidewalk. Such revision to the site plan shall be made by the applicant and approved by the Development Services Department prior to building permit issuance. 4. A Native Growth Protection Area ( NGPA) easement shall be established for the area of the property having slopes at forty percent(40%) or greater(approximately the western half of the property). The NGPA easement shall be recorded prior to obtaining an occupancy permit. The following additional conditions were imposed on the site plan approval by the Hearing Examiner in his decision of February 26, 2001: 5. The grades of the subject site shall not be altered in such [a] fashion as to allow the proposed apartment complex to sit up higher on the site. The applicant may grade the site downward to "hide" or accommodate an additional story but shall not be permitted to raise the site in any fashion that allows a de facto three story building to be judged two stories under the definitions in the Zoning Code or Building Code. 6. More details on the nature of the retaining walls both along the north and south property lines and the location of[a] driveway are needed. That information should be developed prior to approval of the site plan. 7. The definition of driveway separation from abutting property shall be revisited and accommodation made to reduce the impacts in this case. EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: July 30, 2001. 1 sitepinrev(revised).doc • City of Renton P/B/PWDepartment Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEEN APARTMENTS L UA-00-040,SA-A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY 30,2001 Page 9 of 11 SIGNATURES: A d Galt J .7/30/0 Neil Watts,Development Services Division Director date • TRANSMITTED this 30th day of July 2001, to the owner/applicant and contact: Gerald Rieker Soung Hee Rieker 11017—101 st Place NE Kirkland,WA 98033 Jim Heffernan Kelley-Heffernan Corp. 40 Lake Bellevue,Suite 100 Bellevue,WA 98005 David J. Fall Fall Architectural 9607—39'h Avenue SW Seattle,WA 98136 TRANSMITTED this 30th day of July 2001,to the parties of record: See Attachment'A' TRANSMITTED 301'day of July 2001, to the following: Larry Meckling,Building Official Charles Duffy,Fire Prevention Jennifer Henning,Zoning Administrator Kayren Kittrick,Public Works Division Lawrence J.Warren,City Attorney South County Journal Land Use Decision Appeal Process Appeals of the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM August 13,2001. • If no appeals are filed by this date, the action 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. 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. Plan Review—Sanitary Sewer el.. This project is outside of the Aquifer Protection Zones. ram. sitepinrev(revised).doc • City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY30,2001 Page 10 of 11 2. There is an existing 10" sanitary sewer main in Aberdeen Avenue NE. 3. Providing a gravity system to this site will be extremely difficult due to the topography. The project engineer has indicated that separate grinder pumps will be installed under the building permit. Plans shall be noted to reflect this. Plan Review—Water 1. There is a 16"water main in Aberdeen Avenue NE. 2. This site is located in the 435 Pressure Zone. 3. A water main extension will be required on site. 4. All new construction must have a fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 gpm and must be located within 300 feet of the structure. There are fire hydrants in the vicinity that may be counted towards the fire protection of this project, but are subject to verification for being within 300 feet of the nearest corner of the building. This distance is measured along a travel route. This project will require a minimum of 2,500 gpm fire flow. An additional fire hydrant will be required to be installed onsite to meet this criteria. 5. Water System Development Charges of$510 per unit are applicable to this project. The Development Charges will be collected as part of the construction permit. Plan Review—Stormwater Drainage 1. A storm drainage narrative and conceptual plan has been submitted and reviewed. It has been given preliminary approval, with the exception that the drainage system will be required to be tightlined to the northwest corner of the property and dispersed via a spreader due to the surface water problems on the abutting property to the south. 2. Final storm drainage report and design shall comply with the King County Surface Water Design Manual, 1990 Edition. 3. No on-site detention is required. 4. Surface Water System Charges of$15,985 are applicable to this project. The Development Charges will be collected as part of the construction permit. Plan Review—Street Improvements 1. Full street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, street signs, and street lights are required, if not already in place. 2. All new electrical, telephone, and cable services and lines must be undergrounded. Plan Review—General 1. The applicant is responsible for securing and necessary private utility easements. 2. All required utility, drainage, and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 3. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5 percent of the first$100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4 percent of anything over$100,000, but less than $200,000, and 3 percent of anything over $200,000. Half of this fee must be paid upon application for construction permits (preliminary plat improvements), and the remainder when the construction permit is issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. sitepinrev(revised).doc • City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEEN APARTMENTS L UA-00-040,SA A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY 30,2001 Page I of 11 Fire Prevention 1. The preliminary fire flow is 2500 gpm, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and two additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Separate plans and permit are required for the installation of the sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 3. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways are a minimum 20 feet in width with a turning radius of 45 feet outside and 25 feet inside. 4. Fire department dead-end access roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. Planning 1. Retaining walls in excess of four(4)feet require engineered drawings and a separate building permit. 2. Construction easements obtained from abutting property owners may be necessary prior to construction of retaining walls on or near property lines. These agreements must include protection measures for(or permission to potentially damage or remove)trees located on abutting properties within 20 feet of the property line. 3. Performance Standards for Land Development Permits (RMC 4-4-130K), including "Protection Measures During Construction" (RMC 4-4-130K7) relating to trees, shall be followed by the applicant. The applicant shall adhere to the definition of"tree" a found in RMC 4-11-200, "drip line" as found in RMC 4-11-040, and the measurement of trees as found in RMC 4-11-030. I sitepinrev(revised).doc • • ti" _ 1az'a ®— 1 —0 -- soovs.00`E-—— -- — _ _ 1 ` �__ I l'. ` I I \.' -jI * I I 1i •9s e U t • �\T I \ �'`. k 0_ 1 • I. 1 1 a _a- ir,-„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ":„\,..:,k. I :,. `3• 1 •nl• • • s ., i:':ily • C\ •` ••..` •••`k Y�t�\ I : `t I IF I ... 1 I . . ,•• ••:::•,'•:::::'..:::::R::'.. ..-- j sIsno Ac}-fl P i T' 2 • z • • __ .Ide . , - VI - -- S1N3w12JYdH N3302138b w ""^° ~i - sWNIAans oNrr:5I — AQnls 3d01s "Inc sa33iunw3 rirnot 25 Y_.....— _ -_ ern gqag a. z a .-_--_ N NON ,(j Y V. mm • • il'' i 1;. ". fix_. ''..Bwou . hh 'W. -�-. Y OilN cir) z .— .,,, _. , J ,..,...., ,..., , , k▪ i'.i'illl"a. 00o Rrg sg�� S 1 i i s :. n,nllltl�l!i , r. a:▪r ��l]°tG IP,I • g i " J' N E......, L., • . z ,, „.....„,,,t ... _____ , , , I'\l'.."."r:•;..s; :Fhi":7-1171" ) 1 1 gt l • IR • t_i M.L ,M1 ���5�@I:191z�1lilil'�I�j+ I��'--wtil 1 _ ....,..:.., ,,,,...c:.„.. 1 _ r,) tFle. 0 1 ,,-. .,;••,:,.,:•,i,,:::9:,. .. ;.. ,i. ciDE-i fill i 1)::. . • 14 t r� : :ii 'I�w11i @lT@ 1,9 r I • - t• .„m r i,1=sue,; N . §: ' n ( Ir 4-P r.b44 / i ZI O .•-d i t - I--_�f ��� �t Y . ..„ •. . .... te P4 M .[ 1 ,,,, lit t,8 4 •,,,,-,„ ‘,„:„.,ss,.„\s„,„pa a N I ' IIJ to o : 1 i • • ,.....--- _........ --14tqci r i r \ 'k . :i WA...-..„..7. %'2i 1E%al /A. 1 iiiI iii 4 iOr 41 %'=,tee' t r iSt_i- .... L ie• I 17,j - , -ri 1 1,./ A . Ai .L,______ -i. , •_...) ..... in ,01 ,:„.„...., .itt51,;(4' tom - '-- ••?:'',..": „•/i;...--••• •-•, 1.r_04' ��I tltl II ����I�Mlll�l�i _•_ r � 1__ 1.1 � G , r AM •• .y Icfeo r �ir 11 • . • 1 • • • nr it 11 ,4, irr �- 11 1 �Ii^ t _•: tl�i.f 4r�I1I,'.,iIi�1 1(41 I tl I, 1llll �('A >' 11I1�'- a� �/ ..„11,1 I LL, � i.,,,,, "`,_ Y.,. r`.. t, W -- ,��- 0� 1 , ^I ja - 1 d �1 sho a� i ,.i, M�1/1! i�Jf1f I:I t 1 i p 61f11 1';i, ii..Aigi� ISIti�l iiidiiiiiti it II 9j . 1! I Di Rh .•jr�� rl a I•t r_�_ rr a '131,! •I/I, ..ire ,ta�u+fl(Iltliflf:Itl,i2 �--� 'rllrl ip t � r� e � 11� 3 {? a i i.iti 411 igni,,ittlrig r` — 9 r a ,1 �__: r !i-- Its 4 7 „flagd .; i. t s ,-__ :/Utz 3 rr 3I i,ia Illllr 31 JI III'Y 1.... - it _.. -� ji 441511 1- .. D4 • 5 TUN.R5EE1/2. • •_ . •:1 R_-8�F -• e. a •.R- ,:o. � 11.\\ • Jim: goili . ... ..--L - ' • .@• de - . -- - Ilk' 1 : . . ilk . * . ..'.' Kr - R ► . , . ...:::-:.: . y ' -t,N4 : , No% cce ff RH-1111F 11.1....---.' NI . a) W dt .i:•1 -o4t :•- I. I ii , . R M-1• . ���Iti1U! � , - N JL 'ir • V . Lf� g ,,a ti;0 .` z i N 8th .\ e risifilssi,44o; .g , R_g laii —8 0o ' j!,j• iii V ..R- : .%.*1 Ipri4. ..: : • wi IPA v - - - N4rfie- tok-:-: ____)/fr 1\ a. ri • 44-4? •♦ .•• wit---/ :. it1 * ' ��1111 0I: •• • U /�.:-ink..pm i NA --t ' • I ,im ••�6y ,i i • : ��. I. - . .. . . V-- / - • #4-3- vat 4(411,- E :In ' EEC . I Ai! • � 0.. sill6 .4 #% r; t :: �jP ► I ''M CA 'Pi G] ►Ailifilli Zt... - ..--iMIEC Arm . at - if _ oz,p4 .,4 c.,- HAI" • IA499. . • •?, - ,,ta -. • • +.0 . TSCIINICAL WA" e„..+tivy ri' 8 T23N R5E E 1/2 .. ATTACHMENT 'A' Mr. Norm Mode Gay Kiesling Jeff Clousing 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. C-310 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. Renton, WA 98056 E318 C210 Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Susan Lauth Cheryl Jayne Phyllis Turner 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. E315 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. Renton, WA 98056 D211 D11 Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Terra Schmidt Karen Loos Melody Grieves 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. B106 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Renton,WA 98056 B105 B206 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Michael Bradley John &Patricia Clayton Annelle Perry 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. B306 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt.A- 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt Renton,WA 98056 102 A101 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Muhammad Faisal Patty Reynolds Patricia Dolan 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt.A101 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. Renton, WA 98056 C107 307 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Francia Personett Juanita McIntosh Natalie Hester 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. F220 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Ave NE,Apt. C308 Renton, WA 98056 C110 Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Mr. & Mrs. R. Beach Kathryn Carrigan Terrie Carter 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, E115 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. Renton, WA 98056 E116 E216 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Helen del Rosario Lawrence&Carol Lonczak Albert&Sandra Jarvela 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. E215 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. Renton, WA 98056 E118 E117 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Lan Le Darsie Brown Cheryl Waid 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. F219 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. Renton,WA 98056 F119 C108 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Ed Niblock Eleanor Brown Hal & Erin Pugmire 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. D213 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. Renton,WA 98056 D313 D314 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 1/ ATTACHMENT 'A' Ronald Yasui Doug Graef Helen Burch 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. E317 New Home Trends 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton,WA 98056 8034 118th Avenue NE Renton,WA 98056 Kirkland,WA 98033 Lisa Young Art Gossan Freida Coon 1000 Aberdeen Avenue NE 7301 NE 175th,#124 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, C-109 Renton,WA 98056 Kenmore,WA 98028 Renton,WA 98056 James L. Strichartz,Attorney Steve Beck 200 West Mercer Street, Suite 511 19129 SE 145th Street Seattle, WA 98119 Renton,WA 98059 PARTY OF RECORD LIST.doc/ :: p CITY OF RENTON -77 NAL Planning/Building/Public Works ��._ , . 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 '� !'® 1 A�i � ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 2�METER { • •• 715�401 U.S. POSTAL t i a re • Albert b&erSdaeennd rAavJeanruvee laNE, � 4° I S' o- L) % Apt. • Renton, WA 98056 ,ti ,t�P� =— -!TO Vi ri I TE H'..-'_-..„.,..., ._"-_,T-1 . p_ !'d. �J`� IIV t: _� n l" ,:, -------- `'4M s`�1,1C>T:.F..•.r:G Pam'"? ;; p CITY OF RENTON a' r = V.200 NI ••LL Planning/Building/Public Works a a i 4110510t A « 03 0 i 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 Fc p:��l1..r. E ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 01 06 0'i PRESO-RT.J? ,-, Eggiof E8 7 A151 '' M .' -' 1A/11/417)V'llr\ h166 I dS <:: i Mr. Gerald Rieker ' .., Cambridge Homes NW `4E 12228 NE 112th Place #A1 "ksp - Kirkland, WA 98033 „e �` CAt+(8R28 TURN�fTO SENDER2 iN 15 4ilit7JOi^ RETURN 7O F...` -,N ::`- ; f\'t, ' ''',, �' NO FORWARD ORDER ON FILE e 1•--c---P E..-';i'' , j I UNABLE -TO FORWARD Tu iI I `: i ., �y RETURN TO SENDER AM _SSEA - , �, ��V co 1 [`)tP' _)W11 -_ a'1 3,0 �P r 1i:9 i i �l i ! 1111 Ii + t t , t t i i s �JJ , 27.;� t! ti t� tit! t tt.t tt! i EFE. n EIdEE inhiEi mIlh Elblii1EE:� co ± 41 CITY OF RENTON .dL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator January 4,'2001 Mr. Frank Heffernan, AIA Ferrari Design Group PS 12277— 134`h Court NE Redmond,;WA 98052 Re: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments, Project No. LUA-00-040, SA-A, ECF Mr. Heffernan At the November 28, 2000, Appeal Hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner, the City of Renton requested a continuance of the hearing pending review of resubmitted information. The hearing was continued to January 23, 2001. Unfortunately, it appears that the topographic survey is still not correct. The enclosed photograph indicates a severe change of grade along the south boundary of the property that is not reflected by the revised topographic survey. This area is west of the retaining,wall that was added to the revised survey. We are concerned about this discrepancy because it could result in significant changes to the site plan being required. City of Renton Municipal Code includes a provisionlfor"independent review of an applicant's steep slope study by a qualified professional selected by the City, at the applicant's expense"(RMC4-3-050B4b). The intention of this provision, however, is to settle disputes. 'A visit to the property could clarify that the topographic survey is;incorrect. In addition, the following are issues that will form the basis for additional conditions we intend to recommend to the Hearing Examiner at the continued hearing, unless they are satisfactorily addressed in a revised site plan, submitted and approved by the Development Services Division prior to January 15, 2001: 1. The bioswale and storm spreader as shown on the resubmitted plans will not be approved. As indicated in the "Advisory Notes to Applicant," surface water must be conveyed by a tightline to a discharge point at the northwest corner of the property. 2. A retaining wall on the north property line will require construction easements to be negotiated with property owner to the north. Because this party has filed an appeal of the .site plan approval, we suggest this agreement be negotiated as soon as possible. 3. It appears from the revised plan, that new grade lines would be extended off the property to the retaining wall located on the neighboring property to the south. This would require that an easement be recorded, granted by the Sunset Gardens Condominium Homeowners' Association benefiting the Aberdeen Apartments property. Because this party has filed an appeal of the site plan approval, we suggest this agreement be negotiated as soon as possible. 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 OR7 Thic nannr rnntainc Rn%ram/Hari material 9f1%nnct rnncumar Mr. Frank Heffernan, AIA Redmond, WA 98052 January 4, 2001 Page 2 4. Measures required in Renton Municipal Code (4-4-130H9) shall be enforced regarding the drip line of trees on the property abutting to the north. The tree inventory indicates that the drip line of a tree located approximately 3 feet north of the property boundary extends onto the,Aberdeen Avenue Apartments property approximately 15 feet. A second tree also has a drip line that extends onto the property. Specifically, the regulations state, "The applicant may not fill, excavate...or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained." The neighbor to the north has indicated she wants the trees on her property retained. Therefore, "If the grade level adjoining4to a tree to bet retained is to be raised, the applicant shall construct a dry rock wall or rock well around the tree. The diameter of this wall or well must be equal to the tree's drip line." In addition, "The applicant may not install impervious surface material within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained."The drip lines of the two 75 foot cedar trees on the abutting property that are to be retained must be afforded protection in the manner described by the Code. 5. The driveway, which exceeds an 11 percent slope, is above the maximum allowable by Code (8 percent, RMC 4-4-)80.15b) ;The Board,of Public Works.may allow a driveway to exceed 8 percent upon proper application in writing'and good cause shown. Contact Paul Lumbert at 425-430-7304 regarding the.procedure to;follow to make this request if you have not done so already. 6. The Fire Prevention:Bureau,comments.inthe"Advisory.Notes to Applicant" issued previously state that dead-end access roadways,over.- 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. This,turnaround musthave'an outside turning radius of 45 feet. and an inside turning radius of25:feet'>;In`addition, the turnaround must meet other dimensional requirements as shownon the<attachment included herewith. Note that the turnaround area cannot infringe`on the;required parking stalls 'If the revised site plan would require work in the area of protected slopes (40% or greater),a variance from the Critical Areas Ordinance would be required This variance request.would be heard by the Hearing Examiner at the public meeting • Please contact me at 425-430-7382, if you have any questions. Sincerely Elizabeth Higgins, AICP Senior Planner Enclosures Copy: Gerald Rieker Tom Touma Helen Burch (letter only) Gay Kiesling (letter only) Russell Wilson (letter only). Jennifer Henning (letter only) file 't• to .. C, t-. .lb ' 'F ,if y q ...... .,...„.. . -- • •E(4,4a. { - -' - ' ' - f 'E' " ._519itirvA .xr .. v -%' - .ate`�• - ,� _ ' °re:Arc- v. . 1 1 1 I . 1 ( A © FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS • ° ..a - RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU x 235-2642 ''P% 1F.ems, S. • NI- ........................................... .... ................................................... • w ti V .:cy. Nt- :--.:i.:.:.:::::i.:0::::-,...7.::%:;:f:.::-:•:::::::i:-.4}:.-:,::.::..__, le 45' ti ti 1 Q .. cam.. ...::•:::: :::•::•::•:::•:•:::•:•• :::\::•:::•:::•:?:s.�::•:::•:::•:::-:: ::•:::; :... .....-s........t. tn- NI- ry; e :: v ems_ %............. ::::::::: .............. .............. ... ... .................... .............................. APPROVED BY: ( 06/17/96) EMERGENCY VEHICLE TURNING RADII DETAIL DATE:SHEET: o W return to sender y fee due 500 First-Class Mail Postage and Fees Paid LISPS Permit No. G-10 _ CITY OF RENTON .. , -R• _ . ' Hearin r; � f `jail g Examiner 5�i DE% 11.0 Q jii ., • - 1055 South'Grady Way Renton Washington 98055 :I.,14 _ _i g _ rc i F ' r nl ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED I L. .12 "IDES" r IiE51DRRT L.L ` .Bra-'u{= 15411-11,V 13 i t!5"' V1;-i,1 A~ > -'1 c. CC ;: Hal&Erin Pugmlre W� `o 1, 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, M Id .' Apt.D314 tKt' J -�5, Renton,WA 98056 I'f' 4�0 0 -‘, ".r:..' - "" PUGM9g9 90562005 1AO0 13 12/15/00 `�� � _ . _ _ 9 FORM 3547 PUGMIRE L. U. 1 . .. 3„�. .. : ENUM LAWVWA.G.98 A2E .__ ENUMCLAW WA 96022�2234 AOi1P 91856 III fl II 1 I I i I I I I r u n, nur r u r u r n r 11111111111111111111111111 �.,,t,:t : .4,:,:.•:cP:..as 50%recycled uocer.2G.ooco-rx_,.m:�_r_ .. 4 , • 6,S SDDRESSED LA [ TURNTUSEDB t !' m,.,ajf4a -A t4a :ltilat!:t ist�t = i:si: !:�i:ifitil: . rcY . ♦ ® NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- . . SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) • DATE: June 26,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICATION NAME: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story, twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. PROJECT LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): 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(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: March 21„2000 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 26,2000 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Administrative Site Plan Approval Other Permits which may be required: Building and construction permits Requested Studies: Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Report, Tree Inventory Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Vacant Environmental Documents that Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Evaluate the Proposed Project: Report,Tree Inventory Development Regulations Renton Municipal Code,State Environmental Policy Act Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.Other mitigation may be required following further review of the project proposal. These recommended mitigation measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above: • 1. Fire Mitigation Fee:Fire Mitigation Fee is$388.00 per new single family residential parcel. 2. Parks Mitigation Fee:Parks Mitigation Fee is$354.51 per new multi-family residential parcel. 3. Transportation Mitigation Fee:Transportation Mitigation Fee is$75.00 per each new average daily trip[trip calculations are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Manual,Fifth Edition]. 4. Erosion Control: Install and maintain temporary erosion control measures for all stockpiled or disturbed areas. The Temporary Erosion Control Measures must be installed and maintained throughout the duration of the project. 5. Geotechnical Engineering: Applicant shall follow the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. `I NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, AICP, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on July 10,1999. 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.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: ELIZABETH HIGGINS (425)430-7382 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION • — l�tl ,a,Ot• 4 J:.�. -;.�,..•1 O Arni. �9 A COB Vt.tAc: •a c. 1 11 •1' ?` rrcn, Y 1, Z ff �_ • 1, ;!" 1���```-`��, ["►,UJ OMAc •.. JOHN L.� Tq; • . ' . I;ft t i ZANATTA i . a t •1.�r iU w `gyp . 0l u , . • • + A CONDOMINIUM /r"7 + 1� rli + .. • :73•, SITE 188 UNITS / `/ r ^� clJ---- - • Val: LQ 1 • '� asl.tR -• '• �s • 11 a 4 Epl, e N.I ?y fr I airi.n ' "dil t I,. 1 a,1 Tat°'S S Yf t} .i� 4 6 7` ..,..:.-..i.. • 1...•:,1:.:..f•r:•rx-..,.';, .arn C;, ee— ' � _ V C i 80 UNifS ,,ff c �1 �S,IU.tM'E=F /qA-R-D-EN•^ :..1.a 1 alma :IN N , 1112i MS 4 - uui Et ' r 1• 8 1,11_ --- 0.90 AG 11 Y'z aof„t. 1 �l,,ww1�1' s"'his i ,w ` �`", Z IT 1r, • �0 5 �tSild •• ,:it�' '�: 4 " all �o . ( • • NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIROVMENTAL APPLICATION • ....171.1.1•1 _____ . _ ___ _ _T _, ,,, a 0 CITY OF RENTON ; -,,, .. .,„....,...a. trn•=0-. .4 ,,,, v4.- Aims.sesomeasarmeset 1 ...i"eit ..fu_. au amasaromizing I -. IA Planning/Building/Public Works ILi u3 1- 5 ,7,7- di 4 - CC cj 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 iii AN 2 TO pf.ei ot% ..,_532ma .... - 0 .3 02 PB faun * ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED , 71584o U.S. POSTAGE Kirk Baisch ABERDEEN AVE NE#B204 r --,,,'-] ,---,s ,-- t•-•‘',' ,•-, , ,RENTON,WA 98056-2897 , •,2 i.i , _ ,0, ,,,-',:._,,-, .,:, RCMP 98156 n 1 i i iiiiiirtviryttrquilittylitliftiblifirtiliAttitittildri , , .Z, illsiiin "1E1311 11 i "II" ifil 1111M1 IlilliiiiiiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIII 310' ') 1 __ TY C.1 O ft .0 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- • • SIGNIFICANCE..- MITIGATED (DNS-M) • DATE: June 26,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICATION NAME: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story, twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family— Inf'ill Zone (RM-I). The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. PROJECT LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): 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(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: March 21,2000 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:. June 26,2000 Permits/Reviews Requested:,. Environmental(SEPA)Review,Administrative Site Plan Approval Other Permits which may be required: •. Building and construction permits Requested Studies: Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Report, Tree Inventory Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services i, Department,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Vacant Environmental Documents that Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical • Evaluate the Proposed Project:. _ Report,Tree Inventory Development Regulations Renton Municipal Code,State Environmental Policy Act Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.Other mitigation maybe required following further review of the project proposal. These recommended mitigation measures address project impacts not covered-by existing codes and regulations as cited,above:..= . • • 1. Fire Mitigation.Fee:Fire Mitigation Fee is$388.00 per new single family residential.parcel: . 2. Parks_Mitigation Fee:-Parks Mitigation Fee is:$354.51 per new multi-family residential parcel. 3. ,Transportation Mitigation Fee:Transportation Mitigation Fee is$75.00 per each new average daily trip[trip calculations are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Manual,Fifth Edition]. 4. Erosion Control: Install and maintain temporary erosion control measures for all stockpiled or disturbed areas. The Temporary Erosion Control Measures must be installed and maintained throughout the duration of the project. 5. Geotechnical Engineering: Applicant shall follow the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, AICP, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on July 10,1999. 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.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: ELIZABETH HIGGINS (425)430-7382 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION ' • A A.,i aP Gt• r1, i - ti. .\ 7 ' A CO , � 48.0 ' • M li la�" ‘.. i1.. . 1'' ` I. i 1LIZ 1 �: L • • �`..i t•.� " j O44Ac JOHN L. .! a 2ANATTA ` • Dra ; cc 0a ; SITE A CONDOMINIUM .0 "4 Solir ".?1,• ISO UNITS Cp CI•j "Z' 11.3i iIn : jLpQdl `•:II 4 pm W, '��— .a j er•n-12 y�� .! �C,J�i ",Lla:y"fs °3`n; ce cc • .a atV" ; r is u as-"• e i., �' C n g, cu+.b i `�'-, `S 1CON�" �' A • /• N **. 1 1 �O ri n/u R � a•C 6 R; 0.90 AC. i U z aos,.r: 26.35 gV'J�l 5� Tjtea -W ' 'z o • � / 71 `j � t� 1 4,� �a) z. i70 a n�Sib : • • �� '� M-iu...,, ® :co S'• ERI,. _. a , ;� - i f NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • a p CITY=OF RENTON :.- : ar iat Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 JUN.2 7rofl � �13= :• 00 m ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED PB * �409 U.3. P®STAGE. Cedo&Rada Marusic ° " 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE RENTON, WA 98056-2800 Fic. :, ,'._..„ i< ,./i ' -,--.7b i :yam ?I i., �,1 -'it 4_'7&<>:r':r,,; f tom:; _ IR ET UAN ,-- > ---_ i; 00Ue ,.. To �''a R I T E R `� we 0 2 1ADnRp�nESSEE �-4 .'_ .� m 'R1 �� �{ p i� �}c if(p gd Ig, I[] e g & p [ j !j[f J y J j UNKNOWN r� f� I 6a �v� fy) R � L 988 :rr-jrr iiiiIiilliA iilfill tEl ltfi fl�ii iAiri`iiiltitililititlif3illillfilf it iti llilfllilli + NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- • • SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: June 26,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICATION NAME: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story, twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed ona 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. PROJECT LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): 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 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: March 21,2000 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 26,2000 • Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Administrative Site Plan Approval Other Permits which may be required: Building and construction permits Requested Studies: Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Report, Tree Inventory Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Vacant Environmental Documents that Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Evaluate the Proposed Project: Report,Tree Inventory Development Regulations Renton Municipal Code,State Environmental Policy Act Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.Other mitigation may be required following further review of the project proposal. These recommended mitigation measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above: • 1. Fire Mitigation Fee:Fire Mitigation Fee is$388.00 per new single family residential parcel. 2. Parks Mitigation Fee:Parks Mitigation Fee is$354.51 per new multi-family residential parcel. 3. Transportation Mitigation Fee:Transportation Mitigation Fee is$75.00 per each new average daily trip[trip calculations are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Manual,Fifth Edition]. 4. Erosion Control: Install and maintain temporary erosion control measures for all stockpiled or disturbed areas. The Temporary Erosion Control Measures must be installed and maintained throughout the duration of the project. 5. Geotechnical Engineering: Applicant shall follow the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, AICP, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on July 10, 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.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: ELIZABETH HIGGINS (425)430-7382 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION toy 5 t �_-.r:. r — Q;. . a ems'• "9 ' ACO '. ram i �Am I 'L _I lir r `f'" . . '+ • :+� i� -,o+-i W OF.�4Ac JOHN 1. A„c f ' 'IL f 2 ZANATTArm . '.,..,I ` .L 1; t w ``0 d wk. '' tA tm, SITE A CONDOMINIUMLij • , ���• LI!' .�` L i.� ry xR�fi I86 UNITS J vz' cut Ay; lam t----�------r ass •211 e N.I ` a - - I or,ry t ri emu•ri: "`S °r I, . cc svoPritiro • t 7.e ii„0.-0...,)„ ,o_.;,..,, .. .::.:t IF in 6 7 La, c S,U.�/qA-R-D-E ^ ru n N —• %,co,N_Ds.-"Prri9EA ,�`7. w* i:Ij f i NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION . 0 o CITY OF RENTON .........:„..h,...„-- .„..,:, t-, ATT4 . .0 -•• , , ,, es1 Planning/Building/Public Works Ai CO) •\ fro'yro,011 _ 0 ,.,, 0 ; 0 c-/ JUN 27'00 pe-si 4% - .3 2 : 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 e Fa. , zamria Do ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED EC .\.• i u METER : ',.. ,- 7158.401 U.S. POSTAGE _._ Janes Davidson Yfc.,,,, _ 97 . — 1kTABERDEEN AVE NE#E205 a .??,Flt il tit tr.11.1.,41,11 RENTON, WA 98056-2862 L':-.;,',1 ‘.t,;•.,)LA ,,,, .„ ,: \•".", ..,-t i ____, •,. !RETURN , TO WRITFP - , = -- 1 ADDRESSEE 1 c'o' ul 1,J, , NNOKWN 1 .---L_------ ------- — Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, AICP, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on July 10, 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.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: ELIZABETH HIGGINS (425)430-7382 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION • g 4Cig /L. / ,%� `:.1 ❑ "sj;•• •• ' - A cod i ci , ,/ / ; Grum /w� �] 1 1•- I M/ QjJ/�/�/] ttl � JOHN L. T�, c 111 Et, gi NATTA I= I 1 0 I IEir . t? uoAn IN ,Cn�. SITE A CONDOMINIUM 1 �• :�` L 1 • ,� 188 UNITS - -'� ry OASAo.; Isf I 4! n .•. _ co %f44S nil tli8 4 r e N.i' �1 J • it air.n I a �r �l! oaa let c"S S ii j cr Y/ V y J ?! /}'7`,r%/., p;!E' y¢jt•'%�r^_•_/.�..•`�..�/ni 1' �• 6 T [a o b ��•�, c i @0 uN�rS 1,p c VU ' c n N Cot>I 2 2 R .t 1_ p 73 O !lLBi 8 1- IIS /1+ --_-MO ±gs i Al Z <es,dt R �( 0.50 AG 3 S•`�15� TI w �2L, z • >is io g ' �`;R I Tdi—b—Nz' J 1. !t' s amm 919,3 IQ 1i 1 ; .7. .4.Sr a 73 NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • es cm, NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: June 26,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICATION NAME: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story,twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. PROJECT LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): 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(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: March 21,2000 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 26,2000 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Administrative Site Plan Approval Other Permits which may be required: Building and construction permits Requested Studies: Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Report, Tree Inventory Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department,.1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Vacant Environmental Documents that Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Evaluate the Proposed Project: . Report,Tree Inventory Development Regulations Renton Municipal Code,State Environmental Policy Act Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.Other mitigation may be required following further review of the project proposal. These recommended mitigation measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above: 1. Fire Mitigation Fee:Fire Mitigation Fee is$388.00 per new single family residential parcel. 2. Parks Mitigation Fee:Parks Mitigation Fee is$354.51 per new multi-family residential parcel. 3. Transportation Mitigation Fee:Transportation Mitigation Fee is$75.00 per each new average daily trip[trip calculations are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Manual,Fifth Edition]. 4. Erosion Control: Install and maintain temporary erosion control measures for all stockpiled or disturbed areas. The Temporary Erosion Control Measures must be installed and maintained throughout the duration of the project. 5. Geotechnical Engineering: Applicant shall follow the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • ;; p CITY OF RENTON m1 Planning/Building/Public Works �A 1 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 ti `�� 2�� sum ® .3 0 5 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 1 840 U.S. POSTAGE -iElennor Brown `7100 132ND PL SE#102 NEWCASTLE, WA 98059-3149 '� i'i'jJj!,y1r"J-uf '' £ 3A,A'1 .1.i>> ,. 'J �..t - 4.w f R E I U R N �~ h uu Lie ITO WRITE pC:r.. �1 f it IADDRESSEr m E p Ff p[ tt sspp tt p t LA _ 1 tf+ IAtd ._.E(�LMp@�*3 .06g !9 ` 1 j[9 6i[4flfi'ift fif f fC3I nfif f E1iy•ftf[f f filffft.ail .. jll -. 1 ' ,,e�v�i•5 G.,: t�i�!! £?{i�tliitlSlii{? S'.l� :iitii{f!S?f1�3S�!3i! Sfi{ff L 4 1 f,31!-\ TY .,u NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF. NON- • • SIGNIFICANCE- MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: June 26,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICATION NAME: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT.DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story, twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. PROJECT LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): 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(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non • - Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. • PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: March 21,2000 • NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 26,2000 Permits/Review Requested: •• - Environmental(SEPA)Review,Administrative Site Plan Approval Other Permits which may be required: Building and construction permits Requested Studies: Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Report, Tree Inventory Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Vacant • Environmental Documents that Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Evaluate the Proposed Project: Report,Tree Inventory Development Regulations Renton Municipal Code,State Environmental Policy Act Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: • The following mitigation measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.Other mitigation maybe required following further review of the project proposal. These recommended mitigation measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above: • 1. Fire Mitigation Fee:Fire Mitigation Fee is$388.00 per new single family residential parcel. 2. Parks Mitigation Fee:Parks Mitigation Fee is$354.51 per new multi-family residential parcel. 3. Transportation Mitigation Fee:Transportation Mitigation Fee is$75.00 per each new average daily trip[trip calculations are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Manual,Fifth Edition]. 4. Erosion Control: Install and maintain temporary erosion control measures for all stockpiled or disturbed areas. The Temporary Erosion Control Measures must be installed and maintained throughout the duration of the project. 5. Geotechnical Engineering: Applicant shall follow the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, AICP, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on July 10, 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.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: ELIZABETH HIGGINS (425)430-7382 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION • 4-___r�,1,1 . .1 - rJ A CON f Ell w 11-t G q. 1 •©rC:-__,Ft-la v , / , I 5c:4, 0 �• , c. s' i rua p f 1 VIZ, •. CD ' a� he . ANATTA cj co i .. = i,s...,_..;. A CONDOMINIUM + I q ' ;. \ SITE (� /r--J cJ----ti. ry Ili%: ,: I • I88 UNITS `r `.t1, ...-A Ott L.---�L .1^ 0.55 . --si -ta•-- -t-1f-U— y�p�^CI {�•. ��- -- i eix,, C �, .u'Sdi .S ilk cr ' .e �i±80 UN.. •,f0 �, „. --..t -:,, , qU,.. -- Wad MS .4 ow no ► -- M 1• . .2. 8 RI C 0.30 At if ■� V. �� s�"'9,�ss�TIrilki w I �` Z%4 • Z b • o m Coo�;�R`f=(fir J' 1.�1• sl •* . `/ -q,�q� ���i K a �, A I 3.t1 IITl9 co.„ y sZ. ciA+�' 1 NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • a e, CITY OF RENTON . kir- •A .r4m44--.47.-.:$4,031/Cridait:„,„„..i,--.'-„434,i 1 ,. NELL Planning/Building/Public Works lu il) tr: a ii i. , t3 JUN 2 T'0 0 010410 a% ": 0302 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 i atm te eir .,..., 711814101 U.S. POSTACE I ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED ,.. ...__..._ , .... Jason Taylor _ 79,5 ABERDEEN AVE NE#E405 RENTON - , WA 98056-2888 ' f";,..,;-- FUle7:--r,----, E.:(,-ii,..„;,, ' .1.....„..,.t,.f.: ',[1,,;'11.1.1- -”J.'_'' ..56.?F? ,,1 • iRETUHN --------;>-------- i ! t , ITO WRITER({j: -----1,1 i' ' ci., ADDRESSEE ' -------' , _ co UNKNOWN a' Wd „,(0 1 4.,r -V fttittP 0866 ild„1„Liiiii,t1,1006,1tAilttlippilititlitriptilEttFittitittilitil L - e i 3'10. i SSCIASS Pr:4.2.74.2. itiritt ritiriltirldriltirriririrlirirlifirrri rO� Y \ + a ® + ru ��Nrc•.' NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- . • SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: June 26,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF. APPLICATION NAME: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story, twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. PROJECT LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): 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(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: March 21,2000 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 26,2000 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Administrative Site Plan Approval Other Permits which may be required: Building and construction permits Requested Studies: Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Report, Tree Inventory Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Vacant Environmental Documents that Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Evaluate the Proposed Project: Report,Tree Inventory Development Regulations Renton Municipal Code,State Environmental Policy Act Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.Other mitigation may be required following further review of the project proposal. These recommended mitigation measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above: • 1. Fire Mitigation Fee:Fire Mitigation Fee is$388.00 per new single family residential parcel. 2. Parks Mitigation Fee:Parks Mitigation Fee is$354.51 per new multi-family residential parcel. 3. Transportation Mitigation Fee:Transportation Mitigation Fee is$75.00 per each new average daily trip[trip calculations are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Manual,Fifth Edition]. 4. Erosion Control: Install and maintain temporary erosion control measures for all stockpiled or disturbed areas. The Temporary Erosion Control Measures must be installed and maintained throughout the duration of the project. 5. Geotechnical Engineering: Applicant shall follow the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, AICP, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on July 10, 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.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: ELIZABETH HIGGINS (425)430-7382 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION - a II F /t, _ am,-i/ GM 1E, ' r . A..." ��''--�� JONN L. r,, L I . 'f l cc 2ANATTA , . • A L 1 k mLlif. :"'LIO AC `r,;.•;m: I�� A CONDOMINIUM /�J�j Qcif `•' `168 UNITS j `/ r � cJ-wti 03M.: fi • 1 (r ., ,. co'_,,, �Tt. «aa :nva 5 W i 1 3 �} Y�?�y+ t 7�,77!7 e t L � 5Ef11 } :�/+'Y /:r /'lam' 6* C: 1 fr C i i0 Ut171 S k 60 r +M C. SIUr 'q12°-3A-R-D-E Fella (I`t' Sljt - -+ ,CONam ,O R j R E. • 3► lj R 0.80 AC i 1 r Z IP z 40 „ 1 c� m o g • `��Rrg"QT"Q0���1~�_J; 1.�, sr,�, K a 73 ^` L.43-11 PT19 I C7� � �? aW • NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION . 8 0 CITY OF RENTON .,..."1.- .1104 /1// retaltaaemnift.... ° ....rammairmet IA Planning/Building/Public Works .1a CO )-- - ,70„-- 0, ' TirAVA - " . et a Plii J1111-2 7'0 0 frf-41 411 - U .3 U 4 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 6- :Igt(=Cr) "" Eit PB METER il .._ 7158401 U.S. POSTAGE ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED , PRSRT ,F MST CLASS SEA itIA SB1 0812 BD' Sean E Cummings -- - •- .., 901 W SUNSET WAY 4D , 1 ISSAQUAH, WA 98027-3007 o,r;r.,- - 5:10 SUCH -..-7.-_---,---.. , , zIoue I , ,:fif =?. -- ; AGLI2ESS ,,,,, _ 1 (\,;' (....4 I! IlhillitlimIlLIIIIIIIIII •9 tr-. , . . \ .. • . 1------..7-7-N-/--r--',--- -54- .'2)-,77:7-..,--.;.;_.,i,1,,,•-77_7'..:____...___, 4,. • . . . , .... . . .. ... .. • jUN28'00 . . .,_, , •. . W rA 6874449 - . . . . . .. .- ...,.'' f. ..„ . , , ..... , \. , .. ___.,........„.....--.-s'-r'"7."-7. - .... . • . - ..::: ..72 --................ .. . , . \ . .. NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- . • SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: June 26,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICATION NAME: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story,twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. PROJECT LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): 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(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: March 21,2000 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 26,2000 • Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Administrative Site Plan Approval Other Permits which may be required: Building and construction permits • Requested Studies: Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Report, • Tree Inventory Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: • Land Use: Vacant Environmental Documents that Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Evaluate the Proposed Project: Report,Tree Inventory Development Regulations Renton Municipal Code,State Environmental Policy Act Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.Other mitigation may be required following further review of the project proposal. These recommended mitigation measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above: • 1. Fire Mitigation Fee:Fire Mitigation Fee is$388.00 per new single family residential parcel. 2. Parks Mitigation Fee:Parks Mitigation Fee is$354.51 per new multi-family residential parcel. 3. Transportation Mitigation Fee:Transportation Mitigation Fee is$75.00 per each new average daily trip[trip calculations are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Manual,Fifth Edition]. 4. Erosion Control: Install and maintain temporary erosion control measures for all stockpiled or disturbed areas. The Temporary Erosion Control Measures must be installed and maintained throughout the duration of the project. 5. Geotechnlcal Engineering: Applicant shall follow the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, AICP, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on July 10, 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.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: ELIZABETH HIGGINS (425)430-7382 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION g`ki /; `:., o , ' A cow ishk• ,.4 % C ...' 1-lirr-N-DO---,tr. ift-.--1::D-G-- C11,4jc: , Af .'rya- . 1 •1 �ij44... ice. X , !,p1 2 . . 1, • -. �� uj ni4Ac JOHN L. T� c ft 1 flQ w .� uoAc • ..51N% A CONDOMINIUM /,+�7Li I� Q1:11' , WI �,•• 1\ SITE 180 UNITS J ` / r--�J �J----z. Z' o!1A'o : , II • U e N( iir����cc L �r ' ICON � a, an • 'V C 8 4 ES 0.90 AC. t1 "Z{ \ \\\ N 2 a?S.J1 1 • (�to rz o m \R " 1•LUX. 1; I% ,vr K 73 m 3-1._:tiniTt cwiaikcc ,17,1 I••1 lrys • NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION . „ © CITY OF RENTONw :� NEIL Planning/Building/Public Works . . a 00 ig 'n 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 .fcc'aAN 2 TO 0 �f_ a " S 013 3 :o ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED ” 7158401 U.s. POSTAGE 11 Jack&Ruby Schendel 958 ABERDEEN AVE NE - fl'`' -., ~ 1! r• - RENTON,WA 98056-2831 1`°_:;#,;' .,,fig=ti[j_r A,;, , L._�rw:Ic-,L. i IRE I URN roDTO WRITER uADDRESSEE g [tlpi #p• j� j �ji )I dKNOWN _._. Y�-., cu '� ,. ,, -,� •,�- 1ifl?f lffif Ii 114,11 llfri4 lli•g4tiflyditt�fflftitl}ffiftfgititlIfrirf Efilitiitis1 f fiiftf[flifffi Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, AICP, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on July 10,1999. 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.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: ELIZABETH HIGGINS (425)430-7382 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION • • — •. `7 t•Q�,1S.Ot' ,51Ji. t --", `,., o ,�„ / A CO A s. p arm Ml vr,; I% 2 • I ' ' Eisl. ....' ,,tt F W EC?!•. i.Aff ' &Sr. JOHN L. T� : • . I t I ..7 ZANATTA �, . ;, f r m `O 1.10/G • • •\ 5I TE A CONDOMINIUM , U Q ,, j • i y) IBE UNITS /'� L ' -Z- Elf L/11 R 1 (� / I _ csl.t 1---AL__—_r anSAo : ass 1. • co S s+t a A E M U e N.I yQ c \S.U. i(1`A R-D-E-n WMItJJJ/// ... M mCI . ;C O N-0• jlr;v� $ O tnutu u,t j�,l ; n ~ t o 4. U Jt.l,a 4 . N \ o azx rtt_�, -----ca C ea1• a C 8 i ! "Z. 4?S•Jt Ft 0.90�1ppAyyL. t� �J {A Z ��N �J6.SS �'tll ■ sg s..x TIQ mow w s ..„iiiiitt„. ....... . 7. t''11 co iC r �,..,. , f .I I NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION . I G�cY 0 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: June 26,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICATION NAME: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story,twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy.Act (SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. PROJECT LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): 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(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: March 21,.2000 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 26,2000 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Administrative Site Plan Approval Other Permits which may be required: Building and construction permits Requested Studies: Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Report, Tree Inventory Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Vacant Environmental Documents that Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Evaluate the Proposed Project: . Report,Tree Inventory Development Regulations Renton Municipal Code,State Environmental Policy Act Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.Other mitigation may be required following further review of the project proposal. These recommended mitigation measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above: 1. Fire Mitigation Fee:Fire Mitigation Fee is$388.00 per new single family residential parcel. 2. Parks Mitigation Fee:Parks Mitigation Fee is$354.51 per new multi-family residential parcel. 3. Transportation Mitigation Fee:Transportation Mitigation Fee is$75.00 per each new average daily trip[trip calculations are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Manual,Fifth Edition]. 4. Erosion Control: Install and maintain temporary erosion control measures for all stockpiled or Asturbed areas. The Temporary Erosion Control Measures must be installed and maintained throughout the duration of the project. 5. Geotechnical Engineering: Applicant shall follow the recommendations contained in the geotdhnical report. NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • • 0 p CITY OF RENTON w; t. �T ray. 111; ,n.r ; fta Planning/Building/Public Works M : 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 =• d _ '- PB MOWEFI * ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 7158401 U.S. POSTAGE : Lonnie Pappas&Patti Lynn O'Dell 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#303 - RENT ON WA 98056-8701 c-�..'_�, V1_i Li• is,i I :: f lip e I U k N �--^. 'f\ RS .E �s � [iDES _ RUM $$56 sljtl !s `` ` i IlfiF t jjt j{ i ri(\J4OtlY s$ f-.az12. I itli !41l tlt iiiiiiJJ!11IItiiIiiiiIIWfj!lfJ11 Iljt1++i!!!j CD` x,r_co: NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- . • SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) • DATE: June 26,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICATION NAME: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story,twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. PROJECT LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): 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(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: March 21,.2000 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 26,2000 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Administrative Site Plan Approval Other Permits which may be required: Building and construction permits Requested Studies: Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Report, Tree Inventory Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Vacant Environmental Documents that Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Evaluate the Proposed Project: Report,Tree Inventory Development Regulations Renton Municipal Code,State Environmental Policy Act Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.Other mitigation may be required following further review of the project proposal. These recommended mitigation measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above: 1. Fire Mitigation Fee:Fire Mitigation Fee is$388.00 per new single family residential parcel. 2. Parks Mitigation Fee:Parks Mitigation Fee is$354.51 per new multi-family residential parcel. 3. Transportation Mitigation Fee:Transportation Mitigation Fee is$75.00 per each new average daily trip[trip calculations are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Manual,Fifth Edition]. 4. Erosion Control: Install and maintain temporary erosion control measures for all stockpiled or disturbed areas. The Temporary Erosion Control Measures must be installed and maintained throughout the duration of the project. 5. Geotechnical Engineering: Applicant shall follow the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, AICP, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on July 10, 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.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: ELIZABETH HIGGINS (425)430-7382 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION ' • 1 I i I • • _ • �' /1• Ii 1 ©rC_--.1. n I:+`" V-� �t4Ac: ,.�� �iLM k , � � t r F tyt ctat r", r t e ZANo A . .7. 0 i I W 40Ac f IC)---- Q • rI fI ] rm.• 51 TE A CONDOMINIUM �•�• ��''• '. ` I 189 UNITS L , rt I7! j+e� r-- ('J eit aslAa: IpJ fat L-^--'L----r • ass I: vy i s++s a Q � • j iii e K! 4-1 -18�-r-� 8i iY / t 10' OR 1 j ....t 4 • er �1�' • "la ► i ,- 80 UN'i'I:S �isp ' M c Q: S,l� ,,,� 'A-R-D-EN•^ g. rcnra 6 `5+�y L - ma ---- ' us4'Q El, : . rv+ a•0 6I Cz 0.9O AG I I. u'z 4os,,t R N 0546 ®4L Z�;. SJV 5` T � W `� .+ qiiitt L ' IS r . a " 43_LLNIJ S ��1771 ` I i NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION . a 0 CITY OF RENTON sal Planning/Building/Public Works Au OD i• 4:C 101IV. II ; V 0 3 0%1-4g 4% - 2 : 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 t ci z; JUN 2 TV 0 ..es. on ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED Et PBMOTER 715$401 U.S. POSTAGE ..— _ . Baljinder Buttar 91ABERDEEN AVE NE#C106 'RENTON. WA 98056-2861 1 iRETURr f T 0 W R --, IADDRE. ‘CitiKNG RUffeelgi.r:6*./7,..,2::-.,,-4. iiiifiiiiillimitilifiliAiii L______ liliiiilditillmliiitilm111,111iii.i. 1,iii j`7... -�' ..(a- jam; _ !., • ,t alvp Vi ; i11 ¢ ii3� �¢ iit ¢ ii ��iFlf?1iii, FFIli ¢1¢ ¢? Iti� ?1 l i i Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, AICP, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on July 10, 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.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: ELIZABETH HIGGINS (425)430-7382 I.PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I oll c az i i... j"... • w t 4 i +. c. R-E-1cr--r`�©;tt_- f_'- G- t c: 14 x�srr % `.�'�� " 0.HAt JOHN I. N,.• � �� ts Z ANATTA �., ,. ��T1'', A CONDOMINIUM D` cc ' Q `� '' `Y. . SITE i 188 UNITS r-- �J----tomlair p!�'110.: >z . igr. L-�--�-----� MSS ''tl• - w Z� u 4 gay a MI , ...., L itla I a r •.__II ii 0 p b i 80 UN�'FS "�Vf0 s. n 4 z.' Ur, rule I 40,ti -+ ',,C O N.D.LA] -Q• I) p R N 1 � L! ao azet us -I IV ncr, ; Lr t . c _ 6 •• yl C , oS,Jt OM AG it S`-"�N 5 Tj W W ,' iup r. Zi • �+ v iii �3 � K a 4qrp'� ' � y r . . I.10—_, • NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION TY G� O� . �u ,c-vNTL, NOTICE OF APPLICATION IND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- • SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS M) June 26,2000 'MBER: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF NAME: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS iCRIPTION: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for elve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Infill Zone (RM-I). The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act ination by the City of;Renton Environmental Review Committee. :ATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE TERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): As the Lead Agency,the City of ;ermined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, ider the RCW 43.21 C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS(M)process to give notice that a to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single I. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- igated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. ATION DATE: March 21,2000 PLETE APPLICATION: June 26,2000 equested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Administrative Site Plan Approval h may be required: Building and construction permits. • • Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Report, Tree Inventory lication may Planning/Building/Public Works Division,DevelopmentWA Services Department,1055 South Grady Way,Renton, RVIEW: k• Vacant Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical ments that Report,Tree Inventory ed Project: Renton Municipal Code,State Environmental Policy Act Vona lgatlon: Measures: measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.Other mitigation may be requireimpacts not of the project proposal. These recommended mitigation:measures address project es and regulations as cited above:• 'S38B 00 Per new single family residential parcel. Fire Mitigation Fee is a:Parks Mitigation Fee is%4,51 pet pew multi family residential parcel. Oft2CtOn Mitigation Fee is$75.00 per each new average daily trip[trip igation Feet Transp ortation Engineers(ITE)Manual,Fifth Edition]. trol ed on the Institute of Transp ded or disturbedo eCi s. The ora erosion and rna►n tidatiCiontlIsMc e Measuresugiorhouts the duration of the p j stall and maintain temp r`! cad Measures taustb8 install eotechnical report. 1[cant shell follow the recommen ontained in the g ItZONMENTApAPPL1CAj10N , -rrY O NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: June 26,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICATION NAME: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story, twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. PROJECT LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): 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 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: March 21,2000 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 26,2000 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Administrative Site Plan Approval Other Permits which may be required: Building and construction permits Requested Studies: Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Report, Tree Inventory Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Department, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 rvices CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Vacant Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental Checklist,Level I Draina Report,Tree Inventory 9e Analysis,Geotechnical Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Renton Municipal Code,State Environmental Policy Act Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. following further review of the project proposal. These recommended covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above: g lect.Other mitigation may mitigation measures address be required 1. Fire Mitigation Fee:Fire Mitigation Fee is$388.00 per new single family residentialproject impacts not 2. Parks Mitigation Fee:Parks Mitigation Fee is$354.51 per new multi-family residential parcel. 3 Transportation Mitigation Fee:Transportation Mitigation Fee is$75.00 teal parcel. calculations are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE) per each new average daily trip[trip 4. Erosion Control: g ( )Manual,Fifth Editionj.Temporary n Install and maintain temporary erosion control measures for all stockpiled or disturbed ry Erosion Control Measures must be installed and maintained throw 5. Geotechnical Engineering: areas. The NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL Applicant shall follow the recommendations contained in the duration of the NVIeer ng: APPLI shall project. geotechnical report. nts on the above a ment Services Division, must be sub s s about this Iwslon,application Souts Grady submitted in proposal, writing to Ms. Elizabeth meet tanager.Anyone who sub wish to ute made Way, Renton, WA 98055, b Higgins, AICP ion on this mils written co a Party of record and receive yadd0t oval notification bySenior Planner, project. comments will automaticallyrM on July 1 will become mail,con999. If tact the T PERSON: a Party of record and will be ELIZABETH HIGGINS notified of INCLUDE THE PROJECT 430-7382 ROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION V,;5•pt t DIA`10 ik. ;sr -..., ,, 0":,:\:,, 4,1 V •64C1Ar. • g ZANAPTA• :... • sl T n I 1 d uo° �' A CONDOMINIUM • %ISO U /', L. R Q + ztls NITS , ` l r_..1 y... t ,e itNIJA ter : WM L_ z�a: i • AL 1 ... •.....1.•........la.---e------- Ear 1 • ma : ..,‘ELAI : ii..' 1 • 1"ITP.11514ji j'l IP I• k::.. 0 C.In1 R f;, ; e ,BG iN9 b r ' ' 4 S,U; :� A R D EMI L�' , ►� ,14-0',-^ i .4.ii -6/L7_ 4'. - C 8 I• Si .i-i.,N i.L :• . r p. S N 4o Jr R; ---- OSDA4 Lie ill S,-JV 5 Tj W -' �. Fri •a z b m `,,R �7`0--,, .. is a, 73 m L`r434 I ,�f7 sj a mt. • r VIRONMENTAL APPLICATION „ © CITY OF RENTON .,, -♦ i,T r-, 4, =�w ' ,i'0; ,,a e. ��pe "i� f aelL Planning/Building/Public Works 5 ` folvrei , •A 'o ” JUN 2 7'0 0 od.41;48 w 0 3 0 i 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 M s •- .. # Elk '� PB�sertep ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED ,r,C1? 7158401 U.S. POSTAGE ,*� _, • _ ...._ ....„ ,. o Cassandra Sonnenberg 4293 148TH AVE NE#K106 BELLEVUE, WA 98007-7179 a W`DELIVERtA LE ,•M- ---.. ' _ - Wiz:. AS AD0P SED ;.. — — UP3A13L E TO FORWARD -,---- al i ` � RETURN TO SENDER 6,, AU�p .& rr�iI ,,. t t Y 311� 4 sikt si•3 :,= i{t�ttitthili tiidnidinitttthhiiltttlrltltlttitltttl1tl O 0 CITY OF RENTON :.:1, Us L., 4•• •44,, iiiiv, MA Oal CO . 09 A sal/ Planning/Building/Public Works re 5 il: 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 Ail 2 PO 0 am0 3 0 cc}Va ...La ' __ PBMQTER U.S. POSTAGE rhiE - ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED .. .. .,..... __. .. . ,..-...', - John Miller 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE ,. ENTON, WA 98056-2800 ,-- --- -'-7, . ,1,.:',:.,rs It:f.--;-z,* •-..; _... . - . .1 I:1LT UR N 'I TO W R I TER C1 (cnr 82 i,ADDRESSEE 11 ( 'JNKNOWN L._ t a'A lithriftlitlittlidltyititiiiiirifilitidilitthlithittiittil , 311.2. ......—J•Zi...7.• ....r 4.1.*,4 O " . .1\irv:P NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS M) June 26,2000 DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF • ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS APPLICATION NAME • Approval for PROJECT DESCRIPTION:apartment The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review ed in a pprov l for a two-story,twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on'a-37,585 rsquare foot grope Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). The e project willl rrequire Review mentalommi t eview and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)determination by the City of R PROJECT LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE DNS;M): As the Lead Agency,the City of OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED( proposed d proj notice that a Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to tional DNS(M)process to giveproject. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is usingh the Op DNS-M is e There re willll be no comment period ollow project g the an. of the Threshold Determination into comment period. tedr A 14-dayappeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. Non- Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). PP PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: March 21,2000 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 26,2000 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Administrative Site Plan Approval Other Permits which may be required: Building and construction permits Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Report, Requested Studies: Tree Inventory Location where application may planninglBuildinglPublicblorks Division,Development Services be reviewed: Department,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Vacant Environmental Documents that Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Evaluate the Proposed Project: Report,Tree Inventory Development Regulations Renton Municipal Code,State Environmental Policy Act Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.Other mitigation may be required following further review of the project proposal. These recommended mitigation measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above: 1. Fire Mitigation Fee:Fire Mitigation Fee is$388.00 per new single family residential parcel. 2. Parks Mitigation Fee:Parks Mitigation Fee is$354.51 per new multi-family residential parcel. 3. Transportation Mitigation Fee:Transportation Mitigation Fee is$75.00 per each new average daily trip[trip 1 calculations are based on the institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Manual,Fifth Edition]. 4. Erosion Control: Install and maintain temporary erosion control measures for all stockpiled or disturbed areas. The , Temporary Erosion Control Measures must be installed and maintained throughout the duration of the project. 5. Geotechnical Engineering: Applicant shall follow the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION ' ents on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, pment Services Division, 1055 South Grad ns Sabout this proposal, , 55 to made agg AICP, Senior you Plannere Y Way, of record and 98055,recei by 5:00 PM on July 10, 1 mail, contact have Manager.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a art Party of record receive additional notification by n on this project. party of record and will Ibe notified of CT PERSON: ELIZABETH HIGGINS (425)430-7382 E INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTI FICATION rah veeop�5 t• ` ,,• lip li��1_„• ` 1,t + ' A C0� 1 , ti . .; ,, , -1_.:TIG- '.,1 rAc; 0 EPP . i '---- ''.'..'...I...lII.IIIl.11lll.11IlllIIII"lIlIIIlIIIIlll.lIll1ll:-R:--E-:11- ..•.C...eIi . __-_--.^4.0' 1 1t, 2 • tL/Q JOH TA r ZANAT 0i1 1��j```-��� Q `b d scr , ,.1 SI T= A CONDOMINIUM �,„ , A uonc 1 ,,se UNITS f f r--i. - -- `:.' -Il ass I: • .-PI - r 1•41ffga • C g t�+ ty t red UNNS t 6 ' ,J ,t BAR-DEW � r f N '' `Tn iC0A1.0 r-^:�� A • Ste` j','' a ,.J V �t M 1. Z Z 8 R- L N acS.►tW1 0.90�pAyC I} g - NiiiiiCMt kn.ivni.i7ra t! a b i s �';� w r" %. ri-rt-Cthig i IQ tillitope:4•1 , la• • ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION `i w,.rs..a.uhR c, p CITY OF RENTON , ,-. P,f �e"' ,, +§ ea Planning/Building/Public Works 5 ,A M ¢. 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 '� ;:�U!(:2 70® 4,f ;, 0 3 0 • PD METER �,�. * ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED l*w�' ,4J�61POSTAGE ,*M Stephen `fr ( � � Id+ ^I" = : : . . Robert&Young Tooke), tt%' `' 2995 SILVER OAK TRL ,,"'.... ti j z MARION, IA 52302-9225 TOCK995 523022045 1699 17 07/03/00 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND • TOCKEY . j 9915 168TH AVE NE REDMOND WA 98052-3i22 RETURN TO SENDER RIM' 52`3U2 .{. -.,j { : . (. f . .___. . --7111111114 ...... /1 / .•' . • rVY * :, ® ..0 �- NT0) NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: June 26,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICATION NAME: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT.DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story, twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. PROJECT LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): 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 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the•issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: March 21,.2000 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 26,2000 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Administrative Site Plan Approval Other Permits which may be required: Building and construction permits Requested Studies: Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Report, Tree Inventory P Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department,1055 South Grady Way,Renton, WA 98055 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Vacant Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Report,Tree Inventory Development Regulations Analysis,GeotechniCel Used For Project Mitigation: Renton Munici al P Code,State Environmental Policygct Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures will likely be im following further review of the project proposal covered byP posal. These recommended the proposed mitigationn pia existing codes and regulations as cited above: mended measures '�"`��_ 1. Fire Mitigation Fee:Fire Mitigationaddress � Fee is proles impacr it 2. Parks $388.00 per new single family residential Mitigation Fee:Parks Mitigation Fee is $354 51 parcel. O. 3 Transportation Mitigationper new multi-family residential Fee:Transportation Mitigation Fee is Parcel. calculations are based on the Institute of TransportationEn $75.00 I. Erosion 9ineers(/TE Per each new average daily Control: Install and maintain temporary ! )Manual Fj trip[dip Temporary Erosion Control Measures erosion control �Edifjonj, Ge Temporary must be installed and measures for nlca/Engineerin : maintained all stockpiled or disturbed'TICEApplicantduration areas. The NTAL APPLICATION the reommendations °f the Project, contained in the ge0technical report • the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, AICP, Senior Planner, Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on July 10, 1999. If you have it this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail,contact the er.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of i this project. RSON: ELIZABETH HIGGINS (425)430-7382 LUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I *��V�S.ot. ,�1-+ri.,r '..a' O • r A COA 4 r ` rt • CII\�- ni4 JONN L. �...' _r 0 ZANATTA c 0____......0 i 0 i i i i mi i 0 r I tiaJCC Er lave ee. .V.:. .. • 51T� A CONOOMINIu►I _v xtns Q I • IVUNITS1 0 t.••-.14 ~~ 17 ai'A0.' rim it . um' . -imillimr-NmETIL. ty e it i I'. t 11111110111 .me IF alrli rit gt awe t• Leo uNlfs"" do i* . . % to 0 `.1V/O.A-R-D-EN' intrilui 11: 2:11 41: I ; c , 3,111- "%-ilar317,1 ' 4z • .. 4 H 6 i"B, 0.90 AC. 3 ��� A b 40 �Jt,,�y�� t.�. �u ;rt 15 ,, rtr 5 v1:w 1' 1,'1 x::_.t,#._7 n_J1 • 9Ty...;1* 4i::"4- o Z O J ,Rt h C: ' �r C 1rt I. 1 q • W vs r S} C EIp�,RONMEN7AL AP PLICA710N $% p . CITY OF RENTON - = °ATr ' 1 ,, IA Planning/Building/Public Works _ ® J vet M d: JUN 2 7110 / 4� s - 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 we :. o . Q ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED �`� 7S 8401 U.S. POSTAGE ,--Q, Jose Gonzalez&Sofia Hernandez 408`MONROE AVE NE#112 RENT WA 98056 ,. 1 . . , . ,:.. • ADD�jy PP y, P _'��{`. 0 0 �j3�'. �hq 1Cy l( E 1 4 {( (i tj ({ i( !j \\ l ESS U �jt Y '6• ba': N it/ 3.4 i V 56 I i� 1 I �1: 1 i i i D fii 1 i f 1\iI t '!� 1 J 1!}} 1 rm `_rj -�• �+ '+-' i !i 13 4 I.i.! ii ii.i. .4.1 If[. li ! i ii lf3iiiii + + NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- . • SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED .(DNS-M) DATE: June 26,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICATION NAME: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story, twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property loCated In a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. PROJECT LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): 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 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: March 21,2000 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 26,2000 • Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Administrative Site Plan Approval Other Permits which may be required: Building and construction permits Requested Studies: Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Report, Tree Inventory Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: • * Land Use: Vacant Environmental Documents that Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Evaluate the Proposed Project: Report,Tree Inventory Development Regulations Renton Municipal Code,State Environmental Policy Act Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.Other mitigation may be required following further review of the project proposal. These recommended mitigation measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above: • 1. Fire Mitigation Fee:Fire Mitigation Fee is$388.00 per new single family residential parcel. 2. Parks Mitigation Fee:Parks Mitigation Fee is$354.51 per new multi-family residential parcel. 3. Transportation Mitigation Fee:Transportation Mitigation Fee is$75.00 per each new average daily trip[trip calculations are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Manual,Fifth Edition]. 4. Erosion Control: Install and maintain temporary erosion control measures for all stockpiled or disturbed areas. The Temporary Erosion Control Measures must be installed and maintained throughout the duration of the project. 5. Geotechnical Engineering: Applicant shall follow the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, AICP, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on July 10,1999. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail,contact the Project Manager.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: ELIZABETH HIGGINS (425)430-7382 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION ' to �ot• ��..• •:-,`, , —a ") ' Acow a _ wry} }�' _ Q()//�/) • • Ni.... T r r= `t ;+ r�,1__f Q �0�41. ZANATTA ;, �. '�fl'•y , N u N I 101 Slirl 41 ?tT1,; A CONDOMINIUM L//•_�Jj 10 •..'"� , SITE `168 UNITS , V L-fir-Yl ry o S' .: Yi I .OAS II rl, liki ir ., 0_p, - :7 141 .00,5 i''''s ', :j!, . Is a 3 .r • `z. LI f07:5 . Y• •, 6 T p b r:s;" i 80 UNIT$ f• 6 '.V • c, S,U, �`�A-R-D-E-N• ifGG , 'D v+ , of I CO n:, 1+1t " I. LI 0.90 AC. i 'por i S��1 5` TI C W `' �— � IA Z • i o m . �`tiR �1`Oy 1 l� s I - T'••r+K � rn m '(V •�'l; s a v c- 1 r ca�l'..,. , NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • - " CITY OF RENTON ...•„:�4::,� .::x*:— . r Planning/Building/Public Works �� ®� •M .34i . 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055• W JUN 2��© Add " ® '� .� LigPBMOTEn ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED '' - .- • /150401 u.s..posraoE • ofy&LoLrO HKu S Tfer er t ovE0,I 0•DDRESS .�.: ",j. ,:,-- f ) r- ; 7-©FGRY •'0 o DER b a a o C, q em - : r RE220N0TN U NWA �b056-2934 i �. ;�. /Ot aG __ G•:aaOE E \ t (a i. UNITEDSTdTES . ' n o• POST,L SEftVECE f,. r= 'O B E TO FOR'.;,,,.:,_ . it ;; ��r" T< I � RE� °�•! i0 v:iii +i.i t-..i; PM RAMP •8816 .--..- lt,l,!Ic;l,ltc,,ilct,cicl,,cllrt t ' ,iiil- 2 sett�.� i-:.s•e� 1,1,t„3:1,.►,ll,,,l,l.,ll,,,l,frl,i,El,l,ll „i 2000 ru INTO NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: June 26,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICATION NAME: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a-two-story, twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed-on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, - - Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. PROJECT LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): 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 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: March 21,2000 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 26,2000 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Administrative Site Plan Approval • Other Permits which may be required: Building and construction permits' Requested Studies: Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Report, Tree Inventory Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Vacant Environmental Documents that Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Evaluate the Proposed Project: Report,Tree Inventory ' Development Regulations Renton Municipal Code,State Environmental Policy Act Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.Other mitigation may be required following further review of the project proposal. These recommended mitigation measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above: . • 1. Fire Mitigation Fee:Fire Mitigation Fee is$388.00 per new single family residential parcel. s 2. Parks Mitigation Fee:Parks Mitigation Fee is$354.51 per new multi-family residential parcel. 3. Transportation Mitigation Fee:Transportation Mitigation Fee is$75.00 per each new average daily trip[trip calculations are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Manual,Fifth Edition]. 4. Erosion Control: Install and maintain temporary erosion control measures for all stockpiled or disturbed areas. The Temporary Erosion Control Measures must be installed and maintained throughout the duration of the project. 5. Geotechnical Engineering: Applicant shall follow the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, AICP, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on July 10, 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.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: ELIZABETH HIGGINS (425)430-7382 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION • • • • i ~ _ _ 1 MI ��R L Ir I .©rC___ V V i44C: ,0 -.,,, . • i ',Ili., 1 , 2 s � ... ' -t `, . ., .. ,1�CW044Ac JOHN L. T�Cri\ \., r tI _1 �p ZAHATTAFa 1 �, ; :.�I 10 IL^fl m uoic • • m•• SITE A CONDOMINIUMØ..J?` ,89ITS f- - ---Z- ry pjs� IR I I4,4, `�` H id S >, 9u @ N. d • ccer s 0/7,7S, . fro u.a i—r--1 i rv..,.. .,v.. ......,Qn114,01;,-,j • • .. . . . _ - ,. ,#-,pppgv/on-A, 4' • . .4-7 6*.t.7. kr . tic: 8 n N ;- t t , , `� ` •r. \ 4 .. U1 4oS.Jt Rj L7' 0.90 AC. •i lJ -�� r- I.7 o s ,� s` Ti w _' r ..o g R IT TKO- ; s ' r'' -c1) _J T * K i NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • „ p CITY OF RENTON ...._,. 1., ..451 ' NIL Planning/Building/Public Works j CO, r �► i t 0 ” JUN 2 T'0 0 p a A 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 M r o 3 o * * ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED PB�nf t'Ea U.S. POSTAGE * 1158401 ^=Ban Hock Andrew Goh I • - ,.;1-975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#G102 E , . RENTON,WA 98056-2896 4 >i RET URA - Cu)'riITE Pc' . fi r;i; cai IAODRESSEE t Gkr� 6' JNKN0'IVN i a h,. i 4-.M 85b !)� i } } I, ! Q s: ii n �{ t ! { �i f�{ �_— _— --_-- t ,� �� .1]3.s r �� ' 1h111liilt,1iitt.ile.tl➢iii!li l iiili ilii{ete.itlifillti NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- • - SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: June 26,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICATION NAME: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story,twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. PROJECT LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): 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 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: March 21,2000 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 26,2000 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Administrative Site Plan Approval Other Permits which may be required: Building and construction permits Requested Studies: Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Report, Tree Inventory Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Vacant Environmental Documents that Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Evaluate the Proposed Project: Report,Tree Inventory Development Regulations Renton Municipal Code,State Environmental Policy Act Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.Other mitigation may be required following further review of the project proposal. These recommended mitigation measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above: 1. Fire Mitigation Fee:Fire Mitigation Fee is$388.00 per new single family residential parcel. 2. Parks Mitigation Fee:Parks Mitigation Fee is$354.51 per new multi-family residential parcel. 3. Transportation Mitigation Fee:Transportation Mitigation Fee is$75.00 per each new average daily trip[trip calculations are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Manual,Fifth Edition]. 4. Erosion Control: Install and maintain temporary erosion control measures for all stockpiled or disturbed areas. The Temporary Erosion Control Measures must be installed and maintained throughout the duration of the project. 5. Geotechnical Engineering: Applicant shall follow the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, AICP, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on July 10, 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.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: ELIZABETH HIGGINS (425)430-7382 . PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION • • ot; J•0 l`., G j A cow e' 11 - • 11-,-D-G-- 1 104Ac: .. " -- 71.7..r.i. f4..iB I ' tTt, W aii ci JOHN L. TI;„• ', ITN... t 2ANATTA ``~ � Ira , cc , 177 ?rn,' A CONDOMINIUM } Q ' • '\ S I TE • n �Qq 188 UNITS r--� � �' S•,� W�tl1o.: 1 1 '.FA _ w d" g e f1L( �R -� -la-- ----- t eID IL 13 rn u -1 1CON•D' • 1grtR ' ' .• us i � - Zc Z 9 k asD Ac i �• 4AS.Jt 1 J U6.m .ram \\ v S ,�5 Ti W �4, 'J —.. g ' `�:R gr�O r Jj 1. !I• s *•0 :El k KIt414-1-rP1 141441ticl` 1.14 , 73 i NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION . ' '• --• — -...____ ,.. _ , • .. ,,..----------- ..--i-'4' -i...*'!'-'-' . a 0 •CITY OF RENTON %J.& • tollow fielL Planning/Building/Public Works ii; a • ferfr„iii A' . 0. JUN 2 70 0-41% ::: 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 0- 030 ...tam, .., * , PB MYER * . 1 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 1 715840 U.S.U.S..S. POSTAGE _•. . -. •• - Tr. l'..:;,' /-'-----,••Troy&Carey Mcdowell _I:•:._.,7);•_. , • :,__,.,,,,,./ i... -.., 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#172 ` .:- :,,•:•. I.--_','r*,7k, • ._ RENTON, WA 98056-2874 ,- _,.: 1,---'1;•/ ;:t , . ,,...„ , . ...._:,:- 3 :JUue. . . .. .. ..........._ —Ail' !RETURN !TO WRITER(/,:.:` 11 I - -------,„ • '-a-; - (A ADI:.)RESSEE \A-- I a' (Aid - c'' 1 'Lj' 'N.K N a W N • ! i 2'4,, ,4i vslitlifehiieS 6 I 11111:iiiitilinfidititimilitiltintiiiiiiiiiilltillind_ 1 -..........L --' ().< + es T2''NTO� NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- . - SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: June 26,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICATION NAME: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story,twelve-unit apartment building to-be-constructed-on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. PROJECT LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): 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(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: March 21,.2000 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 26,2000 • Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Administrative Site Plan Approval Other Permits which maybe required: Building and construction permits Requested Studies: Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Report, Tree Inventory Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Vacant Environmental Documents that Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Evaluate the Proposed Project: Report,Tree Inventory - •. . • Development Regulations Renton Municipal Code,State Environmental Policy Act Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.Other mitigation may be required following further review of the project proposal. These recommended mitigation measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above: • 1. Fire Mitigation Fee:Fire Mitigation Fee is$388.00 per new single family residential parcel. 2. Parks Mitigation Fee:Parks Mitigation Fee is$354.51 per new multi-family residential parcel. 3. Transportation Mitigation Fee:Transportation Mitigation Fee is$75.00 per each new average daily trip[trip calculations are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Manual,Fifth Edition]. • 4. Erosion Control: Install and maintain temporary erosion control measures for all stockpiled or disturbed areas. The Temporary Erosion Control Measures must be installed and maintained throughout the duration of the project. 5. Geotechnical Engineering: Applicant shall follow the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, AICP, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on July 10,1999. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail,contact the Project Manager.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: ELIZABETH HIGGINS (425)430-7382 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION • 0;4"0,Ot• her- :. + s:\,r O / A CCM f-G I-' `I' -fli J •..i '1/ 2 . La . ' 1 TTTYYY'��/ ff tt c r \r . w Cg1 JONN L. kr' • • f t N O ZANATTA .: ?Cn' A CONDOMINIUM I \SITE:Sit100 UNITS r--JLr� ` rif -- vat. A . ��1 r t L M .,A ass • ' % go ffae Kt ,I. ait -'ii � ",.sit+"s 44 co ,qJ7 fA • t .,�.��Y. � .� 6 T at- y ,.!rG/i !�,i' iii f�9rM;._/_,_: 8 i - r LEI . c - Ye cc 7 f 80 UH1fS "+•o 1 7�/- r S.U. f�E:-F,,%VA-R-D-E ^ : a/ r. `s•. . T. �' /•f ,(��]]$ cm busy, i j•,1 , `- "Al 73 O MA MG .� ; • r 1• N Z 4os,�t 1 [J��Ow.�75�0 AG I �i 1 , 4r� �RK Z•ti•. • T. �• b m'��i 5�Ti�[. tf�yy' 1 :; . ail' C4� ,1` '` c� C` sr /s -r F �• '•• E'rit o 1 NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • 41 so CITY OF RENTON ..i di . .91f'il 1.4*-,Ittidio *4- ------- :. ' moLL Planning/Building/Public Works 'a 03 ).- EC fa, .4.6014 IC -11 j'efrrell "" 11 2 n ite s' 0 c-) JUN 27'00 pemsfok — u ,,,, u g 0 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 Mt; \ Azimact El . PB MOTEFI •* . * ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 7156401 U.S. POSTAGE :- - --• - - ' - . ' • - - Cheryl Mccoy -,.. -z. 9.01:SUNSET BLVD NE#C-309 - RE4ITON, WA 98056-8709 . i--„_ ,, • • ..,- ,..... i__. ,0 v1• 1-_,' c:".:'-' A i p M s 1 ci, b!ij 0 c000 _ I V.,l,r4r;‘t" • NI`‹'' ..:-1 N • :fr-s•c\' 11 U Vika Wfigia:rivz 1131111111111"1111111111111111 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiluiliiiishillithliiiiiii = ..0 7::%-,41+ NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- . • SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: June 26,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICATION NAME: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT.DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story,twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. PROJECT LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): 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 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: March 21,2000 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 26,2000 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Administrative Site Plan Approval Other Permits which may be required: Building and construction permits Requested Studies: Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Report, Tree Inventory Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Vacant Environmental Documents that Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Evaluate the Proposed Project: Report,Tree Inventory Development Regulations Renton Municipal Code,State Environmental Policy Act Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.Other mitigation may be required following further review of the project proposal. These recommended mitigation measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above: • 1. Fire Mitigation Fee:Fire Mitigation Fee is$388.00 per new single family residential parcel. 2. Parks Mitigation Fee:Parks Mitigation Fee is$354.51 per new multi-family residential parcel. 3. Transportation Mitigation Fee:Transportation Mitigation Fee is$75.0)per each new average daily trip(trip calculations are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Manual,Fifth Edition]. 4. Erosion Control: Install and maintain temporary erosion control measures for all stockpiled or disturbed areas. The Temporary Erosion Control Measures must be installed and maintained throughout the duration of the project. 5. Geotechnical Engineering: Applicant shall follow the recommendatiois contained in the geotechnical report. NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • • Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, AICP, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on July 10,1999. 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.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: ELIZABETH HIGGINS (425)430-7382 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION • IO TA*pt '� :. • '_,;;., G wlfl,V ' A cap I I iii:r! � f G Ir �©;C- J � %psi C M , c. TL/4 --. 1:I ¢, w t�f [ a44 JOHN L. •R;- ', � N t9 ZANATTA = I r �.K : ; I K ¢ + TL7, `fir,;. .`� SITE A CONDOMINIUM Ely .� 18B UNITS r-- �----U VOL ql.c\VV/ L---�-----r' aes • I� • h l.++sa % Ba A Ejfy a K! • ; ik ;; I t di fi c b c rid UNif 10AO ' r. s.' rn Z C ao 6 R lEs 0.90 AG +� �j xIs S • S ,� 5N TiredW 4,71 ahL7 �• i`-a r o �r Ql+`� m SO m L`�43 I T8 I �j� � y sr 9 AZ . a:7 4 • I • NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION ' • I ' . % 0 CITY OF RENTON - L.3 A"r," ,�...n o. �'" asIL Planning/Building/Public Works ' \ 7. 0 " JUN 27'00 y �� 2 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 9:8055 ix —' ® '� ® � - *- * ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED >, • _ �- �B 40 I U.S. P08TAGE / O Y Meldon Properties Limited Liability Co / ` q 1951 M 1_SEAY VALLEY RD r ! 7 ISSAQUAH, WA 98027-8518 L • 41 GELS VERARIE... . a01-> ASADORESSED' inr.eo --_ M • • co w UNABLE TO_EORWARD y 1 1 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 RETURN'TO SENDER 4 4 Wi1-\4 ) EEf '$j i-?ww„-a. i ll1ltiii t4��ii ali�3lisil'' II )1tlltitll�i:s1I11!liili:1i11(tlillt ilit:9! I \ _ _ \ . 141 .----,11 - 7---. ., 1 ID SEND . \- -1,1, jjrly% • ll It ill i1111 illi iil. HUM HI Ili 11 III 11 1 ... _ . . . - % VAY.-- '1'4. .ei4.!, • • • • . .., . ''''...':" .:.:•."' ' --- - '• • . . c . . • i . . , •. / . . , . , - . . , r ,'. ,, • ‘'; • -.. . , . . •-•- . . winhownik ., ., --------, id.. Allinallik..." IIIIIIIbillglIll.''- 4. return to sender 4, l'ee due 50Q First Class Mail Postage and Fees Paid USPS Permit No. G-10 rst ,r CITY OF RENTON z=11" . Hearin :.r nwier if'• �l> :;`ai " .. 1055 South Grady Way- 'Renton Wash.. .,.ri 98055 : q ADDRESS'SERVICE REQUESTEL • 11 12 "0Ei..o. ORi ,F-D6-SEl I ki,•ii9vexnnsT!r.t W . . . . • _0 • h . f V.'•• Albert&Sandra Jarvela J j M ",49 Aberdeen Avenue NE, %i; $' t.:.. J Y: ' 'i Apt.E117 °- p�c(�FI , /_: tl r Renton,WA r:• . .y S! ., q 14. Ia CO Q , JARV949 9130562003 1900 13 1E/15/OO tt'.i • FORM 3597 0LL t: .. ---- - JARVELA ;:. �' 1500 S 19TFl,ST APT N101 "— .. RENTON WA 98055-5501 F}, ... .. : [: • D : ,,... .. AUflP 98956 . IIlIII!!!pIII I i1II,I,11$11 ii i I III ti:,r.R ,•,s oa:a"ern ns 50%ra�dPd,urine anv,,.m.•.r- -- -- - .. I IWO MO I, `4t.IiARLE %,,.--.,, r "J.J.11 '81 AS ADDRESSED ,-, `'' m UNAGI TO FORWARD G' WV F. i i i __ l b 5 Y° S�S1 l i ff ff i ifif litilflfil iiii i :fli iiiii flit i ..----.' ....,. .._. e - • '. . 41111.1Wam., A 0 g ... 0 - J114 2 T'0 9 1 Pf.‘i ttli - 0 3 0 ...Lcztaar rim ro METER * 7158401 U.S. POSTAGE * tees''SER NIR 'S%I. 146 118 I 0 - • . c.,..7"."...C.III &Baljinder Buttar _,.,,,•"..4 : RDEEN AVE NE If PRK N, WA 98056-2800 ‘1.„.,., VI i(''''''%.•\:,::,0\ ti a ,k,---, ,- tf?,-,;: r.,,l'•:a ,''',-•V h1.4 :,,,w......, I I I r:* Si IiiiiiIhildiliailliiiiiitIllinliflitillid111111111iitillid , I -__... _ _____- a 0 CITY OF RENTON , ---,,,.-- •--viot-e7,2017,74.7. ..:-..4.44,:„.,• illt , , w -3 NAL Planning/Building/Public Works 1- o tic . A 110,',,,A74A _ 4 At ' ti o 4" J0 ..e..4;a - 5 V - 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 UN 27'0 .... 0 3 0. ..zap= PB mereg * ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED , 7158401 U.S. POSTAGE : PR.SRT F 111SI-CLASS -sEA VA '9%1 Rashpal&Baljinder Buttar --- 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#PRK -:...-...- v-'-'i:'''':, RENTON, WA 98056-2800 ,--_,,,r, :, '::. .VAIX -1,d g 7' , i Cuc)iuti !RI: TURN -`=:7----;,----,,,,I. ITO V;RITEF : 1 U4 1 i ADDESSEE ai Nd (1) ft -—- - Si UNKNOWN I ---- --- ( 4 S Si y.-, ;, — 41 qi 0- 4 iiiniiiiIiiiiiiiiiiimilmitiftiimitiiihilifilli \\ 1 Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, AICP, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on July 10,1999. 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.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. i • CONTACT PERSON: ELIZABETH HIGGINS (425)430-7382 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION " " • _A `.yd F'1�Ot-• h_rJ,./;: - /,>1. —O A CON _f—R-rig-ic--6--itr ,Ft..;1=1:7-G-Vi" ......„„ /0 ci37,,. I Li �� ', I . I r, - a g 2AHATTA c'. • • a L •L�lam' 1 CC b d "un +' � ' iCC I U Q �'ji► 'A;. A CONDOMINIUM l 9 '41). SITE Ise UNITS J / r-'1 cJ----1- 1:1 0.11;AO.: If 1 . ss �� .� tq lstita r , a N! '3 e/r.>dci;cr s ja L �q ' f13:41. jh it' 6 7 di p b V;" C r 80 U(iif ./00 , ./ C � IU,. �C?'A-R-D-E-Nr' wolf, 6 ; c, ' n N � `1CON•Da:[•.] , R .p .. . -1 73 � % ./izai as 4 cV Eii % ili „ I. • Z C 8 P4050.90 AG it ■• IA Z 4os,Jt 1 • L7 s �i 5s�r� w I � z•'� c Z b ,. e `,,,F2'L'IEiT25:te.•7; l�* .s." *' - T`•" K 5 W„a„ ® .vJ JV'- RY'/,.. - . *.� NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION TY �u NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATED (DNS-M) • DATE: June 26,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICATION NAME: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story,twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. PROJECT LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): 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(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: . March 21,2000 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 26,2000 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Administrative Site Plan Approval Other Permits which maybe required: . Building and construction permits ' Requested Studies: Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Report, Tree Inventory Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Vacant Environmental Documents that Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Evaluate the Proposed Project: Report,Tree Inventory. Development Regulations Renton Municipal Code,State Environmental Policy Act Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.Other mitigation may be required following further review of the project proposal. These recommended mitigation measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above: 1. Fire Mitigation Fee:Fire Mitigation Fee is$388.00 per new single family residential parcel. 2. Parks Mitigation Fee:Parks Mitigation Fee is$354.51 per new multi-family residential parcel. 3. Transportation Mitigation Fee:Transportation Mitigation Fee is$75.00 per each new average daily trip[trip calculations are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Manual,Fifth Edition]. 4. Erosion Control: Install and maintain temporary erosion control measures for all stockpiled or disturbed areas. The Temporary Erosion Control Measures must be installed and maintained throughout the duration of the project. 5. Geotechnical Engineering: Applicant shall follow the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • .......... ... ............. . a 45 CITY OF RENT.ON •.,1 i4i 4,-, • :- iri ;I, • IA Planning/Building/Public Works „,,3 0 J tiOs 0 - U : 1055.,South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 • Et UN-2 r0 0 „az= . ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED _,_. .,.., . . 7P Bi 448708 7 U.S. POSTAGE i - Et . . .. . . „., . ..._,........___.. _ :..,. _,...... • _:-„_. - -_,___, :,.--J., _ -.. . .-3-:: :. 51T. f inT-.MASS SEA 14f1 Sal t61.18-11313.- ... '-. , • • .- Dwayne&Nancy Liston 901 SUNSET BLVD NE ' .. ,-1•0 ': .• .,.. ..:-.;,.: .,..— - .._ , --.''::=IZENTON, WA 98056-8709 --z •,-.-:•,- ‘,1•,!. 1::---- i ' ;,`--.. r.I:VC.'i,-":-- •:,, '=-1` ' -- ,•,;• ,, 3 - - • - - IRE•TURN ,--1---:-,----z------• 1 ;o1., i • : ITO _[WRITER(;,-.: • . _ _ _ iADDRESSEE - ----z- E 14 IT'd Ile ._ _ • 1 _ 1 OWN i 11,11!IilliiimdiiltilisuliniIiiilli.,1141,111111,imilii — 1 ......, gr s-,-7 -it.e.,..e.. OYt ♦ ® ..0 .Nrr0 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) • DATE: June 26,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICATION NAME: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story,twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family— Inf'ill Zone (RM-I). The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. PROJECT LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): 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(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: March 21,2000 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 26,2000 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Administrative Site Plan Approval Other Permits which may be required: Building and construction permits Requested Studies: Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Report, Tree Inventory Location where application may • be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Vacant Environmental Documents that Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Evaluate the Proposed Project: Report,Tree Inventory Development Regulations Renton Municipal Code,State Environmental Policy Act Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: / The following mitigation measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.Other mitigation may be required following further review of the project proposal. These recommended mitigation measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above: 1. Fire Mitigation Fee:Fire Mitigation Fee is$388.00 per new single family residential parcel. 2. Parks Mitigation Fee:Parks Mitigation Fee is$354.51 per new multi-family residential parcel. 3. Transportation Mitigation Fee:Transportation Mitigation Fee is$75.00 per each new average daily trip[trip calculations are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Manual,Fifth Edition]. 4. Erosion Control: Install and maintain temporary erosion control measures for all stockpiled or disturbed areas. The Temporary Erosion Control Measures must be installed and maintained throughout the duration of the project. 5. Geotechnical Engineering: Applicant shall follow the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • Iments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, ATOP, Senior Planner, elopment Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on July 10,1999. If you have ;tions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail,contact the ect Manager.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of decision on this project. TACT PERSON: ELIZABETH HIGGINS (425)430-7382 EASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION �41.61.0f,0,. �'v' `• • ,, , • O .�'ii;ti. . A cod 1/ I�1 Ir �,©f`_-- 1C C. / 'SLR' • 1 • Ztl /�� IKpI@� 1 •, ri, Ci.\\_. JOHN L. Ti-•f tCS ZANATTA . g\ ICI wN `� � y� I tm'', A CONDOMINIUM /rl7 L t ,,�� , '-" 1 . SITE `IBB UNITS / `/ r.. er__. Q3S21.: • 11 �„t I. �! L.�--1 aes • Win. , tlimi ,„.,, .4 .;,, , -:. :Ili " C S,U. --,,,/qA-R-D-E•N• n • h m, 1`2`'CON ��E ,Q B p „ . ��s Lf Tl N - r ,. ut I C nu/ r 1. Z C 8 R , • --- 0.90 A4 it Z 40 J! 1 �- 11ppyy N Q -�N . o'tt7 ti S�It�! 5• TlIW ce �W • a rn v1=.473 3_l! I CO 1 � y sr • A1 • cigiti iro • cE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION • . _ . . ..... • , •• . . , '„ . . .... . . .. . . .... . ... • . . . , O 0 CITY OF RENTON eall. ' reiln"em ".: . e- .9 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 -, - ' 11...CP '.'. 1181.,3-1t 1 'tfatil - 14 -'.w. -- .eir _ • -, ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED \'?•:- „" POMETER ri .• ILS'.-POSTAGE . 7158401 • • , X . •. vt .0- ... ... ...-• v- ,i,r. vi•-• . • II\ ' Jim •,erern-, ., . Kelle.;•He .-rnan Corp. ::. 40 . akt•- lellevue, Ste 100 •aL, ; Ilevug', WA 98005 . . . , .e..,_3..,..--:, .: c., 7.•:i.,,,,,••,.. -7;.*--"- -, ,,-(,,,:iri-7-;*i'l: „...,:';,; -.--,--,,;--.'- •,„, • • •;-•,,•\Cr'-'''f,-4',.),.),?t, ---. .,,:-. •i-•,04,.......\ ,-, ,...t.- ;..0• ''' - :::;------ ' AS AD6RESSED c., " Fnlv go • 1 (.)1 • : ------ . . .,1,.. ) 1. ti1h{311..,p,EIT TO oF OsREYN!DA Rr DR ,---------ri 7 '‘- 1 1. -IA: ri;r7",..S2.70.74. 1111.111111111i!I di li thiliilli I fitilliiiiiiiiiiiiriLliali . - , . _ , REPORT City of Renton & Department of Planning/Building/Public Works DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION Decision Date: July 30, 2001 [The Administrative Land Use Action was originally approved on September 15, 2000. Two subsequent appeals of the site plan approval were upheld by the Hearing Examiner. On February 26, 2001, the Hearing Examiner remanded the site plan, subject to conditions, back to staff. The ' applicant submitted a revised site plan, which was reviewed by staff. The result pf that review is included herein and revisions, reflecting the site plan revisions, have been made to the original report.] Project Name: Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Applicant: Gerald Rieker and Soung Hee Rieker Cambridge Homes NW 12228 NE 112th Place#A-1 Kirkland WA 98033 Owner: (same) File Number: LUA-00-040, ECF, SA-A Planner: Elizabeth Higgins, AICP Project Summary: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for nine, two-story, townhouses to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). The project also requires environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. Project Location: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE Exist. Bldg. Area SF: N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area SF: 7,057 sf Site Area: 37,585 sf(0.86 acre) Total Building Area SF: 7,057 sf I t 1 -W sc k ' ■ a LI s R 2MAT1A®.A-:. 51 TE A CONDOMINIUM I ;� `IDN UNIT, j�/C V Ey ig 1�.gg1 . U i-1 t \( L.-�L---- Qis 1111111105014.! - rp7"ttiMilr ;;,1 . • o 'O ALA t i eo 1mi , 4. , irLiii !ream m ■ :'IN .:- .: \ -A Lj ..Z/-s ' tril.' . tr -,3 *. 1 0\ z c 9 o. Ac--i Li Project Location Map sitepinrev(revised).doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review StaffReport ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY 30,2001 Page 2 of 11 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for nine town house units, in three buildings. The project is located on a 37,585 square foot property at 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE. The property is 62.5 feet wide and approximately 600 feet long. The property fronts on Aberdeen Avenue NE, north of its intersection with Sunset Boulevard NE. The building would be situated on the eastern half of the site, which is more gently sloping (5 percent to 10 percent) than the western half, which has slopes in excess of forty percent and are, therefore, regulated by the City of Renton. The building coverage of the site would be approximately 18.8 percent and the total impervious area would be about 38.9 percent. The wood-framed building would be approximately 36 feet in height. The roofline would be staggered, matching the angle of slope and the roofs articulated with peaks and architectural details. Vertical walls would be surfaced in a horizontal siding of unspecified material composition. The nine townhouses would have approximately 784 sf on the main floor and 796 sf on the second floor. The basement would provide parking for two vehicles and storage space. The total size of the basement level would be approximately 244 sf. The property is 37,451 sf in size and has approximately 10,097.83 sf of protected slopes. The net acreage is 0.63 acre. Therefore, the proposed project, at 9 units, has a density of 14.29 dwelling units per net acre. Parking for each unit would be in individual two-vehicle garages under the living space of each townhouse. Three additional parking spaces would be on site at uncovered, surface parking areas. The total parking available on site would be 21 spaces. The property is located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). Abutting zones are all residential. They are the same zone (RM-I)to the north, south, and east and Residential 1 (R-1)to the west. R-1 allows residential development at 1 dwelling unit per net acre, but the area may be too environmentally sensitive to make development feasible. The project requires environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. The Environmental Review Committee made a Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated for the proposed 12 unit apartment building project. Staff has recommended that the previous review of the environmental conditions be upheld for the revised, nine unit townhouse project based on a probable decrease in environmental impacts. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21 C, 1971, as amended, on July 18, 2000, the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee made a Determination of Non- Significance, Mitigated for the project. Two appeals of the Determination were filed with the Hearing Examiner prior to the close of the appeal period. These appeals were heard at a public meeting on January 23, 2001 (continued from November 28, 2000), following the close of the appeal period for the site plan review decision. The Hearing Examiner upheld the environmental determination. sitepinrev(revised).doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEEN APARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY 30,2001 Page 3 of 11 The Environmental Review Committee placed the following mitigation measures on the proposed project. 1. Site construction activities shall be limited to the months of April through October. 2. The recommendations of the geotechnical report, "Aberdeen Apartments Project No. T-4479", by Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 30, 1999, shall be incorporated into the project design and construction. 3. The applicant shall pay the applicable Transportation Mitigation Fee at the rate of$75.00 per each new average weekday trip attributable to the project, estimated to be 5.86 average weekday trips per townhouse unit. The Transportation Mitigation Fee is due prior to issuance of building permit. 4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$388.00 per multi-family unit. The fee is due prior to issuance of building permit. 5. The applicant shall pay the Parks Mitigation Fee equal to $354.51 per multi-family unit. The Parks Mitigation Fee shall be paid prior to issuance of building permit. PART THREE: ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION - REPORT & DECISION A. Type of Land Use Action XX Site Plan Review Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Conditional Use Binding Site Plan Special Permit for Grade &Fill Administrative Code Determination B. Exhibits Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication, environmental review and other documentation pertinent to this request. A Exhibit No. 2: Drawing No. 3, Site Slope Analysis (Received June 21, 2000) Exhibit No. 3: Zoning Map (dated January 11, 2000) Exhibit No. 4: Site Plan (revised) Exhibit No. 5: Typical Unit Elevation (revised) C. Consistency with Site Plan Criteria In reviewing the proposal with respect to the Decision Criteria for Level I Site Plans as set forth in Section 4-9-200(E) of the Renton Municipal Code, the following issues have been identified by City Departmental Reviewers and Divisional Reviewers: 1. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its objectives and policies The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for the property is Residential Multi-Family— Infill. The objective and policies of this land use element are as follows: Objective LU-L: Encourage the development of infill parcels in existing multi-family districts with compatible projects. sitepinrev(revised).doc f• City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEEN APARTMENTS L UA-00-040,SA-A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY 30,2001 Page 4 of 11 The neighborhood of the proposed project has both single family houses and multi-family apartment and condominium developments. The Sunset Garden Condominiums (60 units) are located to the south, abutting the proposed project. There are three single family houses on two parcels located to the north. A 168 unit condominium development, Renton Ridge, is north of the single family houses. Staff has been working with a potential applicant for a proposed 9 unit condominium project that would be located south of, and abutting, the Renton Ridge development on the parcel having two single family residences. Adjacent to the project, across Aberdeen Avenue, are both multi-family developments and single family houses. This project is compatible with the other multi-family projects in the area, although the neighborhood has not completely transitioned entirely from single family residential. Staff believes three 3 unit townhouse buildings would be more compatible with the transitioning neighborhood than the previously proposed single 12 unit apartment building. Policy LU-64: Development density should generally be in the range of ten to twenty dwelling units per acre. The proposed project, at 9 units, has a density of 14.29 dwelling units per net acre, which is in the middle of the allowable density range. Policy LU-65: New development in Residential Multi-family Infill designations should be compatible in size, scale, bulk, use, and design with other existing multi-family developments. The proposed project is compatible with other multi-family developments in the area, although it is not as compatible in scale with the existing single family houses. The single family houses are single story and smaller in bulk that both the proposed project and other multi-family projects that have been developed in the vicinity. The architectural style, scale of buildings, and reduction in the total number of units proposed is more compatible with existing single family residential than the original plan. Policy LU-66: Design standards should be applied that reflect present development patterns and are sensitive to unique features and differences among established neighborhoods. Although design standards have not been developed in the Renton Municipal Code for this land use zone, the proposed project meets the requirements of the Development Standards (RMC Section 4). These standards address building height, lot width, and building setbacks. Policy LU-67: Siting and design of new structures should be sensitive to site constraints and adjacent uses. Provision of adequate buffers or setbacks or scaling down building heights may be required to transition from Residential Multi-family Infill designations to adjacent lower density uses. The proposed project would be built on the eastern half of the property that is not constrained by protected slopes. The stormwater control system would be designed to carry run-off away from both the developed portion of the property and the adjacent properties. The revised site plan meets the condition of the Hearing Examiner's remand of the original site plan approval. The revised plan proposes building at the same grade as the single family residence to the north, rather than raising the grade three to four feet above the grade to the north. This eliminates the need for a retaining wall between the two properties. There are three buildings, not a single building, so the overall mass of the structure has been reduced considerably. The space between the middle building and the east building has been positioned to serve as a "corridor"to allow light to the existing greenhouse on the abutting property, which is located directly north of this space. sitepinrev(revised).doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEEN APARTMENTS L UA-00-040,SA-A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY 30,2001 Page 5 of 11 2. Conformance with existing land use regulations The following development standards apply in the RM-I Zone: Density: minimum 10 dwelling unit per net acre (du/a), maximum 20 du/a The project has a net density of 14.29 du/a. This is at the middle of the allowable range. All of the density will be located on approximately half of the property, due to steep slopes on the other half. Minimum lot width: 50 feet The property is 62.5 feet wide. No new parcels will be created. Minimum lot depth: 65 feet The property is 607.61 feet deep. Setbacks (minimums): front— 20 feet; rear— 15 feet; side— greater of 5 feet or 10% of lot width (rounded up to next whole integer);additional 1 foot for each story in excess of two The proposed project would have setbacks above the front and rear setback minimums. The side setbacks must be 7 feet each, based on lot width of 62.5 feet. Height: 35 feet or 2.5 stories. In all Residential Multi-family Zones (except"U'9, more stories and an additional 10 feet in height may be obtained through the provision of additional amenities such as pitched roofs... The proposed building has two levels of residential units above one level of parking. This meets the Uniform Building Code definition of two story building. The total height is 36 feet above finish grade. Although the proposed building height is one foot above the maximum height allowed, the revised plan indicates a high level of architectural detailing and articulation (see Exhibit No. 12). Staff recommends approval of increased height as proposed, based on site plan review. Building coverage (maximum): 35% The proposed building would have 18.8 percent coverage of the property. Impervious area (maximum): 75% The proposed project would result in 38.9 percent impervious area. Landscaping: Setback areas and open space areas shall be landscaped unless otherwise determined through the site plan review process. Landscaping has been proposed for the front and south side setback areas. The north setback, abutting the single family residence, does not have landscaping proposed. A 6 foot fence has been proposed along the north property line. Staff recommends that this fence, although proposed, be made a condition of the site plan approval. The purpose of this fence would be to provide a transition between the existing single family home and the proposed project and buffer noises somewhat from the driveway that abuts the property line and from the garages that open to the north. 3. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses There are several potential impacts to surrounding uses by the proposed project. An increase in impervious area could cause a corresponding increase in existing drainage problems on adjacent properties. To avoid this, the applicant would be required to install a stormwater control system that carries all stormwater runoff away from the developed property to the south and the single family residential property to the north. Stormwater would be dispersed by means of a sitepinrev(revised).doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEEN APARTMENTS L UA-00-040,SA-A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY30,2001 Page 6 of 11 spreader in the northwest corner of the project property (see "Notes to Applicant" section of this report). Although the property to the north is also within the Residential Multi-family—Infill Zone, there would be an impact to the single family residence located to the north, caused by the proximity of the building and adjacency of driveway. The proposed building meets the setback requirement on the north. A condition has been proposed whereby a fence will be required in order to buffer the existing home from the new development. The revised site plan is for three smaller buildings, rather than one large building. The length of the apartment building originally proposed was 205 feet. The revised plan has two buildings at 82 feet each and one at 87 feet. The three buildings have spaces between them, of 25 feet and 40 feet, to allow light and air to circulate. This reduces the overall impact on the abutting properties, even though the developed portion of the site extends farther to the west than the original plan. The revised plan extends approximately 350 feet into the site from Aberdeen Avenue NE. A site lighting plan must be submitted as a condition of approval prior to issuance of a building permit. This plan would be evaluated to avoid light"spill over"from the new project onto the abutting property. 4. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site The proposed project, planned for only the more gradually sloped east half of the project, is sited to minimize the impact to the property by avoiding the very steep western half. The revised plan extends the paved driveway and dumpster area into a portion of the property that is sloped approximately 48 percent. The vertical increase in the area proposed for development is approximately 12 feet in height. Slopes greater than 40 percent, with a vertical increase of 15 feet or more are deemed to be "protected" slopes. The proposed filling of this approximately 350 sf area would not be regulated by the City Critical Areas Ordinance. 5. Conservation of area-wide property values Development of the property should not have a negative impact on area-wide property values. In fact, there should be an increase in area-wide property values following the development of this property because the property has not been maintained in the past, with vegetation allowed to become overgrown. In addition, the property to the north has very low density, with one single family home and the property to the south has condominium units. The proposed project would have nine townhouses, which will be larger in size and more comparable to single family homes at 1,800 sf each. 6. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation It does not appear from review of the site plan that a walkway, separated from the driveway, will be provided to connect the project to the sidewalk that will be located along the street frontage. Staff recommends a site plan revision that demonstrates that a walkway, physically separated from the driveway by either a curb or raised curb abutting the sidewalk, be provided. The dumpster enclosure would located at the west boundary of the developed portion of the site, near the vehicle turn-around. It should not conflict with pedestrian traffic. • I sitepinrev(revised).doc • City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEEN APARTMENTS L UA-00-040,SA-A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY30,2001 Page 7 of 11 7. Provision of adequate light and air It appears that this criteria would be met by the proposed project. The revised plan meets this requirement to a greater extent than the previously proposed project by allowing light and air to circulate between the three buildings. 8. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions It appears that this criteria would be met by the proposed project. The dumpster would be located at the west boundary of the developed portion of the site, at the farthest point from the residential units. Code requires screening of dumpsters and recycle areas. 9. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use Public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use are available in Aberdeen Avenue NE. 10. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight It appears that this criteria would be met by the proposed project. The project improvements, as proposed, would be consistent with plans, policies, and regulations of the City of Renton. 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: 1. Request: The Applicant has requested Site Plan Approval for the Aberdeen Apartments, LUA00-040, ECF, SA-A. The applicant has requested review of a revised site plan and an Administrative Site Plan Approval. 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. A Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated was issued on July 18, 2000. The appeal period ended on August 7, 2000. Two appeals were filed, but the Determination was upheld by the Hearing Examiner in his decision of February 26, 2001. 3. Site Plan Review: The applicant's site plan application complies with the requirements for information for site plan review. The applicant's site plan and other project drawings are entered as Exhibits No. 2, 3, and 4. 4. Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential Multi-family— Infill (RM-I). • sitepinrev(revised).doc City of Renton P/B/PWDepartment Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEEN APARTMENTS L UA-00-040,SA-A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY 30,2001 Page 8 of 11 5. Zoning: The proposed project complies with the zoning requirements and development standards of the Residential Multi-family— Infill (RM-I) Zoning designation, with the. The zoning map is entered as Exhibit 5. E. Conclusions 1. The subject proposal complies with the policies and codes of the City of Renton. 2. The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential Multi-family — Infill (RM-I); and the Zoning designation of Residential Multi-family— Infill (RM-I) Zoning. F. Decision The Site Plan for Aberdeen Apartments, File No. LUA-00-040, is approved, as revised, subject to the following conditions: 1. A site lighting plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Department and approved prior to building permit approval. 2. A solid wood fence, design and materials to be approved by the Development Services Division, at the maximum height allowed, shall be installed along the north property line. Such installation shall be completed prior to occupancy of the building. 3. A site plan revision shall be submitted prior to building permit, that demonstrates that a walkway will be provided that connects to the public sidewalk and that is physically separated from the project driveway by either a curb or raised curb and sidewalk. Such revision to the site plan shall be made by the applicant and approved by the Development Services Department prior to building permit issuance. 4. A Native Growth Protection Area ( NGPA) easement shall be established for the area of the property having slopes at forty percent (40%) or greater(approximately the western half of the property). The NGPA easement shall be recorded prior to obtaining an occupancy permit. The following additional conditions were imposed on the site plan approval by the Hearing Examiner in his decision of February 26, 2001: 5. The grades of the subject site shall not be altered in such [a] fashion as to allow the proposed apartment complex to sit up higher on the site. The applicant may grade the site downward to "hide" or accommodate an additional story but shall not be permitted to raise the site in any fashion that allows a de facto three story building to be judged two stories under the definitions in the Zoning Code or Building Code. 6. More details on the nature of the retaining walls both along the north and south property lines and the location of[a] driveway are needed. That information should be developed prior to approval of the site plan. 7. The definition of driveway separation from abutting property shall be revisited and accommodation made to reduce the impacts in this case. EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: July 30, 2001. _ sitepinrev(revised).doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEEN APARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY 30,2001 Page 9 of 11 SIGNATURES: tt.)aA V/30/0i Neil Watts, Development Services Division Director date TRANSMITTED this 30fh day of July 2001, to the owner/applicant and contact: Gerald Rieker Soung Hee Rieker 11017—101 st Place NE Kirkland,WA 98033 Jim Heffernan Kelley-Heffernan Corp. 40 Lake Bellevue,Suite 100 Bellevue,WA 98005 David J. Fall Fall Architectural 9607—39th Avenue SW Seattle,WA 98136 TRANSMITTED this 30th day of July 2001, to the parties of record: See Attachment'A' TRANSMITTED 30th day of July 2001, to the following: Larry Meckling,Building Official Charles Duffy,Fire Prevention Jennifer Henning,Zoning Administrator Kayren Kittrick,Public Works Division Lawrence J.Warren,City Attorney South County Journal Land Use Decision Appeal Process Appeals of the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM August 13,2001. If no appeals are filed by this date, the action 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. 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. Plan Review-Sanitary Sewer 1.. This project is outside of the Aquifer Protection Zones. sitepinrev(revised).doc City of Renton P/B/PWDepartment Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY 30,2001 Page 10 of 11 2. There is an existing 10" sanitary sewer main in Aberdeen Avenue NE. 3. Providing a gravity system to this site will be extremely difficult due to the topography. The project engineer has indicated that separate grinder pumps will be installed under the building permit. Plans shall be noted to reflect this. Plan Review—Water 1. There is a 16"water main in Aberdeen Avenue NE. 2. This site is located in the 435 Pressure Zone. 3. A water main extension will be required on site. 4. All new construction must have a fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 gpm and must be located within 300 feet of the structure. There are fire hydrants in the vicinity that may be counted towards the fire protection of this project, but are subject to verification for being within 300 feet of the nearest corner of the building. This distance is measured along a travel route. This project will require a minimum of 2,500 gpm fire flow. An additional fire hydrant will be required to be installed onsite to meet this criteria. 5. Water System Development Charges of$510 per unit are applicable to this project. The Development Charges will be collected as part of the construction permit. Plan Review—Stormwater Drainage 1. A storm drainage narrative and conceptual plan has been submitted and reviewed. It has been given preliminary approval, with the exception that the drainage system will be required to be tightlined to the northwest corner of the property and dispersed via a spreader due to the surface water problems on the abutting property to the south. 2. Final storm drainage report and design shall comply with the King County Surface Water Design Manual, 1990 Edition. 3. No on-site detention is required. _ 4. Surface Water System Charges of$15,985 are applicable to this project. The Development Charges will be collected as part of the construction permit. Plan Review—Street Improvements 1. Full street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, street signs, and street lights are required, if not already in place. 2. All new electrical, telephone, and cable services and lines must be undergrounded. Plan Review—General 1. The applicant is responsible for securing and necessary private utility easements. 2. All required utility, drainage, and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 3. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5 percent of the first$100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4 percent of anything over$100,000, but less than $200,000, and 3 percent of anything over $200,000. Half of this fee must be paid upon application for construction permits (preliminary plat improvements), and the remainder when the construction permit is issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. sitepinrev(revised).doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY 30,2001 Page 11 of 11 Fire Prevention 1. The preliminary fire flow is 2500 gpm, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and two additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Separate plans and permit are required for the installation of the sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 3. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways are a minimum 20 feet in width with a turning radius of 45 feet outside and 25 feet inside. 4. Fire department dead-end access roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. Planning 1. Retaining walls in excess of four(4)feet require engineered drawings and a separate building permit. 2. Construction easements obtained from abutting property owners may be necessary prior to construction of retaining walls on or near property lines. These agreements must include protection measures for(or permission to potentially damage or remove) trees located on abutting properties within 20 feet of the property line. 3. Performance Standards for Land Development Permits (RMC 4-4-130K), including "Protection Measures During Construction" (RMC 4-4-130K7) relating to trees, shall be followed by the applicant. The applicant shall adhere to the definition of"tree" a found in RMC 4-11-200, "drip line" as found in RMC 4-11-040, and the measurement of trees as found in RMC 4-11-030. I sitepinrev(revised).doc r.=' SITE SLOPE STUDY — _ ,.......... * .e_�TOVMA ENGINEERS — •. L5h UND SURVEMRS ABERDEEN APARTMENTS Z .1 led i1', ��/ p4c,,.H � M.c.,'f0 r ,., ..., , • ssss . .. , . ,.., , , , „., .. 4. , • „ , , ., ...., ........ .,... „ ..... .... , . . . I, „..„............ s .s.,,,,,,...; 1 . ..,.... ....., ..„ .. ,.. , „........„.....„, .... ,, , ,, . ....: ... s 1 , , ;:.... ...... ...... ; . . • ii0- <.... „..... ,.. , . 1 ,,.._ „„ . „... „ ,..:........, ,ei 9 ,„:,.. .....„ . . . , ... „ 1 Elii. „ :.. ...,..... .,,, . 1 \k' ',%.%,21.-', k N W ' si' 1 4 P 3\• 1 �\ ',, Ai _1 .\6. �\ 1 \�, \' 1 . , , ,`,^`: :. I � .. �. . .::.: ..; • ter; • I� - t - . - ___3 DO_60A_OS_, - - • 8- -43 1�f <EN 1 _ - i2R grii r v .n 101 � _0_ = = 101 . 1111111111 " 1011 0_ _ _\\ 0110 W NT . 111. 0 \ .01 111. - ._....„,..1 R E N T O N, WASHINGTON i I WO LOP UNC Lee CRP , id ?( - jam'''/J/, �O. I awssc .,,,C .Y j ' —, • — �:F:r°j...:.r ._ '.C . ... •" - .�' tY :'- ytc.,',:7 fi ..,.•::`',':�, - BUY N' �. n inl / 1 iii:;11 1 :.;-•, . /11WiY; - ?,,,',V.'",'Zi, V::-,4,i V Evzil ..Y,i-i- r . ,o, V'rf.f., ar,i,' II :-... , ,I ---Wi�FRIPIf�—RF7--•A.4ilFET• i , . .- z M •� Lea '`" ` IW°L 1' �-' SITE PLAN 5.1'-30• GENERAL / SITE STATISTICS: Oyp VELOPER, KELLEY-FEFFERNAN CORPORTATION 1494 UDC OCCUPANCIES: R-3 -TOWNHOUSES 517E AREA: O86 ACRES(6 43560 SF.FEN ACRE/•91451 SF 40 LAKE EELLEVUE,SUITE 100 U -GARAGES t 5RE ELEFENTS 038 ACRES UNDISTURBED=16316 SF PEI I Ein E,NA 96005 Obi NET FOLDABLE ACRES•22535 S F RENTON. N AVENIE RE CONSTRUCTION CONSTRICTION. R-3 OCCUPANCY EURAINIG ARE(2-IQ)STORY TOPS V.NON-RATED DEVELOPMENT DBUITY, 20 UNITS PER ACRE•MilDYELLING UNITS PROJECT ADDRESS, Ill OO NTRUCTION TNROUSFbVT KMI-NO R SEPARATION EETYEEN DM®-LIN5S. FOR NET J'J 1I°9T`' I/RFA F NFPA 13-R SPRSRLER SYSTEMS ARE PROVIDED PER CITY OF RENTON ORDINANCE STALLSCORPACT ZONING DESIGNATION: RESIDENTIAL KATI-FAMILY IFFILL(AM-I) FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS ARE PROVIDED PER ISO 3I0.10. .PARKING. COMPACT STALLS(MHO 2 U OCCUPANCY BUILDINGS ARE TYPE V,NON-RATED CONSTRUCTION GARAGE(STANDARD)STALLS 8 CODES, 199T UNIFORM WILDING CODE GARAGE(COMPACT)STALLS B MI INFORMUNIFORM FIRE CODE • WILDINS HEIGHTS, ALLOWABLE TOTAL STALLS, 19 149161kSTATEENERGY 1PLUMING CODE 1494 MIA ILA ION CODE,'OO AIRllHE 1995) TYPE I. 2 I/1 STORIES/45`(35'•10'pitched roof bores) WA STATE NE k1 VENTILATION AND INDOOR QUALITY CODE, SITE DEVELOFhEHT, WIL.DINC{- TOST SF.(I8B%) 3RD 177.(-LRE WS) )' PARKING,DRIVE tSIDEWALK- 7764 5r.(20156) 1494 LWFORH MECHANICALCODE TYPE h 2 1/22 STORIES/34'-0' LANDSCAPING 6114 5F.(163%) PERMIT NUMBER, X TOTAL, 20,935 5F.(55.43) • I I I I E.7C{-ttgtl' i 1 A - 3 • T i :1- (I. ,. . . . i I 1 I• : .1 • i ir . 6 li 111 TA F.14•— _ ,./V il----.---. *-Alit .-•• ---- • _ -,, hI . if • i ; I .7 ow-- .1.-v I/ • "1--0)1 .pt. ' • .._ ; , . . — i 411-. .44 • '' ' i! .,,..,•I. ,nnok.,;, • --.... En1/4 :' '-4• •'- 1. 7:4-`'s 'il ,. -.-.4......- Ali : IA -- -x--• 4, v LifF.”11 1 1 ,,- . •. 7.1e ..A....!77.7.... 1 • A I....._41 garem. . , 0 z, .1111111111111111151111111111111tia. _ -,-..:-. •,'"1 i WINIUMPrit1111119111roinnmmuirrili,. P-'?.-,,50,-.413 t. .. . •. - 11111111,1P1 *.n.---- is 1. 'e,„.%!wr.A1.11 Am! / __ .•_. . ,,,...,,......... • ...............t.w.i.•.414 r . . ' --1 10 4....iilmr;-, .cp • --. ;,:c„, ....-.-- -IV Likpc_ ' i ifiZZW)Pfl ' /.1: L41• • • ........,.-.1-..1.,.1., -A.!!. . ,1.. :.. ligi.itifir 1[11-1111 ill VIII it 1 I r . * '•1: '.°-1'='4 • t • mig :/ - :,-,, ......_._ /, Ft, ' \ /' ". • .-7.'f" d• li. 2 .;0111 MN ir i 0 " 011F,...Virif.A.,_...., N 7 LI t......."..r• • 1 IF' • r:;-'. ' • 1:,0- 11 isi !/11.,Alikii.# ......47‘ - mom _________. __ ..• .... . — .. ..... ._.... 1 , , • -r-ti4-Pt(AL. vo tr .E.c.. akf . • . .. .. . •• • • • I I .. 1 • . • •. . • •- . , ; • • , • , ,...., . u ,.., --------„,„,„„,,irri,„„. [ ., ....,,.... - ,17,..__, ..,,,,,..., _,, , , 1111,15firiii_- ..odrif'2.4'••!1. ,. 1 1 r:-4; . 1.1 -. Aillin /4•.'-',7-0•1771:74-', T.IIIIIIIIiik ' ll111111' "--41.:All';-•1 :- 1511:11111 = ; ;;;.1 '.7P3...lbligit:: ---2.-'-.4. • ••. • .STI-1 111 ••• 41151 1::'';'ir•-;1 1-7-%!'I ---LI• .:-'2 • '''''''; Ill .'CAI iillin ' 1.%);) :'.7•1 ...---.77--!ljL • --'"'L ...;7zi...74. '---(k:.--,sq.,.;.-.72.2.;!4T-.77---.'i. ..-.-- till ----• :p.; .„:. - -....1J... •720411:111:111cil..-1277:.!...2.,.....,,,..,:•...—_,1;.,7,,,...._.,_s3e,..7.. .:„.1.01.,..,,,,, .,.:_;: ..,:,....:_, ..,... .„. .--..lir_. ,.......,.. •,,,,t.trt•v:-.:,;.... ,.,;.-:..... dirn--,17—..7.-.--;-di •••--- ppi'•'•1•-•.''•%'''' "•:,:•.---' T7N. ."7"-----",-•• -•1:•:,; -•1- =5.r.41:1'21..;.?• ' -- •• a 'A..4,..;',.....4,eli ur . e,,,•.t -e." ' - L- -'-'1 ;.;;":= di '74!;-3%.?:.:--i'El' -":,:-- .131°--.!flie-i' l Ailligi Iiii!eitii.i2:.MIIVII:1112., ••-.=-. el' .15-3.11;"1---..,',.'(,;'1Vv,:7•Igka. 1 7 7-`" iller',%.“;%:J,7%-1,":0-,141fi,.-t1,:3s,.,niiiii1111011111411:311 , F9- ;-----------4----:—.--------,,. iril mfimottypitrim -,1.,,,:_-_-,.......”....-..,.. i. r::::'i n"-------`11.--.-----"--2' ''.A III .. ''-•' 1:M5'' illigi ....= •T"--, ._,Tir•---:- .-Lv.i.7.-7.-.".--_-_IVA it .4 "=---•••=it-- ;• „;thii ,., ..-,,.... ,1'4 5 ii,,, ' ...,1 li'il'Y ---- -4 1.1, '.11 ^ ., 21 AY ILO Izi iv 5i.V.7- . ....1 - - ,.-,.. -• I • -1 ati.Vial --• — .. ..-.. • FA44i err + D4 • 5- TZ3N.R5E E In. - ::: -11 -•J." R—.8< i • • [ .12th .S,.-- 11 1 i . .7\-. 1 'a . z • i I l • -J w7 1 • -. -.-•- pOPPIPPI . :. .. . ... .:::.. liti• ..1 . 77.\\I - in: ••• •- ,.• ! • ez i. • • /P .i... . .. '‘ • 900 . . . ibl U Illist 7_1 . ..! Air . ID . • ' .113 Sz.7. "lila ,. I.:.-....;:r'' EX - 7' 0 . .. --:::' . 1 a . . .• . • . . • I RM- I . iL RM—I.. 00 '' I : ::°� co ' I II il®:`w, • rl . - . \ , _.. litt co- - % ‘ Iti - 4- '.! 4 -41 Wm I -N 8th ' ` . . • V - rti,,,,friris--b- it ( Latn'3•E;suaAik147,1/44 �`�i ' R-8 E+ g►z 1 ri ••1111,-4•4\ 1i, iss% N . • ._R— •t..P!�� •AI - ■ -k- -� • 1 in r ., ... .... . • .A ... : - , I i .. - ,44/47 ..::. : E V .-- • I , - . . . - .. ...-. T.: -7: 4 akv7647.110k.:.:.':-;::: -.:: '3-1,-7-7::::: : tr • • _4 ' a >,• • •� •07 tom� 4. • tv, if pNillt sR3. 4at 0) w44 .'4, xi --ii: •--.1 .•i • . • , ii ! - :•• • i,". is :44*7-. --\- _,. . . - i . • i.- iv-ow .7 . . : of , \ ... . . .... .--4440:. .:., .,. .K-- . . - a . Zo,4 1,4 ts- H A? • .q ' 1 °:..::Yqo . P • E,e4 II fb rf •. 8 T23N R5E E 1/Z . ovivoo ATTACHMENT 'A' Mr. Norm Mode Gay Kiesling Jeff Clousing 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. C-310 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Renton, WA 98056 E318 C210 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Susan Lauth Cheryl Jayne Phyllis Turner 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. E315 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Renton, WA 98056 D211 D11 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Terra Schmidt Karen Loos Melody Grieves 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. B106 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Renton, WA 98056 B105 B206 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Michael Bradley John & Patricia Clayton Annelle Perry 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. B306 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt.A- 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt Renton, WA 98056 102 A101 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Muhammad Faisal Patty Reynolds Patricia Dolan 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt.A101 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Renton, WA 98056 C107 307 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Francia Personett Juanita McIntosh Natalie Hester 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. F220 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. 949 Aberdeen Ave NE,Apt. C308 Renton, WA 98056 C110 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Mr. & Mrs. R. Beach Kathryn Carrigan Terrie Carter 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, E115 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Renton, WA 98056 E116 E216 Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Helen del Rosario Lawrence& Carol Lonczak Albert& Sandra Jarvela 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. E215 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Renton, WA 98056 E118 E117 Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Lan Le Darsie Brown Cheryl Waid 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. F219 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Renton, WA 98056 F119 C108 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Ed Niblock Eleanor Brown Hal & Erin Pugmire 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. D213 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Renton, WA 98056 D313 D314 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 • PARTY OF RECORD LIST.doc/ ATTACHMENT 'A' Ronald Yasui Doug Graef Helen Burch 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. E317 New Home Trends 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 8034 118th Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Kirkland,WA 98033 Lisa Young Art Gossan Freida Coon 1000 Aberdeen Avenue NE 7301 NE 175th, #124 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, C-109 Renton, WA 98056 Kenmore, WA 98028 Renton,WA 98056 James L. Strichartz,Attorney Steve Beck 200 West Mercer Street, Suite 511 19129 SE 145th Street Seattle,WA 98119 Renton, WA 98059 I PARTY OF RECORD LIST.doc/ , return to sender .D. •g,lie due 500 First-Class Mail Postage and Fees Paid USPS Permit No. G-10 csW) CITY OF RENTSCON . . I< . . 'i tI" - Hearing�sxaminei• ' `' r -#-�, `! 1055 South Grady Way _Penton Washing:;: 98055 • ;;;!� : a.i:_.: : •~' ADDRESS...SERVICE REQUESTED I.2 '12 G3 •PR �''D fE T E \P '04 Ir•ri 1 ;O .'(!s T,Fr.r W U 5 w•. W Patricia Dolan ;, Irm949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Cl)c, � Ya Apt 307 Q 2 f�� [0 t .r 7 i ri:.., r�[;,,.a 'k Renton,WA 98056 r` U ` DOLA949 9e062003 1800 13 12/15/00 r!• 1 O FORM 3547= DOLAN >!,r, I a Viir. . ". • 2015 NE 2H TFi''5T RENTON WA 4805a-2258 .I .AUtlP 48856 ",;' r•t:!,; ' . tLb,t„t,IL,,1.1 tt,n,t,t„tdLl,hhil,,,it,�,l,:i,I ;r.: . Thrs oaoeledmal�w�`•=reeyded oa;wq 20%wst.;an,a•-„• _ 'ND DE!i 4'EEA ,t r AS ADDti S ED 03:UNABI E TD FORWARD 6' SRETURN TQ SENDER �:Dab {S'�' s { E : S {t Eflf EtEfE f =.s,EE{ :� f !it ! ! EEE f I i E tEiE iii i iE i !Ei! 6 " . SEC 8, TW\ 23 \ , 5 E. , W. V . qz H . - INSTRUMENT.: NIKON TOTAL STATION DTM-AIOLG —1 METHOD USED: FIELD(5 OND TRAVERSE WITH ACTUAL 0- FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANGLES GRAPHIC SCALE WAC 332-130-070 CD I-- m QDATE OF SURVEY: ✓ANUARY,2000 m m mi m 1Im zW CENTER LINE OF ABERDEEN AVENUE NE I nra00)I` I-- Q N 01'59.17" W UW . BENCHMARK: CITY OF RENTON MON #71, TOP 2 1/2" BRASS DISK W SET IN CONCRETE MONUMENT11.8' S AND 9' E OF INTERSECTION OF L.LJ ABERDEEN AVENUE NE AND NE 12TH STREET. LL.I W ELEVATION = 284.63' (86.76M) CZ m LOT 12 I WO BB of • z� -' - I z wo a ® N.OQ b — — — — — — — S89'51'00"W 607.61" — — — — — — — — I z I Ill �Op. e e _ H N N •5 F ci- , Z IBSn 55i:J0 __ a-A.n ` o I d I7 \P 1 ZN e1 t0't,0 IM I I I I4 -I- IB IU ' II IO R I D'LI= I M , 4 I I 3 —ILr -1 I N O I �.\� q m id um - 0 ;II g 1l1-1 ni 11 �r 1���l�;�r ���r :��r lam! I o � t:1 •a Y S89'51..0"W 590.83' LAC [Q NO CONSTRUCTION THIS AREA VICINITY OF CONSTRUCTION THIS AREA Q \ .' • Y,___.�.. \ NOTE:ALL TREES IN THE REMOVED. OF TREE LEGEND 5 '6�S CONSTRUCTION TO BE REMOVED. I 7f, {a I ea MAPLE g \ ® ALDER -" 1 O T 10 EVERGREEN c ` i APPLE i LEGAL DESCRIPTION TRACT 11 OF HARRIES GARDEN HOME TRACTS.ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF. RECORDED IN VOLUME 34 OF PALTS,PAGE 38,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE NORTH 37.5 FEET THEREOF. \ ' n ,•-...",.s c:-...'As.. -'A z.--, _...,t-, ....,. ,-. ,,,,,, -..... e "?!.' iw!,,di ' I:I 1 JUN 21 ADile-D 20 °° / , 4,-...- 7,-10 ,...,= rt3 .c.,,,,, 4,4 W . • EX SSW RIM EL-213.69 6 INV EL.203.64 t 2 H- 1:z INV EL-20].64 u /'�LLJ ce 0_Q 0 J W cn W c LL1c I cnm SCALE 1"=20' I GRAPHIC SCALE rcg I! • I 20 tll e(D MT1e ao;II — It — I OF''!6 \ P P 01 \ 4 t - is£mv }nt`:J:::.s.•�e�xJ`.:•:n�i'c••'.'l:/'s,:.:.i..:v..r.".L,'4v.:ii+'s'%n,.v•:•fi.•.k1:.r:.y�.';:.^`..::..ivia.>;Y'•k.J�{.:�1••`..:'i;i:.t;J.::::r}•'...•...;,kr.:,`.;"•f..?...�J.O^c:;•.�•v:^':.=vJ••::t:•i.',i..�.g.}l.: '}l'::.t i.:.r.r•: .,:`}:.:9R.:F:a".Y�r:•..:x k.i,r.t.?•}.::•:i. -,-r..N s}.s.>:..,k:•;`;.u?::t.;we.4.a.%�/cj/fi:;::: h[Op =-saysrbo•.w-6-01e1;'- ------- — — — — '^: I i I, r' ;K digK}^a� �. z. c.w§ :o°::: - // ' • /A g rfik tv ' ' k : 'l ' // �I I%i; :tkky vjF,•:.} fv3•.�::;i}Ji.}:e- ?0'1,x:--- - 2 '•' "i'svigivi km4' J :imi4+O :i*,:.*}<'tti:rn�::� .>S :,si' Id ! a : 't..: z .<: v}: J:.:r.t •}t•,v., .�,..r : / ✓ I G ' �' 2;ri� Atv '�'}•:kk�$3:Y:•.:: " � 'i .4t ..l n+, ^. J•. I � / 2,4,] /te?i�? r>K+` : \4ty4`•;:?Y.}Y�4 / 1t" : :,^::;:y�:`r'r:::<ti,K:} .41~>sn•:.; r�;c,?w7kt4}:/ /%// / �o � j / __J: ///_ '///,� �,' I� � 4 a \ 0 percent 1-13 percent 0119 Area SLOPE 0-16.5 �///////A 1009)83•I 16.288,eR IL 1],451,ea It O.2B acre 0.3]acres o.e5 anew SLOPE 16-39X I 1it, \ SLOPE 40.i-100S '2Ii:4:v• \ \ I bEX.SSMN RIM EL.212.15 R INV EL-206.05 ••;,_' 9.q,V JUN 2 1 2000 BUILDING DIVISION (.) r r I I r v, 'y 4 ° 11 7 /v°[V 89 •6� J a G0''8'5 / 9 Zo' f1'� u c` 'cf RZp3 ; ' =4. \ 5 pp ;\ % D' <1 /' wo s•6Rrj°� a f5 so 3s g N a60 \ f y I,D/) �� A�4O'/ C $4 ��� f \ °4°cep<yAI WE 6130 G\�"`� 3�mec� W `dW (. ,a.xa wee s/me /9s.se \�"�''S5' °j 5f 6° ° W ` 4' +sgle\' W a F c ,P w �� �° a C5V o• ae°a° — — Z so� \ y4if' e<<4B � ;":' q. oy '8 !\ 19. 7 u`>aG n ,° 5 �56 S, g r r+ab ti1sr� ) -�°1..,u1aq. a °:QK °O r zap°e°° ��W..o- \ ,2\ 9B�v I• 1,P'yJG"I....,!0c,;.9Jeevr,„, .. +Wyly �`• �°y1. ` / V � Go e. `,� /lIe¢dIJ�B�r°�,WS�WNMd> w✓/�T .`/ '' `rs9-66]C 3442R .,, sH9-a9-.%oE .� Z�¢ / V. \1a6 IS ->a3< J .a.. 81 rq ,`:a�'.I •J98 e I �°�ep�]e� \ /' p�a N gj0 0,0 Q�1\C�\V $ y�g� fi '<e 1 ..aT�-.ssJ2L� $ I$ / 1 1Z293 f.. GO' �39 ., ,' n ® Np,/ 6'" - 6- N+rN E IOa— 20 50 " 9 /� ` // R O 00��o IZ�" m $ y'y''.� ..; z.$ 5.5 Ap ..%1,4°c-rsz —�•• 6.< 1 a9a O v ° / 66 6 -p�q d A g • 'yet\ / ,� O„ \5 "' ® W `� i'� P'yp�V\SAP .W a d`2 ° ,°6°I .11 ° • Ha _raro _ ", / C\ �� x ° a.,. c. —°O 9 P k 6I8 .w r°I / 1R®ih 8 (Qp / 03 � � q pA 6 . 7° °5f2ak L®1 ® II6/26I 6S G z / a '6 I . ",.'�1 Pa; ' O i 74..49 i 8y 81.✓ . .../ N F IOTH PL \� / O N —o -- - I� ' ._ ` a6a. nor 94 eC ./. . r . ^° eD-rf °� /a7.saa /s/ w ro9.9a /09.96 P si-9C- /0996 ng6 •.� AV { _—� i i B ojEy lD • ,kQ �� 6+ V°,10 , s 1 °ei, 2 0 0 o g 4 �g aayri Q N 1 j ' '°°'O j5 / I� •.�� ik0 `O ® $ 10G�•' Io• 1�I I �i9 I e,°°BI, • 1 ' .ze g �� /60 /9 g `A A9.94 /.'.960 �P g ��� L 1 $ - 92 2590 \Fk - _n �iH.se N E 10TH ST a C f�ez9R nro°m Z 1 1 N q/. P°' I p 6 .4 13 .✓B9.46.d0 E cc,H Ann n/1 re 0 ra s ▪ , J C m e,Ave jS 11- i\®/ .43. "� 05 (®� ." © h .' 6d.% .. .. .. -\R .Se F 2,q 46 /1 Z j 43 �. O A.' LrxjtT c n 3°° N a �V`1 VO4 IB a �B O V `I ! 6 ,' W r < cn.s._ G!GJ' 'h°� p0°P / )) 0 P°0E. �.. 1 F e F V\r 10 1I N 12 13 14 ' 15 '" 16 ' 17 e997o Z \ CO I �) v n 0S` ° \\. 3 ' `, `, 4". o I I '; ° 6 •• IOD94 \ G/\ p� I d718 198 na �t19$- C`�``O n0° 5 II� ° `-D 's ro 1° r° N� r�n�°6 F ��irl !D�° 10��,1ya' �aa /a �� (© el'6c7Se. m9 w ss s+ sve Li.ar ala.9s 9�41raZ o1)) aes ai)ea,,. sse.x >I) �/7907 6 ,4,4 / 00- sr ¢f of °r_I IJ Qq. ° C8 - ,V s °TT // 12 s7 er m.ss 6pN `� 1N M . 7e 8., 9°. 10.. II,1(Q' 13a- 14e. 15 �166: ,,..,, 18 I x P.W _ ovo" CiONDOM164% 0;11 4.610;8yG1° \ 5141 41° IW'4° aj50 °�� N` i C u dW a12e6GARDL1061Gg-2" „ I9r� ° 1°•0° ux- °ss °� °ea k... P5s6 01 . a1, ,1� `o 1°1, .w m U� cN SUNSETeoe+°°• oG...�"� • d r TH PLNE 9 ^.� 190..eie,A 7,..,§0 • r1'y"sue „i'°°e° /°' { �7/ cod x.ee re ->OV Z ,.--/-98 00 / if1°'\, SG fi/ r9 •P % 99 .S ,�, H11a\" slR?a 5';S1B 9a1" 1.uo ° °,PA I"6s,.:. $6 g1 1�)°y 9esazoOR g/ N sa].ac °0'I. F J h h ae/ 30 05; p\ ,,9p°,� 6` Tmry A6°m ,p�b4 IOp blAo J R Z qAg° H� ° 3 ° d y 2A60�, G4 .IG�/D 1oZ' ye to'6`•( V T�f.16;.1Rfa ,yam 12 ^a eyit�� �.., ' 44 .i�)�R ,rES N 4Q _ `k 007 64,e re..e 6aa, 6508 e° o e 21°'�`� .� - N,°aRl O 1112„„ 9./5,• 66.oe - "' 3 Shea °3°6 As r Gas_ \O Tees F 60% Croa.9e7 7G 2 240'0' Do `_ ^�� S 22d.6°�° p ar4.8B _ W 997� 1p1R �djO 13 + `NY o m v, 2 y A Y 8 • .. • • •. ,,Ay.an.e pp•XZIe Ale e• $.+ • DR. p ,ep 2 94 21n° 20 fl 19 0 IB 0 17 ` 9.K W Li.9I a o O .. •� Q lF 47 r b 10..D:l ze as` 2.0 2 e Gf .0° ;05 �, -N` \/ op o Z Q -16 of) 1� ° D 7� \• 03D �i 6151 0 8 23 24. mks . • N VOL.g5/19-21 813790 N 7\_ 2 ° °w - 1.. a \ _ .9 ''Q r - 93 % .. °- \\V 16 15 a IaOr,' + of, 46 $T,. a P a� 1 m,of v B•jO. 4:x .Ty 9 1 D N E `N,` 6/ 5c aa 9..7 a\ Rrea 67 m T '„ \ \ - qto ,° \, .BGa;{I • - or$ f 919/q✓E,✓) 9TH `( 722750 gT q`I''a. y \ \ •\-7 M' ggr :� I $ 13 ,r IA .�,p. Cs39 n rs 6� n 6G z ,T ,7 a0‘" 2 c� ) \ - dOY lb. 4,fd.A` A`" `V 8°� ♦h z9 zi sec \ \ 978OB ! 4' ~:f y. 8 -To 0 R9 a 411I�. �2 a h 4 e 5m 2 ° ay ° x 146 ..'4 16 Wm.�ia^r'a°sR . gI�e10 i 6d 9� ^ o a1 a °8 pyla E S 1 2� \ a a ° B° R°'r 4 '10 i , ffi A 1 \ a ,�C 4•'s c : `� (A'a Y♦ I]` 9Uy\s �.1R d`6° co di to 0' e.;,,� o i Js, k. l 4112 12<Y' 5 .10 ° 6 9sc '�0�/ J.. / J °/ pe 1 \\ 0 J:R•'. 7 d n°IR w BG 56 L2 BG.96 _B-.6 \ r.4:0 a € ,q. S ,e5�s % .j 'g�W „ W 21 . 23°. 22.• 21e 20o, �19g° I8,4 171Z .°2a n3 S 3°• e o29 iiih L 1 /J�/,50 w a"i p 'N GR Z y..9a $ e`b aDpOAP r R ue° nc�/A •PjDj Y '"' B'°`'OBa M 04e- \ 1 \ 9Gaa 1((q II° = h 30 oA° °j5°:._.� j° eG 1.. I_ 1•r� ✓0ce 9u s gyp° ° o R,O>_ \ \ y, y1 L`�� Y J $ $ �''4.. F �r;;-&: ' N E 8TH PL g •.,4 004 of a 2°yd` do 4 A y1 �0� 4 251q / ,a 9 u V.C.a.a Sent g �� ' L rs o `'e6rs i top ,D � J \ 2.� 4 ^, V�_tre 9°Ial9I8 • ° /3 �54IOe A 61° IW en �o:� 2iZl,p1 6oZ Yo l/ L.r, —}4h Ig bfi, 2y.1$: 6r 2e 4 �' 11 Zyie W of5°:\ 1 . ( FH \®� d Ib ,.rP 26 ,<nw p c."r'.�\O� pA`Rz - \�j '{t 31©�,.,.pp k �, goi r3",n�°S rel.$e ra aQ\ 9e. S � ���5eo /e � �` �:w.r� 6sC/ r1w > � 21 ,� h8 °4 �26 'wQ�II� \ 1 °§,,,. .t ° 're',( .L],x �I ,,1° y,- 1°A:5 ,C°27 4 ..e � ,:7, '50 a gi✓'6•^R b udQ7° Q oSGrnra of, ""fsi s•t/:':.eel? , ny` 4; ° F r - f fsGt 1?16 G 8 g� H 7�0 2 25 p , 1 C� m 5',0\©/.ea., ,e 32 b,ia $�, 7g a m ._ asw „G/ ee 12�r� I,°�' 1O n� R 4��R Z, 9Yp r n.,en .lIIpS Q A _ .:4+ ���G 6.66�.°14 V . 2 0,'�b 2 O • ffi.-a.2r_4+t• ° N PFP 8'1� _�, Q f y .n� 3 c� a �� /r.... mw /a4 oe A 6�jo+, v A9T '� vr�- N r° q5 y �5fl,c> C ,g 1 �` 68�e Q tl a 241R h 23 � .. a1 ,✓e7> n- Him m m . sa *'e` 87N 9 D �" .ae?.r k'D°.f ii1114 ,�,,¢¢ 1 a!"'d f�' u \, 64 ,0 . 2q a a sri H . J4, u m OQIt� C �g W'fl ' 0. w°2 3 1 g ,.,. 3D 30 ? .l,.. �.iP, ,,a .67 tit;V, bi r ° ' .$ 0 q�n'' q�fl` • ,'�� 547-d-P1CG).6.HC3uC� \\ la81471g,es./® mP P ' 4 ' '., md .tBw __/a606-- a6782 1324.48\_ _.-- r N69-80-3TWr— _ � 1324.��` 7 10 22 ' ,. i , *' - Al 1.d\i1303 .., e tp isol +s I I I �' I • I 1 I I I FERRARI -__-__-__-__-_--__--_-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-__-_---_-__-__-_ -_ Z ARCHITECTS,PS I al DESIGN `A�/ i GROUP z I LU N 74781 0 0 I I 0 lillll 0 I I !ii!lii j Q 16 15 14 13 12 II 10 R 8 7 6 5 4 5 2 j IV A�" f�. i 111 A ERDAVENUE N i\ ���_l —v _ „ APARTMENTS jectr. �©©l y.© ��—� ©? ��� �.a©©� Vfr o� ©)1J© �+�©jjO �_` _�..J©lyji�L..�- 11 ..4",� 9/Ateben.be NE 7 C. CI. ' ddd 9 d ✓' a© ©© �a©© ram I Ren .Weed,*NOSS ---- - - '1 CC E —G� /: �r�d_dG� 1 :1�dddG, c ddd0 I IIdddC� )��tl0000_0000�o' 1 II / Kinn ncN N \ / - - mama.. ell bed RrF rn GEnT 2m oc.Aos I .419W I l LANDSCAPE I I X PLAN I I I I I I LANDSCAPE PLAN I I —N I omme CAMBRIDGE • I I HOMES NW IIIENE TEE Rem.IM1 OWN Wa.MgmESED PLANT LIST-SHRUBS PLANTING NOTES: - Ouartity Botanical Name Common Name SIZE Symbol ALL PLANT TIALSHALL BE NURSERY CROWN ONE(I)YEAR MIN ) MESER BETWEEN PANS AND SEE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT Imo' TO THE ATTENTION aMERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO PROCEEDING. ALL DIMENSIONS FOR PLANT HEIGHT.SERE.,A.CALIPER ARE MINIwH REgnREWBNTs. WA ALL PLANTING AREAS TO RECEIVE D'FIDE BARK MULCH Acer Rubrum Red Sunset' Red Sunset Maple 2'.COI ,llik TOPSOIL TO BE PACIFIC TOPSOIL 9-NAY MIX oesolt DEFTN TO.4•IN LAWN AREAS V�� TOPSOILTO PLANERS TO.I b.IN BED AREAS ' RANTNIG.IRRbATION SYSTEM SMALL BE FULLY OPERATIONAL. TYOR.A.Y WATER ALL PLANTED AREAS IMMEDIATELY AFTER RANTING. TERIAL i0 RECEIVE FORMA_A 43a TRANSPLANT''AS MAWFACTLCED BY 1111-' AC PACH GROUam .Cq.AT TIC FOLLOAIN6 RATES Imam CESEEAC eornus Florida Flowering Dogwood 2"cal TR.S• .'4 UTEES OUNCES EACH COVER 2 PLANT MATERIAL TO RECEIVE AbRIFORM PANT TABLETS DI-SRAM AT THE FOLLOWING RATES TREES.4 TABLETS EACH. SHRLB9.o TABLETS EACH sROUTO COVER I TABLET EACH. Magnallo Stellate Star Magnolia 4' ,, CONTRACTOR To PETERMNE OUANTIHES OF PLANT MATERIAL. PITCH mugo mugo ',logo Pine 5 gal '+ :° IRRIGATION NOTES: Nu e Hydrangea macrophylla Hydrangea 5 gal O ALL PLANTING AREAS TO EE IRRIGATED HVFULLY AUTOMATES,IRRIGATION SYSTEM. Th)a O.'Emerald Green' Emerald Green Pyramidali9 (• SYSTEM TO NEST REQUIREMENTS OF LOCAL COPES Ez® �1P MAIN AL SHALL HA SCE 40 PVC PIPE Pleris J.valley Fire' Reins 5 gal �A� LATERAL• A.LINES SHALL ONES SHALBE PVC PARRAATE LANDSCAPE PLAN PREPARED BY: ®"p'"" n Erica cornea Med Pink' Heather'Med.Pink' I gal O SCOTT RADFORD.-LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MOhonia aquifolium Oregon Grape 5 gal Q WASHINGTON LIC.#688 Gornus stolOnlfera Red Twig Dogwood 3 gal p� Clifford Quality Landscapes Om Rho 'Everest' -Evergreen Azalea Everest' 3 gal I' 2713 W.FORT STREET,SEATTLE,WA 98199 Rom • ' Rhododendron Unique Unique Rhododendron (425)864-2797 FAX:(206)685-6570 L 1 as W1AW 4;17e dcoior �yy 4�0,e0 �„4,0 r' FERRARI DESIGN GROUP ji f &Tr.COM. al PA tea teats qq aq II II I II II `, I 11T — AVENUEEN e e—W —•- AVENUE APARTMENTS . Ft.anwmmg.... FIRST FLOOR PLAN .m--.= .I ..�FI ME NW BP. FIRST FLOOR z. PLAN; SECOND FLOOR PLAN; LEGEND; KEYNOTES anat CAMBRIDGE HOMES NW '>zNNEino.e v .ui . lawn Wmmp,.m¢u WA f . _ I d 2F: C71lKI- -I IC+7 r�I'(? N 'L�_ C71�1 I�JIC7 I_ L p a ^Vqa as , — SECOND FLOOR PLAN x,OO.aA.C.. N.M.mm. Om./ nurimpro Al « -9 z. tx ��/% .y G. . a z�� \ u \ ^ . , « K \f \ 0�K O �\ &%A s / �0� � v#'" r! >a �� FERRARI ab DESIGN • .b , , .b . b . °b , °< .b GROUP I- j f r� ��1HP '' . . , . A I - �. o a i Lam, i I —0 �11 ( Men ABERDEEN �- if l AVENUE w 111 e ,,„ �� } APARTMENTS � lil V ! iron w., e s 111 j --. i / i1-j j� .o,.00,Q mi e< O4 e.e '� �' oa �' . . . . -- uo ! c I w �--T_+----� ENLARGED a 1 ` c } ' . . b FLOOR PLANS; LEGEND; KEYNOTES ENLARGED FLR.PLAN-TYPE "A"UNITVOCt V .. ENLARGED FLR.PLAN-TYPE "I"UNIT N N C CAMBRIDGE HOMES NW Val NE MA Na MI rmmywwPuo WOO • i i i I -A, i WA I 'P I r II °� =i 1. °e a M NIMI 1 ..,-Z. 1 it-r-' °1-' .1 ry.. I , I •- --- ` ,III + + I ENLARGED FLR.PLAN-TYPE "2"UNITV N. -- ROM,a,,:.v. NPEWIReala A2 04S°#431.1.404. 1*N° 30 60 43 of+ ci- Kelly Williams-�tie`�ceraddress µ o Pa e 1 From: Elizabeth Higgins To: Williams, Kelly Date: 11/26/01 3:54 P M • Subject: Rieker address Would you please check the yellow file: �" . rl Gerald Rieker and 4 • FA `- 'Soung Hee Rieker w � s 13 Cambridge Homes NW 12228 NE 112th Place,#A-1 Kirkland WA 98033 Thank you! . •. V;$•"ot" '' , T=..f,'0 -••••,•. — •• 1,9..,,,,_ • ,,,,, L. / 0 s.., c.z.i „pie / A COh AP ffrtric.0-iir k. v.t4Ac: it I 1 I Dale. ..... 'i 1 ,... ••.--:'4. - ---- -P71.14%1,, cf-'4:4 '. 448 '.mlimmom TLAT i -4 $ Ts-s4 D..N.:1\-, 14112.1 'kirk JOHN L r- C1 .4 Eki , z AN PITA L. •.:,:z.\ ...1.1 e - r• CC 0 r2 • '. r s 1 I 1 LCIQj 'LT, 1V:i In\ A CONDOMINIUM Li I. 1 IV ''-1,•. 19a:I 5 I TE - Ark 1138 UNITS r.---LI. cif'---,... Ty 175 . 0.33 M.': 1:81 ••.211i . 'I-A no. co 1644 62 D lila I MI . A ' e ,NZ 75, (I)1.-ggi R F7 1•4 z,Einehml -,i . . */..to,,..... • ik t'3 -13 r66 Alf i :..,ep la rcios 6 - :•. •••ci n C /Z:10111.-r2F/0A-R-D-E•Nn .i .Luc ,•s, 7..... .. • c., TT% ,.. ‘ ,,,,rir719 ii WE t, 5 i•••,IL'i -i • 'X h 0 D Ci la 4 o-. ,... ..% .. ' . sham L Li wu h • '',, 4 31 -- 73 . 73 kn 51726 ms 4 eff Ei, t ii.: 0 - - 495.32 1 0.90 AC il 611.; T. '... •:. IP% 74 . .. • 4%1 S\g TI Will W ' •"-, ..• T's-0 .-S4 RI iv-rus-Fr; ......• .7 • 4' -r6Y-.1 - . ... •., *. ... 0 7. • IT lk ••'Ic.0..1.;n 0.1_,.._Ln--..-A--__ri li;t'.7.7. .9iis,' ,..1.••.-'• ''''.'-' x :,1117 e 1r43-11,81 Co....*.,m 4, v co IV an i rn • • ?3 kir., 7.40 _r_ 8.0 eta dr iWil .,co s. ••-. -.L.•ti-r:: --, . .6., ,.... , i ... . . Scgo oo 4.4. 0,0,-• ..k, do •s,•• ,...,:::: „..... :••2_,,,.. ,.. .. •,•.--:-../4•-• ,,,..• \.: . . . . v�T�ln � - o1� 111' : u� :� 1�, i'eta x Mr. Norm Mode Gay Kiesling Jeff dousing 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. C-310 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. - 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. Renton,WA 98056 E318 C210 Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 • Susan Lauth Cheryl Jayne Phyllis Turner 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. E315 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. Renton,WA 98056 D211 D11 Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Terra Schmidt Karen Loos Melody Grieves 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. B106 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. t a( 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. Renton,WA 98056 B105 &/ B206 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Michael Bradley John & Patricia Clayton Annelle Perry 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. B306 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt.A- 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt Renton, WA 98056 102 A101 Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Muhammad Faisal Patty Reynolds Patricia Dolan 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt.A101 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. Renton,WA 98056 C107 Cl 307 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Francia Personett Juanita McIntosh Natalie Hester 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. F220 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Ave NE, Apt. C308 Renton,WA 98056 C110 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Mr. &Mrs. R. Beach Kathryn Carrigan Terrie Carter 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. 056 E116 E216 R 12 3rt ..C -5E Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Helen del Rosario Lawrence& Carol Lonczak Albert& Sandra Jarvela 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. E215 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. Renton,WA 98056 E118 E117 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Lan Le Darsie Brown Cheryl Waid 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. F219 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. Renton,WA 98056 F119 C108 Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Ed Niblock Eleanor Brown Hal & Erin Pugmire 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. D213 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Renton,WA 98056 D313 D314 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Ronald Yasui Doug Graef Helen Burch 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. E317 -' New Home Trendsti.;. 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton,WA 98056 8934 JF148`6 Aver we NE Renton, WA 98056 .Kirkland WA 96033 ►Srci 1 Norte CY,a.k 9141Nq I !'xs11n�1I�WA ctSSbci -%O11D Lisa Young Art Gossan Freida Coon 1000 Aberdeen Avenue NE 7301 NE 175'h, #124 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, C-109 Renton, WA 98056 Kenmore, WA 98028 Renton, WA 98056 James L. Strichartz, Attorney Steve Beck 200 West Mercer Street, Suite 511 19129 SE 145'h Street Seattle,WA 98119 Renton, WA 98059• -°C)14— ---reckryrficn Joan Thompson -Aberdeen Ave Ats LUA00-040 p Page 1 1 ' From: Elizabeth Higgins To: Thompson, Joan Date: 3/7/01 9:28AM ay Subject: Aberdeen Ave Apts LUA00-040 The owner of the above referenced project has moved. Please send the decision to: "n Gerald Rieker 11017 - 101st Place NE Kirkland, WA 98033 Mr. Norm Mode Gay Kiesling Jeff Clousing 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. C-310 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Renton, WA 98056 E318 C210 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Susan^Lauth Cheryl Jayne Phyllis Turner 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. E315 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Renton, WA 98056 D211 D11 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Terra Schmidt Karen Loos Melody Grieves 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. B106 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue-NE, Apt. Renton, WA 98056 B105 B206 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Micheal Bradley John & Patricia Clayton Annelle Perry 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. B306 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. A- 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt Renton, WA 98056 102 A101 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Muhammad Faisal Patty Reynolds Patricia Dolan 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. A101 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Renton, WA 98056 C107 307 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Francia Personett Juanita McIntosh Natalie Hester 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. F220 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Ave NE, Apt. C308 Renton, WA 98056 C110 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Mr. & Mrs. R. Beach Kathryn Carrigan Terrie Cater 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, E115 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Renton, WA 98056 E116 E216 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Helen Del Rasario Lawrence &Carol Lanczak Albert & Sandra Jarvela 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. E215 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Renton, WA 98056 E118 E117 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Lan Le Darsie Brown Cheryl Waid 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. F219 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Renton, WA 98056 F119 C108 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Ed Niblock Eleanor Brown Hal & Erin Pugmire 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. D213 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Renton, WA 98056 D313 D314 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Pry o% RearYcl Ronal Yasui Doug Graef Helen Burch 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. E317 New Home Trends 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 8034 118th Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Kirkland, WA 98033 Lisa Young Art Gossan Freida Coow 1000 Aberdeen Avenue NE 7301 NE 175th, #124 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, C-109 Renton, WA 98056 Kenmore, WA 98028 Renton, WA 98056 A:V1991s111AYg . rouvA ENpNEFFS DRIVEWAY PROFILE FEB..2000 vsvc — 1 m NOTED �"'�"" _ - --- 'rt I ISm LAND SURI`EMRS '� �m i �_1 , a,w . _.� ABERDEEN APARTMENTS �o N0. REVISION BY DATE APPB 0`m I WPC fu)nr-" (w•lalm-aa 71907SNE _ a • OAS Oh1hn + 154.3 C o 0 0 166.0 • + 173.0 • 1 Cl)�'1''1 . I I • 180.4 180.00 • 00 + 184.4 g 185.52 r\1 z N Cisi . 190.1 191.05 N + 195.4 g 196.57 1''�� P1 0 4. 198.9 _ 202.09 7 o \ } 204.5 1 BVCS: 4+98.96 +_ 5 5 0 207.62 BVCE: 207.50 > x or'.1n 8 I I ➢ " rot ' 11 EVCS: 5+23.96 006 g,m t. EVCE 209.13 I m m ":1\4j0G • amp . . . ,.. r .,..„ '..:- . '4lt•Cid:14.4-A._' ''- Oftr.vr • , ASV 11°,444;if:'. 406 441 42,, 'reSb • , . , ri • FERRARI DESIGN 1Iirii umann GROUP i� .-Epp ?1I11{111 ®1= II !VI III, h=�_— .� R4��'=ippl Ilil is1'II I _ Eli'il'l!i r� - _-I-j , Mir =NV I111 111- .Ifkal I = =IIIMIH 1=�4_ I �,_ .w � = iI_ —= - ------ x — _= ills i—_ — -----Y _ Ill .I�F�,�L;I O �I � ���=11i11 IIh= �_ I I � r _ I r 1 �Q�'fI L�.. r - ' NORTH ELEVATION ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS • 9171,1*.sca NE RIOR �® t�' —\ r€71.776--acusiffiu - 1 ELEEXTVATIONS 1. , til 'ititalin 111=1.1291± ---di --------- ----------------------- ,...,.:,< —� �� CAMBRIDGE --'--- .�'' HOMES NW C IMBNEumr.,ul Kvurq...0.M. SOUTH ELEVATION S.Y.E.lee.I- WA ^ I m-❑ n mum I j 11 0 j .ter,. i■�■1i—WHIM EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION A3 , • • . • ,.. • • . •-.. r C ' a.4) 1.9 0# ° 034° x,63 -,v. •. \ I i I I i FERRARI . \ I I I DESIGN \ . j 1 GROUP j \ • I I ARCHITECTS.PS j \ jj RenixcouRrps .........nom j I j I =74(7r0 j \ ........ ...1.:. . . , . . . .. \ • ! Ii \--,7\----17,Ed .,T.„1 ..., ,\ • . -:-' -,-- . - -, - '-': ....--......-2.:--:...-.--.!.. .5.---. .---• --,-,-...---;-,.... ,;..:-:-...- ,-.::,-..;.....-.-: .:..,.,.....„.,..,--...,;.,-y:„.:....;;;/,.... -,-..-,,,.•..,-.1,..,...2,:-,,,,;,..,;.:...,.;./...,.:(,.:... .;,,..,.„..;..„.,::.>,/.. fa ..., .f., - li'\‘ . - ' ,",' ',.,-''' '': ' ' /' :-/".:-;,,,,..".% .•":"..---',.'.ti., ..-,-.i.."\;::-.:.r.,..-:, ..,.,g,.__:, ,/„.P.. /I /'-_:-"-.1 ••., ' I.•,,__,. •.. ....• •-•-•;:•:;" ,,,f/ i , (•.• ,i< 1 .... Ei.192 " rF A. FF 200 '.I" fr204 '.i... . ....P /•• A .....I; • .i:, „...:. ./-....''...A'A.: : •.(::;:::.) '...„ ,/ . .'-' ........ ..... / • i ;..);;'"'Z/f?.' '. ' j men - R . I A . s ei a '...T s SP.;,-.----- .' / / j ABERDEEN " • , , , .'" •:.,* ,.1''',`. °"=1.;.1-':.:-,.,'----:';:1111116V "'..-...'\— '/ 27.1/2 / . , ; D i AVENUE_—-—-—--_.:--- -—--—j-—.t_—1—-—4 ---;* -- - ' 1;-: ----_ -"' •. '.:.z./ ',,',..j,_:,-- .f z ''- 0 :-,.- '..Z./ '-';///'X'.'7/.Z.'. -• /•'" '-' Y ! i APARTMENTS j 911Abadoen Ammo NS \ ' • i ' / I.ER.,SETBAAAL Rentals Wasergen NOSS , : .... .. . . . . . . . / A.' / ..' ...' ..... A.' •.' I j j \ . , . e' g —0...,....r.,—..z,,,,, • • " . • , .? .i' * -. , \ SITE PLAN; i LEGEND LEGEND SITE PLAN a GROUND LEVEL/PARKING LAYOUT —...- Ni/ — CAMBRIDGE I 1 LAmoscAppos HOMES NW Ira.tut Fumms I I pAamsrs 0E.Ax Kee.WoMseen NOM LEGAL DESCRIPTION I., Loy a KARRIeS OAMEss.Rae...Pees Less Ns..5130 Peer N/A • PROJECT DATA BUILDING DATA 49.'11V.7.7-;;.0 OII -' „..- Russo- TAR 1.4T tepee. '77.Inpos PATE,case NI,Earn, . ,ITE.11.44.ftlep.e. ' roi .a , evelleCTLE.TYPete. Or-__',.' -.& . Ilkilfi. $40111,1Ii.•, epois.s Leos.AREA.Aare sp. ... ..-. ., N,' ...... 1S t—--._.„,''''W' m•Lesrrai• sae exPIERASe PET BALD., ATOKA,MOVIVO. AL.PT:'''',..,,,f..;;:Zr''''''''"' .ts\ . : t°{.10,1•A E..4N,1 bee.TOAP.s.Ts, ' s il MOITEI' _ rj. '''..... .......'. Fir.r:FEF7...:=7 Rupee Tss ANAL LANP...Pe ARA. 71.;...7.NcT'I'ZPIE-E‘;ENE: MK.. . ASS P.,.ALLareal VICINITY MAP NV Ma.ALLLNE.e. ITV=EV=.TITA:f1TATTLet===Sr o Os, .......0 Tor="'"aT972-1=TRIWers Ap.e. Poe to...Ts as. a.,,,,.,, nossaux. SDI „,. 431‘4.4° O. .A• v”, bok_ \\\ Itig-- --7-- - --.--;- .. - . r4 i SEC 8, TW\ 23 N , 'P 5 E. , W. V W. V . aid IINSTRUMENT: NIKON TOTAL STATION OTM—A1OLG • Q H (5 SECOND INSTRUMENT). METHOD USED: FIELD TRAVERSE WITH ACTUAL p- LU FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANGLES 0RIM H GRAPHIC SCALE RIMEL=213.69 WAC 332-130-070 INV EL=207.64 R 0 m A vI Ct DATE OF SURVEY: ✓ANUARY,2000 m ins mom mi z CL CENTER LINE OF ABERDEEN AVENUE NE I(MM.)".¢01 ll Z. 0 Q N 01'59'17- W W BENCHMARK: CITY OF RENTON MON #71, TOP 2 1/2- BRASS DISK CD w SET IN CONCRETE MONUMENT11.8' S AND 9' E OF INTERSECTION OF 0 ABERDEEN AVENUE NE AND NE 12TH STREET. Ct LL1 W ELEVATION = 284.63. (86.76M) i--- CLI LOT12 I TOP OP RETAINING RETAINING HALL AT PROPERTY LR@ PULL AT I1E30'. NEIGNT VARIES FROM 2'-0•TO 4'-0•. SEE OFIWINO AG FOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS ERR — WO is —_ ILI Wy ayyl ,' , � / g ic' m I 30 I Z ILI j¢ d� //41De/ARo sETacIF'' �/ / ,589'51'60"W,607.61" / / RHALL ETAININO —� 1/1'-111 OAl &V /,t � VOINIg uz,C� ,/, ce u � -- 1 I —I— 1C •614 I I:i $F2O4 2 _ In J o I • / i o 53:- --,-:--,--r,-- • 188 __ • i96 'I II ' , , I irmr-lmouir- imirigmt_Hm,'itisic -1.11 ..__I-7-- . ,6 al 0 `,�o I RerAINING / S89'51'i0"W 59Q.83' / - / 7 -- - - / 30' I ll-1 HALL r • 'o�5�5�S`6 e \ FIRE DEPT. So I I Access,TURNAROUND NA. MER- NEAD. zP LOT 10 \ I I I LEGAL DESCRIPTION ©EX.SSMH TRACT 11 OF HARRIES GARDEN HOME TRACTS,ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RIM EL=212.15 RECORDED IN VOLUME 34 OF PALTS,PAGE 38,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON; INV EL=202.10 EXCEPT THE NORTH 37.5 FEET THEREOF. • Ay t ) r'r °ISI/IIp NI a70e °002 I r Nnr !e5:,iiy yc. v 7. -‘21 C:r Gina Aaselund Nick&Rodopi Andrews : '�_adopi Andrews&Revocable Li Andr 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#D114 907 ABERDEEN AVE NE#1 3325 84TH AVE SE RENTON. WA 98056-8709 RENTON,WA 98056-2860 MERCER ISLAND,WA 98040-3041 Susan Andrews Donald&Frances Au stop Marie'Au stin 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#D106 912 SUNSET BLVD NE 633 RADBURY PL RENTON,WA 98056-2861 RENTON, WA 98056-2905 DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765-4621 Amra Basic Kirk Baisch Andrija&Nadzija Bosnjakovic Howard Berg 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#B204 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#K304 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#B201 RENTON,WA 98056-2897 RENTON, WA 98056-2895 RENTON, WA 98056-28':) - _ Rick&Lynda Best Robert&Peggy Blair Michael Lee Bradley 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#311 950 SUNSET BLVD NE 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#B306 RENTON, WA 98056-8701 RENTON, WA 98056-2905 RENTON, WA 98056-2897 I i Senad&Sanela Brndic Darsie Brown Eleanor Brown 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#E301 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE Apt f iq 7100 132ND PL SE#102 RENTON,WA 98056-2887 RENTON,WA 98056-2897 NEWCASTLE, WA 98059-3149 Linda Buchanan Helen Burch Rashpal&Baljinder Buttar 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE I 957 ABERDEEN AVE NE 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#PRK RENTON,WA 98056-2800 j ' RENTON, WA 98056-2832 RENTON,WA 98056-2800 i ' Baljinder Buttar j Richard&Maile Tran Carlson Paul Iv Carr 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#C106 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#D212 975 ABERDEEN AVE Nb 4B301 RENTON, WA 98056-2861 RENTON, WA 98056-8709 RENTON,WA 98056-2881 Kee ChiangChan&Lai Hew Peng Terrie Carter Thomas Caven 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#E216 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#A304 SASKATOON SK RENTON, WA 98056-2897 RENTON, WA 98056-8709 CANADA Lai Kwan Anne Chan&Robert Wan Joo Wei Cheng&Kui Hwa Goh 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K Scott Chandler 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K SASKATOON SK 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#314 SASKATOON SK CANADA RENTON,WA 98056-8701 CANADA Sek Hung Timothy Cheng&Sin Ying Susi Chung Ming Chien&Bie Lan Oey Sin Beng Robin Chin 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K SASKATOON SK I SASKATOON SK i ' ' SASKATOON SK CANADA I i CANADA CANADA J '. •-• ,- N., , . , ,' , ,. _. ' • • -1.,• . ;,,,O)):'',r \.,. '''\.\ , '.:'''', K i .\ N'..\\, •....)': N , , N\ . '1'1 '-"'"---7 .., .' \ \\- -9-' .'„, ' . . . . ,‘....," -- \ \ 'NN„,....._, " . .-',..' .. , • -' , . . • • ), ' '' ' ,„ ,.N, ' , '. • \ ' , •,,'.." . • . .--......„\\ I/ ( \ )' ---.."1 • . • ,1!) 0 0 0 '.- ..!" '. \'' '• 'N , . . ..,.,.'.I C•,•.' '''''••-', -- - \\N.\'I s...;-›- .' ' \' \.‘ •,--- t' , . \ .,......., c'•.'• ...-. k N. ''', \•,,,),''''• . .. . .N•,.';')'e '. \ 1.' ..".:' • J... .......„, ..,„, \ ss•N ' ''''' . .. ' c), ''•,7---"-„ I' . . 1' - ) ', ,I • -,....„.. ,' e) l) . . . . . ,.. • :'' ...."'"' , . . , • •-. '+`'. N, l l'N.,„ Ns. \\:,,,,,,/ - •:.-.- 'Y'',... ' '.,;,''''''''' .• .....' . . . . , .. . . ,... , \ NN, •.... ...,, . • ., ,. , • '_ . \) • I) ' , "..... ....."/ \ , \'..-- .-/ N s ® (.'.',) • (,) 0.)!J K•1 -,S•v., . \.. V, \ ' \...,.'A ........' , ' • \ N • ..\\, \ -...,„,,,,., . ,,J- • • ,,, \, -...;- ,C, \., %)" _ -'% ,, ‘, . .---- , .,,, ..,, . .. - . ..,.. . , , - . . Kon Wing Chow&Po Chu Leung ' I 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K John Clayton Jeffrey Clousing SASKATOON SK 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#A-102. 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#C-210 CANADA RENTON, WA 98056-2897 RENTON, WA 98056-2827 Terry&Laurel Conrad Bucky Coon Eileen Cornelius 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#F307 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#C109 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#B303 RENTON, WA 98056-2890 RENTON, WA 98056-2897 RENTON,WA 98056-2897 Kathryn Corrigan William&Pamela Crayton Sean E Cummings 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#E-116 6344 138TH PL SE 901 W SUNSET WAY#D RENTON, WA 98056-2897 BELLEVUE, WA 98006-4808 ISSAQUAH, WA 98027-3007 , James Davidson Rosario Helen Del Almir&Vesna Delic 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#E205 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#E215 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#B302 RENTON, WA 98056-2862 RENTON,WA 98056-2897 RENTON,WA 98056-2881 Patricia Irene Dolan Madeline Donckers Robert&Jeanne Duzenbery 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#307 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#D-215 10203 47TH AVE SW#D IS RENTON,WA 98056-2879 RENTON,WA 98056-8709 SEATTLE, WA 98146-1012 Muhammad Faisal&Farheen Ghani Charlotte Fellers Eric Fernstrom 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#J203 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE RENTON, WA 98056-2897 RENTON, WA 98056 1RENTON,WA 98056-2800 Kris Filion Francia Finch March Findley 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#A301 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#F-220 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE RENTON, WA 98056-2897 RENTON,WA 98056-2897 RENTON,WA 98056-2800 Kenny&Eunice Furomoto Wayne&Michelle Gallegos I Jack Germeau 99-708 HOLOAI ST 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#A104 224 ROSE ST AIEA,HI 96701 RENTON,WA 98056 PORT TOWNSEND,WA 98368 Julia Glocker Ban Hock Andrew Goh Jose Gonzalez&Sofia Hernandez 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#C-211 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#G102 I 408 MONROE AVE NE#112 RENTON, WA 98056-8709 RENTON,WA 98056-2896 . . RENTON, WA 98056-8403 MelodyGrieves Steve Grunert Natalie Hester 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#206 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#A302 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#308 RENTON, WA 98056-2878 i RENTON, WA 98056-8709 , . RENTON, WA 98056-2879 i . . v ....• 11 • ',I 1 0 V . .. -,;;• (..>• . .)-A''''- ',"‹,,''''\•.\,. .-,..)0'...-. . •., - sOli K..; .1 It.2',.S.:s.\ .i-..›'-•,---,-, ',Ns V, . - ,..." \ ,.1:4 .).< I,--, ,`,..„,_ \\‘,,, , :s' — \•,' \ ,- ' N,\\. \\$,\\,,'-,7 ,.'-...:,'-' • 1 ', \, ' -7 . _ . . . . _- . -,... ...0., v...• - . \.. ;\ - , ,.., ...... '\°''' '—' ''.,1, ); ..• . ..• , r-', ,V(‘..)• ' / .. d.r.,..\-SIVit ' :'•'. •, NN‘: .;\vil.Vi 't'...'1',...•9...y. \ , .. , ,• - .. \‘. .., . . -... -- 0, 3 • ..... ()“:' o- •\\-.) ../• , • .. • , ..•.,' . ''. I .\ \ ,,;.:Y.',..''• is \',,N1,, " '-''. \1 :.`" . . . ...-- C V — l'\ •- — •, ,-- ,' '.. ',‘ '•.,_,..• . - ,,,,,•,.-' , " \ 1. .. , „. - . --- „J ____ , '-... )l -)-- •... _._ „ . ...„. „/„,s.. , -•••••, ,--...,....1 - •‘.. 'c••'• ---•-, '•1 ., „. .,____.., • , )1 • `..---.____--• c?/) ;.„..) , . s;., ,c •.s•- \)•-•• - ,-,+" • •,-;-:"..,''- '1''s's . .-,_ sr''• s" / \ .'-‘,`•-`, . . •-•••• — \; \\ -,;---• . . ._,...;• i \',‘ ,-, . ...• , - .'••••‘' ' \,, \ s',., '' . S. ...--•2r . . --.. • ,- ,oF)-'....._("\,' 1,1 -----, „„,‘-- ,-.),- , • . ._ •• •' ---,-, ."-' \ ,'.' - . , . . . , . )) \--- ' {j •-- . i . . . ..„. _...,. ."---;.---". r.... 0) -` \C .0' ,‘,...) „,....-,\ . ...' N_•,..- , ...,..• ,',..‘1.'--)( \ ,, ''''' .,,..• , ‘, , , ..i \../ \\ ''' C . . . .... Cathy Heylmun Dennis S C&Joycelyn Hiu Kenny Ho 315 W DURANTA ST 98-1787 KUPUKUPU ST 6822 BEACON AVE S ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-2160 AIEA,HI 96701-1609 SEATTLE, WA 98108-3623 Paula Elaine Holmes Harriet Houghton Christopher Housing 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#J302 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#A201 2025 1ST AVE#420 RENTON, WA 98056-2895 RENTON, WA 98056-8709 SEATTLE,WA 98121-2176 . I James Huff Tom Hughes i Kunio&Kazuyo Inoue 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#L302 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#D114 4446 SOMERSET BLVD SE RENTON,WA 98056-2876 RENTON,WA 98056-2897 I BELLEVUE,WA 98006-2218 Equities q (Us)Asc Interwest Interwest Equities Associates A Washingt Equities(Us)Associates Washi Interwest 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K 3V SASKAT 2402 MILLAR AVE CA SASKATOON SK SASKATOON SK SASKATOON SK S7K 3V2 CANADA CANADA 1 CANADA Albert&Sandra Jarvela Ofelia Javier Cheryl Ann Jayne 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#E-117 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#K303 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#D211 RENTON, WA 98056-2897 RENTON, WA 98056-2895 RENTON, WA 98056-2897 Velibor&Nedeluka Jeremic Janis Johnson Jennifer Johnson 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE 901 SUNSET BLVD NE 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#104 RENTON, WA 98056-2800 RENTON, WA 98056-8709 RENTON,WA 98056-2878 I ' Andrew Keim Steven&Jeanne Keim Gay Kiesling 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#F406 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#E318 RENTON,WA 98056-2891 RENTON,WA 98056-2800 RENTON,WA 98056-2897 Hae Sook Kim Deborah Kisinger Takashi Koshikawa 901 SUNSET BLVD NE 901 SUNSET BLVD NE 65 MARION ST RENTON, WA 98056-8709 RENTON,WA 98056-8709 SEATTLE,WA 98104-1401 ll Mardell Kromer David Kronenfeld Melissa Kroskie 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#B307 i 916 SUNSET BLVD NE 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#J202 RENTON, WA 98056-8709 RENTON,WA 98056-2905 RENTON, WA 98056-284 Cofy&Lora Kupferer I Susan Lauth Lan Thi Lehuong 2200 NE 10TH ST 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#E-315 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#F219 RENTON, WA 98056-2934 I RENTON,WA 98056-2897 RENTON, WA 98056-2897 . ., . - ... . . ‘,. ._• o . ',' •.....',i •..'-. I. 1 • .6\.j.' -.'' \ \1/4, .,:.-. • ',-: ',.2- \,- ' ,, \ „i'' •• .- , \ t, - .•• ,_., . .., , ...,.,- „ ' ' ., , ,•--- ....•- ' ._- ' '....., \ . , , . Y\(P. ' • ' \ . ' . y 0 "' ."•\,, 'Y 2 ,.. , Y.,. ' • . .. .. , .\C‘.."'! ,' • ., •, .,.. ,. •' • 1 , ••••.Y Y ,,, , . . ...,_ _... L., 0 ft.,0•4. , CP. -• 1.:D'Aig ,„....•1) ‘.i.1.,'"Yi'1\i...•. so, ...*:•7''' :1' •,,,,;.,-:. 7::' . ''.-'.,;-'.-- ,,-.)\\V•••• \ ,6•1-,....c..,:....,.''' I.,(..:1 . . . , ,... ., , . .2. I \i • \-, -,...,, , ...• ...,_- •,•-\'>'' '. 's, \\ •-' . ..„ . .; (-1.--- :' ' , •• --' ‘„ . --.., ,., • ,— -. 1 -,.. ..., .• , \‘‘ N.., ,, ..- ( ' .. -t\\\,'. • (..,,,,•,,,,,---'...., 1,) . .., , ,i '' • .. , --__ _--- .,1 (.0 • • „.\...'''; •0•(.., ,‘-'1::" \\ ,, ‘,',..,,,,,:1'\ N.-N.:\•,,, • '-'1'"C'r f'-'II 1.',.'..\‘:‘, \'',.!' '.•'''' \\' . .,,'.•, '' \ •„ \\ ..,,, t•_'• . • .... ' ' ,.,• ..a ...\,-..—\ 'k,,,\;„:7;,,e, ,., - . \ • ' ••• - • ••..,. . ..... , , ,... .. .) . . ... 0 '''• Y. . .. •.',,...' .... -, . ...----...„„ . • ) I \ il I . kl) (.D ® . • ). ‘) /''. •)\'' •• ..)''• -' "‘ , •,„'a ,...., , ,,,,, , •.1'. S' , \, s • . •,.... . . ... .— ‘ ''').". • {• rV ' ' ' '' \,,,, '''''' , . .-, - . •.',.-''' N., . .• ,,,...• - •U'•-• --N.. s ..' , ,„, N. ', . Madelin Yuek Lin Leng-Reynolds Leng Yuek Aka ' I Cheryl Leonard Sharon Kay Lepage-Jones 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#E305 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#B-205 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#D312 RENTON,WA 98056-2887 RENTON, WA 98056-8709 1 ' RENTON, WA 98056-8709 ) Heung Pong Leung I Tow Ken Jefferson Robert Lim 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K Ruby Lewis 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K SASKATOON SK 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#H104 SASKATOON SK CANADA RENTON,WA 98056-2875 CANADA Kie Siong&Lay Lee Ling 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K Dwayne&Nancy Liston Lawrence&Carol Lonczak SASKATOON SK 901 SUNSET BLVD NE 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#118E CANADA RENTON, WA 98056-8709 RENTON, WA 98056-2878 I , Cedo&Rada Marusic Radenko&Kata Marusic Tracy Mccormack 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#B-105 RENTON, WA 98056-2800 RENTON,WA 98056-2800 RENTON, WA 98056-2897 Cory Allen Mccown Cheryl Mccoy I Troy&Carey Mcdowell 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#F-320 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#C-309 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#F204 RENTON,WA 98056-2897 RENTON,WA 98056-8709 I RENTON, WA 98056-2874 Robert&Juanita Mcintosh Susan Mckinley I Pamela Medzegian 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#C110 901 SUNSET BLVD NE# 112 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#C-110 RENTON,WA 98056-2897 RENTON,WA 98056-8700 RENTON, WA 98056-8709 Meldon Properties Limited Liability Co Oscar&Regina Meneses I Diana Merritt 19511 SE MAY VALLEY RD 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#D115 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#B-106 ISSAQUAH,WA 98027-8518 RENTON,WA 98056-87091 RENTON, WA 98056-8709 1 'Viohan Mulani&Nand Kumar Moolani John Miller Norman Mode 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#310 ! SASKATOON SK RENTON, WA 98056-2800 RENTON, WA 98056-2879 i CANADA James Mulvihill Craig Nelson&Margaret Hall Janis&Paul Newbury 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#E217 5349 229TH AVE SE 2322 216TH AVE SE RENTON,WA 98056-2897 ISSAQUAH,WA 98029-9223 ISSAQUAH,WA 98029-7133 11 Cho Hin Joe Ng Sai Yo Ng&Wing Yuk Lau Douglas Neyhart 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K 315 SENECA ST SASKATOON SK SASKATOON SK ' SEATTLE, WA 98101-2907 CANADA I CANADA ' • , , ,,,, • .' ). \ / s• ---- . .,-' a cD • ,:\ N'N• c.,,CIl ''' ' c di:, 4 V" •A 'N..,\.\ . .. , - . • • ,-. ., \-, ., i„, , „_., . , :,' • \ s-- • ,..,. .k.- .„..,%--\\.,,,, ; '',....,,,, , • , ',." , . ''••`-' / •'\ —- .'/ — _.- 0(-)N.:'«' _.., ..,. \''; ,r-•.... — „t.,',..- •- ',,,, ' 1 \„, • '-" . . , ,0 ',..--,,,, ••,„ .\ • N(...: - - ..-• , . , . • •••••-• .. ._•-•.• . ' ,.- \ • .. .) - •,,. \• '•---- .' I • ‘ 21 ‘•••-..L--•-•' ,,,•:" , `... .• -____.- ------ 0 6 0 -cks'''',:i.c •,. , tr,\•.. ,, ,. 0 .. ,‘...). • . r•: ; ,,,,..), ‘,N ,..,,),\„: ,.......,,,,.. ,•-:,....; .6.: ,(., • ,,\ ...,, . ...,.. ; ...,, ,;. , ..,, ..... -- .----, .,,- '2,..:2... -:- .. ,, ,,, .,... .:."-'--\ \ ` \ ---7' . • , . . , . -, ,.. • . .,,,,- • •,, \ 1,,, ---- ..,,, - , ' -. ,.. ,,,,,. \\ „ ,,,,.) ,._._.... • .N.:. , ,,,, . ,,., -,,. ..., . .. .„ c,,,\,-1. '.i - c, • 0'• ,-----. . ,,,,,. ( • \_,_./ ,_, ._j ' , • . o 0 • c , • .c`•‘.+) ---.'• \-,',‘"(2'... - • '.3, •" ''• ,,•\\.\ ,'• -'. , .•.`-;•'...,----(•1‘.-'..,:\cc ,,,..,,,, .• \- `''' ',l....;\.\\ .-.- . .• . ‘,.. `•-•--- .3. co`..''''\'"/. ,•`2,1', '\''. , ..; N...\-),: •'...-'. .—'- .,' A .---'-- - I.C.6''' t '' ' \ \• 1,„;,- ..u . ,••..,,'„'• „.••‘•\ \‘‘.....,• , 1.,".„,... .., ... . ,..,y,'....• , _In, . ..- Cy...1 ,-. .....-.• \\ • , •. , .., '''.. ••.- „. „„,..1 - •. •. . ....' •t'' ''‘.- ,•-•-----•••-•„,, '''`...,.. • -- ‘\'•••-' . •••• N: ..,, . . e. \ • ,...,,, . -. ... - ... ,..-- \ I/ .' . ..--- . . , ' ------- . , .• / \ \____,/ \,..____,,,• • .,,____ 0 0 (..'" . . , .. .., r)\'• '' ,''\ .,..."'",k' . .,.1'',, \ • ic:,,,..\\'‘ .J',, \ , , '‘,,,..,',.. • '.''';.-.'', ..A\‘'\, \\\.—.:\\24,->" t'2:u1,.i .\A\ ,,•- _ ,,,:-.. ',„, .c•-.-- ( , —1\ ,* ,_;:•..,• -• ,--,,,,, ,..,,-\ ..) .. ' , I Hernan&Sharon Norambuena Michael Doan Nguyen&Dung Tri Ng j Janet Nielsen Norambuena 902 SUNSET BLVD NE 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#B-107 17829 155TH AVE SE RENTON, WA 98056-2905 I RENTON,WA 98056-8709 RENTON,WA 98058-9063 Karen Norris Not Available From County Katy O'Grady 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#J102 21726 121ST PL SE 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#A201 RENTON,WA 98056-2876 KENT, WA 98031-2378 RENTON, WA 98056-2897 Choon Hock Lionel Ong&Nee Kho Betty Leta Rae O'Neal 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K Christopher Orwig 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#A301 SASKATOON SK 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE RENTON, WA 98056-8709 CANADA RENTON,WA 98056-2800 I 1 ( Paula Page I Penny Palmer&Ronnie Beach ' ' Lonnie Pappas&Patti Lynn O'Dell 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#C-111 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#E115 i , 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#303 RENTON, WA 98056-8709 I RENTON,WA 98056-2897 j RENTON,WA 98056-8701 Annelle Perry j Jack Peterson ' , Nadejda Petrova 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#A101 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#E-316 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE RENTON, WA 98056-2897 RENTON,WA 98056-2897 RENTON,WA 98056-2800 Chor Kok Phua&Guek Hee Heng Patricia Phillips 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K Ken Hung Phung 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#H303 j SASKATOON SK 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#E406 RENTON,WA 98056-2893 ' CANADA RENTON, WA 98056-2888 11 Chandra Mohan Retlmam&Angela Mui C Harold Denney&Erin Michelle Pugm George Quigtar ' 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#D314 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#B-205 ; SASKATOON SK RENTON, WA 98056-2897 RENTON,WA 98056-2897 I CANADA Patricia Reynolds I Eleanor Romero Janet Rothnie 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#C-107 25424 34TH PL S 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#B305 RENTON, WA 98056-2897 KENT,WA 98032-9725 RENTON, WA 98056-2897 i Teresa Runner Fumio Sakiyama , , Paul Santiago 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#J103 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#C-207 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#L303 RENTON, WA 98056-2876 RENTON, WA 98056-2897 RENTON,WA 98056-2876 Jack&Ruby Schendel Terra Schmidt Ellyn Sebastian 958 ABERDEEN AVE NE , I 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#B-106 901 SUNSET BLVD NE 4r208 RENTON,WA 98056-2831 I RENTON,WA 98056-2897 RENTON,WA 98056-8709 ' •, ,. , \.....„_,.....-- . (2, CO • ,.\ ...,. \(‘` .,.....• 1.`'. • , ,,•6 f .,.,... - '.;\-,/• •'N.,\::\ '1.:.: 1"•\ ("';;j. ,‹.•.. •." \ . l'C,' i \ ''•',, '•0\'., 's/ \' '`"\• l''''''' \ " '1\ \\ i!,..•- ..." \ r...,,.'''.. ."‘•‘,. ‘ ( \\ \\,\`' ..(‘ .., ,.,\-;,.% . . ,,',. .--‘, \\ ,.,-. • '., \',..., _ • r.,!,,.•',• _,•.',, \ ...\ \',,,2'..—r , • ,......',:' , ' \'' • .• '.' - , ''\ l• , , 2-• .—- . , ..• • ." .. ,,,..• .,,• .. ,,-....- ...., , .,. 1.:,'.,,,"-- --•-•,‘ r \ s / \ , C) Cv,)0, , •-r.,:.. "--- \\\) ,----•\ \\,..,,,,-.•,, . . • ' ...,:-Ct-Vg,.`1'j4,.'. •':_kr'''. . •.., - " ,giZ-r.N-.." ., • \ . . ,, ,.....„4,....3,,,,.,,,.....-., --, \\.,4, .. ",„.,-...• . ,,,iK . . ..-.,.''"'' - -',.--• ' \-,,,- \ .",.;•----- ,• •. - • -. ). '--- .• \\ // `....._____ ..'• (E1 , I..., 0W•" .••••1:'3'.•.".'....,, ',•.\.„ 'J'.: .. I\:\'7:.'>.'...N. ,• ., .,,,, I • — '''<( '' .a '.' . .•,:•'' '::.• • • ' % ,\,;•',,, . .• • _.. • . ••:,''..'' ( . •z\\• . • I. I•' . ..6) ' .'-'' , X . . •.......'2'' ' ' ....---' • '"' - 1 k° '..,.---.. '.\\ , .,•-, ..—.... ... .1 . \.' . • 0 l) 6\ .,',1 . '-'.7. •,,.......\\ .... .',J'I. \..\k ,\\ , k 0.S:vi' "* \\I'S,\\ ',,,...,\-,\ ,.\)''''-‘'. ', \\ • ''''..:)-- i \ \ <::7 c, Vt- ' H .....- •'-''' ---' \., ..,',,, ..1.„1 .. , . , le • • ,"------ .-.-. \" Pelita Serrantes Joel Shields Darren Shoda 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#H204 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#D212 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#B-306 RENTON,WA 98056 RENTON, WA 98056-2897 RENTON, WA 98056-8709 Anokh Singh&Mindo Kaur Rasanayagam&Thirumakhe- Sivasayan Kurt Siebers 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#214 SASKATOON SK SASKATOON SK RENTON, WA 98056-2879 I CANADA CANADA ' I I Iku Skeels Tony Smalls Alvin&Irene Smith 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#C309 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#A-102 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#B-207 RENTON, WA 98056-2897 RENTON, WA 98056-8709 RENTON, WA 98056-8709 Stacia Smith Cassandra Sonnenberg Storage Venture Partners Llc 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#C210 4293 148TH AVE NE#K106 i 8011 1ST AVE NE RENTON, WA 98056-8709 BELLEVUE,WA 98007-7179 SEATTLE, WA 98115-4006 li i �I Sunset Garden Ltd Karyn&Arlene Swift Chao Peng Tan&Wan Hua Guan 18868 SE 42ND ST 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#C209 1006 ABERDEEN AVE NE ISSAQUAH, WA 98027-9366 RENTON,WA 98056-8709 RENTON,WA 98056-2829 i ' , r Melvyn Kim Leng Tan&Chui Geok Soh 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K ! Phuong Tat Patricia Tatarek SASKATOON SK 5022 LAKEVIEW DR#200 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#B206 CANADA SAN RAMON, CA 94583-4825 RENTON, WA 98056-8709 Seong Chee Tham&Chon Leonard Soong Jason Taylor 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K Karla Thornsberry 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE#E405 SASKATOON SK 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#A101 RENTON, WA 98056-2888 CANADA RENTON,WA 98056-8709 Stephen Robert&Young Tockey Phyllis Turner David Van Deventer 2995 SILVER OAK TRL 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#D111 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#C108 MARION, IA 52302-9225 RENTON,WA 98056-2897 RENTON, WA 98056-8709 , I H I ' I Cheryl Fay Waid Christopher&Claudia Whitman James Williams 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#C108 975 ABERDEEN AVE NE 4091 E 3RD AVE RENTON, WA 98056-2897 RENTON, WA 98056-2800 NAPA, CA 94558-4011 (- Albert Fai Won&Kathy Lai Li Fiona Man Shuen Wong&Doris Ngan Y Mollie Williams 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#B-105 SASKATOON SK ! SASKATOON SK RENTON, WA 98056-8709 ; CANADA CANADA (( 1. , \\.,...'. o 0 , \ • \L) r•. (' .> 1 •1'.``.:,,,9‘ s\ ,...;•J ,,..,,- '*) \I '\\• '-\\'`‘, , *:,0:, < I:\y '•\,' „ .0: ...e. •-‘i C's \, ,G'• • \ 1 '..,,,,, 1 -- ,_ ,,,..2,\:'" , \ ,,, ____,:s`k,---- , ,,,,'J•.- i \ \ .1.,,,...../' .„_,` . ,.'-•.,\ \C-."-...„„• •.•,,,,••.,.. ,•.../- . ,. • . ' ...., --V, \ - \., "..._.." `-•,„. - • I --......N,-1, \,,) \„, , ,.• , .\.,.,.rj, , i("•••••—••••\\ ,..„„N:1 ‘,•,..„1 , ',.., •,,,,,., ,'.," * ., , ) I, . . ---'\'‘) \\._,..." , „. . , , ) \ , . ....,_,L_..,"" \-,-----•; ‘•••"----• 0. 0 0 5, \ \L., --,C) L''' \kV ,••••".,' \-1 .,. .):'r \ ;.'.‘,'''•., '.\, , ,•.,‘).j ' .'• N','•' \ ;'r '':.' C% .. .::'''•,, ,t' '• .'1 r \ X .y N ... . , " . . ( . \ . 0`3•G\'' --'N''til '2 (, -... , ,..., - . ..; ( s\, - ,, ... s.\'' r •cl,"• l'. ',/ . ' ,,i.•,.---------.. Y , . .....''' --- -..,...____.-"/ \ .... I ... . . cD :- ' '::.:i;';'!' •.;...-:,, ': .n.--, --- ,,t,,,,,,- „..• ......- • . ,-.... ,...." , -' ' \ ..2/\''''''',., '''-' \1,'''‘i,\'''''' \-:' ,,•''_.,'''' - ., V ''‘'I ,. '-'" -. \ - 2 „..... ,_, _., `•., ./."- ,• ,• \ '.I.'". ./' , ..,. •.. ...,e .',.3:' -..".---.'N 'N,,,,. \, ' ''' ---"' ,. • -, ,......-- ''' _ . .,...- . . ..., ., .t. ' ---**-N I .• , . ../ N r ..`,: ...•' \'"....--_._....-,/ 0 G 0 2./ ,r-.>'• . '....' 7. , ( i ,‘),......-.....,..., '' - ' —>'.. S '' ''• \' ‘''\''.:\'..- , \ '•,,,, \\\ ..;;-•> r \ . -,••., f.--\ ., ? N'\., .,1'.,)\‘' '''' \'' '' ''''• ..-'... -- ,,0,., ._..,,,,, .7...-\ \, ..- „'I''; -)r"------', ,,'', Hon Yee Wong&Doris Kim Poon May Wong 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K Eric&Rose Yamada SASKATOON SK SASKATOON SK I 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#B103 CANADA ! CANADA RENTON,WA 98056-2897 I I Choon Siang Yang&Ah Moey Ong Koji Yamada 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K Ronald Yasui 901 SUNSET BLVD NE#D-313 SASKATOON SK 949 ABERDEEN AVE NE#E-317 RENTON, WA 98056-8709 CANADA RENTON, WA 98056-2897 1 � I Alan Abel Ying Choi Yu&Tsim Chin Kw ! Alan Able Choi Yu&Tsim Chin Kwok Lisa Young&Brown Lisa Fka 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K 2402 MILLAR AVE S7K 1000 ABERDEEN AVE NE SASKATOON SK SASKATOON SK RENTON, WA 98056-2829 CANADA CANADA _ Doris Ngan Ha Yu 51 E MT KELLETT RD THE PEA HONG KONG I HONG KONG it i I I i I I i l 43 si= ;• .,'i i• _I • II v I I I 1 • • . • - •••"l i N._ (..)••( " , 0..-•" ' • ,-.''\ .... . _. ••,•-• ... , ,.... ,-''''"...., A\ '•\„... , .--, ,z7,<-1, .\\ \ . .1 •',..,:\r•:':' . \\.,'',• i‘•••'-\ \"*. ;i:4-6 . ‘,,\••• ' ' k, I \ ••-i N'•,...." ,..,', . .• • . . . ' . • -'''-------, ' . . • . / . ' k ,• •k . . -.• . ''....,,_r., I • •• ..,..1„ , • .. , 0". , •... • - .., . 0 '‘, N,,,,_....../ ;•.:".)‘ , • _0 ••••". l.,° - • •,\' ,I, ''.., 6 - L7 '.. ‘ '. . , • .• - 6 k ••• - • ' , - I • / • • . ... •' •• ' . kki \ 1/4 ,•:,;<•\(-)'. 6... . \' \ '''''''' '• '.-;I 1\ \ \ ... , ''.:' '' '''\•\ •-•' ,..'6'''''' c,'' '\N It','.1 \ •.,,' .6 N',\,\:‘,'N''4.`\''.../‘ ;'‘' _,''''k ' \I\'''., .,•:,'"' ,...., ' \\\,....,„_... ,,, s. Y...)‘' . . .... \\ './'''' •C:1•'. \ ..."'" (, ••• .V...‘", ,,..:.- N ' .,„• "•;.t` . • ,,,,----------,\ _...,. ,• C , • .• ..k •W.,A ' '_, ••\, )) -.--,\V'''. •\........____,/ .. . • , ,-, "•.,_. ,-,^, I . ,,,, ' •'' ,r,'.." -,„ .. ..... \ .• . ., .'\ \ , „„(.... ' . ...."-' . , •• ---...\\ ' :',"-:• . - r'. ' t:. • • \,\...-•-- \\1'. . . • • 4 .'''' ' ,,, . • „ • ••,0,,, . _\ ,---------•- 7 'k i' , ( , .. .. \ , i ,... , . I \...„,_'''./•', NV c''.-) ( \•••••... ...." '• •c'.•• ' ' . Z•'••• \ • i'. • a 1.• • --— . .•, .•' . ..• • ',.. • , • - . •— ,.r-•• . A 1.,..., ....._.. •r‘1,, • • 1 . .. . • ' . ..-:•A ••• .c•+ ,•:';' ‘;‘, . ' •-,' , • ••'' .0 r-,.1' '' 1\. '‘'• . ‘••••• ,:.•' •1 \`. •, ..r .''' ,•.„ , ',\\\N k:.•'';\ ' ,,-,i'';"'' `0."‘, -..;,. v.....,•\ \ ','-'0••• \•.\. is.,, i, el. -0.'- . . ,. •,'LI' SSS - . • . . - .o) ' -------. /-: -`\ • • , , . • I(( ,1 . /"— \'\ •. 0 ';..r, j CITY IF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator January 9, 2002 R& R Land, Inc. 12228 NE 112t Pl. #A-1 Kirkland, WA 98033 Re: Revised Site Plan for Aberdeen Townhomes, LUA00-040 Dear Mr. Rieker: �J After review of the revised Site Plan you submitted January 7, 2002, it has been determined that the Hearing Examiner's conditions issued November 16, 2001 in the Appeal decision have been adequately addressed. No subsequent appeals on the Hearing Examiner's decision were filed within the 14-day appeal period,therefor, these are the final conditions applicable to the project. Enclosed you will find a copy of the approved Site Plan along with a copy of the Hearing Examiner conditions. Hearing Examiner condition#1 stated that there could be no development of any slope that meets the Critical Areas definition. The revised Site Plan shows that this condition has been met by reducing the development by one residential unit and moving the remaining units and dumpster enclosure approximately 60 feet to the East, out of the 40% protected slope area. Hearing Examiner condition#2 stated that the applicant shall provide a pathway or sidewalk between the driveway and the fence located along the north property line. This condition has been addressed by providing a 5-foot sidewalk that runs the length of the driveway along the north property line. As all of the Hearing Examiner conditions have been met,the revised Site Plan is approved contingent upon the submittal of a Photo-Mechanical Transfer(PMT)reduction for the Land Use file. If you have any questions, please contact Ashley DeForest at (425) 430-7286. Sincerely, • Elizabeth Higgins Senior Planner Enclosures: Revised Site Plan Aberdeen Townhomes Appeal Report and Decision Cc: Yellow File Ashley DeForest David Fall Gay Kiesling Helen Burch 1055 South Grady Way- Renton, Washington 98055 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer r ' uI ` CITY iF RENTON � fir„ t ,.LLB Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator December 12, 2001 Mr. Gerald Rieker 11017— 101 Place NE Kirkland,WA 98033 Mr.David Fall,Architect 9607—39th Avenue SW Seattle,WA 98136 Re: Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses,LUA00-040,ECF, SA-A Dear Mr. Rieker and Mr.Fall Thank you for contacting the Planning Department regarding your plans to revise the site plan for the above-referenced project. After a.review of the development standards for the RM-I Zone,I can confirm that two-unit townhouses are allowed in.the zone. Please submit a site plan indicating the size and location of the structures, setbacks, and any items that would demonstrate that the conditions of the site plan review and the Hearing Examiner determinations can be met by the revised plan: This plan should be submitted to the attention of Ms.Jennifer Henning in the Planning Department: .Ms.Henning and I will review the plan and notify you when you may proceed with construction documents. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact meat 425-430-7382. Thank you. Sincerely N/• . w. Elizabeth Higgins,AICP Senior Planner • cc: Jennifer Henning 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 [�➢TMI ..mnor rnntninc 5n/rocvclari malarial PM,nnct cnncumar y November 16,2001 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: Helen D.Burch Gay Kiesling File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeal of Administrative Site Plan approval of 9-unit townhouse project. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the October 9,2001 hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, October 9,2001 at 10:03 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: • Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal,the Exhibit No.2: Yellow Underlying Landuse File Examiner's letter setting the hearing date and other documentation pertinent to the appeal. Exhibit No.3: Architect Sketch of Site Exhibit No.4: Original Elevation Plan Exhibit No. 5: Plan showing three buildings Exhibit No. 6: Sketch of turning radii-Higgins Exhibit No.7: Drawing of Facade Exhibit No. 8: Original Plan Exhibit No.9: Memo from Ms.Higgins regarding a Exhibit No. 10: Cross section of last building condominium project to the architect(April 26,2000). Exhibit No. 11: Sketch of original and revised grading-Higgins Parties present: Appellants: Helen D.Burch 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton,WA 98056 Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses' - Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 2 Gay Kiesling Sunset Gardens Owners Association 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE#E318 Renton, WA 98056 Representing City of Renton: Russell Wilson, City Attorney Elizabeth Higgins,Development Services The Examiner explained that the purpose of the meeting was to hold a public hearing on the applications pursuant to Ordinance 3071. This hearing constitutes the hearing of the City Council and is the only public hearing which will be held on the matter unless the matter is continued.Reconsideration or an appeal to the City Council will only consider the evidence submitted in today's hearing, or if the hearing is continued evidence submitted at that time. He stated that the appellant had the burden of demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous, and would have to show clear and convincing evidence that the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so. Ms.Kiesling stated that Sunset Garden's first concern is the fact that there are only three visitor parking stalls. There is no on street parking adjacent to the buildings and they are concerned that vehicles would be parking half way on lawns or blocking the street. Currently,there are only 18 spaces provided by the garages and three visitor parking stalls. Ms. Kiesling read through the letter she sent to the Hearing Examiners Office requesting the appeal. On the administrative site plan review it states that the building will be situated on the eastern half of the site,which is more gently sloping then the western half. She stated that actually 24 percent of the property,most of which is in the eastern half, is shown by the site survey to have a slope of 16 to 39 percent. She felt that was a contradictory statement as it concerned the need for a retaining wall. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC)made a determination of non-significance in July 2000. She stated that staff is upholding the original ERC decision. She feels this is erroneous since the project is now extending into the environmentally sensitive area where it previously did not. They feel the determination of non-significance should not be upheld for the revised plan. She does not feel the required setbacks are met in the Aberdeen Avenue Apartment development and there is no sidewalk along the driveway. In regard to the character of the surrounding residences,there are no multi-family residences facing Aberdeen Avenue NE. The only multi-family residences that have access to Aberdeen Avenue NE are Renton Ridge and Sunset Garden. The entire length of Aberdeen Avenue NE has only two multi-family projects that face it. If 33 percent of the property is not fit to support buildings is the intent of policy LU-64 truly met? The policy reads,"development densities should generally be in the range of 10 to 20 dwelling units per acre." The proposed project has a density of 14.29 units per net acre. The June 2000 survey shows that .57 acres is buildable not.63 acres as stated in the revised plan and quoted by the City in their review. Considering only the buildable portion of.57 acres the density would allow only five to 11 residential units. Taking into account the narrow configuration of the property and the fact of the adjacent single family home, a more appropriate sized development would seem to be smaller such as six units in two buildings. Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses` -- Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16, 2001 Page 3 Aberdeen Apartments as revised is still not compatible in bulk, scale and height with the single-family home to the north. Buffers do not exist and setbacks do not meet regulations only City interpretation of those regulations. The building exceeds height regulations. The revised plan extends the paved driveway and the dumpster area into a portion of the property that is sloped approximately 48 percent. The project now stands at least 180 feet further to the west and some of the project does extend to protected slopes. This seems to place the west end of the third building on land that is greater then a 40 percent slope. The driveway,the dumpster, the drive aisle are shown to be built on ground with greater then a 40 percent slope. The driveway still does not have a five-foot setback from the north property line. Sunset Gardens has asked a question that has yet to be addressed by the City or the Examiner. That question was who is responsible for paying for any drainage problems experienced by Sunset Garden as a result of the development of the 62-foot strip of forest,the City or the Developer. From 1999 through March 2001 approximately$225,000 was spent by Sunset Garden Homeowners to correct drainage problems and the building damage caused by these problems. They are concerned that they have not seen a submitted drawing for the storm drainage system. In the minutes from the previous hearing it states that such a drawing was submitted. Aberdeen Avenue Apartments will not be required to have fence along the south border. They are concerned that they will need to move their fence to the property line. The residents of Sunset Gardens see the proposed site as a forest rather then an area overrun with vegetation. They have seen birds, squirrels and deer. Development of this property would lower their property values, possibly cause drainage problems and would not increase their property values. In conclusion, Sunset Garden is asking that this revised plan not be approved. The impact of the project would be greatly reduced if the plan had two buildings sited away from the 40 percent critical slope; if the buildings were less wide so that setbacks, driveway and sidewalk could all fit on the lot; if there were more parking stalls; and if there were a storm drainage plan and a retaining wall plan. Ms. Burch stated that she feels that the recommendations made by the Examiner at the previous hearing for this property have not been addressed to the fullest extent. She is skeptical as to what is going to be built on this property now that it is up for sale. It is being advertised as a nine to 12 unit townhome property. Ms. Burch stated that the first failure of the City Staff concerns the driveway issue. The standards state that the driveway shall not be closer then five feet to any property line. The explanation for the deviation and approval of the driveway being on the property line is an interpretation on the City's part. She does not feel that this is the way the Codes were written or meant to be interpreted. In regard to the driveway,there are no accommodations along the property line for landscaping. The only accommodation she can find in the changes the City says were made by the applicant is that they will now have a fence to be determined in size and scope by the City. It appears in the site plan that there is no pedestrian sidewalk separating itself from the driveway itself. The City in its approval states that they should revisit the driveway separation. In respect to overall height of the project,the City states that the project will now be 46 feet which is one foot higher then the previous project. With grading the project has only lost about three feet in height. This will not allow any kind of relief for her single family home to the north. Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 4 She had questions regarding the garage and grading as well as the plan that depicts the garage level with a utility room and bonus room. She believes that is considered living space and would like to know why it is being referred to as just a garage. The height of buildings will block the sunlight to her home and property and the noise level will definitely be increased with the driveway located right along the property line. The overall length of the project has been increased and changed considerably. The applicant has gone far beyond the original plan that was submitted. An above ground tightline system presents problems of its own. Given that it is going through a treed area on a critical slope,how is it to be maintained,how is it going to be secured on the hillside and at the end of the project how will the fill that will be required and the retaining wall being required be stabilized on a slope that is slipping away into a ravine. In regard to the lighting,to accommodate the lack of light to her property the applicant has proposed a 20 foot wide break between the buildings to provide a light corridor to her home. The light corridor goes beyond her home and only reflects three to four feet of light onto an existing greenhouse,which is attached to her home. The first building totally blocks any sunlight from her home. In conclusion,there is a portion of the City's Code called the review criteria for site plans. She feels that the narrow configuration of the critical slope limits the size of any project proposed on the site. The current plan will substantially blight and impair the enjoyment of her property now and in the future. She does feel that the applicant could have reduced the overall width of the proposed buildings to satisfy the setbacks. She is asking that the request for appeal be upheld and that the site plan review criteria be applied in this case to reduce and offset the impacts to the surrounding properties. She asked that the City reevaluate the design and scale of proposed structures to this site. Norm Mode, 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE#C310,Renton, WA 98056 stated that he lives in a position where he gets a very good-view of the proposed site. From a practical standpoint it looks impossible to put that much structure on that small property. Sunset Garden has five storm drains located on the center of their driveway and when there is a real downpour there is a considerable amount of water that flows down through the center of their driveway. His concern is who is going to make sure that the drains are fully functional. If a drain becomes plugged the water overflow could wipe out the entire hillside or make the entire area unstable. Between the Sunset Garden buildings and the proposed site the ground is saturated as it is. It never dries out, even in the summer. Mr. Wilson called Ms. Higgins to go over some of the changes from the first proposed site plan for this site to the current proposed site plan. Ms.Higgins gave a brief overview of the revised plan that was submitted following the Examiner's decision. The applicant retained a different architect and staff felt it was a substantially changed plan. The decision that plan did not need to go back to the environmental review committee was based on several factors. There was an overall reduction in the number of units. The proposal is for nine townhomes and the previous plan was for 12 apartments. The code requires a review if there is an increase in the number of units. Some of the facts that the appellant gave may be incorrect because the scale on the site plan is incorrect. The previous plan extended into the property 300 feet and the revised plan extends into the property 359 feet. The additional extension into the property is due to having three separate buildings instead of one large one. The second major change has to do Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses - Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 5 with elevation. The proposed plan is at grade.with the neighboring property to the north. One of the problems with the original plan is that it was going to sit up higher because it was going to be on several feet of fill. Ms. Higgins read from the Code concerning environmental regulations and critical slopes. It states that development is prohibited on protected slopes. This restriction is not intended to prevent the subdivision or development of property that includes 40 percent or greater slopes on a portion of the site provided that there is enough developable area elsewhere to accommodate building pads. The applicant is not proposing to do any building on the 40 percent slope area. In regard to the sidewalk,Ms.Higgins stated that she was not intending there to be a sidewalk the full length of the development just from the end where the driveway is on the east side near the street access. The City is not requiring a sidewalk the length of the development. There is no Code requirement that would require a sidewalk the length of the development. The Examiner brought up the concern regarding the setback of the driveway. Ms.Higgins responded by stating in the Property Development Standards,Chapter Four under driveway design, it states that driveways shall not be closer then five feet to any property line except in the case of joint use driveways. After the last hearing,they traced the ordinance back to understand how this was originally was written in the Code. The intent of this standard has to do with curb cuts and turning radii and avoiding easements onto others property. In response to questioning from Mr. Wilson,Ms.Higgins stated Code requires two parking spaces per unit. Each unit has a two-car garage so the three guest spaces are in excess of the required parking. This project is a decrease in environmental impact because the entire site is not being raised several feet. The current plan does not propose this. The change to three smaller building from one large building does break up the mass and allow light to come through. The stormwater plan is the same as it was approved earlier and the surface runoff and runoff from the roofs would be collected on site and tightlined in a pipe that is constructed across the property. The applicant is taking advantage of a 10-foot bonus height allowed for architectural articulation of the units. This is discretionary decision made by the department if there is an attempt to create a more interesting façade. The height of the peak from grade is 36 feet. The Code for this zone allows 2.5 living stories. The additional 10 feet would allow for additional living space beyond the 2.5 floors. The attic would not be allowed if they did not have the 10-foot bonus. Fifty percent of the lower level is considered to be below grade. Ms.Higgins,responding to questioning from the Examiner, stated that the density of the project is 14.29 units per acre. The minimum allowed is 10 units per acre and the maximum allowed is 20 units per acre. In response to questioning from Mr. Wilson,Ms. Higgins stated that the previous plan did not take advantage of the height bonus so it was taller. Because it was a foot taller then allowed it was required to have an additional foot setback on the southside. On the northside the building is setback 20 feet from the property boundary. This new revised plan takes advantage of the height bonus so the additional foot is not required for the southside setback. A fence is being required on the north property line to screen the vehicle traffic on the driveway to the north property boundary. Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses - Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 6 Kayren Kittrick,Development Services, 1055 S. Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055, in response to questioning on inspections of stormwater drain systems, stated that the City reviews the plans for construction and inspects storm drainage systems to make sure they are in compliance with the King County Design Manual. Her group does not inspect the footing drains. If it is a private system the City does not have access to it. The City has been known to go in a do something if there is imminent flooding but all costs are supposed to be billed back to the ownership. In response to questioning from Ms.Keisling,Ms.Kittrick stated that all utilities are inspected at the time they are built because they must comply with certain standards. The fact that it is not being attached to a City system just means the City has no maintenance of it. In regard to over ground installation,there is nothing that keeps a tree from falling on it but at the same time it is considered the least intrusive form of construction. Ms.Keisling stated that she is unsure of how all the piping is going to be put in. Her understanding is that there is to be no tree cutting and disturbing of any vegetation on a 40 percent slope. Ms.Kittrick stated that they would go around the trees. Ms. Keisling stated that the project now goes 150 feet further west then the previous proposal. She voiced concerns about building pads being on the critical slope. Ms.Higgins replied that the original plan extends into the property 310 feet. The new plan extends into the property 359 feet and 7 inches. The dumpster is at the very end of the developed area and extends further into the property. Responding to questioning from Ms.Keisling,Ms.Higgins stated that in regard to handicap parking, it is not a public project so only one ADA space is required for a project this size. Ms. Burch further inquired about driveway setbacks. Ms.Higgins went over the driveway setback standards. In response to questioning regarding the definition of a story based on the Uniform Building Code(UBC),Ms. Higgins stated that this is reviewed at the building permit stage. If they have a plan for a building that exceeds the UBC code limitations they will not be able to get a building permit for that building. They could have gone up another story and they have not, so they do have some leeway. The south side of all three buildings will be below the existing grade level. They are going to construct the building into the slope that comes down from the Sunset Gardens property. The lower level will be a maximum of six feet below grade at the rear. In response to questioning from Ms.Burch,Ms.Higgins stated that the developer will probably need to do some excavation on the site and that fill could be used. Even if it was flat,the height is still within the allowable limit. They cannot use the existing retaining wall because it is on Sunset Garden property. In closing,Ms.Burch stated that she feels the proposed development is too large for the width of the property and the slope. In closing,Ms.Keisling stated she would like the Examiner to look closely at staffs decision that the Environmental Review Committee determination from the original project would stand even though the change in the plan does effect the critical slope. The building and the setbacks and the driveway still do not fit on the Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses - Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 7 lot. She would like the Examiner to give some consideration to the 60 people in the apartments across the way even though they do live in multifamily homes they should not be discounted they are still property tax payers. In closing,Mr. Wilson stated that the proposed project is not elevating the grade. The project meets code requirements for height. The developer will actually be doing some excavation. On the south property line the retaining wall will be the building itself. The exhibit provided by Ms.Burch shows that the City is consistent. The interpretation that was outlined in the letter is the very same interpretation that they are allowing in this case. There is a five-foot landscaping buffer that is being waived back to the property line. The five-foot cutout is being maintained to allow for the proper driveline and site. This is how it is being done all over the City. The interpretation has not changed and staff has been consistent. In regard to critical slopes,the site has a flat portion that meets the requirements for building. A portion of this becomes critical slopes. It is important to look at the language to interpret the Code. It says that if you can build a site plan that maintains on the level portion,then 15 feet into the critical slopes is not regulated. After much debate on where and how a slope is defined,Mr. Wilson stated that there is nothing that indicates that the drainage is not going to meet Code requirements. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 1:30 p.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellants,Helen D. Burch and The Sunset Gardens Home Owners Association,represented by Gay Kiesling,filed appeals of a Site Plan approval for a proposed apartment complex that would be located on property located between the appellants' respective properties. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. 2. These appellants had filed appeals of earlier SEPA Determinations of Non-Significance-Mitigated as well as for an earlier plan for a one-building,two-story twelve(12)unit apartment building. The SEPA appeal was denied but the appeal of the Administrative Site plan was granted and the site plan matter was remanded back to the administrative staff. 3. The remand included the following language: a. The grades of the subject site shall not be altered in such as fashion as to allow the proposed apartment complex to sit up higher on the site. The applicant may grade the site downward to "hide" or accommodate an additional story but shall not be permitted to raise the site in any fashion that allows a de facto three-story building to be judged two stories under the definitions in the Zoning Code or Building Code. b. More details on the nature of the retaining walls both along the north and south property lines and the location of any driveway are needed in order for these neighbors to understand the ultimate impacts. The impacts may not be profound in a SEPA sense but still will be critical to those immediately affected. That information should be developed prior to approval of the site plan Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses - Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 8 c. The definition of driveway separation from abutting property shall be revisited and accommodation made to reduce the impacts in this case. 4. The applicant revised the original plans when it was resubmitted in light of the remand determination. The applicant reduced the proposed number of units from 12 to nine(9)and divided the building into three(3) smaller buildings. Staff noted that the proposal was substantially different with more articulations as well as the separate buildings thereby lessening the overall mass of the subject proposal. 5. The City reissued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the project. The Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M)was conditioned by the City. 6. The ERC imposed five conditions. One limited the months for construction to April through October(the dry months). The second condition required following the recommendations of the geotechnical report. The final three conditions imposed transportation, fire and parks mitigation fees. The conditions remained unchanged from the original proposal. 7. The subject site is a vacant lot located at 917 Aberdeen Avenue Northeast. The subject site is zoned RM-I (Residential,Multiple Family-Infill). 8. The subject site is a long,narrow rectangular parcel approximately 62.5 feet wide(north to south- Aberdeen frontage)by approximately 600 feet deep. 9. The subject site is approximately 37,585 square feet in area. 10. The subject site slopes downward from Aberdeen at first moderately and then very steeply. The eastern, approximately one-half to two-thirds of the subject site slopes between 5 percent and 10 percent. The western half has slopes in excess of 40 percent and those steep slopes are regulated. 11. The appellant homeowner's association represents residents of a multiple-building condominium complex located immediately south of the subject site at 949 Aberdeen NE. Ms.Burch,the individual appellant, owns the parcel immediately north of the subject site and resides in a single family home located on that adjacent northerly site. She or her family has lived in that home since approximately 1950. 12. The homeowner's association appeal questions the adequacy of on-site parking(3 stalls),that the project extends into an environmentally sensitive area(the beginning of the steep westerly slope- see below),the character of the area is mischaracterized as multiple family whereas it is mainly still single family,the density is based on an incorrect assessment of the site's constrained areas and therefore buildable density should be considered .57 acres for a buildout of approximately 6 units,the complex is not compatible in scale with the adjacent single family home,the project extends further into the steeper areas,the report contains contradictions regarding the need for retaining walls or structures,where will filling occur,the project only has a seven foot sideyard whereas it was suggested previously that an eight foot sideyard for a two-story building was required,and the driveway does not maintain a five foot setback from the north property line interior to the street. They also noted that the applicant could take advantage of a 10 foot height bonus with certain amenities,that detailed plans were not submitted and storm water was not accounted for,the location and maintenance of a fence between the subject site and the existing complex, and the extension of the complex to the west and its visual impact on the existing complex. 13. The individual appellant living in the single home north of the subject site raised a number of objections, Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses - - Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 9 which in part are: a. The driveway swerves closer than five(5)feet toward the north property line and creates noise and air quality impacts b. The new plan encroaches into 40 percent sloped areas and no variance was applied for or approved for such encroachment. c. The structure is over-scaled compared to the single family home and blocks solar access during a large portion of the year,reduces privacy, increases noise and unhealthy carbon monoxide. 14. Section 4-4-080(I)contains the following provision: Driveways shall not be closer than five feet(5')to any property line(except as allowed under subsection I7 of this Section,Joint Use Driveways). 15. The subject site is located northeast of downtown Renton. I-405 and a Puget Powerline corridor are located west of the subject site and steeply downhill from the site. 16. The subject site was an old orchard and is overgrown with trees, shrubs and brush as it has not been maintained for many years. The applicant did deposit fill material at the eastern end of the subject site near Aberdeen Avenue NE. 17. The new proposal would not raise the grade of the site. There would be at-grade parking under two stories of living space. The buildings would top out at 36 feet. The design features including articulation, modulations and peaked roofs permitted staff to allow the building to be one foot above permitted height. The buildings would step down the hillside. 18. The buildings would be wood-framed structures. 19. The proposed buildings would have a footprint that covers approximately 18.8 percent of the lot area, whereas 35 percent coverage is permitted. 20. Staff concluded that the 62.5-foot lot would normally require seven(7)foot sideyard setbacks,which will be provided. 21. Staff required that a proposed fence along the north property line be included as a condition of approval. 22. There will be two buildings,which are 82 feet long; a third building would be 87 feet long. There would be 25 foot and 40 foot separations between the buildings. 23. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject site as Residential Multi-Family-Infill. The designation is intended to encourage infill existing multi-family districts with compatible projects. 24. The Comprehensive Plan calls for new multifamily uses to be compatible with existing similar complexes but also compatible and possibly scaled downward to be compatible with the existing development patterns. (Policy LU-65; Policy LU-66; Policy LU-67) 25. It appears that development is proposed for an area of the site that has slopes in excess of 40 percent. Staff Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses - - Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 10 appears to have decided that if the proposal would develop only a limited area(less than 15 feet)but with a 40 percent slope,that development would not be subject to the Critical Areas regulations. In other words even if the slope meets the critical areas ordinance but the segment proposed for development would have less than 15 feet of the vertical rise on the subject site, it would be exempt. 26. The RM-I Zone permits a density between a minimum of 10 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 20 units per acre. The property is 37,451 square feet in size. Approximately 10,097.83 square feet of that are protected slopes. The net acreage is 0.63 acre. The proposed project has a density of 19.11 dwelling units per net acre for 12 units. 27. The area contains a mix of uses that has been trending, although slowly,toward multifamily from it single family roots. Along with the Burch single family home,there are two other single-family homes north of the subject site. A 168 unit complex is located north of those homes and additional multiple family,the complex represented by the one of the appellants is south of the subject site. Single-family uses are located east of the site across Aberdeen Avenue. 28. Staff noted that the current proposal broke the former single building into three separate buildings,which diminishes the impact of bulk on the adjacent single-family use. They also noted that there would be open space between the units,which will allow more light and air to reach the northern property and also diminish the visual bulk. 29. Staff recommended that a fence be constructed at full permitted height to screen the single-family home. 30. Code requires landscaping in setback areas but the applicant proposes a driveway along the north property line. The appellant noted that according to Code, driveways need to be five(5)feet from the property line. Staff noted that they interpret this to be limited to the immediate frontage and not for the interior portions of the driveway. 31. Staff has recommended that a sidewalk separated from the driving surface be created. 32. Staff approved the proposal subject to the following conditions: a. A site lighting plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Department and approved prior to building permit approval. b. A solid wood fence, design and materials to be approved by the Development Services Division,at the maximum height allowed, shall be installed along the north property line. Such installation shall be completed prior to occupancy of the building. c. A site plan revision shall be submitted prior to building permit,that demonstrates that a walkway will be provided that connects to the public sidewalk and that is physically separated from the project driveway by either a curb or raised curb and sidewalk. Such revision to the site plan shall be made by the applicant and approved by the Development Services Department prior to building permit issuance. d. A Native Growth Protection Area(NGPA)easement shall be established for the area of the property having slopes at 40 percent or greater(approximately the western half of the property). The NGPA easement shall be recorded prior to obtaining an occupancy permit. Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses - Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16, 2001 Page 11 33. Staff also included the original remand conditions above in finding 3. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the administrative decision was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious- CODE SECTION CHANGE(Section 4-3011(B)(1)(b). The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the action should be modified or reversed. The decision is affirmed. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision,when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious(Northern Pacific Transport Co.v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472,478 (1966). 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn.2d 255,259(1969). 4. The appellants have in part demonstrated that part of the decision below must fail but in the main,the decision below must be affirmed. The part of the decision allowing development on the steep slopes must be reversed. The fact that this applicant would only be developing, say,the first 15 vertical feet of a slope that would otherwise be protected does not undo the protections encompassed in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. That ordinance protects any slope of 40 percent or greater where those slopes extend for more than 15 feet of vertical rise. This 40 percent slope continues beyond the 15 or so feet that the applicant proposes developing. The entire slope including the 15 feet the applicant proposes developing is protected. A variance may be appropriate but that has to be separately determined. The part of the decision,which would allow development in the protected area,must be reversed. 5. If this means that the development has to be moved east or contracted in scope or reduced by one residential unit then the site plan may be so altered. 6. Any time development occurs next door to existing developed property there will be impacts. The impacts can be merely irritating or they can be profound and dramatic. In this case both the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan telegraphed for years that multiple family uses are not only permitted but also encouraged in this area. These proposed changes were not unanticipated. The Planning Commission, followed by the City Council adopted a series of polices and goals for the area in which the subject site is located. Those policies call for multiple family development of the subject site. That does not mean,as the first appeal decision found,that any development is permitted. If the impacts are too profound they must be moderated in order to help the transition. This area has already been changed. The west side of Aberdeen Avenue NE, including other areas with sloping terrain,has been developed. The development of the subject site will not bring unanticipated change to the area. One of the appellants represents an apartment complex consisting of multiple buildings located immediately south of the subject site. A single-family home is developed fairly close to the north property line. If the applicant were to develop a single family home, it could be placed anywhere on the subject site and create almost as much impact on its northerly neighbor with shading. Its sideyard could potentially be smaller than required by the apartment complex. As indicated in the first decision a single family home could clear as much vegetation and loom just as large as the proposed apartment building. Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses - Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16, 2001 Page 12 7. The appellants are correct. This project will have impacts. They will definitely change the character of the site and of the properties on each side of the proposal. As was noted at the hearing,the subject site is private property. The subject site is zoned RM-I. The subject is designated for multiple family uses in the Comprehensive Plan. In other words,the subject site is entitled to be developed at a greater density than the neighboring single family use as long as it makes reasonable accommodation to its surroundings. As discussed above,the development cannot be allowed to encroach on the steep western slopes that are protected even if this proposal would intrude just a little. A variance would be needed and until one is approved,those slopes are sacrosanct. That though is not the heart of this matter. The redesigned plan for three(3)detached buildings with open space between them is a reasonable, if not perfect compromise. It meets the density requirements of the zone and Comprehensive Plan yet is scaled better than the original proposal's one long building. The applicant will not be raising the site by the importation of fill materials. The applicant will be utilizing the native slope and site elevation. 8. The separate buildings will provide more visual definition to the development. The buildings meet the height limits of the zone and will be set at an elevation nearly equal to the single family home. The site will not be built up artificially. This office cannot find appropriate support for overturning the major part of the decision since it is neither clearly erroneous nor arbitrary and capricious. 9. It appears that staff has given its usual interpretation of where a driveway may be located when code requires it be five(5)feet from the property line. Code though is not clear how far back into a site the driveway has to maintain that five feet. In any event,the distance requirement when coupled with Site Plan criteria and Comprehensive Plan policies and goals should provide staff with the ability to provide additional separation. In this case staff recommended that a sidewalk be provided that is separate from the driveway. That sidewalk should be located along the north side of the driveway,which would move some of the noise of the apartment's vehicles further away from the single family home. If it were provided along the north edge, it would provide some additional separation between the home to the north and the driveway and its traffic. 10. The concerns about parking and drainage should be satisfied by Code requirements. The proposal will be providing its complement of parking. All development will have to meet storm drainage requirements. 11. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. In the main,the site plan is appropriate but again not perfect. There probably cannot be a perfect use of the subject site that meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan,the requirement of the Zoning Code and the objectives and objections of its neighbors. The slope constraints of code shall be met and the staff conditions of a pathway or sidewalk can be altered to provide some additional separation. 12. The appealing party has a burden of demonstrating clear error. The error in slope criteria was clearly demonstrated. The site plan conditions can be altered to provide additional separation for the driveway by locating the path on the north side. The rest of the decision must be affirmed. DECISION: The appeal is granted in part and denied in part. 1. There shall be no development of any slope that meets the Critical Areas definition. Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16, 2001 Page 13 2. The applicant shall provide a pathway or sidewalk between the driveway and the fence located along the north property line. 3. The other staff conditions shall continue to apply. ORDERED THIS 16th day of November,2001. FRED J.KAUF N HEARING EXA ER TRANSMITTED THIS 16th day of November, 2001 to the parties of record: Elizabeth Higgins Helen Burch Norm Mode 1055 S. Grady Way 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE 949 Aberdeen Avenue C310 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Russell Wilson Gay Keisling 1055 S. Grady Way 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE E318 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98056 Kayren Kittrick 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 This report was mailed to other Parties of Record. A complete list of the Parties of Record is available in the Hearing Examiner's office. TRANSMITTED THIS 16th day of November,2001 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Neil Watts,Development Services Director Larry Rude,Fire Marshal Lawrence J. Warren,City Attorney Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson,Econ.Dev.Administrator Alex Pietsch,Economic Development Director South County Journal Larry Meckling,Building Official Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,November 30,2001. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses -- Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 14 An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss. County of King ) Kelly Williams being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 16th day of November, 2001 affiant deposited in the mail of the United States a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: &utivvus a___ SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this /6'day of N , 2001. �J D. �.0,�1,,1 ` of Public ' and for the State of Washington, e6 t'L' 1;�% ` o Residing at C cc..ct-iti , therein. � o o ®.P0�osa Application, Petition, or Case No.: Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal LUAO 1-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. .E lr k • • 3.r ar • ,; t,�^ `rM r. , {4• ,:�`' y - -r ':+r t• A/ f J � � •• - '1ti •v SP p llr - _x il +1n 4. ' i 5 Rt�i'I 'Y ,l`s r t y ,:. l •w y { ti �4 4,J,Y t t- y y tfk r jt .' � er`S 1T '•r • - ,JeJ, i 7Y hr�y :, s•. r'2 a J yr Y t..Tl,. fl ' * { rule -4 t i, 1,c i s ` k';{ kr - .r t -• 1 i t ,F sf'i`1frt f l 4' ',4;.- µ••'- - _ . * .Ic`' �.4�`:r<F' tI 'i' - , i1 Sit Z + ? 5m�4 - � A s 't Jf t' J- y�{ ^Oqr. 'J't r �h n 4 r a F fa�I��i; of • .• i .,'J .. 1'1 J y ;,-! a �... • _ � -: • t �Z . k,- ".1 _ .fit,; • • - ••1 }„i ,4. - 4 LEI: sr h 7` c t y y yi !�h tr • s .r 4� 1 Jt. r R - 1 ��F r H>-9. xi t " T'" r+'try r. 'T, :} - L I z•1 rzn +• T� S• k �: -'') `t � '' s t • " wl 1 1 se±ty 3 ,. , - -1., 1 ✓<, , � .,-.. y`T J ,,. -, a r ; k , C Y 1 r� i t d k l }�f'R^� -r 1, yt trr' ' y�! d' 1 - _ t ,.:, F t: l,� r �1 ,} y r ti4 -1 W E a t ' w 7. z _ 1 - ' E � tii • { i }:ki✓ ,7�-� - (a .tom L Lt• k ,,-'L} y. ' * �_ _. f r } fl i ti v f4"aRzr 1 '� r r fJ.+�4 .> � ', 1• • • r._ ', tur ft i S:3'. r:,•' ' -.��-ir,r..,'v>x-i.Y,'.-.}k,a�i„1�,J!-q-„1�., ks{ ti•J+.i•r r ;r a•- .,•-�rw 'j 9 i„.,w r liX : i a r ,k r 4 c y n s r a Pi . n l 4,tll{: .efs ,, : c 1'}y er Js a_,,`1+ r rt .,. .s M ctt �X k a :. ad+. h e i" eF`' ac.�- IJ - . J { r - - 4r --L i•.t;,A w{} . r' 1 • 7.-1; 4 : i . - • • • • 4'4 1,1r• ; N r i + w 'M'' � � s'' ?i �.t -'• �Yt � r 'r � a. • _ " t ' tr ra' ;V •^ 31-• HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT ' ' e"'y'S {: st v -f ti ' �y,r' T�� T9a f i } • tr.r.rt• .,z- - i �'1 v {„ _ ,�• 'ter. . 1'�: _`1t_ . - ,.. } -.. n't Y;�'. •_,a`+". +`�' L'-. .. r. 4•.r - .r ' itt 4-.4, r: >a CITY OF RENTON HEARING:EXAM INER: PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 09; 2001 AGENDA: COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(S)listed.are:in order of application number only and_not necessarily the order.in which they will be heard.:Items will'be called for hearing of the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Verizon Tower Extension PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-01-104, ECF,CU PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposal is for the extension of an existing 57-foot tall wireless communications tower. The tower is proposed to be extended by an additional 28 feet,with a resulting height of 85 feet above ground level. The proposed tower qualifies as a"monopole II",which requires approval of a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use permit. Location: 2806 NE Sunset Boulevard. PROJECT NAME: APPEAL Cugini Shoreline Res. Lots PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-92-147,ECF,SP,AAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Appeal of Administrative Determinations made by City of Renton Development Services Department regarding File LUA92-147,ECF,SP,S-V and File LUA96-056,V. PROJECT NAME:- = APPEAL Aberdeen Avenue Apartments PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Appeal of Administrative Site Plan approval of a 9-unit townhouse project located at 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE. hexagenda AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Christina Meyers, first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months prior NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language RENTON HEARING EXAMINER TON continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County RENTON, gW will b held A Public Hearing will be held by the Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the Renton Hearing Examiner in the State of Washington for King County. Council Chambers on the seventh floor The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County Journal of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers during Renton, Washington, on October 9, 2001, at 9:00 AM, to consider the the below stated period. The annexed notice, a following petition: APPEAL LUA-00-040 Aberdeen Ave Apartments Aberdeen Ave.Apartments Appeal of Administrative Site Plan as published on: 9/24/01 approval of a 9-unit townhouse project located at 917 Aberdeen The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$46.63, Ave.NE. charged to Acct. No. 8051067. All interested persons are invited to be present at the Public Hearing. The cost above includes a $6.00 fee for the printing of the affidavits. Questions should be directed to the Hearing Examiner at 425-430-6515. Legal Number 9538 � Published in the South County Journal September 24,2001.9538 Legal Clerk, South County Journal Subscribed and sworn before me on this IAlday of OD , 2001 e. -)11(\ �`�gSION ,A9 � . ��r� ��A�,; Notary Public of the State of Washington ac: OTARY ,N o residing in Renton = King County, Washington NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,Washington, on October 2001, at$0112NA, to consider the following petition: ‘;301)/11 APPEAL LUA-00-040 Aberdeen Ave. Apartments Appeal of Administrative Site Plan approval of a 9-unit townhouse project located at 917 Aberdeen Ave. NE. All interested persons are invited to be present at the Public Hearing. Questions should be directed to the Hearing Examiner at 425-430-6515. Publication Date: September 24, 2001 q1R611111(41 h14(ild Account No. 51067 c v 1a'r E% k.& ? 1' .-' ti smth -p ial Mg ./ D13—t i Rej kt, 411j aadpub 4. CITE 3F RENTON Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman August 16,2001 Helen D.Burch Gay Kiesling 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE President, Sunset Garden Owners Association Renton,WA 98056 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,#318 Renton,WA 98056 Re: Appeal of Aberdeen Avenue Townhomes Appeal File No.LUA00-040,ECF,SA-A Dear Appellant: Your letter of appeal in the above matter has been received and a date and time for said hearing has now been established. The appeal hearing has been set for Tuesday,October 2,2001,at 1:30 p.m.in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall,at 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. Should you be unable to attend,would you please appoint a representative to act on your behalf. We appreciate your cooperation,and if you have any questions,please contact my secretary. Sincerely, Fred J.Kaufman Hearing Examiner FJK:kw cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren,City Attorney Neii Watts,Development Services Director Elizabeth Higgins Applicant Parties of Record 19Oi 2O01 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6515 <'`` •' CITY OF RENTON AUG 1 3 2001 7, a, o August 12,2001 RECEIVED IN- Mr. Fred Kaufman CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Hearing Examiner Seventh Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Re: Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Project No. LUA-00-040,ECF, SA-A Dear Mr. Kaufman: This letter of appeal is sent regarding the recent revised report and approval for the site plan to Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses. It is my contention the city review staff report is affected by an error of law. The staff has not required the applicant to comply with city policies and codes;therefore this approval was made arbitrarily. The file records have shown that the applicant has provided and submitted information to staff that has been both erroneous and incomplete. I ask that you reverse the city decision of site approval for these reasons: The failure of the applicant and city staff to follow driveway design standards code,4-4- 080I. a. The code states, driveways shall not be closer than five feet(5')to any property line. b. There are no accommodations for landscape along the north property line. c. The site plan does not include a pedestrian sidewalk along driveway. d. There are no official variances or easements recorded in this file regarding the driveway,the structural height or the south retaining wall. The failure of staff to mitigate the undesirable impacts to surrounding properties and uses,as set forth in"Additional Review Criteria"for Level 1 site plans. a. The approval of an over-scaled structure of size,bulk and height vs. the narrow lot size. b. The structure impairs the use and enjoyment now and in the future to surrounding properties. c. The structure improperly blights my home by shading, and blocks solar access substantially during a large portion of the year. d. The site plan reduces privacy,increases noise levels due to the driveway and garages close proximity,and creates an unhealthy environment from carbon monoxide. d Mr.Fred Kaufman August 12,2001 Page 2 The failure of the applicant and staff to fully address the conclusions and conditions as set forth by the Hearing Examiner on Feb. 26,2001, in your decision to reverse and remand to city the previous site plan. The issues regarding the protection of "Critical Slopes". a. The new site plan is now in excess of 350 feet and has entered the 40%or greater slope area. The need for more information to fully understand the ramifications to trees, drainage, and soil slippage,the use of fill materials, and easements are necessary. b. There are no official easements or variances regarding critical slope,tree cutting, fill and retaining walls contained in the file. In conclusion, I feel the narrow configuration and critical slope limit the size of any project proposed on this site. The current plan will substantially blight and impair the use and enjoyment to my property now and in the future. I do think the applicant could reduce the overall width of the purposed buildings and thus be able to satisfy required setbacks. The Review Criteria for Level 1 site plans were expressly written for just such a situation and designed to provide protection from adverse impacts which violate the spirit and/or intent of the Zoning Code and impair the use, enjoyment and potential use of surrounding properties. I respectfully ask that you uphold this request for appeal. I ask that the Site Plan review criteria be applied in this case to reduce the off-site impacts to the surrounding properties. I ask the city to reevaluate the effective placement, design and scale of the purposed structures on this site which will complement the City's goals and policies. Sincerely, Helen D. Burch 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton,WA 98056 NOTES RECEIPT DATE p"" YY /3 NO. 5287 'I RECEIVED FROM 9 /� -� ADDRESS q J' 7 {'. dia2A-- , FOR i @.,. Le/4- (J - co ACCOUNT HOW PAID , AMT.OF ACCOUNT CASH AMT. PAID. CHECK 0 BALANCE- MONEY � /) DUE ill ORDER -1111 B ''+ 0"4 } +w7 7—w^cwwOmw,vz CITI? RENTON August 12, 2001 AUG 1 3 2001 1 l . `) RECEIVED 949 Aberdeen Ave.NE, #318 CITY CLERKS OFFICE Renton, WA 98056 / Elizabeth Higgins,AICP �- Ali -4 *� iriiG{h"'«-ie> City of Renton Se6 Dept. of Planning, Building, and Public Works OW 0/ 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Ms Higgins; As president of the board of directors of Sunset Garden Condominium Owners Association, I am representing these 56 homeowners. I am submitting this appeal of approval for Aberdeen Ave. Apartments, #LUA- 00-040, SA-A, ECF. I am also requesting an extension due to the fact that Sunset Garden homeowners had only seven business days to read the Administrative Site Plan Review. This short turnaround time did not allow us to consult our attorney,to review the Stormwater Drainage Plan, or to review the geotechnical report, "Aberdeen Apartments Project No. T-4479, by Terra Associates, Inc. In addition to the comments below, Sunset Garden may be submitting additional concerns. Part One: Project Description/Background The total acreage and net acreage both in this section of the City of Renton's Administrative Site Plan Review(ASPR) and the developers revised plans do not match the figures given on the site survey, submitted on June 21, 2000. I am using the figures given on the site survey. The following statement on page 2 of the ASPR does not.give all the information about the site and therefore is misleading: "The building would be situated on the eastern half of the site, which is more gently sloping(5 percent to 10 percent) than the western half which has slopes in excess of forty percent and are therefore, regulated by the City or Renton." Actually, 24 percent of the property most of which is in the eastern half, is shown by the site survey to have a slope of 16 to 39 percent. This fact will be reiterated later regarding contradictory statements in the ASPR about the need for retaining walls. There is no on-street parking near Aberdeen Apartments, except to the north on the east side of Aberdeen in front of single family homes. I am sure these home owners, some of whom have small children,would be appealing themselves if they realized they would now have cars parked in front of their homes,partially on their lawns. Currently, cars from Renton Ridge do not park in front of these homes. They do however,take up all on- street parking adjacent to Renton Ridge on the west side of the street as well as on the east side just north of the overpass. The ASPR has considered 18 spaces provided by the 1 two car garages and three parking stalls to be adequate. Sunset Garden homeowners are concerned that visitors to Aberdeen Ave. Apartments will be parking in our parking lot since three visitor stalls will not be adequate. This would be more convenient for visitors than crossing the street and walking north from Aberdeen Apartments. The Environmental Review Committee made a determination of non-significance in July 2000 in regard to its State Environmental Policy Act determination. The July 30, 2001 ASPR upholds this previous decision. Part One: Project Description/Background states "Staff has recommended that the previous review of the environmental conditions be upheld for the revised, nine unit townhouse project based on probable decrease in environmental impacts. " This statement is erroneous since the project in fact now extends into an environmentally sensitive area. There is no reason or fact given on why the revised plan would, as a whole, create a `probable decrease. " Part Two: Environmental Review and Determination The Hearing Examiner previously upheld the environmental determination as non- significant. However, such approval of the revised plan by the City of Renton staff requires careful scrutiny in the future by the Hearing Examiner. The extension of the project into the 40%critical slope area creates a new set of issues. This determination of environmental non-significance should not be upheld for the revised plan. Part Three: Administrative Land Use Action 1. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan The ASPR states: "Staff has been working with a potential applicant for a proposed 9 unit condominium project that would be located south of and abutting, the Renton Ridge development on the parcel having two single family residences. " Inferred from this statement is that if there is a possibility of a nine unit condo to the north of this single family residence,why not a 9 unit apartment to the south. The fact that has not been given is that the property to the north is approximately 85 feet wide versus the 62.5 foot width of the property under consideration for Aberdeen Apartments. A lot 85 feet wide could conceivably accommodate a building(s) along with the required setbacks, driveway and sidewalk. The very next statement not only omits facts but also includes untrue information regarding the character of residences along the entire three block area along Aberdeen Ave NE. The ASPR states: "Adjacent to the project, across Aberdeen Avenue (east side of the street), are both multi family developments and single family houses. " This statement is totally false. There are no multi-family residences facing the east side of Aberdeen Ave.NE from the corner of Sunset Blvd. to NE. 27th St., approximately 1.5 miles. There are only two multi-family residences on the west side of the street in this 1.5 miles stretch, Sunset Garden and Renton Ridge. The report goes on to say: "This project is compatible with the other multi family projects in the area, although the neighborhood has not completely transitioned entirely from single family residential. This statement is the opposite of reality: except for two multi-family projects on this 2 street, all homes are single family homes. This statement presents a totally misleading picture to the Hearing Examiner. If 33% of the property is not fit to support buildings, is the intent of Policy LU-64 truly met? (Policy LU-64: "Development density should generally be in the range of ten to twenty dwelling units per acre.") The City of Renton's ASPR states "the proposed project has a density of 14.29 units per net acre." The June 2000 survey show that .57 acre is buildable,not .63 as on the revised Plan and quoted by the City in their Review. Considering only the buildable portion of.57 acre,the density would be from 5 to 11 residential units. Taking into account the narrow configuration of the property and the fact of the adjacent single family home, a more appropriate sized development would be 6 units in two buildings,not 9 units in three buildings. Continuing on page 4,Policy LU-65: "New development in Residential multi family Infill designations should be compatible in size, scale, bulk, use, and design with other existing multi family developments." Policy LU-67: "Siting and design of new structures should be sensitive to site constrains and adjacent uses. Provision of adequate buffers or setbacks or scaling down building heights may be required to transition. . . " Aberdeen Apartments, as revised, is still not compatible in bulk, scale, and height with the single family home to the north. Buffers do not exist and setbacks do not meet regulations. The development exceeds the UBC's height requirement but is still approved by City of Renton. As detailed in February 26, 2001 by the Hearing Examiner, even though a garage does not technically count as a story per the UBC,the result is in fact a building that is a three-story structure. The result is"blight" of the property to the north, a one story single family home. The result is still"blight." Also on page 4,the ASPR states: "The proposed project would be built on the eastern half of the property that is not constrained by protected slopes. " However,under 4. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site,the Review itself acknowledges that the project is built on portions of the property with slope greater than 40%. "The revised plan extends the paved driveway and dumpster area into a portion of the property that is sloped approximately 48%. The project now extends at least 180 feet further to the west. Some of the project does extend to protected slopes. This seems to place the west end of the third building on land that has a greater than 40% slope. The driveway, dumpster and the drive aisle are all shown as built on ground with a greater than 40% slope. This western edge literally drops into a ravine. The ground is soft and crumbles under the weight of foot. The accompanying issue is how will the hillside be kept from slowly or quickly sliding into the ravine to the north? In Findings, Conclusions, and Decision from the February 26th hearing under Findings, it states: "6. The western half has slopes in excess of 40%, and those steep slopes are regulated. " 3 The next paragraph of the ASPR states: "The revised site plan meets the condition of the Hearing Examiner's remand of the original site plan approval. The revised plan proposes building at the same grade as the single family residence to the north, rather than raising the grade three to four feet above the grade to the north. This eliminates the need for a retaining wall between the two properties. This observation is in contradiction to the following ASPR section on page 8: Decision: The Site Plan for Aberdeen Apartments is approved, as revised, subject to the following conditions: 6. More details on the nature of the retaining walls both along the north and south property lines and the location of(a) driveway are needed. That information should be developed prior to approval of the site plan. The ASPR does not include verbiage taking into consideration that approximately 40 feet along the south border of Aberdeen Apartments slopes from 16 to 39 percent down from Sunset Garden. As I pointed out previously, a considerable portion of land on which the building and driveway will sit has a slope of 16%to 39%. Included in the testimony from the February 26th hearing minutes on page 4 is the following statement: "The applicant has stated that the project will be at a higher elevation than the property to the north, and a lower elevation than the property to the south. Ms. Higgins said that a question she has raised with the applicant is that the City has photographs that appear to show a considerable grade change between the proposed project and the property to the south that is not shown on the topography map. " The project will require infill. How will the infill be controlled without easements onto the adjacent properties? Sunset Garden to the south and Helen Burch to the north have already notified the developer that we will not grant easements. 2. Conformance with existing land use regulations The footprint of these apartment buildings remains too large for the size of the property. The required setbacks to the property to the north and to the south added to the width of the driveway and an allowance for a sidewalk will not fit north to south on this property. On page 5,the ASPR states: "The proposed project would have setbacks above the front and rear setback minimums. The side setbacks must be 7 feet each, based on lot width of 62.5. Note that this is NOT what was determined at the February 26th hearing. Under Findings, Conclusions, and Decision , Findings states: "17. Staff concluded that the 62.5 foot lot would normally require seven (7)foot side yard setbacks with an additional one(1)foot added for the additional story above two. Therefore, the side setbacks would be 8 feet. The applicant's plan did not reflect this requirement. " 4 "28. Staff noted that the proposed setback on the south side should be eight(8) feet and that setback could alter the location of the building and then affect the driveway width on the north side of the building. " The revised plan still shows a 7 foot setback on the south side. The driveway still does not have a five foot setback from the north property line. Also, included in Findings, Conclusions, and Decision from the February 26th hearing under Conclusions is "18. Another issue staff should consider when reviewing this matter is the placement of the driveway on subject site. Code specifies that driveways should be five (5)feet from a property line. It does not state that this is to be maintained only along the frontage. " This paragraph goes on to explain the noise factor of having the driveway abut the adjacent property. Under Findings, Conclusions, and Decision from the February 26"'hearing under Decisions, it states: "3. The definition of driveway separation from abutting property shall be revisited and accommodation made to reduce the impacts in this case. On page 5,the ASPR states: "Height: 35 feet or 2.5 stories. In all Residential Multi- family Zones (except "U"), more stories and an additional 10 feet in height may be obtained through the provision of additional amenities. . . " The important word here is "may." Hopefully the Hearing Examiners will note that such exceptions do have severe consequences for the single family home to the north. The developer, Cambridge Homes NW,has had since February 26, 2001 to submit plans for elements of the development. The following plans have still not been submitted: Storm water control system* Garage below grade Fences and landscaping Walkway physically separated from the driveway Site lighting plan Detail of retaining walls Why is the City of Renton approving a development prior to submittal of all the plans? Specifically,the Hearing Examiner required in his Feb. 26th decision: "More details on the nature of the retaining walls both along the north and south property lines and the location of driveway are needed. The information should be developed prior to approval of the site plan." Also,under F. Decision, no condition is listed concerning the storm water control system. Under Policy LU-67 mention is made of the system: "The stormwater control system would be designed to carry run-off away from both the developed portion of the property and the adjacent properties. " 5 3. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses Also,under 3. Mitigation of impacts: "There are several potential impacts to surrounding uses by the proposed project. An increase in impervious area could cause a corresponding increase in existing drainage problems on adjacent properties. To avoid this, the applicant would be required to install a stormwater control system that carries all stormwater runoff away from the developed property to the north. Stormwater would be dispersed by means of a spreader in the northwest corner of the property. " Sunset Garden asked the following question in our previous appeal. Our question has remained unanswered by the City of Renton as well as by the Hearing Examiner. Is the City of Renton or the developer liable to pay for any drainage problems experienced by Sunset Garden as a result of development of the this 62 foot strip of forest? From 1999 through March 2001, approximately $225,000 was spent by Sunset Garden homeowners to correct drainage problems and the building damage caused by those problems. Attached is a description of drainage problems at Sunset Garden. It is attached in order to facilitate the continuity of this letter as the ASPR is reviewed page by page. We are extremely concerned that we have not seen a submitted drawing for the *stormwater drainage system. In the minutes of the February 26, 2001 hearing, it is mentioned that such a drawing was submitted. Also,the ASPR mentions a plan and narrative on page 10. However,during my two visits (totaling over two hours)to the Planning Department, I did not see this plan. It is my understanding that the City does not inspect such stormwater systems. If there is no inspection,how can we be assured that in fact the impact of Aberdeen Apartments will be mitigated? I am inferring from the ASPR that Aberdeen Apartments will not be required to have a fence on the south border of their property. This would mean that Sunset Garden's fence would be used as a property divider. This will cause an expense for us because the fence would need to be moved from 2 to 7 feet to the north along approximately 350 feet of its length in order to be on the property line. Also, how is the expense of maintenance of this fence to be divided? 5. Conservation of area-wide property values The ASPR states on page 6: "In fact, there should be an increase in area-wide property values following the development of this property because the property has not been maintained in the past, with vegetation allowed to become overgrown. " Rather than defining this greenbelt as "overgrown,"the residents of Sunset Garden see this area as a forest complete with birds, squirrels and deer. Development of this property would definitely lower our property value, not increase it. In fact,the board of directors tried to find out who owned the land in order to purchase it. This would have insured the greenbelt as an amenity. Also,the City of Renton's ASP Review states on page 6 under 3. Mitigation of impacts, "This reduces the overall impact on the abutting properties, even though the developed portion of the site extends farther to the west than the original plan. The revised plan 6 extends approximately 350'into the site. " This statement is erroneous information. The revised plan actually extends over 380 feet, which actually increases, not decreases,the impact on Sunset Garden homeowners. Now residents will look out their windows and instead of seeing trees will see directly into the windows of Aberdeen Apartments. All buildings at Sunset Garden were carefully sited in order to avoid owners looking into • each other's homes. ' In conclusion, Sunset Garden is asking that this revised plan not be approved. The impact of the project would be greatly reduced if: • the plan had two buildings sited away from the 40% critical slope area; • the buildings were less wide so that the building along with setbacks, a driveway and sidewalk could fit on the 62.5 foot lot; and • there were more parking stalls. Sincerely, Gay Kiesling President, Sunset Garden Owners Association NOTES RECEIPT DATE 3 ° NO. 5288 � e. I RECEIVED FROM r cs v ADDRESS elPe) �Ivwa�OviFke,^s AsEoC. • -- rdPP,a Ave_- d�' C- 3 (O s o ° E FOR Ica ACCOUNT HOW PAID AMT.OF ACCOUNT CASH s� AMT. CHECK" �f U Q crit PAID ' BALANCE MONEY BV DUE ORDERL%' ©1998 ftEdFORMf®eL802 Attachment to August 12,2001 Appeal Letter from Sunset Garden Owners Association In addition to the run-off that comes down the entire hill, the water table is relatively close to the surface. At several places at 949,underground springs seep up through the surface of our driveway throughout the year. Sunset Garden has gone through a three year saga of paying a hydrologist and two engineers to determine a cause and solution to our moisture problems. In a nutshell, our condominium complex, built in 1991, has paid approximately $225,000. (The high bid was over $500,000.) This work is caused by water, that naturally drains down the west facing hillside above I-405 due to pavement(streets and parking lots) and houses and apartment buildings. The City of Renton's planning process failed to require adequate mitigation to avoid the costly problems we face today. The developer and builder of Sunset Garden failed to provide the necessary construction methods and materials to mitigate the problems of building on such a hillside as ours. To locate several buildings as well as an asphalt driveway and parking lot north of our property will only exacerbate our problem. Certainly the new buildings will have problems of their own. Living proof at 949 shows that a developer and builder must go beyond the narrow requirements of applicable codes in order to build on this type of site. We are nurses, airline inspectors, school teachers, news reporters, retirees, technical college employees, secretaries, paralegals, office furniture installers,bookkeepers, manufacturing employees, and construction workers, many of whom are faced with financial hardship at best, bankruptcy at worst (three homeowners), due to poor planning and development practices in regards to drainage system requirements and installation. Not only is there the monetary cost, but also endured was the considerable inconvenience of removing all landscaping in order to dig a 6' deep trench around all perimeters of each building, cutting down our larger trees, and jackhammering out and replacing the patios and sidewalks. In conclusion, the site at 917 is very narrow with a sharp drop and extreme negative impacts to adjacent property owners. a p CITY OF RENTON. • Planning/Building/Public Works `' �=� • 1055.South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 ;':4-qftil;::!,:4',4:r.,#.t4in!/...T.............,.:di ar2001-ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 5 - .-;'' -^ /158401. I ''0•- g /it I k — eco , _ ., • / CP . . • Newg Graef Horne Trends 8034 118thgve -- --------- - Kirkia 3 nd, IN'q 9803 NE I FORWARD TIMEOEXPOiRTN5TO SEND6JOr00 I :NEW HOME TRENDS -- 18912 NORTH CREEK PKWY STE 211 f BOTHELL WA 98011-8Oi6 ! RETURN TO SENDER k t j t 1 / sBcAssr.�C.a i IJtleeI'tr{t1Jtf dOit1IIr3rl1trddull rdflO Ittlr1rt;IItf . �'t _ _-__� 4 . 1 4 ' / - / • • .1 1 Tri i. g{ (•' I i Fi i i ;' r'1 j .__. I ._ /' e, a i h p .. '''....''''....i.,,,,...ik\ ''''..\''\\''''''''' .',„‘.,\ 'i ,.. ; , • -•,. �.�t�' `� ;' \, • ____. . . . ...... / ' ! „,......„.„ / N.:.> P:. .,NNING..._>IVISI ` <`>' ` � <« < <<` < ' ``.. `' .. > `` '1> ::::.:......::;:::.......:......: ..........::::::::.... ::::::::....:::. :: :::::::::....IRR N ....I.ANNING.:D�U.. .I.ON.................................................................................... ... «<«A::f ID VIT OF SE .`.>0....i�BY MAILI N:' <'' <!<€ »'< >€>> «<< < ':<" »<`< < > >> '' .;.;..;.;.:.:.:::.::.:::.;.;.::::.:.;:::.:.:.:.;.;:.:.::.;.;.::.:;.::.;.:.;.::. >;>::::>:>::>::>::>::>::::>::>:::::>::>::::: ::>::>::>::>:::::>::>::>::>:>::::::::>:::::>:::::>::>::>::>::: :: On the__� day of '_ , 2000, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing v't t a7c«S(cs-v\ • documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing gels«, 'RiG. Oa k l id F.-al-L. )0, 6 , t2 ( a.(lari l) (Signature of Sender) 5ctxd.,w. K- Sc-- -....i.\---1.— STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) c I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that SF _ k. ,'9,--P- rA, signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for tlie' uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. /, SOU) (----?')i a ys ->V ARIL N K�A Jic FF 1 Notary Publicfor the State of WO,tiington NOTARY PUBLIC Notary (Print) . STATE OF WASHINGTON bliii_vNMaiCOi MISSION EXPIRES , My appointmetNT CXPIRES 6-2943 .TUNE 29,2003 Project Name: Abe >°exl Ai _ �_ tal..2)h vi OitS-e,S Project Number: i,-Vpi OQ_olio ,S 6Ll -i4\ NOTARY2.DOC A l 1 At.I11v1L1'1 H. 1VIr.Norm Mode ' ';3ay Kiesling Jeff Clousing 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. C-310 J49 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. ""949 C210 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt, Renton, WA 98056 E318 Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Susan Lauth Cheryl Jayne Phyllis Turner 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. E315 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. 949D1 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Renton, WA 98056 D211 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Terra Schmidt Karen Loos Melody Grieves 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. B106 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 99490 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. Renton, WA 98056 B105 Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Michael Bradley John & Patricia Clayton Annelle Perry 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. B306 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt.A- 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt Renton, WA 98056 102 A101 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Muhammad Faisal Patty Reynolds Patricia Dolan 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt.A101 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Renton,WA 98056 C107 307 Renton;WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Francia Personett Juanita McIntosh Natalie Hester 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. F220 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Ave NE, Apt. C308 Renton, WA 98056 C110 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Mr. &Mrs. R. Beach Kathryn Carrigan Terrie Carter 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, E115 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Renton,WA 98056 E116 E216 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Helen del Rosario Lawrence &Carol Lonczak Albert& Sandra Jarvela 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. E215 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Renton, WA 98056 E118 E117 Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Lan Le Darsie Brown Cheryl Waid 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. F219 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Renton, WA 98056 F119 C108 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Ed Niblock Eleanor Brown Hal & Erin Pugmire 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. D213 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Renton, WA 98056 D313 D314 Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 PARTY OF RECORD LIST.doc/ A 1 1 Ala1IVlLly 1 -H •RoRald Yasui - Doug Graef Helen Burch 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. E317 dew Home Trends 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 8034 118th Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Kirkland, WA 98033 Lisa Young Art Gossan Freida Coon 1000 Aberdeen Avenue NE 7301 NE 175th,#124 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, C-109 Renton, WA 98056 Kenmore, WA 98028 Renton, WA 98056 James L. Strichartz, Attorney Steve Beck 200 West Mercer Street, Suite 511 19129 SE 145th Street Seattle, WA 98119 Renton, WA 98059 PARTY OF RECORD LIST,doc/ REPORT City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION Decision Date: July 30, 2001 [The Administrative Land Use Action was originally approved on September 15, 2000. Two subsequent appeals of the site plan approval were upheld by the Hearing Examiner. On February 26, 2001, the Hearing Examiner remanded the site plan, subject to conditions, back to staff. The applicant submitted a revised site plan, which was reviewed by staff. The result of that review is included herein and revisions, reflecting the site plan revisions, have been made to the original report.] Project Name: Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Applicant: Gerald Rieker and Soung Hee Rieker Cambridge Homes NW 12228 NE 112th Place #A-1 Kirkland WA 98033 Owner: (same) File Number: LUA-00-040, ECF, SA-A Planner: Elizabeth Higgins, AICP Project Summary: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for nine, two-story, townhouses to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). The project also requires environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. Project Location: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE Exist. Bldg. Area SF: N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area SF: 7,057 sf Site Area: 37,585 sf(0.86 acre) Total Building Area SF: 7,057 sf l __-/U' vv V NAME E C s"'v 9➢AL/ AT i WPM(44g Y N UdEfz, ,,O JPU - Project Location Map sitepinrev(revised).doc _ e City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEEN APARTMENTS L UA-00-040,SA-A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY30,2001 Page 2 of 11 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for nine town house units, in three buildings. The project is located on a 37,585 square foot property at 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE. The property is 62.5 feet wide and approximately 600 feet long. The property fronts on Aberdeen Avenue NE, north of its intersection with Sunset Boulevard NE. The building would be situated on the eastern half of the site, which is more gently sloping (5 percent to 10 percent) than the western half, which has slopes in excess of forty percent and are, therefore, regulated by the City of Renton. The building coverage of the site would be approximately 18.8 percent and the total impervious area would be about 38.9 percent. The wood-framed building would be approximately 36 feet in height. The roofline would be staggered, matching the angle of slope and the roofs articulated with peaks and architectural details. Vertical walls would be surfaced in a horizontal siding of unspecified material composition. The nine townhouses would have approximately 784 sf on the main floor and 796 sf on the second floor. The basement would provide parking for two vehicles and storage space. The total size of the basement level would be approximately 244 sf. The property is 37,451 sf in size and has approximately 10,097.83 sf of protected slopes. The net acreage is 0.63 acre. Therefore, the proposed project, at 9 units, has a density of 14.29 dwelling units per net acre. Parking for each unit would be in individual two-vehicle garages under the living space of each townhouse. Three additional parking spaces would be on site at uncovered, surface parking areas. The total parking available on site would be 21 spaces. The property is located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). Abutting zones are all residential. They are the same zone (RM-I) to the north, south, and east and Residential 1 (R-1) to the west. R-1 allows residential development at 1 dwelling unit per net acre, but the area may be too environmentally sensitive to make development feasible. The project requires environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. The Environmental Review Committee made a Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated for the proposed 12 unit apartment building project. Staff has recommended that the previous review of the environmental conditions be upheld for the revised, nine unit townhouse project based on a probable decrease in environmental impacts. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971, as amended, on July 18, 2000, the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee made a Determination of Non- Significance, Mitigated for the project. Two appeals of the Determination were filed with the Hearing Examiner prior to the close of the appeal period. These appeals were heard at a public meeting on January 23, 2001 (continued from November 28, 2000), following the close of the appeal period for the site plan review decision. The Hearing Examiner upheld the environmental determination. At r ram' f<`. ' ``t ,73\74 „,„„, sitepinrev(revised).doc . „t' City of Renton P/B/PWDepartment Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEEN APARTMENTS L UA-00-040,SA-A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY 30,2001 Page 4 of 11 The neighborhood of the proposed project has both single family houses and multi-family apartment and condominium developments. The Sunset Garden Condominiums (60 units) are located to the south, abutting the proposed project. There are three single family houses on two parcels located to the north. A 168 unit condominium development, Renton Ridge, is north of the single family houses. Staff has been working with a potential applicant for a proposed 9 unit condominium project that would be located south of, and abutting, the Renton Ridge development on the parcel having two single family residences. Adjacent to the project, across Aberdeen Avenue, are both multi-family developments and single family houses. This project is compatible with the other multi-family projects in the area, although the neighborhood has not completely transitioned entirely from single family residential. Staff believes three 3 unit townhouse buildings would be more compatible with the transitioning neighborhood than the previously proposed single 12 unit apartment building. Policy LU-64: Development density should generally be in the range of ten to twenty dwelling units per acre. The proposed project, at 9 units, has a density of 14.29 dwelling units per net acre, which is in the middle of the allowable density range. Policy LU-65: New development in Residential Multi-family Infill designations should be compatible in size, scale, bulk, use, and design with other existing multi-family developments. The proposed project is compatible with other multi-family developments in the area, although it is not as compatible in scale with the existing single family houses. The single family houses are single story and smaller in bulk that both the proposed project and other multi-family projects that have been developed in the vicinity. The architectural style, scale of buildings, and reduction in the total number of units proposed is more compatible with existing single family residential than the original plan. Policy LU-66: Design standards should be applied that reflect present development patterns and are sensitive to unique features and differences among established neighborhoods. Although design standards have not been developed in the Renton Municipal Code for this land use zone, the proposed project meets the requirements of the Development Standards (RMC Section 4). These standards address building height, lot width, and building setbacks. Policy LU-67: Siting and design of new structures should be sensitive to site constraints and adjacent uses. Provision of adequate buffers or setbacks or scaling down building heights may be required to transition from Residential Multi-family Infill designations to adjacent lower density uses. The proposed project would be built on the eastern half of the property that is not constrained by protected slopes. The stormwater control system would be designed to carry run-off away from both the developed portion of the property and the adjacent properties. The revised site plan meets the condition of the Hearing Examiner's remand of the original site plan approval. The revised plan proposes building at the same grade as the single family residence to the north, rather than raising the grade three to four feet above the grade to the north. This eliminates the need for a retaining wall between the two properties. There are three buildings, not a single building, so the overall mass of the structure has been reduced considerably. The space between the middle building and the east building has been positioned to serve as a "corridor" to allow light to the existing greenhouse on the abutting property, which is located directly north of this space. sitepl nrev(revised).doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY30,2001 Page 5 of 11 2. Conformance with existing land use regulations The following development standards apply in the RM-I Zone: Density: minimum 10 dwelling unit per net acre (du/a), maximum 20 du/a The project has a net density of 14.29 du/a. This is at the middle of the allowable range. All of the density will be located on approximately half of the property, due to steep slopes on the other half. Minimum lot width: 50 feet The property is 62.5 feet wide. No new parcels will be created. Minimum lot depth: 65 feet The property is 607.61 feet deep. Setbacks (minimums): front— 20 feet; rear— 15 feet; side — greater of 5 feet or 10% of lot width (rounded up to next whole integer); additional 1 foot for each story in excess of two The proposed project would have setbacks above the front and rear setback minimums. The side setbacks must be 7 feet each, based on lot width of 62.5 feet. Height: 35 feet or 2.5 stories. In all Residential Multi-family Zones (except "U'), more stories and an additional 10 feet in height may be obtained through the provision of additional amenities such as pitched roofs... The proposed building has two levels of residential units above one level of parking. This meets the Uniform Building Code definition of two story building. The total height is 36 feet above finish grade. Although the proposed building height is one foot above the maximum height allowed, the revised plan indicates a high level of architectural detailing and articulation (see Exhibit No. 12). Staff recommends approval of increased height as proposed, based on site plan review. Building coverage (maximum): 35% The proposed building would have 18.8 percent coverage of the property. Impervious area (maximum): 75% The proposed project would result in 38.9 percent impervious area. Landscaping: Setback areas and open space areas shall be landscaped unless otherwise determined through the site plan review process. Landscaping has been proposed for the front and south side setback areas. The north setback, abutting the single family residence, does not have landscaping proposed. A 6 foot fence has been proposed along the north property line. Staff recommends that this fence, although proposed, be made a condition of the site plan approval. The purpose of this fence would be to provide a transition between the existing single family home and the proposed project and,buffer noises somewhat from the driveway that abuts the property line and from the garages that open to the north. 3. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses There are several potential impacts to surrounding uses by the proposed project. An increase in impervious area could cause a corresponding increase in existing drainage problems on adjacent properties. To avoid this, the applicant would be required to install a stormwater control system that carries all stormwater runoff away from the developed property to the south and the single family residential property to the north. Stormwater would be dispersed by means of a sitepin rev(revised).doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY 30,2001 Page 6 of I1 spreader in the northwest corner of the project property (see "Notes to Applicant" section of this report). Although the property to the north is also within the Residential Multi-family—Infill Zone, there would be an impact to the single family residence located to the north, caused by the proximity of the building and adjacency of driveway. The proposed building meets the setback requirement on the north. A condition has been proposed whereby a fence will be required in order to buffer the existing home from the new development. The revised site plan is for three smaller buildings, rather than one large building. The length of the apartment building originally proposed was 205 feet. The revised plan has two buildings at 82 feet each and one at 87 feet. The three buildings have spaces between them, of 25 feet and 40 feet, to allow light and air to circulate. This reduces the overall impact on the abutting properties, even though the developed portion of the site extends farther to the west than the original plan. The revised plan extends approximately 350 feet into the site from Aberdeen Avenue NE. A site lighting plan must be submitted as a condition of approval prior to issuance of a building permit. This plan would be evaluated to avoid light"spill over"from the new project onto the abutting property. 4. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site The proposed project, planned for only the more gradually sloped east half of the project, is sited to minimize the impact to the property by avoiding the very steep western half. The revised plan extends the paved driveway and dumpster area into a portion of the property that is sloped approximately 48 percent. The vertical increase in the area proposed for development is approximately 12 feet in height. Slopes greater than 40 percent, with a vertical increase of 15 feet or more are deemed to be "protected" slopes. The proposed filling of this approximately 350 sf area would not be regulated by the City Critical Areas Ordinance. 5. Conservation'of area-wide property values Development of the property should not have a negative impact on area-wide property values. In fact, there should be an increase in area-wide property values following the development of this property because the property has not been maintained in the past, with vegetation allowed to become overgrown. In addition, the property to the north has very low density, with one single family home and the property to the south has condominium units. The proposed project would have nine townhouses, which will be larger in size and more comparable to single family homes at 1,800 sf each. 6. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation It does not appear from review of the site plan that a walkway, separated from the driveway, will be provided to connect the project to the sidewalk that will be located along the street frontage. Staff recommends a site plan revision that demonstrates that a walkway, physically separated from the driveway by either a curb or raised curb abutting the sidewalk, be provided. The dumpster enclosure would located at the west boundary of the developed portion of the site, near the vehicle turn-around. It should not conflict with pedestrian traffic. sitepinrev(revised).doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEEN APARTMENTS L UA-00-040,SA-A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY30,2001 Page 7 of 11 7. Provision of adequate light and air It appears that this criteria would be met by the proposed project. The revised plan meets this requirement to a greater extent than the previously proposed project by allowing light and air to circulate between the three buildings. 8. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions It appears that this criteria would be met by the proposed project. The dumpster would be located at the west boundary of the developed portion of the site, at the farthest point from the residential units. Code requires screening of dumpsters and recycle areas. 9. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use Public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use are available in Aberdeen Avenue NE. 10. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight It appears that this criteria would be met by the proposed project. The project improvements, as proposed, would be consistent with plans, policies, and regulations of the City of Renton. 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: 1. Request: The Applicant has requested Site Plan Approval for the Aberdeen Apartments, LUA00-040, ECF, SA-A. The applicant has requested review of a revised site plan and an Administrative Site Plan Approval. 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. A Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated was issued on July 18, 2000. The appeal period ended on August 7, 2000. Two appeals were filed, but the Determination was upheld by the Hearing Examiner in his decision of February 26, 2001. 3. Site Plan Review: The applicant's site plan application complies with the requirements for information for site plan review. The applicant's site plan and other project drawings are entered as Exhibits No. 2, 3, and 4. 4. Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential Multi-family— Infill (RM-I). sitepl nrev(revised).doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEEN APARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY30,2001 Page 8 of 11 5. Zoning: The proposed project complies with the zoning requirements and development standards of the Residential Multi-family— Infill (RM-I) Zoning designation, with the. The zoning map is entered as Exhibit 5. E. Conclusions 1. The subject proposal complies with the policies and codes of the City of Renton. 2. The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential M ulti-family — Infill (RM-I); and the Zoning designation of Residential Multi-family— Infill (RM-I) Zoning. F. Decision The Site Plan for Aberdeen Apartments, File No. LUA-00-040, is approved, as revised, subject to the following conditions: 1. A site lighting plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Department and approved prior to building permit approval. 2. A solid wood fence, design and materials to be approved by the Development Services Division, at the maximum height allowed, shall be installed along the north property line. Such installation shall be completed prior to occupancy of the building. 3. A site plan revision shall be submitted prior to building permit, that demonstrates that a walkway will be provided that connects to the public sidewalk and that is physically separated from the project driveway by either a curb or raised curb and sidewalk. Such revision to the site plan shall be made by the applicant and approved by the Development Services Department prior to building permit issuance. 4. A Native Growth Protection Area ( NGPA) easement shall be established for the area of the property having slopes at forty percent (40%) or greater (approximately the western half of the property). The NGPA easement shall be recorded prior to obtaining an occupancy permit. The following additional conditions were imposed on the site plan approval by the Hearing Examiner in his decision of February 26, 2001: 5. The grades of the subject site shall not be altered in such [a] fashion as to allow the proposed apartment complex to sit up higher on the site. The applicant may grade the site downward to "hide" or accommodate an additional story but shall not be permitted to raise the site in any fashion that allows a de facto three story building to be judged two stories under the definitions in the Zoning Code or Building Code. 6. More details on the nature of the retaining walls both along the north and south property lines and the location of[a] driveway are needed. That information should be developed prior to approval of the site plan. 7. The definition of driveway separation from abutting property shall be revisited and accommodation made to reduce the impacts in this case. EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: July 30, 2001. s i to p l n rev(revised).do c City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEEN APARTMENTS L UA-00-040,SA A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY30,2001 Page 9 of I SIGNATURES: Neil Watts, Development Services Division Director date TRANSMITTED this 30th day of July 2001,to the owner/applicant and contact: Gerald Rieker Soung Hee Rieker 11017—101 sc Place NE Kirkland,WA 98033 Jim Heffernan Kelley-Heffernan Corp. 40 Lake Bellevue, Suite 100 Bellevue,WA 98005 David J. Fall Fall Architectural 9607—39th Avenue SW Seattle,WA 98136 TRANSMITTED this 30th day of July 2001, to the parties of record: See Attachment'A' TRANSMITTED 30th day of July 2001, to the following: Larry Meckling,Building Official Charles Duffy,Fire Prevention Jennifer Henning,Zoning Administrator Kayren Kittrick,Public Works Division Lawrence J.Warren,City Attorney South County Journal Land Use Decision Appeal Process Appeals of the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM August 13, 2001. If no appeals are filed by this date,the action 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. 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. Plan Review—Sanitary Sewer 1. This project is outside of the Aquifer Protection Zones. s i to p l n rev(revised).doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEEN APARTMENTS L UA-00-040,SA-A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY 30,2001 Page 10 of 11 2. There is an existing 10" sanitary sewer main in Aberdeen Avenue NE. 3. Providing a gravity system to this site will be extremely difficult due to the topography. The project engineer has indicated that separate grinder pumps will be installed under the building permit. Plans shall be noted to reflect this. Plan Review—Water 1. There is a 16"water main in Aberdeen Avenue NE. 2. This site is located in the 435 Pressure Zone. 3. A water main extension will be required on site. 4. All new construction must have a fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 gpm and must be located within 300 feet of the structure. There are fire hydrants in the vicinity that may be counted towards the fire protection of this project, but are subject to verification for being within 300 feet of the nearest corner of the building. This distance is measured along a travel route. This project will require a minimum of 2,500 gpm fire flow. An additional fire hydrant will be required to be installed onsite to meet this criteria. 5. Water System Development Charges of$510 per unit are applicable to this project. The Development Charges will be collected as part of the construction permit. Plan Review—Stormwater Drainage 1. A storm drainage narrative and conceptual plan has been submitted and reviewed. It has been given preliminary approval, with the exception that the drainage system will be required to be tightlined to the northwest corner of the property and dispersed via a spreader due to the surface water problems on the abutting property to the south. 2. Final storm drainage report and design shall comply with the King County Surface Water Design Manual, 1990 Edition. 3. No on-site detention is required. 4. Surface Water System Charges of$15,985 are applicable to this project. The Development Charges will be collected as part of the construction permit. Plan Review-Street Improvements 1. Full street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, street signs, and street lights are required, if not already in place. 2. All new electrical, telephone, and cable services and lines must be undergrounded. Plan Review—General 1. The applicant is responsible for securing and necessary private utility easements. 2. All required utility, drainage, and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 3. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5 percent of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4 percent of anything over$100,000, but less than $200,000, and 3 percent of anything over $200,000. Half of this fee must be paid upon application for construction permits (preliminary plat improvements), and the remainder when the construction permit is issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. sitepl n rev(revised).doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEEN APARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF REVISED REPORT AND DECISION OF,JULY 30,2001 Page 11 of 11 Fire Prevention 1. The preliminary fire flow is 2500 gpm, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and two additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Separate plans and permit are required for the installation of the sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 3. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways are a minimum 20 feet in width with a turning radius of 45 feet outside and 25 feet inside. 4. Fire department dead-end access roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. Planning 1. Retaining walls in excess of four (4)feet require engineered drawings and a separate building permit. 2. Construction easements obtained from abutting property owners may be necessary prior to construction of retaining walls on or near property lines. These agreements must include protection measures for (or permission to potentially damage or remove) trees located on abutting properties within 20 feet of the property line. 3. Performance Standards for Land Development Permits (RMC 4-4-130K), including "Protection Measures During Construction" (RMC 4-4-130K7) relating to trees, shall be followed by the applicant. The applicant shall adhere to the definition of"tree" a found in RMC 4-11-200, "drip line" as found in RMC 4-11-040, and the measurement of trees as found in RMC 4-11-030. sitepl nrev(revised).doc r ff iO CITY RENTON ..ill Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator May 25, 2001 Gay Kiesling Sunset Gardens Homeowners'Association 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton, WA 98055 Re: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments, Project No. LUA-00-040, SA-A, ECF Dear Ms. Kiesling As you are aware, the appeals of the Administrative Site Plan Approval of the above referenced project, filed by you and by Ms. Burch, were upheld by the Hearing Examiner. His determination resulted in the site plan being redesigned to meet his criteria. This letter is being sent to advise you that we have received a revised site plan from the proponent of the Aberdeen Avenue Apartments project. It has been substantially changed, beyond what was requested by the Hearing Examiner. The elevation of the project is now at the same grade as Ms. Burch's property, so there is no longer the need for a retaining wall on the boundary between those two properties. This lowers the project below your property by about 3 to 4 feet. There are"corridors" now that break up the mass of the building. The number of units has been reduced to 9 and they are in 3 clusters, instead of a continuous structure. The units are"townhomes"rather than apartments. I do not know if they will also be marketed as condominiums. The previous stormwater requirements, that the surface water be collected and conveyed via a pipe to the northwest corner of the proper prior to dispersal via a spreader, will remain for this project. I have enclosed a copy of the revised plan for your review and comment. Please call me at 425-430- 7382 at your earliest convenience to discuss any continuing concerns you may have. Thank you. Sincerely /1lla-4.--/ //-1--5 Elizabeth Higgins, AICP Senior Planner Copy: Mr. Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner file .-lifirrft 190i 2OO1 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 . This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer d . . CITI, ')F RENTON` "_:d ,; : : . PTearing,Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J Kaufman. . • March 15,.2001_ . -. , Helen:"D.Burch: • Gay Keisling`. 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE Sunset Gardens Homeowners Association ` _ Renton, WA 98056. 949 Aberdeen Avenue#318 Renton,NA 98056 . Re: APPEAL OF SEPA AND,SITE PLAN DETERMINATION' . ,FILE No: L1.TA00-108,AAD - Dear Appellants: The Examiner's Report and Decision`"on theabove=referenced matter;which was issued on - • February 26,2001'"was not appealed,within the 14-day period established by ordinance. Therefore,this matter is considered final by this office the file on your appeal is being . .transmitted to.the City Clerk as'of this date: , Please feel free'to contact this office if further.assistance or information is required. Sincerely; . :"1- -- ' ' , , „ ` Fred J.:Kauf Hearing Examiner FJK/jt - . cc: Elizabeth Higgins,Development"Services. Sandi Seeger,Development Services • "" • , :OM r - - _`•,! � ">t saw - '- ! - ... - �^ • 1055 South Grady WayRenton,.Washin,on 98055'_'. 425 >430-6515 . - 3-;;,�,,. ; -,,, :;,<^'4`� Y �.: �. ) . C> Wi � ,1 , `�'This oaoer contains 50%recycledmaterial:20:/oost consume. �<�i `:= "`•":�, ' •� AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss. County of King ) �i� os/C— being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: • That on the-9‘' ay of 7—; ,oi( , affiant deposited in the mail of the United States a sealed envelopes) ntaining a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: Z-1-9 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me thivU�--d"ay o , 2001. . N ' u z� o Not Publip,in and for the State of Washington, i'4$1 '�. PUIow>Pl to ; Residing at a.-Q e therein. 'a o _ !� I SATE OF ,%%%%%%%%% Application, Petition, or Case No.: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Appeal LUA00-1 0 8,AAD The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. ?.,-.77,v;:,, ,.. "Kt.'.;.:'.4.;,..-..,41,,,;T:i.„,...:, ,, ; ...,•.,.,,,,,,,,,„_4, ._ ,..i. i,-,„.--.,. .-Vv.,-'s -, ...:.4.sx,..--0.1.,',,;-.:' ••;:,,-",:s":4'4.1t-,1'.2.:-,i7-':'-:;•`.41.';•:7,71'''7.4%-•71',;--4Y-74141',:fi,.4-71'1,071,,,',14..' ,•1i,.'":?:(';';4;.,',#,..!4;-2-7 -"!}'''' --':' '''- ... ::'.1,"•;7.11.•.:t,k'.‘i'''',•''''':•:*.:'''''',Or;01'''::-.--,f-, .,'',..,...:,,,,,,..'.k-it-.#4 yi 'Z'-'1Retr::':-:&r7-.--.:..4-,--;;4,.-,',..A.'.=•,-,. ..,..,,-...,-..r,;',-70- -,...-. -.*..,4-';.):-N -,etvc r"fi'.,*4'4,al'i Wir:,44i- •',•':'•• -• •i;7'''‘ .,-"'`,k'-' '..'';' ' ! .4-t--44•4'-'•'`-•'- 7,'li'lifk.a,.3 .'''yI• r,r,z--:-• f„,,,:2-2 ,41;1,,I',!-,,,.;',..: ,, .: --,..,,,;t,"-4,,Az.,,,, 14'e3;.-:-Ali": ,',Zr--""*"`'-',443J1*",•'!'t,-::''.,rr.t.i,,"41*** iliii",i414 lat.'4 e'Ai.*::',. L,,,-.,,.1"*._'.'•4, -.4Ai.. -',* '' ' 1".', 1:'l.-'.,-,*1 ii..-t't 44 ., "',,-7,.4.2.4,p,',V••-•'"i' fl'A!',,-.P:.e.',.$''.. ''''st'44,'- il.:.t.4.-AT.r.evs,i',,,i,p,-.1Y.4.,-: ',:?4,..-:-•, '''•' '..fiwy-----, • ''''-:&w..3-44_,,,<'-liew4_••-.•4:*. *,';;;;,''';', 4.S.-r!liir,;- *'‘V'Q- ''::".i,14.,..,,ov,..*"" ' .‘,kr-40:4',0•*, ,„044/1.4.4,k„ '11-."4,,Zi•gi. ',W,-k-',: *-.7... .7.Ae,1,?-;:.,71.„. ,:. i..1,',....,. .."7.,1-.:,-,. .4. ,:-...,,i4val,-4".4%'-',-Y,_,,"4,4,,, ,.,:fe,4„."1:.':.,!•T„'„;',q,,,,_ :,,,,;.,,k.,4-r", - ,, .*k•'.-_;f:' : •''',4,?„_," 4,..s404.-,y y.,..tL',6-.W A 414,,, .e:e,•,.,--.-.,T,e,'!:;''' .r.„): 44,,,I.'R..'''.',r.--,..:','" '''4 .,.....'"':"*--,*:;-. .1-#.0. • ,':PT/"...,A-.0._4t 4, '1'4,W4,,,,71;7.,Z *'' *.•* "?.,:214.',"...iwkje*S**,4*.''.4:- ,..-...'' ..*-*'74'4.-•--,ort%-i. r,c0.• v_.• ' lesoet, •-...4-40.51,t, ,,, .:_,..r.jelg, ,,041.,,,,-,...,-.. k.'";;g'44.1...„.,,..;,-,,*44..",:,",f,4414 4,,•'',: "'"'..."'',- ,--ktikM,f",',,, 4..Y.6-_•7,---k,.'' ,.. '''s'','IT- : :. "..', :';'.4•t"•-'••r,:•••••-• a,' ik-P.:;10''!,•4...,','Y.-.-• ‘.TA.r,l•ti•iwi-4,,.,,P4,-,"'41-4. :',,-..'-',..'• -..•'‘..,'• 1,4••: 11.7•.• . •'44704-'f4*-1.4'"L,**4c.z„.604tqp,4-4 4'..t.' 7-,* ,,"'1"1. .•' 4,V'''.**g'"". ;!'44." .. i ' 12.:*r•t''.--% -:***,_:%,,-44;34.' '-',4/'1"L'9!-, '."*A..,\!.."''.-',.'4,,'A "*',si5X •- -t,..43•,,,,st,I..-P,-,,,,‘,,:, .1"..7„ .-'. ..„:17:,,I.,,;7'-_,,,,L,‘-';,11&"4Nrc.,T,'.',,si-,rf.':•,,,,,•:k.i,1,41;,,,4",.,-.'-'-7. i.'''.ir' ' r't*,..":..***)';.,:i.''z'r•,;•,"*f.4,;*41 ..";+- t!' , *,..kdi's;•1±:4? 4 . :.(_-"A1'..4'''Z94' '''.",t'''':4 4F4':', -:`,zr" -''-'' .'"*.n't.;.-.. .`..e-'%.'''' 0.•.- 4.,...„-.:45A11: 1' U-',.0.*,..,";--.-.-) ,v,,,I7VSY"..•;:.=:':-'hi_.."?,?':''''-',.: ''. ,'7,-!-:11:1`c-, '. --,:k',4,:-•A•_':,,,z!•;b:%‘''.,41,17.4,:,:,, _.g".....:17-4,„,I.,4',,A1%-..1e.4 ',.-14'„,;,4t4.,3,•1::,:•.:- -• -4244.:fk-:g.;.k: .- ' '' ''''- ','./T':-: 'L---.:.':.0-!4.-‘7(te.;;;.-1-1.'"-=;':':,!,;.,7;i:.!--:- .-',...:.+V .:' '''".k..,.,,, '47.:*-' --'-..,4-'1,'it •,."-,7,3 e,::' ..: 4‘,5*:,-4:-.; -.Vi.",- 4,,i,14:Lkt..,-..,;.4.,, ,,,,o,....„.ti,* ir 1 2,„;!kt,...t3,,,:rj.,44.1-,.'.......tV,•T. .'..t4r4!..,%.*-.: t,-- .,,,4,,,,,,,!4,-. '..,;-:.•-::•, ,.,,, -':•..;:.c.-:.::::4,,,44.41,44-i-,: ,i.'-;•-,..4, - -...ik,---...47,-0..•„„.,*-',,.::.11:01.,:- .(,,,?4?-1:K6:!.-.-viitli. 7,7* ,--;, !,••,:',-,-.if_,-,-,;• -,K,-,'•sl- ,-,•:- -,i,ird,-t-s-.• - -§,.....:q;''.f ;..-4'''-'.': ,'''..,'.'t•:,..1.: :''2L'.,`,•-•,10,i',,,,--i•'„A.A.4-.:1'-,.:;k:-.:!..","1'.:.-.;•4/Ag.,•;1.,,I,,,I .'62,4,7;`,',,„,„,'• ,7,"':'.,$$ctricelA-t.;•,:7c'4k.:1....t ty:;;r,Akit:t..**.-",..,4„ ,,..,„,,,,,,*„„*"..,rik„,:4.4,,,,,:,,,,,„4-,4,„.. ‘„•:- r•,,,;;;,,;:.,-„,,, .,K:p.L . '.L,L,LA 7'7....,:. N:.4 ri4,;.;,,!#,Ii44A.,.e ' 4J-,4.:,...' y -,,Ahr ''4,44-fiW'.444,7.1k1q*,, ,'"?!.."'' '..',4', .,", '-A44'-i,''.''.,-"' '..".1 '44r.sS''''4-- ZA'''''''7,4":':a''''''T'; 4g-444.T'44•TX4",--4**1141-44”11'Pl,' .:,--$4 ,1-'4:: :.--..k,,,,., , ••• •--„•:••,-, ..-,1,".--1,-f-•,,,,„..ter. .: -,:-lz,.T'-:'. '.. r•4"/Itith'itiottN1*.o, *.,:.V.-i,l.'„-•'i, ,-7,1.,:;.,:y....-,_-.. ..W.',..?:-..r144.: 0- VAl,...,..'. ..--it,..:.-,i',v,-1g-K,40,4" ,''.p',; -.::' -4',..'''',44,1'7.,, :,-..k,4, :` ,4 4 '...,','„,:...L,,.!;,14,1).*: -.-.., . ' -1,,,-4"A+,!,,i'',-*e,i';'.1;tr,44,-."'V e,'7••"0'7?-0 ..: .7.; -ir.:i'-..- -;i:':,':. '•*""!.1- '.'4•'-' ••'lir'''-VI •,4..•i'?..--t''-',:'INC:-* -,yit,&4e",„0: 4i'',4r' fa:*-*."..it?.:*T,'-'.::''.'-'• •. I'_ ..4',.,4,-*;)',;:'•".. .'p.1-,V1'..t*,',;,tr'`'.4 "siz ' ,n,..,Aie .444:::-.44'41.,:tt:L F•2, :, •:-,,ST ,,,-, ,-±,c,.. :4-4; ,4..', '4„.-li .,* i•'', 4-.-'4.- ,.,-17W1.S.: ,I,Ite."-r''':--&Z"`-:';;•.:1'- -,;•:...,... ....,,,,.. .::,-,-..•,,-":-•:.•;,,,v4_..:•L'ift.;*, ,--4r...%:,'',7'..4',Iii...',-1$:=7,A6q.p.., -;Y, >i'''''7.1.-.-..„-,,4-:,,'::5..1p..•'1,•:''. "kr,-4.''''''P'4'i..:;-4.k' -et.tt•:•''''''';',+P';,''•`'_-,;,.-4,4,-LtAt-r,•,: •,,,,,, FC,,i.;7:*!''.'''''. *-**-'4*r. '*.N.;;.,e'N*=;.vY,4,4(47,4?''''‘'''' r?,,k,...44/$1,;:."5.•.-,di-VYIT.V$ 24.',41`..;7:,I*1-i':4',*,,l'ii.'''r-\.',.14.,4':"'Y: .4. '''i+c?'::6.'41. 1,_'"-P,,,,.i;•,:`,,,::?,,r-,...:.,'rei?.' e, .,, ii,„ ,-..,, :4:4,, .4,-,-,_-_,•-•-•::>;„,y,.:.:;L ..1 11EA.. ...r4 37,‘I'. ..'"7., 16.' •-711;...N-iims.-,../v--,-. .5i_w,As!.1._ .,' 4';?4 1" :7....4-.:':4.4`..R:44.:414i,-,, ',,t4'' ii,, ,ii-t,4;,:;','.:Air-ly.4:1';„.-.At.,,,....A': ,,,,,,,bal,-,2:•0Y,-Wi.. 4 .;:tkcz-•:.',':•-',.:'-'-',: :--.",:';;1.Fisr-P..',.`,4:.;1,,..4,114-!4 -4_,'' ' ,-,:s,--,'„.; 1 '..-4P4,.X.,e.,,,.-a,.*.,F4,‘!•-:•73^ky4' ','. .••,;,:*.;;-;•' ,,-.-11.,1-A-•e'''.:%4,*„.'- lc:,' .,., i :i s.,...F2tlip..A.--ikv.......,, ,t0.41.4.1,,,,,,4,,.--, :4!'.4*,,P.*T 4.'",4'/*,:**.'",:.*.,"*,,4f4-•!.:c„,,,,,,,,v,,klif: - ,,,i,;,:s,- ,',!.4.,,.i,;; .: :,,,;2.,--pe .2.;,,e,'t,,,rAlf.,,t. ..,:1,,-,. wrr„-;:4,;,:.:41.4,5,,..-,tl,i' ,,i,,,,,-,-...LI L „.,--".,15,..,,v_ii,-.,i,Ni,,,,:;,, --4.,04-44.4. „-,. ,.,,?i ,',0-,,,,44,V.!1;:H,,..';',, ."?,-.1.,..i'l 14:'''.'!: 1r:-•',i.' i:i.:fi'-' :i.-T7 --T.-.;,-1:•',.- .--k r, -, -? .,.: .?'rn...t4.794rieri-i -::,,',.':-*T".''-.4-1"-;4---0,:4rfi,„'-,f;:i---j.f;4;;:i.,"i:.-.1,--?"',4•:.-,1z".!,:.1-4v'''?''1.,!l..A.'':..?-.j,•.,*.44 5 4'1;.41;p:0'':,"-A''''.'r.4...;',.',1,'•,-'1'17....,,4:i,...t7,,;,'...1!4;'f",'.4)e,..'".-*4.1'44='2.4,-,:-:.:;':,-4::t---*:'.;''-'_";'':•"'..?',.*4i,t,r.,6;.,,'c1!:.,;'r1-'i',',..'.!.',7 1 °'..':,.:i-A4.4.'.-4 ?.-;::4:;;A-Ip - 0,11('.V;r1.1Pf--10-4.-,-',:•„.0:04-.'i,-.-:. t4'Avl-. ''.:'..''''''..'.-;,,,:',;',c.a;.';Ii'N . .' ‘2;',. .':' t .4:-.J.......4,:.4,,,;,,,..1.17. 11i, otifo pu,,,,,,.44,,,,e„,,k...,:.,..„:„.t--,F.....!,,,,,,,:.07: . irv-...,,y,.::,r-,,,,,,,,,,,-,,,,..-,,,„1:,....,,,,,..4,.,./47.;-,:r.,:,. 1. ;.. ,.;,•,,,,..„4.,,,,,:., _:-..... .? :.44,,.,-;:.i. , :,....: .„.,_1,.-., ,v, ,..,. ,::,5•-:,,-' ;.4';1-44AAA.`''''''''•-*4- ..-. ,13i/4-p..,.7,..•'. - . s-f.:';-'4;i•.'&t1.;1-7),.c-::/"Pe-e. .',-1-'-.4.4.;?• •:.* L,•:,t,_::5.!3,,!Ny.kl;,--,,vt.t---,,-,-t, .i.;. _ . ,,A ;,,, .\,-;..,:.,,,!;z,.417,x. .,!::..:::,,,,.,,z,,, ,,&,,- -r:-..a.,..'•=-A:,:.,,gt:p. -4 , .A. ..::!,,,:,, ?4 4.,;lit,. '' r' 'TP,414:0:,.44; ''#),'[,:,..i',,, ei i,.. •••• s'-,' Itt 4, 4 •c'q....A.:/°, i -'•-1:11IL •L•kA,1:14-..;•:.,•, •., ' ' , P,4)?..-..14:;?.;:'!0:1„,,,,,-; .,.'4;',:,- ",-.-71.. VIT.' ,,,,n. . .7,- -44-- --,. ..'f.'',1'.' -•'..,'. ' . . . .. .,,,,,- h. -;t _ , --, -,•. -.-. -,,: :::,4,i,!:„A-,4-4r4r?..',;.:4.. ., ..t.tif,ir,.. -... :,. , .ZA i',VM..;"''...1--,),11-t•VI.r,--;,-_ _:, ::-.-,gt,'.4.,,t-' rf,'-r. .1.112,-., -.',7;:,;.%2:",-..-'0..'-.V. '' 4*,'',.‘,-,,,,..:-,...;,:-:'::;:osti.,'X.''', 7.',',1,:;A. :•44=-i- 4'fiti'..nr*.R*13*-*t'/V: — -`-QT-i4;.‘„';'>ie:-.+: .%.:N.Itti));''.i*il,,,,, ‘4" .4-,..,.' ,?,''4'.'A,:''' ''-'251_,..:kirit, iiiC.':--;Ai.A...c4','r,,,_..+1;',44:'.?-;•!,:r;::..s A,,,,,,y kf:tr.,,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,w47, ',...,,„,,,,,,,,--s,,,,::.,.. ,.....,,,,-„,e;1-010,-,,,-;,:.-..,,,5.1„,,....p, ..,....4,-,7-.4*.,-,,w-:.,...-7,„,..;-:.,,..,,7,„4A-:,,,,,?4,-.., . 1,Liq•,.-,,ii,i..';,17 ,.....i.,...,t, -:-.. . i:,.:.,ki.4 4A, ksr..4!?.,,,,,,-4:*,,:ey:.,4 .*...ift!r/v! :;4-fitgeicg,; ki.:-.,:,:;.iii..;,-.),i-,,,,,-.1 -r_.,01-rtet•-•,:,,- .4t;,;,,,-/ ,,,,,, 47.-14;:-,,,.1.;-,-.,•-k4-4.:- .2- 40 :44;'-;,.'4 4.?;!.-;4:f4;•=.,,•:tt.I.`44':!, ''',,,.': .f,,,,-.47, -j}.',.::V',.:''',11,14:.' -40,44- ..t.'4.;.Z.4,ii .,1..,:.;', ‘%1::',•,,,,,t;„.-....-,,,,:. -,.....--ail•I: .:, e,,i!...-.-, .,. ,: - :, •• ••- .....- ,., .,ri. ..1;, . ."„4,$.4,:rite.1,4,,,,-,/ .,.;-....•,1,,, ',•.•!"•' ','.....-s'',..;,-r"f'it.'"i-.,''/'.': ''''i4i";;;.,,r;-,d.,.,44::': ....,,•4,- .,,,,,..ii„.,-, , ,•:;.. :,..,,44,,,,,,,.,•:,,, 4.,4,- .. . Is..,,..).•,•,,,m.•,,,.voi:,...:_,.*1 . , ,t .,. .,i i)i:•44-r,:P.,.:1A:- • ..t,.1t-evArAI.4,, .Nis. .?0:,„,„...,,4_,Ji-4, ,--..,,:7,,151.,,-.--. . "44.e • 4*.;V.:., '''"i.'y.*.`,1%*' ''. '';*-7;''i,'*; 'a 4 7-'`.1 -".'',4i'L':14.- •=.•••il-• q '•• '**,•'1; '.'•:9•Ak 1,..-' •..,7",i' -.,'r•'.".Z'4'.•?•;,'-'••=,.*.,'',*.': .,i.i'f7=',_„1 .--7.iii:',r.'':4 S ,At '4'-','`:, '41/'',.r,r.:;i:-::"P:t•-•'L•f•-','''',:it.„:-.1414,L,''.,ti . ;,..M, ' ,:;4'.-ier.,•-r.•1:04.',.-•:,„;- ,..--:...' -:-.';-'•:•!':;',,„...,.7.-kt^:t.V.,.'''s..':.' -i:.$:k- f'• :.' : IAV.titiii*.''' -';.'"-•ik, .. ,:•:---•' '4F,:i-E-• -,,.:,:.t•--, it Vik,-•::,:,=..i. ,•;..4-',-,--.:4i4v'ffil-t.Fik-. IN-•_4•4,,,,-0,.;':=•L';,-.,,,-,'.:,-,,,":,,i-i ,firz. ,,•,•,.-,:7.,:-.-,_, ,,- j;,,,,ki.v :4,44..., T -.,,, , ., listrjr, ,,,f ,,,,rix,,,,, ..,,,,,,,.,i.j.:*.,..,,,,,,,,,-.:.0. ;,:z-•i;-:7.,-.:-.:-' _'ANtektotc.,,,,i.0--p, .,4k`r.fr.;'," '4.,4-:,ii;z4..7.'".;•',',',•fii:.7k,'g-,s‘tpli-k.X,,,,.s, ,.-_V.,-,,,,>:i.,i,„1,'4.'',',:',V1.',:-.' ' .';'!.'1!-4 :01-`` ar;ri'M ..i.•4.7.i.::.,, •,•,.<, , .,.. ,,3444,,l,WW;....;.;,•.i.p:,,,,;,',Es.',;:s, :;;,,4: 0•..... 7i.,74', ,17.,..14,,.;:1,‘.4...:,,, jc 44:0..,i4.•').,, ..**,;,)*,,I.,,c4..',;--,-, 4-i.#.413,r•-;.4;:l: ,--.,,,,,i_,.-,, ' ,y,-;,-.41,4;,7,v. i Y,-t-t 51T,,_„ if.W4W•-li :`-7:::77-i''.''.-'''- '7---r'll`z-1::4 •.' ',.';-,'s-.'''4;' 3'''t.':•-r,'-' 4st-'1;; ;a`le,t.IY;::.=ZA-:•4,7'.t .1'•.- --:.:PES.4.. .:'''-';',3t:I.I''sfi-4 ..:‘$!1.*; ' ''.4':.:1 .4 f :1.,-, ,,,,,,,, ,:yi,llit..,71,-. .:::::,,14,,,: ,_,:::,.7,4,.r..4 .1.;,..,,,,,,,41,,,,.„,..i,,,;„:..:,..,...;,,:,..4,,,,,i_itr,• ., #r, .,1:-..-:•.,...": ;-fi‘"''s*P". ,•,.'„,„,L1- .,4s::',4,..7.4,'''' ii..,.,7-7,.:4,...i .op,•.41.;,J., '..:,,: .!,,:,,,, ., ,..„,.....17,0k., ,-,....-..,.;,.-.....,,„„,:,.:1•,;,,,,,!1-,rt....;,,,,,,, • ,,._. -sp.-.'s'i '''''.".t.-;f6c.7',•*:sil'r';.P.rig.;,;.1--,-liv ,i•"*.- .,f4.+0•:'4V t7.0iir,-.:7-1:4,'W,,,,, :.z.r1.4.ti,r-k.', ,,,,Je,,,i..A.,.-46,'•:.:::.':...;::.-.'.1...c.... v.,:i:;,::;;;,,,t4t.',..._ :: .,,--,4*- ,.= :v•:It,,;..•:'=0,._....-."4:,,i,;.-,. .i!,.;vi!':',.. .: ,t4'-,'..!,.:,..:',..:-, -' .,i.;.... ,:•. '1,47at-, k.':),;'4-' 4 .•','' ''',,,,q,c,.''''''' '.-,. 4 Tit'.4-:',1':;-:'.•''''',",f.:->'-'-ir:'4.:-.:'i.4:1.';AIL'rf:4; '4.*'; '''t-r4't'It' It''''441:-,6:%irf. *4.3-‘1,-'''•',;''• '' ''. 4ri ji,k-ti,S.'.* *,.'`.*i 40413t,,,At•-,,te:: Vt. 0'.',.;,4)".'il:414t,•,:*,-;.....''lii,",k‘4424'-' ',. * *".„14-47t1**f-=•*.;-'Y*-'0'.; :,',.:7ce.*:..',g941.*,' r ':',..tte i- 'ft-..4'*617,, c•;•!'?,.''''',1:4.31"%,,,'` jit''W.,.:.'. ',",. .4-.."Vi4 IAA ';..1‘ „,_ -5,-"1„,,?•4.1:'4:- ;47',4&.1.,,,,.:' ,,t •,A,41i14;,4,,,,i7":'"......?1,'L.7.'4.-r`t,‘,:.,,.., ,,,,,, , 44",, ' p, ioe,,,,-'_. :,,,,,GA,'4' ). ' -,:-.;,:ei,.:.,..;.4;,..,' :41'..'...•:;:7-''-',.,46;,.:i,:. ;,:,-...-- ,,,,,t 1 ,;0.4..„,.de,-.- ;:-,!;:':,A'41,1,:'',7,.E.,: :',',..'"-- _ .,W,i,::-.?.... •;., A-‘ •tikt.,,,:.4.: i.:.,1.(.;, -,. .,-i.,..:,?:--„,,(Tt,:,40,...,,A,-. ,.: •o.:. -Ar4-'..:.'.:r.t,.: 0'f". .g.'n't.. ..'';•'4, ', .'-'''t...,. '').?.1'0.,IT t''''I:4 A.;.'1.',::'.I?..44-,4,1, '-;4,1,,,z-7,i-, ',';' 4,•,':14::74'.w:5V: tAtt... . „,,A,4,,,,•.'.4.,,'-f.. ::" ...:iY,j.,:;4::,..7....‘,...-4,1z.,:.77..... .., ..'ItA,,---,.4-4,, .'i.t,14,'0V.-'-;4'.,%Z.N•:,.-::':-;-,....1);', .,.-1. ..,,7,ititi,.0.7:-.,„00,4,,,. t.:-.-i,,f isr4 it, :1,k10,7„,.,y..:-.,i-g:....,,,mv...,::-...Nw,-;., ----,4*.z47:-...--i,,1%,,..,,„),!..v..i.,::-......=,,:,..,_•,,,nr,.. ..‘ L.5....k.. ,., .,,, .....-...,:, ..,!....-,..,1,4,„;,:frii;,.e.kk,-,4,N,,,,,,d. 4 ii. ...,.::.7...tm.,. .i,vtge./.... ;.,.. ,,./,:fi.,„ '''''.4 i'.›::ii . ,,,,,,,i.,t4. •:?,,,,.,-.4y • '. 1,4K.,;.-?;,4t:,,;;•:!, ,,..,;•.;,.Zntel -'.:,7:.,•,,4,.e .vv,.#4.!,i, 7' ' :`'.2•4 4,V.)-:-..'Ai,7,"*!".4.,IsAs -''V''' ''.'4,1/41 ''''.i,.sW' ''''''':-.41i .--:'e-Ai,''., .',1 ,-;,-1 f ,.,-,rt.:'•30•1:.• --e..,'',AW4i:-;',.;,:',I•ire ''T 'i:i'i,e'4'0.'i4-:• •••"" '!..'".-1,.".!'4N:V*,:,t,.44 •-','''..4, .4",'-' -••%•il-•'.ik.;.':i 07%71?X.34:ek:'M'4i..t.,.,,,I,,,o, 1,,.:-.-•,....-.,,,,,,,,-„,• 1iN,,,,,.), .,-,r, . , ,,,,,,....:,,,,..t..„,1 ,,,,,,• , . .,,,,,,,,,,ki,,A',,1,:•;%.'.,f*("1", ,;,:,„"*"44.'1'..-t.:1.:4,.ow ..i-''..,,,.4" "'' ' 114-'&,11*"2,-.,,**4",,,,,i.sxl,„,"",•;•...,._:.j.W2.411*.TVW1IV4‘.11*,1,.:''',"2"4-:4'.1474-41*** "."'f' ,4'*: *.......',.J 1...„'t.:,':';‘'•:*'7.1',"*.-$Hig.,4141,V-',. -''.! '•,tif._ ;,`C;;;;;,,') '.', . '';-. pt.;,,,,i,...s..f.,:-.,..','Irr,ii..,::.,::',__,,,,., '--;`,t I., .40.. ,':,'0-.,.'.,t'.f,' -Ate ,,*-1r,,,,K,i,4b,:- .-,. - "4; *4".'410-44;',4 4* '3 C,4-4:7% -. :.•• .:-4)44 '7- ••••`''Atk',,.41-f1:4":;Y.'"1-,*.'t,:1.44':A/.!,4,t',1,-...',.- ..,f•-"'l' , •: -'• ;z •.r4x-14,,,,•'-‘1T'....4-I-.4.44-V,-s:t:',..; '.- -41-:.;''Li!i..•''.4,4e.i'',7'• '' ..12''•1'4i0L..,,,k144' yi,:ei,IS s. 4.,V:':ii.. :k;i';'0't,.:E:."L.,p.''Vi-,r'il'VLS'' '.... i'Ai..,"' .!':'4':,- ''' ,,,,,4",:4 4 k ''','-' '''4,;<!:,-!IV: tZ''2'7':1V1k7rp i t•k" 4;--,''''''ik',* 'iir.i:'4;e14'"'f•-• '',4, '1 '''."";47..'''''.40'•/`;!:''''..74"):4-,,k •344,,r14-*-t;-4:1"'..t".0"-1-• :.t4.'-'4'..- -...1,., . *.(. ... •17.64 Cti;:: ':'' ..1',:-.',i4;•' --'..."'••---;".,1,-.1* ',',,,r.t.:.1.. •';.:1 V.,,!,, 7.-Plv:%-.:..V.,..A;F:-..`'41-.:'24,7•:.t,,4,=:4:;....14 jp :Yzee•.i,$i•:..littl,,..),i't.':4444;;:t,,,,.:'--_,... .:'..''Zili;i6,41-:, .'t_:. Itt7„te;'=',f':Zil'''::,: ',.,,4-_-,....',,,.-.,-.:4 1-,-.1.-x, - •_,,<4.: ,,-.;4-.,... .!..,..,144,,::,:,:7:41.-..-1,11,4:.-,`:',:',:4,,,_•;:-,k,,,,.;.-,•;'g.-- 'ix- 74,1:-.1 0 •,,,p,;,„,A,-;:?*.-'e •,-7•44.,,:.,.•, -rr - '7•,,t•i,.-. : : .,,,-k.. .:,!:,:.:,-.„;;6-'4:r.4.4. ,,,N',,,,,,:,i,.-.;• :''.,.„t-•..: --' •-, ,..-1‘,.. 2-4,tro - .1're--4,..'",,,v,,tk. •"?:'••v. -,_,;;Ali'v:.:t', •., :i.•:'; -:-..rc:,:•1‘. ,'41,,,,,,o(*.os,5,- 1 -;;24,2,---rm, -....; •,,'...,k:;.-.-•,_,','N:.:`,,,:'•,,rf.,..-',..4,,,,•`::: .Y's-`,.14-4,-..i, -',.••."' ,k-:-%, .* ' ' IP.-;,*-i:.,i4.41:ret;0.-74.44,v,..,„'4-f...,-,4-4--,rip,.",'•.,;:,••Nr.:e..,4,, -.1,:::: ;, .._r_.,r-,---.,?:,•,,-'f±: -,t- :' ,4,4 4$'4'., _'. :i,A4,,,:74-.."':,g 4:-:{.,,'411-r:4'.'.,,i,;: •":".,,ti,;L..-:.?` ' s4t: ;Itte4.:-' •,•_'tH:f':',1:MOW:VEkk.,''',:t:, ...,,,,,!;,i- 14.s,,,,,,j--;4.4-i:t_.:- ,,;N-.,iratc,...;!.,,,• vt,,-: :.F.:.'4,,,,,,v, , •. . 74,-.44'.'-vi'z.v,-.4*4?..417,'..1.-..,'i":0,:-1:14;--i:'1,--P,.e.11 ,...!:- ..n.71 ,:•,,,.. ..- :'-• ii.• • .fe*,71iit:11.7).4%,,,,, l'1 i',V44.1''..:::'.-.t.",,e*- .it.'!-A.: 1-'"4f;iO4-1144' ' .1t.'''ir.tk'." ., .:'27'...- . '',.1.c.ii,....,".;::1:;-;' ,)kkil', './4'.,"..`,.- ',.:''..404, it-'4'_t,t.'::4 ;'''',W,C4X,i;,;44 A 'Mt,-,,,,-ASt 7.;?-43,4,,, 471: CAC.'Ora="44KV: 14:,,,,f4,..,,,,,"<","*""xttr,13'v'k:';'*';.,7, :•:471,,-14*:1, •a.t1".':*);•44'4" .,-"44;;*- ..4,;,,r.,,.i;41.,.,j.,4:it 14*... ,'7,;S::...:!.,,Ait'04.". .kt'.'",..Vi"--,,:ii,,)" '".''.* *'* •.•'',,,* 5.`, -;'4)kirVi.7.'-.;',Va-k,4,!-?g'4.f.k,„kr...,-,:.,1 ,4.i.,2,,-!;•.,s.,V:4,„A..,'.;.•'•.:•,' *f:i:"::.,47,',,,t-NI,TA;;_'-,r, # .,,,PS.!q4:.'ir 2''''.' '''''''''''''' % 4=4,#:61*'''14;:.i. ',,.4'4'''',.'41t)6';:'.'.;4*.t>.:- -"-ft:::-.,:Kky"4,4 .. .,-.4._'-.,--..-W :. V;.;,.,':ri.t4t4c...7r i,,,:.•!..e.vi•;0•,'41:i*.:i•-•,?t;k4Y7',.;,,,,,, .'!•i,.1%;:"z;-.,:e.i*--,-:'.4 ''-.- :, 2..!;1-4-,...,' -....f.. 7 :'-..;44WIT, ,.:i.i44'n'',.--,-,'-',;.-......'--tli. ....:,; .'-' .''',',.--.'ir't ,-.-'`.-•.', 4.".''.-,1.L•••i.s.e. --..fik...!:,r.%.e.k,:‘eWft;:;*.e.;.. ..,:* ,',44.'...,'"'N.".-.;.,;-,Toi.r.`-li'.;,,eNf),":. ,,,,p„, ,y4:•-;;„,N4.,,,:ct.-4 r"- - -•,•:•11,,, Y:- ,;-';'-.,:W.4*s,'.'''.AN''i,irdt,k,:a-i',;',4 :i: i:.-: 1*::•-/ ,.-,',4 ,5it'''.;t;•-it:_..7:•rj.,'4,:iir. :-..if:-.'1•-‘k,kA'..:44.!,,f): .:•.I7I'keiY:!,k- .if*,41,i1V:i.• vci7 ':',,,,Vii,-.4' .:r.,,I.J-ii.,-.7 , -.: ,,,,,..z.c::-., ,,t.,:-'011.4.,-;-•,. .--..._.-..!3,•,7,0.,Afe,...*.:::;.:,.-.A4,1r,,,p z,:i4 s4,F,,,r,,,,!..4..,--i.:4;,.. :. -,..- , ..„,,:::,,..44,„,tf.4.4.* ;::),I.:.4i1,4.tieil':4:4n,..,,,. •EtP,t,iZ.AA't s'VII Af],'' ‘ ,....,'...,.. ,. ,...'.,:,.''.f. :, ,0‘..0,4.4.' ' .'•.„,,,„, ..- •if.e.W.!:-!a'r.L7..,f.,45:,'4:"ItAZ-efi:. .41V-;'.4:--.'''.'. 'N.4-1t: '%*14}'OrV'-' '44:4',.;-1`1 :, .4, •-•,:, ,,,,• -7.-'•7'.'i • 41:,-...ne'•-:•*,.-•_., '., .. .7.'-',K,:,,,V:!.' '•..v:4;i7.-;;'r".:,4;1Z."41.'A'''41,4".' i,pr,v, f•.,•,:ty,,,,..14,e,,,--.„-•,;:7••-•-,,,,:i.,,- „,..•• '''''.4,',..;•,104-"' '41' •-'.'':.'10 1!•'iNi"' '',744.,,,,4: 4709% : -44 1!-,4..;.,' -4.;','4",.•int-.4.>".. .1-,...''''4'', :,,;,,i, .4,„4!;T.- .44'.4'"4'4,r:',':), •1,-,14, 44..' -.0 -, 4P` .17.4: 1*rt2,,,5.,-, A..;:.,34." .,,,• tA:.--..",q'-‘:/,‘L.-_-r;'! .'' 4. treq:t71:1';'4.- -''% ;1 4-.14iii*.i10;',..,,`'..:.,,AL',A,l'.‘4;it,:"1L':.i.r:'...':-CrY;F•Ve.',t.1?;-?y,Vi,41,4,..6,,, •' -4:,rii,.A.,,'..A.';';'',4'''-4,11*-'.'4'•;*N',..17.•t•a4i'-7""4,"''' *'. • ,•1' • \...4r4re?,1•''':,.*: 4-44: ".;,:t.:7:ili,::',AVV.: ..*,',.". -t.*444,,,Vs, '-',.";:A".44.4);"Tt%-:'• t,:,- ,..-1,,,--:,,,,,,....e.,-,.,.,,,,i•v•,4,,.....,:y1,;;,,,.,:,.,!,,,,,,,,,, _,....-4,:.,,,4 q...,,,,,,o,„-04-/-„.i;-.1-,.. .!,:•;:',%:•Nf.r1 44.0.-,:-Aik,,,-•,,,%,,...,4„.!• .,frio4,4,.,,,,,,,,,,--4 $ 1 _ 1,,,,,.-:..4„......,,,,,,,-,k,,a vc*:4:pi.„;,.,,, (1_.0,..,..ir-4,.,,, .44.1. • ' tr"-tfr-Ti. i t,.,4;4ir 1,t,Vt.,ri..7 1',..i..i-..',..;1,. 1,1.F-4.,4,..Sp,.' . ',,,"' Z 1.4c.14r0_ L.41Vt;',.-4,.;''' *.i.-4,1,,.:.'' , : ,,,,,i2.4:4:';f„..' 44,VaSy-lf4'4'f-It.1,6: 4•4'''? :::,44,;,..''_'A:41:0;441."..4?,•,Y4P13",.',- fl'S'.44t144 :,4.1-;,';''S ',.:ki;;,*::_.:Vt40,1i41::',.:''1V44,...,:, '-i,--6A-,4;ti'''1%-:' '4'i,:;12',,,,,,,"..tki,-,,.:,,,,e' IC ,,.,-,,,.. .-:::,T.- ,...,',-.',. .A.11 1,,.. ..:.',,.:.r.y%,•8.,.,•i,'.4..,.<4, .--.A.„-:"..x,f.,_7.,,f.*rqkt,„it:„-..41,4.,;t-.,.el , l.Wt›.4*V441r..1-31',4/:',''r 1,i',-:`..4''-"'--:,/,{';4„:4'.:;S'AL',41 ' 4.-i'irtN-7-LI'' ''. .......:-..g7# -.... ,,.- ..-rt ,. ..,44,,-4 ,„,,,,,o,.4,;,_,. ,..„.„,,,,• ... ...-.,,,. ..,. •, ,,•,-p-••-;--,:',-,-',;...,.,-..-.- . .. -..,- .,...-1.- ,-.A, :vsnisi•-•;....k,if...r-,..•..4-..,A.4,4,'V?.4-'..),',k,s,--'-..,.'"Ty., •ttt-...ot.`•x .+:k);,..:y'4.,;.IA.,,.',- ..3e• Ur"...:w 4';',.. ffir 407,i,„„,,,3. -.._“,-1-,i,,,,.,,.„6,,,,p.:,,,::, ,,.s. .,,,:,..;:.,,,,,,,,-.,„‘,---, -,„..„...,t.. .•,,istiri*,ftr,r,,,,i; •,..0-.L4d,•,.:414TIV,,,',4,:.::::.„,!„-4,?_,...r,4,..:,.. ILLEolt,--ii;`,*.,,k1 1: ; '-:_• ;,._.:"''''.'r-‘..:.<-.,‘44V-sh,":70.;...t74.:',,"..',41-:',1:4 .*';-4....4..4t.44,r.f•ii., i41-..•',..--:.:1 -Vrt-0.j...;5.:•.,44;7;;.'..414:74i,-;i,,,.-. :4,',1,-.4,:...:,,:M...,-1,..Ati.,:-.If. ;:,,••:,..;••'',4-',.' p sit 4 • %- " -' 1..1''''—i-c'the i.•,-.Z-'I:. ''''-c,"'1. .:- 04-4''--. --,- ''''',1--",,ii-,----::-,1,-, i'-....i,:zi:*..,,:,,,i':.'::,:s:4,,...14-41,,..-.':,-,,i,„,1,-..4.-.4-4,-..1.,•;,i,.,„,.. -,,,,, .f.itzir'4'7 e, ...7„...., ,-,,,,,,--i,, ,t -4,-,,,,r4tr,zw,,,v„,0...54,s-, .- - - -- , . .4 1'-' • - tr.4";' ...• - • . .'2- '-':% .-.4..'.1.,,i,i, ,,e• ''.:.•• .,,,IN.4,.....%.0, -„r„.,... C+,',.tis..-ff.'4);,.e. 4.. "I'At-04...•:,,-',2,V.4' : -• '''..4A,45e,';7"'?,-- ''' ''''-'-'.•r - .' ' j• :". •:;' ,, l't,.''--,•',..-...1 :•.•'..:1Z4.';...1"1:::4'5 .k._-,-;;;,,o,..,;,-. -•-,,,,'. ." ,,,:,-...:•••-?4,7!,,,r ,;..;,•$ii:' - ',44,..;"0, :- •i • ,•,-,--:: ', ..4..41,,;•-,•- -., : , . :9ktgl:t40%;:*':4•N 4 it.; 7•:.44, 4,,i-::. ..:'--,',`.%.1.'''i;rt.,W4.';`' ;.t,:,,,,:,-;', 111.44.,•', ,, k , --1.4.47,,*44,4•'':X.:, , 1'`,k•C'e,4-'-' '4:';:Itl'i' ,t,-:•,,•,:tf;,!*5.'1/4 V i:-7-k Va4.: .,.:NY,'•,4 ;"-.,:._,*,.'"-.;:,,'"'_ ,•' . .. .fS-1),;•-!.:'?-.;-,?'''7--Ili:,.•M‘:it`'-::`- 4 '...,.,:..k-.,'-. --'''-`4112,-..144.Ve . ...,...':-. .•-:'" e:LT-teg';M- e:-. Ed. --.,-"'', '''' 4',4•L:- ')-i'-..E.,. . 4.i'.* V;`'",-,4.'..,;E;i. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT ' ' --4-,'0- :. .- :::-.1i-v:;4,,,,,,,:.-.,,,,•-•.41-,,,,,,,N,t-...4-,,-0:::::,•;-,•. ,I.--t--': •1`;:;,. .•0•,,•qr•s:*,-- .-•-.; -.,sr.,- 'K. ._ - , .: : .. .•,-.•-_,--•• -,. ..- ;._,.......,,:;.,!4:;:',-•-4;':'',-.4,-......." .- i :....:1,44 A-,,,•.,k 4r1g.i:-..-- ,,,,,i 7[4:p. 4 0.::-.....R.,7- - •4.,.... :,•• : .. -: ••.:::-. w•,,,,,,,,,,,,,c;;,,,, ..:..„-- .:-.,,,-4:,:„:„ia.•*,..,,,;,21•••::--, :v,;-_,,i,,,,,,.w-....--e.,---,;,:„e.,:„, j....:x...10. _ .:1, .--;:,_,,,,,,,7.,, 1 t.,-,, ,:,.;:: ..4, ,,....1.,. -ty '., ' '47",*,L',",*.i.4;,-.-'..-..v.,.,,,....p.f.i: ..-4,11,:k...,-v -,1.4:-.6;&.-;;,%.,-.15.•,,,,i,ci ,„-N,,, s t., „.. , ...,-.,_:,,,-„,-; :•,,,,..,.!,:4'R;i41,11(1--.-7,4 tii•- •-•'' trf,- • 41, ,.kitm, .-if;. ,,,,1„.4 .....— ;:atiexWiAS'is-t- . February 26,2001 • OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: Helen D.Burch Sunset Garden Homeowners Association Appeal of Administrative Site Plan Approval for Aberdeen Avenue Apartments File No.: LUA00-108,AAD LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeal of SEPA and Site Plan determination PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:. MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the November 28, 2000 hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,November 28, 2000,at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. Russell Wilson, City Attorney, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 explained that new information on this project had been received last week. The City is not prepared at this point to defend the SEPA determination without more information from the applicant. The Examiner asked if the appellants would be willing to continue this matter to a later date. Helen Burch,957 Aberdeen Ave NE,Renton,WA 98005,appellant replied that she was willing to present her appeal at a later date. Frieda Coon,representing Sunset Gardens Homeowners Association, stated she was also willing to have the hearing continued to a later date. Leslie Drake, counsel for applicant,PO Box 817,Kirkland,WA 98083 stated that the applicant does not object to the continuance. The applicant requests the matter be placed on the calendar as soon as possible. • The Examiner closed the hearing at 9:12 a.m.,to be continued at a future date. ****************************************.***************** Aberdeen Avenue Apartments ,fpeal ` File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26,2001 Page 2 The continued appeal hearing opened on Tuesday,January 23,2001 at 9:03 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal, Exhibit No.2: Yellow land use file,LUA00- the Examiner's letter setting the hearing date, a map, 053,PP,ECF,containing the original application,proof photographs,and other documentation pertinent to the of posting,proof of publication and other appeal. documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Zoning Map Exhibit No.4: Revised Site Plan Exhibit No. 5: Site Plan Detail of Turnaround Exhibit No.6: Footing Detail Exhibit No.7: Letter from Sunset Gardens Exhibit No.8a&b: Photographs showing fill Homeowners' Association Exhibit No. 9: Photograph showing property to Exhibit No. 10a&b: Photographs of condominium south Exhibit No. 11: Grading Plan Parties present: Appellants: Helen D.Burch 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton,WA 98056 Freida Coon Sunset Gardens Homeowners Association 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE C-109 Renton, WA 98056 Representing applicant: Frank Heffernan Ferrari Design Group PS 12277 134th Ct.NE Redmond, WA 98052 Tom Touma Touma Engineering 6632 S 191 st Pl.#E-102 Kent, WA 98032 Representing City of Renton: Russell Wilson,City Attorney Elizabeth Higgins,Development Services 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Aberdeen Avenue Apartments?- eal - File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26, 2001 Page 3 Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner,Development Services, 1055 S. Grady Way,Renton, WA 98055 presented a brief overview of the project. Following the hearing on November 28, 2000,which was continued to this date, City staff sent a letter to the applicant pointing out several items that needed to be addressed. The City believes those issues have been addressed,based on the information we have been given. A revised plan was submitted that did not show the stormwater being conveyed to the far northwest corner of the property, as had been directed in the advisory notes to the applicant in the earlier reports. The current plan has been revised to show that the stormwater will be conveyed from the west end of the property in a closed system the entire length of the property to the northwest corner,where it will be discharged by means of a spreader. It will not be discharged at the central protion of the property,as had been indicated on earlier plans. A retaining wall was proposed that coincided with the property along the north side. In the revised plan,which was accompanied by a report from'a structural engineer,the retaining wall has been moved south of the north property line 3-and-a-half feet. A footing detail has been submitted,which indicates that the property line would not need to be crossed in order to build the retaining wall. The retaining wall along the north has to support an asphalt driveway capable of supporting the weight of emergency vehicles,not just automobiles. On the earlier plan,the grade change between the south property and the subject property was not shown. Some clearing and filling took place and revealed a retaining wall that exists on the property to the south. The applicant will be required to build some kind of retaining wall on the south property line, otherwise the existing wall would have to be used. This would require permission from the owner to the south,which the City does not believe would be forthcoming. This is a revision that will have to be made during the final construction drawings. The Examiner asked if a final plan has been submitted that shows what is actually going to be built. Russell Wilson, City Attorney, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 said that City Code states that an appeal must be combined with a final agency action. There has not been a final agency action in this case. Ms.Higgins stated that there was an Administrative Site Plan Approval on the project. It was a preliminary approval,not a final approval. The Examiner stated that the hearing would go forward with the information available, and the questions of the neighbors would be addressed as far as possible. The Examiner stated that he has received a letter from an attorney representing the neighbors to the south stating that they will not grant an easement for the construction of the retaining wall. The applicant will have to build the retaining wall on their own property without any intrusion whatsoever on the adjacent properties. Ms.Higgins said that the City has a statement from the applicant's representative,the architect, stating that no work will be done affecting grades:on the property to the south,that the,grade line which appeared to extend beyond the south property in an earlier submittal was an inaccuracy in the drawing file. The civil drawings have been corrected to note no work beyond the property line. There is a grade change between the property to the south and this property. It drops off along the south property boundary onto the subject property. Typically, at the preliminary approval stage,prior to the construction documents being drawn,the City notes that grade changes are taking place, and it is left to the applicant to determine how those grade changes will be accommodated. The City has a separate building permit requirement for retaining walls over 48 inches. The City does not always look at exactly how that will be done in the preliminary design phase. Aberdeen Avenue Apartments njpeal File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26,2001 Page 4 The Examiner asked if the neighbors or other parties of interest were invited to file their appeal at the preliminary approval stage. Ms.Higgins stated that they were informed of the appeal process and she believes they felt that the majority of their concerns were based on environmental issues, so they appealed the Environmental Determination,not the Site Plan Approval. The City has an Administrative Site Plan Approval,which tells the applicant that they have the ability to meet the code requirements of the project. Following the Administrative Site Plan Approval, the applicant would then have to get building permits. The issuance of those building permits would also be based on various codes,and demonstrate that all the engineering could be done sufficiently. With the various revisions requested by the City,the project appears to be able to meet code requirements. Helen D.Burch, 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Renton,WA 98056 stated that the time requirements for appeal of the project have not been made clear by the City. She questioned how the City could allow the project to go forward based on information they received from the applicant, subsequently allow major modifications to be made, and still be certain the project would meet code requirements. Ms.Burch expressed concern that she will be adversely affected by the project, and questioned the parking lot dimensions, driveway setbacks, location of the proposed retaining wall, length and height of the proposed project, and erosion and drainage on the project. Freida Coon, 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE C-109,Renton,WA 98056 stated that she represents the Sunset Gardens Homeowners Association. Their major concern is the negative impact of drainage on the property. She explained the problems she has had with drainage in her back yard,which is adjacent to the proposed project. She asked who would be responsible if there were drainage problems on her property caused by the project. Ms. Coon submitted a letter from Gay Keisling,president of the Homeowners Association,regarding the distance of the parking lot and driveway from the property line. Ms.Higgins stated that the entrance to the driveway has been relocated to the south so that it is father away from the two cedar trees on the abutting property to the north. It will be within three-and-a-half feet of the i property line to the north. Ms.Higgins submitted photographs showing the fill that has been placed on the property. A code enforcement officer did address the issue,and the amount of fill was less than the amount that would have required a permit. The applicant was asked not to do any further filling because of the critical slopes on the roe Thegrade will be raised,and the parkingarea will be on topof that,under the building./ property.rh'• There will be two stories of living area over the parking. According to the Uniform Building Code,this will be a two-story building. The building height limit for this zone is thirty-five feet or two-and-a-half stories. The under-structure parking is considered half a story. The Code states that driveways shall not be closer than five feet to any property line. The Planning-Department interprets this to mean that driveways shall not be closer than five feet from the property line at the curb cut. The driveway on this project has been at least five feet from the property line,and now will be moved back even more. The problem with interpreting the Code as meaning five feet from the property line at the curb cut is that is does not allow for any landscaping along the property line. Staff has required that a fence be placed on top of the retaining wall. The applicant has stated that the project will be at a higher elevation than the property to the north, and at a lower elevation than the property to the - south. Ms.Higgins said that a question she has raised with the applicant is that the City has photographs that appear to show a considerable grade change between the proposed project and the property to the south that is not shown on the topography map. The terrain will be left in its existing state on the project side of the north 'Aberdeen Avenue Apartments 'afrYeal - File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26,2001 Page 5 retaining wall. This retaining wall will be between two and four feet in height and extend along the whole length of the property line on the north. Ms.Higgins showed the location of the original turnaround area in the parking lot, and pointed out that there was not sufficient backup area for emergency vehicles as the turnaround was originally planned. The applicant redesigned the parking area so that there would be sufficient turnaround space by moving a wall to the west. The resubmitted plans show that this has been done without intruding into the critical slope area of the property. Ms. Burch submitted photos showing the slope between the condominiums,the project property, and her property, and pointed out that the slope is toward her property. She expressed concern about the height of the project and how it will prevent sunlight from reaching her property. Ms. Coon commented on the elevations of the property in Sunset Gardens and stated that C Building drops off approximately fourteen feet,which puts it below the grade of the project property. Building C will still be below grade when the project is built, and will continue to have runoff from the project property. Tom Touma,Touma Engineering, 6632 S 191st Place, Suite E-102,Kent,WA 98032 addressed the issue of storm drainage by stating that grading and the construction of retaining walls will keep the existing grade intact. Storm water will be oriented to the northwest corner of the parking area. All the roof drains will be tightlined along the north property line to the northwest corner of the parking area where they will terminate in a spreader. A retaining wall and extruded curbing will be placed along the north to intercept surface water from that area and contain it into two catch basins and a conveyance system which will funnel it all the way to the northwest corner of the property. Mr.Touma explained the planned grading and location of the retaining walls on the property. The applicant estimates 1,980 cubic yards of fill material will be excavated, approximately 750 cubic yards will be used for fill and the balance exported. Mr. Wilson stated that the appellant had asked what the final overall length of the structure would be. Frank Heffernan,Ferrari Design, 12277 134th Ct.NE,Redmond,WA 98052 stated that the furthest intrusion onto the property is 330 feet,to the back of the trash enclosure. The Examiner stated that the revised grading plan shows grades perpendicular to the property,but does not show any grades along the south boundary of the property. Mr. Touma explained the revised grading plan,pointing out the location of the grading and retaining walls on the property. Mr.Touma stated that the final grade will be terminated in a retaining wall from two to four feet deep to meet the elevation of the property to the north. The retaining wall will maintain the setback of 3-and-a- half feet from the property line for the entire length of the wall. Ms. Burch questioned whether the project will meet Code regarding setbacks. Ms.Higgins stated that the project requires an eight-foot building setback on the south. There is no building' setback requirement on the north. The Code regarding driveway setbacks is open to interpretation in this case. Ms.Burch asked what the finished height of the retaining wall will be at the far northwest corner of the project. Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Appeal File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26,2001 Page 6 Mr.Touma stated that the retaining wall will be approximately four to five feet in that location. Ms.Burch asked if it would be possible to have a third party survey done of the property. Ms.Higgins stated that Code stipulates the applicant would be responsible for paying a third party to do a survey in situations where there is a lack of agreement. The City would select the third party surveyor. Ms.Higgins presented a timeline for the project. The application was filed on March 21, 2000. On March 31, 2000 the City sent a letter to the applicant stating the application was not complete. The missing items were subsequently submitted,and the project was deemed complete on June 26,2000. The Environmental Review Committee made a Threshold Determination on July 18,2000,with an appeal period that ran until August 7, 2000. Normally,the City would issue the Environmental Determination and Administrative Site Plan Approval simultaneously. In this case,the City was asked by the representative of the property owner to separate the two decisions because they thought they might be making changes to the site plan. The appeal period for the Environmental Review ended on August 7,which was about three weeks before the approval of the site plan. The appeals were filed before the end of the Environmental Review appeal period, on August 1 and August 4. The City delayed in scheduling a hearing for those appeals in anticipation that there might be an appeal of the Administrative Site Plan Approval. The Site Plan Approval was issued on September 15,2000,with an appeal period than ran until September 29. There were no appeals filed on the Site Plan Approval. On November 14, 2000,the City issued a notice of the two environmental appeals. The notice was published on November 17, 2000. The original hearing date was November 28,2000, continued to today. Ms.Burch stated that she does not understand the"rules of the game"as to when the appropriate times to make appeals are. Her appeal was based on both environmental issues and the difference in explanations of the Planning Code she received from the City. She feels that nobody knows for sure what is going to be built on this property,because there is no final project plan. Ms. Coon stated that she doesn't believe anyone can guarantee that there will be no negative impact on her property. She reiterated her concern about the drainage issue. Mr.Heffernan stated that the applicant has submitted plans for a project that complies with City requirements, substantiated by the approvals received to date for the information provided. They have been responsive to the comments in terms of tree preservation, as well as site drainage. They will continue to meet the requirements imposed on the project by the City,and work in good faith to be certain that potential negative impacts to adjacent property will be minimized to the best of their ability. Mr.Wilson stated that in light of the different procedures the City went through with this project in approving the SEPA and the Site Plan Approval at different times,he does not feel it would be just for the appellant to suffer as a result. Therefore,he will not move that the appeal is untimely and should be dismissed on that basis. This property complies with the Growth Management Act by promoting urban density within already developed areas. The appellants' concerns are all very real,but this project is demanded by the Growth Management Act. This project meets Code,and the Code encompasses the Criteria for Site Plan Review regarding impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Ms.Burch reiterated a written statement by Ms.Higgins and Ms.Nicolay stating that,"The project is compatible with other multi-family development in the area, although it is not compatible in scale with existing Aberdeen Avenue Apartments rreal File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26,2001 Page 7 single family houses." She expressed concern about the noise from the project's driveway,which is on the bedroom side of her house. Ms.Higgins stated that the driveway was probably moved to the north side of the property because the slopes on the south were steeper. Mr.Heffernan stated that the intent in positioning the building on the south side of the property was to take advantage of the grades in that area,resulting in a building that was lower in order to qualify as a two-story structure with parking underneath. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 10:58 a.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS&DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellants,Helen D. Burch and The Sunset Gardens Home Owners Association, represented by Gay Kiesling and Freida Coon, filed appeals of a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M)and a Site Plan approval issued for a proposed Site Plan for a two-story,twelve unit apartment building. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. 2. In processing the preliminary plat application the City subjected the application to is ordinary SEPA review process. The City, in the course of and as a result of its SEPA review, issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the project. The Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M)was conditioned by the City. 3. The subject site is a vacant lot located at 917 Aberdeen Avenue Northeast. The subject site is zoned RM-I(Residential,Multiple Family-Infill). 4. The subject site is a long,narrow rectangular parcel approximately 62.5 feet wide(north to south- Aberdeen frontage)by approximately 600 feet deep. 5. The subject site is approximately 37,585 square feet in area. 6. The subject site slopes downward from Aberdeen, at first moderately and then very steeply. The eastern, approximately one-half to two-thirds of the subject site slopes between 5%and 10%. The western half has slopes in excess of 40%, and those steep slopes are regulated. 7. The ERC imposed five conditions. One limited the months for construction to April through October (the dry months). The second condition required following the recommendations of the geotechnical report. The final three conditions imposed transportation, fire and parks mitigation fees. Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Appeal File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26, 2001 Page 8 8. The City waived any possible objections to the timeliness or subject matter of the appeal due the fact that the proposal was modified a number of times during the course of City review, even after the ERC issued its determination. The project was termed a"moving target"by the various parties. • 9. The appellants' homeowners association represents residents of a multiple-building apartment complex located immediately south of the subject site at 949 Aberdeen NE. Ms Burch,the individual appellant, owns the parcel immediately north of the subject site and resides in a single family home located on that adjacent northerly site. She or her family have lived in that home since approximately 1950. 10. The homeowners' appeal is aimed at the environmental determination. They were concerned about runoff from the subject site because the proposed filling and grading and slopes would appear to direct water to their property. There are documented drainage problems for the apartment site. They are involved in repairing footings and damage caused by drainage and a high water table. 11. The individual appellant living in the single home north of the subject site raised a number of objections which in part are: a. The height of the proposed structure and how it would block sunlight. b. How filling will affect drainage and create possible erosion. c. Bulkhead and retaining wall issues. d. The density of the project compared with the property size. e. Noise and carbon monoxide due to the driveway location. f. Building overhang effects on adjacent site. g. Construction schedule. h. Wildlife and habitat questions. 12. The subject site is located northeast of downtown Renton. I-405 and a Puget Power line corridor are located west of the subject site and steeply downhill from the site. 13. The subject site was an old orchard and is overgrown with trees, shrubs and brush as it has not been maintained for many years. The applicant did deposit fill material at the eastern end of the subject site near Aberdeen. 14. The applicant proposes constructing a two-story apartment building over a lower level of parking. The building would have twelve(12)units. It would have 21 parking stalls. Fifteen stalls would be located in garages while 6 stalls would be uncovered 15. The building would be a wood-framed structure. 16. The proposed building would have an area of approximately 16,332 square feet. Aberdeen Avenue Apartments_=_r;_,.al File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26,2001 Page 9 17. Staff concluded that the 62.5 foot lot would normally require seven(7)foot side yard setbacks with an additional one(1)foot added for the additional story above two. Therefore,the side setbacks would be 8 feet. The applicant's plan did not reflect this requirement. 18. The building would be calculated to be 35 feet high or 2.5 stories. The height is calculated with pitched or peaked roofs-the absolute height would be taller. The building does step down the hill as it moves west and the roofline drops with those steps. 19. The building coverage permitted is 35%,whereas the applicant proposes a coverage of approximately 17%. The impervious surface permitted is 75%,whereas the applicant proposes 43% impervious area. 20. The property is 62.5'wide and approximately 600 feet long. 21. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject site as Residential Multi-Family-Infill. The designation is intended to encourage infill existing multi-family districts with compatible projects. 22. The Comprehensive Plan calls for new multifamily uses to be compatible with existing similar complexes but also compatible,and possibly scaled downward to be compatible,with the existing development patterns. (Policy LU-65;Policy LU-66;Policy LU-67) 23. The RM-I Zone permits a density,between a minimum of 10 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 20 units per acre. The property is 37,451 square feet in size. Approximately 10,097.83 square feet of that is protected slopes. The net acreage is 0.63 acre. The proposed project has a density of 19.11 dwelling units per net acre for 12 units. 24. The area contains a mix of uses that has been trending toward multifamily from its single family roots. Along with the Burch single family home,there are two other single family homes north of the subject site. A 168 units complex is located north of those homes,and additional multiple family and single family uses are located east of the site across Aberdeen Avenue. 25. As staff noted in its analysis and decision: "Unfortunately,the single family residential property,abutting to the north,would be very heavily impacted by the proposed project. Due to the narrow configuration of the project site,the proposed building would be built close to the adjacent property. Even though the building is designed to be closer to the opposite property line, leaving the width of the driveway between the new building and the existing single family house, an existing greenhouse to the north would be heavily shaded by the new structure." In discussing the landscaping proposed for the complex,staff stated the following: "Landscaping has been proposed for the front and south side setback areas. The north setback, abutting the single family residence, does not have landscaping proposed because the driveway falls within the setback area.This is extremely unfortunate given the impact the development will have on the existing home." Aberdeen Avenue Apartments-Ypeal File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26,2001 Page 10 26. Staff recommended that a fence be constructed at full permitted height to screen the single family home. Staff suggested it be located atop the retaining wall. 27. Code requires landscaping in setback areas,but the applicant proposes a driveway along the north property line. The appellant noted that according to code,driveways need to be five(5)feet from the property line. Staff noted that they interpret this to be limited to the immediate frontage at the curb cut and not for the interior portions of the driveway. 28. Staff noted that the proposed setback on the south side should be eight(8)feet and that setback could alter the location of the building and then affect the driveway width on the north side of the building. 29. Staff recommended that a sidewalk be provided. If it were provided along the north edge, it would provide some additional separation between the home to the north and the driveway and its traffic. 30. Staff approved the proposal subject to the following conditions: 1. A sign permit application shall be submitted and approved prior to building permit approval. 2. A site lighting plan shall be submitted and approved prior to building permit approval. 3. A fence at the maximum height allowed shall be installed on top of the retaining wall along the north property line. Such installation shall be completed prior to occupancy of the building. 4. A site plan revision shall be submitted prior to building permit,that demonstrates that a walkway will be provided that is physically separated from the driveway by either a curb or • raised curb and sidewalk. Such revision shall be made by the applicant and approved by the Development Services Department prior to building permit issuance. 5. A revision to the landscape plan shall be made to ensure visibility at the driveway entrance to and from the project. Such revision shall be made by the applicant and approved by the Development Services Department prior to building permit issuance. 6. A Native Growth Protection Easement(NGPE)shall be established for the area of the property having slopes at forty percent(40%)or greater(approximately the western half of the property). The NGPE shall be recorded prior to obtaining an occupancy permit. 31. The Zoning Code contains the following definitions: STORY: That portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor, or ceiling if there is no floor,above it. STORY,FIRST: The lowest story in a building which qualifies as a story,as defined herein,except that a floor level in a building having only one floor level shall be classified as a first story,provided such floor level is not more than six feet(6')above grade,as defined herein,for more than fifty percent (50%)of the total perimeter,or not more than twelve feet(12')above grade,as defined herein, at any point. Aberdeen Avenue Apartments / gal File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26,2001 Page 11 32. By backfilling materials around an "at-grade"building floor,the basement garage does not count as a story as defined above. Employing such a fill and grade technique of filling around a floor that would have been a "story"makes this three(3)story building a two story building-the lower level does not count. The partially "submerged"lower floor is treated as a"NON-story" and allows a building that might not otherwise be permitted in this zone. In this case,due to the grades of the site and location of the adjacent single family home to the north,the impacts of this grade manipulation magnify the impacts. 33. What appears to be a driving issue in this case is the complexity of the site and its surroundings. What appears to be causing the consternation of the neighbors, staff, and the applicant is that a Site Plan generally does not provide the platform for detailed review of such complexities. Generally the main questions asked are whether the main plan, such as a small apartment building,meets the zoning requirements and provides reasonable setbacks and complies with the Comprehensive Plan. In this case there is a topographically difficult site that makes the building placement and access substantially affect its neighbors. Details such as the exact location of retaining walls,the grade and steps of those structures are not usually provided in a site plan. But in this case that information is crucial so that the adjacent property owners know how they will be affected. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. This office has determined that the appeals that were filed in this matter represent both an appeal of the ERC's DNS-Mitigated and an appeal of the administrative approval of the site plan. Therefore,the determination of the Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the city's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. Similarly,the determination of staff on its administrative site plan review is entitled to substantial weight. 2. The Determination of Non-Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v.Port Townsend,93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v.King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267,274; 1976,.stated: "A finding is'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore,the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below,the decision of the ERC.is affirmed. 3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS, since the testis less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have,therefore,made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test,the "arbitrary and capricious"test is generally applied when a determination of significance(DS)is issued.In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement. Aberdeen Avenue Apartments.�rea1 File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26,2001 Page 12 4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway,WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows: Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. (2) Significance involves context and intensity...Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact.... The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great,but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. 5. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable." Probable. "Probable"means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ...Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring,but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782). 6. Impacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect impacts including short- term and long-term effects. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(c)). Impacts include those effects resulting from growth caused by a proposal, as well as the likelihood that the present proposal will serve as precedent for future actions. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(d)). 7. Environmental impact is also related to the location. A development whether an office building or a single family development may or may not create impact depending on the existing surroundings. 8. In determining environmental impacts,the issue is not solely the untoward impacts on the immediately adjacent property or properties,but the impact or impacts of the more pervasive type or on the more global environment. Any time development occurs next door,the impacts can be profound or dramatic. But as profound as the impacts might be,they are very localized and will not introduce dramatic, unanticipated changes in the overall character of the neighborhood. In this case the subject site and surrounding properties have been zoned for multiple family uses for a number of years. An apartment complex consisting of multiple buildings already is located immediately south of the subject site. Other apartment complexes are located somewhat east and north of the site. A single family home is developed fairly close to the north property line,but that home and the ones north of it are zoned for multiple family uses. The Comprehensive Plan has designated this area, including both the subject site and the lots of the adjacent single family uses,for multiple family uses. The change proposed is going to change the immediate character of the undeveloped lot and will affect the single family home to the north. Nonetheless,the impacts were foreseen with the adoption of both the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning. The changes are not great in terms of the entire neighborhood. The various appellants did not carry their burden of proof. 9. The major specific issue is probably drainage. The drainage issues appear to have been addressed by the methods required by the City under existing code,and by the ERC's and staffs decisions in this matter. The other issues raised by the northern neighbor are more related to site plan issues than Aberdeen Avenue Apartments'-_r eal - File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26, 2001 Page 13 environmental issues. They will be addressed below. As noted at the public hearing, even a single family home placed on the subject site could substantially alter the subject site in a fashion similar to those being proposed now with the possible exception of additional traffic. _A single family home could clear as much vegetation and loom just as large as the proposed apartment building. These are not SEPA issues. 10. The development or redevelopment of any site brings with it changes. There will be inconvenience. There will be more traffic. The site will be altered from wooded to developed. Again,these aspects of development were contemplated. The changes in this one lot from vacant to developed do not necessarily rise to the level mandated by SEPA for the preparation of an EIS. The development will not significantly alter the character of the community. It will remain a mixed multiple family and single family neighborhood. It will remain a neighborhood trending toward multiple family uses. It will not create any precedent that encourages changes that the Comprehensive Plan has not already envisioned for this area. Both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning slated the area for urban densities. 11. While there will be a series of impacts,they do not add up in a quantifiable manner to the type of impacts or long term precedents that result in more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. 12. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter,unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. This office was not left with a firm conviction that the ERC made a mistake. 13. The appealing party has a burden that was not met in the instant case. The decision of the ERC must be affirmed. 14. Just because the environmental impacts of a proposal are not sufficient to require the preparation of an environmental impact statement does not mean that a proposal does not create impacts on adjacent property. In this case, staff has concluded that there will be substantial impacts on the single family home to the north. The staff report and analysis states: "Unfortunately,the single family residential property, abutting to the north,would be very heavily impacted by the proposed project. Due to the narrow configuration of the project site,the proposed building would be built close to the adjacent property. Even though the building is designed to be closer to the opposite property line, leaving the width of the driveway between the new building and the existing single family house, an existing greenhouse to the north would be heavily shaded by the new structure." Site plan review requires a review of the impacts of a site plan on adjacent properties. It is clear that the proposed site plan will substantially impair the northern neighboring appellant's use and enjoyment of her property. In fact, it appears that the proposed apartment building will blight the single family.' home by shading it during substantial portions of the year and particularly in winter. It will introduce a driveway carrying between 70 and 90 vehicle trips per day. 15. Staff clearly noted the reason for this substantial impact is the rather narrow configuration of the subject site. While some of the other apartment complexes in the area are located on larger, or more importantly,wider lots,the subject site's narrow, approximately 62-foot width creates limitations. Aberdeen Avenue Apartments appeal File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26,2001 Page 14 Unfortunately,those limitations were not used to define reasonable constraints that would allow the proposed use to integrate into the community. Even if the adjoining parcel to the north were developed with an apartment complex in the future,that potential apartment would still be seriously affected by the closeness and narrow setbacks between buildings. But the future is not at issue in this current case. The Site Plan review criteria demonstrate that off-site impacts must be reviewed and that improperly blighting property cannot be permitted. 16. Another factor which seems to be compounding the impacts of developing this admittedly complex site is the way the site will be graded and the building's base elevation altered to allow a taller building,or one with more stories than might otherwise be permitted if artificial grading methods were not redefining the base elevation for this building. While it appears to make sense to afford the underlying applicant an opportunity for reasonable development rights on a parcel whose western third is too steep,the applicant should not be permitted to alter its grade and thereby magnify its impacts or height on its northerly neighbor. 17. Therefore, it appears necessary to remand this matter back to staff for further review and subject to a condition that the grades of the subject site may not be altered in such as fashion to allow the proposed apartment complex to sit up higher on the site. The applicant may grade the site downward to "hide" or accommodate an additional story but shall not be permitted to raise the site in any fashion that allows a de facto three story building to be judged two stories under the definitions in the Zoning Code or Building Code. 18. Another issue staff should consider when reviewing this matter is the placement of the driveway on the subject site. Code specifies that driveways should be five(5)feet from a property line. It does not state that this is to be maintained only along the frontage. An apartment complex's driveway carries substantially more traffic than a single family home. In this case,we also have a driveway that might have a substantial grade that results in cars revving their engines to overcome the grade to get to street level. Permitting that driveway to basically abut the adjacent parcel after it enters the site seems to create unreasonable impacts on that neighboring property. The definition shall be revisited and accommodation made to reduce the impacts. 19. Again,as proposed,the site plan will blight the property to the north. That is not acceptable. On remand staff shall review the impacts on the northerly property and make efforts to reduce the impacts of driveway traffic on that northerly property by introducing landscaping and fencing to screen and soften the impacts. 20. In conclusion,the development of the subject site should be permitted under the current zoning,but only in a manner that complements the City's goals and policies. As noted in Finding 33,the nature of the site and neighboring sites requires more specificity in order to truly understand what is proposed and how it will affect those neighboring properties. More details are needed in order for these neighbors to understand the ultimate impacts. The impacts may not be profound in a SEPA sense but still will be critical to those immediately affected. That information should be developed prior to approval of the site plan after remand. DECISIONS: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. 'Aberdeen Avenue Apartments - eal File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26, 2001 Page 15 The administrative decision on the Site Plan is reversed and the matter is remanded to staff subject to the following conditions: 1. The grades of the subject site shall not be altered in such as fashion as to allow the proposed apartment complex to sit up higher on the site. The applicant may grade the site downward to "hide" or accommodate an additional story but shall not be permitted to raise the site in any fashion that allows a de facto three story building to be judged two stories under the definitions in the Zoning Code or Building Code. 2. More details on the nature of the retaining walls both along the north and south property lines and the location of any driveway are needed in order for these neighbors to understand the ultimate impacts. The impacts may not be profound in a SEPA sense but still will be critical to those immediately affected. That information should be developed prior to approval of the site plan 3. The definition of driveway separation from abutting property shall be revisited and accommodation made to reduce the impacts in this case. ORDERED THIS 26th day of February, 2001. ((IAA_ • FRED J.KAU AN HEARING E MINER TRANSMITTED THIS 26th day of February,2001 to the parties of record: Elizabeth Higgins Helen D.Burch Frank Heffernan 1055 S Grady Way 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE Ferrari Design Group PS Renton, WA 98055 Renton,98056 , 12277— 134th Ct.NE Redmond,WA 98052 Russell Wilson Freida Coon Tom Touma 1055 S Grady Way 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE C-109 Touma Engineering Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98056 6632 S 191st Pl., Suite E-102 Kent, WA 98032 TRANSMITTED THIS 26th day of February,2001 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Neil Watts,Development Services Director Larry Rude,Fire Marshal Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Aberdeen Avenue Apartments _meal File No.: LUA00-108,AAD February 26,2001 Page 16 Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson,Econ.Dev.Administrator Betty Nokes,-Economic Development Director South County Journal Larry Meckling,Building Official Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,March 12,2001. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 110,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. ( • "cmFIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS.a - RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU x 235-2642 J v ::to:::�::::::i:o::`. ‘S- 1 .................................................... W ti 45 -,:-::::::::teKt.:::::::.:tilg.: 45' :5�� ::4- ti .................. ... ............................... .. ..... • ............ ... .................. ......................... ............ . . ..................... . . (I) ..... . ............ C] J CS_ Nt- % , \.1\‘' 74::::•:•:•:-:•:-:•:•:-F-:•:•:-:•:•:-:•:•:•:•:4-:: vDt.5%.. .............................. .............................. APPROVED BY: J ( EMERGENCY VEHICLE TURNING RADII DETAIL DATE: 06/17/96 SHEET: 1.0 FERRARI DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, PS D Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, AICP January 12, 2001 Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments 917 Aberdeen Avenue Project No.: LUA-00-040, SA-A, ECF Pe FDG Project No.: 99120.00 2 m Dear Ms. Higgins, We are in'receipt of your January 4 letter requesting additional information on the Z referenced project. Please note the following with respect to the information you have requested: 1. The project Civil plans have been revised to conform to the Advisory Notes regarding the tight lining of the drainage system to the northwest corner of the property and the inclusion of a spreader to disperse the water. Given that some of the work necessary to accomplish this will be taking place in areas of slope exceeding 40%, we will look to the City to provide some direction on the least intrusive approach to achieving the desired result. 2. The applicant will construct the retaining wall in question as a poured in place concrete retaining wall. The site plan allows for an area 3'-6" from edge of driveway to the north property line within which the wall will be built. The average grade change at the property line along the north of the subject parcel will be two feet, with the greatest height being four feet in a limited area of the wall. The driveway on the developed parcel will be approximately two feet above the existing elevations on the parcel to the north. The applicant will construct the wall in a manner that will not require access to or work on the property to the north and as such, a construction easement should not be necessary. We are enclosing details developed by our structural engineer for this retaining wall in order to clarify the approach to be taken. 3. No work will be done affecting grades on the property to the south of the subject parcel. The grade line, which in our earlier submittal appeared to extend beyond the south property line, was an inaccuracy in the drawing file. The Civil drawings have been corrected to note no work beyond the property line. X LL 4. The Site Plan has been modified to respect the drip line of the trees on the co adjoining property to the north. The driveway and associated retaining wall will be co co shifted to the south in order to retain the trees in question. The measures N required by the Code in order to afford protection to the trees will be undertaken. 5. Renton Code Section 4-14-4, B, 7 allows up to a 15% driveway slope with the approval of the Board of Public Works. We have contacted Mr. Paul Lumbert with 0 2 a 12277 134TH CT. N.E., SUITE 203, REDMOND, WA 98052-2433 a written request to secure the necessary approvals for the project driveway to exceed the Code limit of 8% at approximately 11.5%. 6. The hammerhead turn around provided at the end of the driveway for Fire Department and other emergency equipment has been reviewed to ensure that it conforms to the City's standards, that it have a width of 20'-0", an inside radius of 25'-0", and an outside radius of 45'-0". A new drawing has been developed to show only the proposed turn around in order to clarify the dimensions and details involved. As requested, two copies of all plans which have undergone revisions are included in this resubmittal along with one set of 8-1/2" X 11" reductions of these same sheets.. Please contact me with any additional questions or in the event any additional supporting materials are necessary. Sincerely, • ERRARI DESIGN GROUP, PS .r am- / 4 r r .+,xEty T'�!,'^""6YS,"m Frank Heffernan, AIA Architect Attachments Cc: Jerry Rieker Cambridge Homes NW Tom Touma Touma Engineers • 9912012.doc/fh . , • 41y CITY ( F RENTON ..ii._fit Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator January 4, 2001 F4, Ze *avo, D . Mr. Frank Heffernan, AIA Ferrari Design Group PS 12277 — 134th Court NE Redmond, WA 98052 Re: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments, Project No. LUA-00-040, SA-A, ECF Mr. Heffernan At the November 28, 2000, Appeal Hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner, the City of Renton requested a continuance of the hearing pending review of resubmitted information. The hearing was continued to January 23, 2001. Unfortunately, it appears that the topographic survey is still not correct. The enclosed photograph indicates a severe change of grade along the south boundary of the property that is not reflected by the revised topographic survey. This area is west of the retaining wall that was added to the revised survey. We are concerned about this discrepancy because it could result in significant changes to the site plan being required. City of Renton Municipal Code includes a provision for"independent review of an applicant's steep slope study by a qualified professional selected by the City, at the applicant's expense" (RMC4-3-050B4b). The intention of this provision, however, is to settle disputes. A visit to the property could clarify that the topographic survey is incorrect. In addition, the following are issues that will form the basis for additional conditions we intend to recommend to the Hearing Examiner at the continued hearing, unless they are satisfactorily addressed in a revised site plan, submitted and approved by the Development Services Division prior to January 15, 2001: 1. The bioswale and storm spreader as shown on the resubmitted plans will not be approved. As indicated in the "Advisory Notes to Applicant," surface water must be conveyed by a tightline to a discharge point at the northwest corner of the property. 2. A retaining wall on the north property line will require construction easements to be negotiated with property owner to the north. Because this party has filed an appeal of the site plan approval, we suggest this agreement be negotiated as soon as possible. 3. It appears from the revised plan, that new grade lines would be extended off the property to the retaining wall located on the neighboring property to the south. This would require that an easement be recorded, granted by the Sunset Gardens Condominium Homeowners' Association benefiting the Aberdeen Apartments property. Because this party has filed an appeal of the site plan approval, we suggest this agreement be negotiated as soon as possible. 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 0 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer Mr. Frank Heffernan, AIA Redmond, WA 98052 January 4, 2001 Page 2 4. Measures required in Renton Municipal Code (4-4-130H9) shall be enforced regarding the drip line of trees on the property abutting to the north. The tree inventory indicates that the drip line of a tree located approximately 3 feet north of the property boundary extends onto the Aberdeen Avenue Apartments property approximately 15 feet. A second tree also has a drip line that extends onto the property. Specifically, the regulations state, "The applicant may not fill, excavate...or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained." The neighbor to the north has indicated she wants the trees on her property retained. Therefore, "If the grade level adjoining to a tree to be retained is to be raised, the applicant shall construct a dry rock wall or rock well around the tree. The diameter of this wall or well must be equal to the tree's drip line." In addition,"The applicant may not install impervious surface material within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained."The drip lines of the two 75 foot cedar trees on the abutting property that are to be retained must be afforded protection in the manner described by the Code. 5. The driveway, which exceeds an 11 percent slope, is above the maximum allowable by Code (8 percent, RMC 4-4-08016b).'=The Board,of Public Works may allow a driveway to exceed 8 percent upon proper application in writing and good cause shown. Contact Paul Lumbert at 425-430-7304'regarding the..proceduretofollow to make this request if you have not done so already. ., 6. The Fire Prevention,Bureau comments in the,"Advisory";Notes to Applicant" issued previously state that dead-end access roadways over: 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. This turnaround`must have an outside turning radius of 45 feet. and an inside turning radius of:25 feet; .:In addition, the turnaround must meet other dimensional requirements as shown on the attachment included herewith. Note that the turnaround area cannot infringe on the.required parking stalls: If the revised site plan would require work in the area of protected slopes (40% or greater•,), a variance from the Critical Areas Ordinance would be required. This variance_request-would be heard by the Hearing Examiner at the public meeting. Please contact me at 425-430-7382, if you have.any questions. Sincerely Elizabeth Higgins, AICP Senior Planner Enclosures Copy: Gerald Rieker Tom Touma Helen Burch (letter only) Gay Kiesling (letter only) Russell Wilson (letter only). Jennifer Henning (letter only) file 1 1/42. 4 ........ % ,, ‘r% 1 cl. ,,.. 3 t C. • t ' .'r'"knr wh`f1� i`f "+ f ;e �t` t , l f r f f, j" �R • yr _ _. �w �.. •n ‘+ • (•I .t 4 t z 1 r N' _ 1'eV.) { t r Kt <sr 3�Ks ' •k' jr 4'''`J F1' T tYii,�,. t R 1 % " fir • r tR r .. , , f •+-t� 1-.- ,A',. 's • t• • i 'fr. • T., ' I, s' ►ti �� ,s ? ' . • ( • p FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS ' RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU x 235-2642 • \ NI- ................................................ .........................T.::::::,-.:::::::::. ................................................... ti : ..... .. . ................... m Q e-' .......... - T4.! :=:::I :ts•::. \ 45' W ti .... :—:::::.......:. - ..... - ;.:.:,.. — - ,_..: \ c� - J • Viz 4; -:::•,....-,: :.....:............ \\ :...-::.:.-:.-:.. �\ = ems_ 2.............1............../ .............................. APPROVED BY: ( EMERGENCY VEHICLE TURNING RADII DETAIL DATE: 06/17/96 SHEET: 1.0 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Charlotte Ann Kassens, first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING English language continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, RENTON HEARING EXAMINER Washington. The South County Journal has been approved as a legal RENTON,WASHINGTON newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King An Appeal Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular County. meeting in the Council Chambers on the The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South 7th floor of City Hall, Renton,Washington, County Journal (and not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to onvmber 28, 2000 at following appeal:9:00 AM to nnsi the subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS AAD00-108 Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Appeal of the issuance of an Administrative p Site Plan Approval by the City of Renton for the Aberdeen Avenue Apartments as published on: 11/17/00 project (File LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF). Cambridge Homes Northwest proposes The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of construction of a 12-unit apartment buildinglocated in a Residential, Multi-family—Infill $37.38, charged to Acct. No. 8051067. Zone. Location: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE. Legal Number 8410 Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development S( . . ervices Division, 6th Floor, Renton City Hall. All interested persons are invited to be present at the Public Hearing. /-- - Published in the South County Journal �- � November 17,2000:8410 Legal lerk, South County Journa Subscribed and sworn before'me on this day of /l fT\\ . , 2000 s-�. m °— a Notary Public of the State of Washington y •..� pG0t1G o:• residing in Renton %`Pi: :F.. p° 'z. King County, Washington CITY OF RENTON • HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 28, 2000 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, . COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner: PROJECT NAME: APPEAL Aberdeen Avenue Apartments PROJECT NUMBER: AAD-00-108 (LUA-00-040) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Appeal of the issuance of an Administrative Site Plan Approval by the City of Renton for the Aberdeen Avenue Apartments project(File No. LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF). Cambridge Homes Northwest proposed construction of a two-story, twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family—Infill Zone (RM-I). Location: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE. • PROJECT NAME: Liberty Ridge Subdivision PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-00-123,PP,ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 107.5-acre parcel into 436 lots intended for the eventual development of detached single family residences. The proposed lot sizes range from 3,480 square feet to 14,418 square feet. The net density of the proposal is 7.0 dwelling units per acre. The site is accessed from Edmonds Avenue NE off of NE 3`d/4th Street. Location: South of NE 34•th `d/ Street; East of Edmonds Avenue NE; North of Maple Valley Highway. hexagenda 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 7th floor of City Hall, Renton,Washington, on November 28, 2000 at 9:00 AM to consider the following appeal: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS AAD00-108 Appeal of the issuance of an Administrative Site Plan Approval by the City of Renton for the Aberdeen Avenue Apartments project(File LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF). Cambridge Homes Northwest proposes construction of a 12-unit apartment building located in a Residential, Multi-family—Infill Zone. Location: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE. Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development Services Division, 6th Floor, Renton City Hall. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public Hearing. Publication Date: November 17,2000 Account No. 51067 NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING 'eP 1\1(Dmin • • 'NT CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL ON NOVEMBER 28, 2000 BEGINNING AT 9:00 AM • CONCERNING : APPEAL OF ISSUANCE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN APPROVAL IN RE: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS AAD-00-108 (File No. LUA-00-040, SA-A, ECF) Appeal of the issuance of an Administrative Site Plan Approval by the City of Renton for the • • Aberdeen Avenue Apartments project(File No. LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF). Cambridge Homes Northwest proposed construction of a two-story,twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family—Infill Zone(RM-I). Proposed Site Location: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE ,,E' y.d• .:' %"� O •cal. G- W. • � IJP C- IANATTA .. 1J' y +• 0', �� m un . •toxoou�Nmr � ! Q .. 1, SITE `ueoxrte l/r 5 e y Natr'' .30 %,v: rc� L�� 1..J z:1 . , . b �t 4 0 Nl4f : ` 'uL• r: N AC. 1 "j'•2 z _ • L N O " =J % s}�N�s Y,dd w `�Vj FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION,425-430-7382 DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. CITY OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman • October 16,2000 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON OCT 16 2000 • RECEIVED Ms. Helen D. Burch Gay Keisling, Secretary 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE Sunset Garden Homeowners Association Renton, WA 98056 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,#318 Renton, WA 98056 Re: Appeal of Environmental Determination re Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Appeal File No. LUA00-108,AAD Dear Appellants: We received your appeals dated August 1 and August 4, 2000,and the hearing will be scheduled for Tuesday,November 28, 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, Fred J.Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: . Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington; Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney . El.zabeth Higgins c►:. • pplicant . Parties of Record • 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 • . . 40 CITY L Y RENTON ..ti Hearing.Examiner. . Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman August 10, 2000 DEVELOPMENT P�NNINL CITY OF RENTON AUG 10 2000 RECEIVED Ms. Helen D. Burch Gay Kiesling, Secretary 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE Sunset Garden Homeowners Association Renton, WA 98056 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, #318 Renton, WA 98056 Re: Appeal of Environmental Determination re Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Appeal File No. 00-108, AAD Dear Appellants: We received your appels dated August 1-and.August 4,'2000, and the hearing will be scheduled for Tuesday, Se ,miler 26, at 9:00 a.m.:in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hal Should you have further questions,please contact this office. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner . cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren,City Attorney Elizabeth Higgins Applicant 1055 South-Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 tEIHOWN rt6;i9-4?:;' 7 20U0 August 1,2000 rm NERCIN Mr. Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner AUG 0 7 2000 Seventh Floor RECEIVED 1055 South Grady Way CITY.CLER/CS OFFICE Renton, WA 98055 Re: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Project No. L UA-00-040,SA A,ECF 917Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Dear Mr. Kaufman: This letter is being sent to you as an appeal regarding the recent application to build a twelve (12) unit apartment complex adjacent to my single family home. I have deep concerns, reservations, and questions regarding this project. The property in question,to date, has never been developed. A previous attempt to due so was aborted due to the narrowness of this site. The property was once an orchard with a wide variety of fruit trees,but has been left unattended by its previous owners for the past fifty years. It is now covered in thick vegetation and very heavily wooded with large maple, elms and leftover fruit trees. My parents and I have owned the adjacent property(957 Aberdeen Avenue NE) since 1950. The proposed development and construction at 917 Aberdeen Ave NE will have a significant, adverse impact on my home and property. If the City of Renton allows the proposed structure to go up the effect on my home will be denial of my right to the "quiet enjoyment" of my property. The new property will block the needed sunlight from reaching my home and garden. I am submitting this letter, a list of my concerns and comments for your expert consideration. 1. Total height of the structure vs. sunlight. I assume that one underlying reason for including height restriction in the land use code is to disallow or mitigate new structures from blocking solar access to neighboring homes. The proposed structure would be one floor of garage parking,two floors of living area,plus a pitched roof. With a pitched roof the overall height of the structure may exceed thirty-five feet (35'). I also understand that the City of Renton may allow the structure to be built on fill dirt with a concrete retaining wall,that would then add several feet more in overall elevation. The impact on me will be significantly worse if the,proposed structure will not be required to be built on the existing grade. The east portion of my home is two feet (2') below the present grade, which will put my living room at a minimum of • Mr.Fred Kaufman August 1, 2000 Page 3 4. The size of the project vs. usable land. The square footage of the site in total is about 37,585 with the western half having a forty degree slope or greater. This leaves the remaining usable land at only forty-five percent (45%). How then is it possible to have a fair evaluation using the land density codes? The project plan shows almost the entire site to be covered by either pavement or building. 5. Noise and carbon monoxide fumes. My home is located nineteen feet (19') from the property line, with an attached greenhouse only nine and one-half feet (9.5') from the property line. Two of my bedrooms have a southern exposure also within nineteen feet (19') of the property line. The project places it's driveway egress and parking garage on the north side, making my home subject to constant car noise and lethal carbon monoxide fumes. I will be directly exposed to vehicles entering and leaving at hours of the day and night. It is one thing to have one new neighbor,but twelve (12) families certainly will erase any privacy and quiet. How does the project propose to deal with the added noise and carbon monoxide fumes? 6. Building size vs. narrowness of the site. The plan shows that the upper two stories extend out over the parking area an additional four feet(4') on the north side. This makes the building thirty-two feet (32') in width. Is this architecture keeping within the allowable square footage based on the narrowness of the site? 7. Construction schedule. If this project is allowed to go forward, how will the added noises from the machinery and labor be addressed? My home life will be greatly affected by the noise, dust, and debris throughout the construction phase. 8. Urban wildlife and habitat. There are many species of wildlife living on the site. Has an analysis been done of the impact on wildlife that live on the development site? Are there plans to do one? Has it been determined if any of the wildlife that lives there is listed as Species of Concern? There are currently squirrels nesting on the property, a deer recently gave birth, and many different birds including hawks-Merlins, woodpeckers, finches,wrens,and sparrows are nesting as well. Raccoons also August 4,2000 AUG - 7 20U0 Sunset Garden Home Owners Association CITY OF RENTON 949 Aberdeen Ave.NE,#318 HEARING EXAMINER Renton, WA 98056 CITY OF RENTON Hearing Examiner ' ' ' City of Renton AUG 0 4 2000 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Gay CER 'S OFFICE Dear Hearing Examiner: As secretary of the board of directors of Sunset Garden Homeowners Association,I am submitting this appeal of the City of Renton's environmental determination for Aberdeen Ave. Apartments,#LUA-00- 040, SA-A,ECF. Deny Request for Construction Permit We are requesting that you convene a hearing. We will provide testimony to support our request to deny the approval for a construction permit for the property identified as 917 Aberdeen Ave.NE. Drainage Problem Documented for Hillside Five out of six buildings located at 949 Aberdeen Ave. NE, directly south of 917, have suffered from moisture drive up through their floors,causing damage to vinyl-covered surfaces. The slope of our hillside is steep. The slope of the property at 917 is even steeper. How could a building be constructed on this property without considerable in-fill? How would this in-fill be stabilized? The 917 buildings could slide down the hill, like those in Seattle. In addition to the run-off that comes down the entire hill,the water table is relatively close to the surface. At several places at 949,underground springs seep up through the surface of our driveway throughout the year. Sunset Garden has gone through a three year saga of paying hydrologist and engineers to determine a cause and solution to our moisture problems. In a nutshell, our condominium complex,built in 1991, has just received bids for approximately$250,000 worth of work. (The high bid was over$500,000.) This work is caused by excess water, that naturally drains down the west facing hillside above I-405 due to pavement(streets and parking lots)and houses and apartment buildings. The city of Renton's planning process failed to require adequate mitigation to avoid the costly problems we face today. The developer and builder of Sunset Garden failed to provide the necessary construction methods and materials to mitigate the problems of building on such a hillside as ours. I am aware that building codes are to insure health and safety, not quality. However, it seems that sheer common sense,called Plan Review and Environmental Impact Review,would have prompted the city of Renton to require adequate drainage for multiple buildings accompanied by an asphalt driveway and parking lot. The city of Renton should be protecting the taxpayers who were to move into these buildings and trusted that the city's planning and inspection departments would have required adequate construction methods. CITY 1- 'E' RENTON - NAL Planning/Building/Public Works Department 7 Gregg Zimmerman Administrator Jes§e Tarmer,Mayor .. September 13, 20• 00 Gay.Kiesling = Sunset Gardens Home Owners'Association • 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE - Renton,WA 98055 . : Aberdeen Avenue Apartments, Project No:-LUA-00-040, SA-A,ECF , • ,Dear Ms. Kiesling This letter is being sent following several unsuccessful attempts to contact you by telephone: It is regarding'the date of the public hearing scheduled before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner for September 26, 2000...The purpose of the public meeting is to hear the appeal of the Environmental Determination for the above referenced,project filed°by the Sunset Gardens Home Owners'Association. A second appeal of the Determination was also filed by another party. Typically,the site plan review decision would have been made concurrently with the environmental determination, with combined appeal•periods and a single public hearing. In the case of this project however,the applicant requested that a site plan review decision not be made until a potential sale of the property had taken place:. Apparently,the potential buyer would have revised the plan. Subsequently, the sale of the property did not take place and,city staff was requested by the applicant to resume the site plan review.. . I anticipate that a site plan review decision will be made by the end of this week. In order to consolidate appeals of the environmental determination,with potential appeals of the site plan review decision,the hearing of September 26,',2000,-will have to be rescheduled to a date following the end of the site plan review decision appeal period. If the site plan,review decision is reached by Friday of this week, - September 15, 2000,the appeal period would terminate on at 5 pm on Monday,October 2, 2000. A new •hearing date would be set approximately two weeks following that date(dependent upon the Hearing • Examiner's calendar). I hope this change of date will not be too inconvenient for you and the other members of the • Sunset Gardens Home Owners'Association who wish to attend the hearing. We will inform you of the new date as soon as it is known. • Please contact me at 425-430-7382, if you have any questions.: Thank you. • • Sincerely Elizabeth Higgins, AICP Senior Planner •: - . • Copy ,Mr.Fred Kaufman,Hearing Examiner _ 1055 South Grady:Way-Renton,Washington 98055 ! This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer• :«::<:;;<<::<:<. : .... .. • • On the Igo` day of SeprtezvvJaLv , 2000, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing •RepoK I-ects try) documents. This information was sent to: Name I Representing geycod 9 t-c.kex J 5ou 1 +--►et Pl eL JJ�t� e_ 4e-ff or.nail) �el�lrr�,vi Des�9 v� I po3v t e;s o Reci vd C kdA,J) (Signature of Sender) S a_{- . STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I•know or have satisfactory evidence that SAysara. 41. 5-22 2 r signed this . instrument and. acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for th ses and purposes • mentioned in the iinstrument. • MA N KAI CH F > Notary Public' and for the State of Washi n NOTARY PUBLIC MARILYN IGAMGiEFF STATE OF WASHINGTON a Notary (Print) S COMMISSION EXPIRES r My appointment expires: JUNE 29, 2003 Project Name: .e-erg Rfsi5 Project Number: LUiq - OD -040 , S► , - ,ELf NOTARY2.DOC ATTACHMENT 'A' Mr. Norm Mode Gay Kiesling Jeff Clousing 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. E318 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. C210 Apt. C-310 Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Susan Lauth Cheryl Jayne Phyllis Turner 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. E315 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. D211 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. Di 1 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Terra Schmidt Karen Loos Melody Grieves 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. B106 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. B105 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. B206 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Micheal Bradley John& Patricia Clayton Annelle Perry 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. B306 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt.A-102 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt A101 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Muhammad Faisal Patty Reynolds Patricia Dolan 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. A101 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. C107 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. 307 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Francia Personett Juanita McIntosh Natalie Hester 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. F220 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. C110 949 Aberdeen Ave NE,Apt. C308 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Mr. & Mrs. R. Beach Kathryn Carrigan Terrie Cater 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, E115 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. E116 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. E216 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Helen Del Rasario Lawrence &Carol Lanczak Albert& Sandra Jarvela 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. E215 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. E118 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. E117 Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Lan Le Darsie Brown Cheryl Waid 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. F219 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. F119 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. C108 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Ed Niblock Eleanor Brown Hal &Erin Pugmire 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. D213 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt D313 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. D314 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 r-, ATTACHMENT 'A' Ronal Yasui Doug Graef Helen Burch 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt, E317 New Home Trends 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 8034 118th Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Kirkland, WA 98033 Lisa Young Art Gossan 1000 Aberdeen Avenue NE 7301 NE 175th,#124 Renton, WA 98056 Kenmore, WA 98028 , REPORT City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION DECISION DATE: September 15, 2000 Project Name: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Applicant: Gerald Rieker and Soung Hee Rieker Cambridge Homes NW 12228 NE 112th Place#A-1 Kirkland WA 98033 Owner. (same) File Number. LUA-00-040, ECF, SA-A Planner: Elizabeth Higgins, AICP Project Summary: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story, twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). The project also requires environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. Project Location: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE Exist. Bldg. Area SF: N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area SF: 16,332 sf Site Area: 37,585 sf (0.86 acre) Total Building Area SF: 16,332 sf •:: V;5it'00 ,s4 7-9:..-.1"0 Os:\ , -.9 iiwiir s9/ _ A COh 1 RR f• , ' `_____- rq- Z a , :\1 , F W 047.. JOHN L. r = Nw 2ANATTA I j . i� �IW Llo¢ � ] cy M ` L �SITE `seuercs Jc‘J z a 4° ill Y`: ` _pq I .„,4t• s ._ of i iesit it [:•k'.;:4?9.fir........... u� �80 UN�f9 • 00 ' , 1 c s.U.I.MEF,/'�0A•R-D-E{�4 . u; j� � 1 . N am, l�Z`,CO AID ("� ,Q nc, ° Ti Li 4• .32 jll \ n r g `, l� V , .J. '.!i"•Tti is Z 0 o .R (J rl5 _I' 1,1!1 9ry 4, ze 1C , Sj �as U r-1 Project Location Map eresitepbuev.doc 1;3 s-• City of Renton PB/PW Department Adn ative Site Plan Review Staff Report • ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFSEPTEMBER 15,2000 Page 2 of 10 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a single, two- story, twelve-unit apartment building. The project is located on a 37,585 square foot property at 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE. The property is 62.5' wide and approximately 600 feet long. The property fronts on Aberdeen Avenue NE, north of its intersection with Sunset Boulevard NE. The building would be situated on the eastern half of the site, which is more gently sloping (5% to 10%) than the western half, which has slopes in excess of forty percent that are, therefore, regulated by the City of Renton. The building coverage of the site will be approximately 17% and the total impervious area will be about 43%. The wood-framed building would be approximately 35' in height. The roofline would be staggered, matching the angle of slope and the roofs articulated with peaks and architectural details. Vertical walls would be surfaced in a horizontal siding of unspecified material composition. The 12 apartment units will be either 978 or 996 sf each and be two bedroom units. The property is 37,451 sf in size and has approximately 10,097.83 sf of protected slopes. The net acreage is 0.63 acre. Therefore, the proposed project, at 12 units, has a density of 19.11 dwelling units per net acre. Parking for individual units would be in an enclosed garage under the main structure. Additional parking would be on site at uncovered, surface parking areas. The total parking available on site would be 21 spaces. Of these, 1 would be dimensioned as an accessible space, 5 would be compact spaces in uncovered parking areas and the remaining 15 would be in garages. The property is located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). Abutting zones are all residential. They are Residential 1 (R-1) to the west, and the same zone (RM-I) to the north, south, and east. R-1 allows residential development at 1 dwelling unit per net acre, but the area may be too environmentally sensitive to make development feasible. The project requires environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971, as amended, on July 18, 2000, the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee made a Determination of Non- Significance, Mitigated for the project. Two appeals of the Determination were filed with the Hearing Examiner prior to the close of the appeal period. These appeals will be heard at a public meeting on a date to be set following the close of the appeal period for the site plan review decision. The Environmental Review Committee placed the following mitigation measures on the proposed project. 1. Site construction activities shall be limited to the months of April through October. 2. The recommendations of the geotechnical report, "Aberdeen Apartments Project No. T-4479", by Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 30, 1999, shall be incorporated into the project design and construction. sitepinrev.doc City of Renton PB/PW Department Adn alive Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEEN APARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFSEPTEMBER 15,2000 Page 3 of 10 3. The applicant shall pay the applicable Transportation Mitigation Fee at the rate of$75.00 per each new average weekday trip attributable to the project, estimated to be 6.47 average weekday trips per multi- family unit. The Transportation Mitigation Fee is due prior to building permit. 4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$388.00 per multi-family unit. The fee is due prior building permit. 5. The applicant shall pay the Parks Mitigation Fee equal to $354.51 per multi-family unit. The Parks Mitigation Fee shall be paid prior to building permit. PART THREE: ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION - REPORT& DECISION A. Type of Land Use Action XX Site Plan Review Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Conditional Use Binding Site Plan 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, environmental review and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 2: Drawing No. SD1, Site Plan and Vicinity Map (dated March 8, 2000) Exhibit No. 3: Drawing No. 1, Grading Plan (dated June 2000) Exhibit No. 4: Drawing No. 2, Roadway Profile (dated February 2000) Exhibit No. 5: Drawing No. 3, Site Slope Analysis (Received June 21, 2000) Exhibit No. 6: Drawing No. 4, Tree Cutting Plan (dated June 2000) Exhibit No. 7: Drawing No. L1, Landscape Plan (dated March 8, 2000) Exhibit No. 8: Drawing No. Al, First&Second Floor Plans (dated February 21, 2000) Exhibit No. 9: Drawing No. A2, Enlarged Floor Plans (dated February 21, 2000) Exhibit No.10: Drawing No. A3, Building Elevations (dated March 8, 2000) Exhibit No.11: Zoning Map (dated January 11, 2000) C. Consistency with Site Plan Criteria In reviewing the proposal with respect to the Decision Criteria for Level I Site Plans as set forth in Section 4-9-200(E) of the Renton Municipal Code, the following issues have been identified by City Departmental Reviewers and Divisional Reviewers: 1. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its objectives and policies The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for the property is Residential Multi-Family— Infill. The objective and policies of this land use element are as follows: Objective LU-L: Encourage the development of infill parcels in existing multi-family districts with compatible projects. sitepinrev.doc City ofRenton PB/PW Department Adn native Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFSEPTEMBER 15,2000 Page 4 of 10 The neighborhood of the proposed project has both single family houses and multi-family apartment and condominium developments. The Sunset Garden Condominiums (60 units) are located to the south, abutting the proposed project. There are three single family houses to the north. A 168 unit condominium development, Renton Ridge, is north of the single family houses. Adjacent to the project, across Aberdeen Avenue, are both multi-family developments and single family houses. This project is compatible with the other multi-family projects in the area, although the neighborhood has not completely transitioned entirely from single family residential. Policy LU-64: Development density should generally be in the range of ten to twenty dwelling units per acre. The proposed project, at 12 units, has a density of 19.11 dwelling units per net acre, which is within the allowable density range. Policy LU-65: New development in Residential Multi-family Infill designations should be compatible in size, scale, bulk, use, and design with other existing multi-family developments. The proposed project is compatible with other multi-family developments in the area, although it is not compatible in scale with the existing single family houses. Policy LU-66: Design standards should be applied that reflect present development patterns and are sensitive to unique features and differences among established neighborhoods. Although design standards have not been developed in the Renton Municipal Code for this land use zone, the proposed project meets the requirements of the Development Standards (RMC Section 4). These standards address building height, lot width, and building setbacks. Policy LU-67: Siting and design of new structures should be sensitive to site constraints and adjacent uses. Provision of adequate buffers or setbacks or scaling down building heights may be required to transition from Residential Multi-family Infill designations to adjacent lower density uses. The proposed project would be built on the eastern half of the property that is not constrained by protected slopes. The stormwater control system would be designed to carry run-off away from the developed portion of the property and the adjacent development. Unfortunately, the single family residential property, abutting to the north, would be very heavily impacted by the proposed project. Due to the narrow configuration of the project site, the proposed building would be built close to the adjacent property. Even though the building is designed to be closer to the opposite property line, leaving the width of the driveway between the new building and the existing single family house, an existing greenhouse to the north would be heavily shaded by the new structure. 2. Conformance with existing land use regulations The following development standards apply in the RM-I Zone: Density: minimum 10 dwelling unit per net acre (du/a), maximum 20 du/a The project has a net density of 19.11 du/a. This is at the high end of the allowable range. In addition, all of the density will be located on approximately half of the property, due to steep slopes on the other half. This gives the impression of a project of approximately twice the allowable density than allowed. Minimum lot width: 50 feet The property is 62.5 feet wide. No new parcels will be created. Minimum lot depth: 65 feet The property is 607.61 feet deep. sitepinrev.doc City of RentonPB/PWDepartment Adn ative Site Plan Review StaffReport ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFSEPTEMBER 15,2000 Page 5 of 10 Setbacks (minimums): front— 20 feet; rear— 15 feet; side —greater of 5 feet or 10% of lot width (rounded up to next whole integer); additional 1 foot for each story in excess of two The proposed project would have setbacks above the front and rear setback minimums. The side setbacks must be 7 feet each, based on lot width of 62.5 feet. An additional 1 foot must be added for the additional story above two. Therefore the side setbacks must be 8 feet. It appears the plan must be revised to meet this standard on the south side. Revision of the plan will be a condition of the site plan decision. Height: 35 feet or 2.5 stories The proposed building has two levels of residential units above one level of parking. This meets the Uniform Building Code definition of two story building. The total height is 35 feet above finish grade. Building coverage (maximum): 35% The proposed building would have 17% coverage of the property. Impervious area (maximum): 75% The proposed project would result in 43% impervious area. Landscaping: Setback areas and open space areas shall be landscaped unless otherwise determined through the site plan review process. Landscaping has been proposed for the front and south side setback areas. The north setback, abutting the single family residence, does not have landscaping proposed because the driveway falls within the setback area. This is extremely unfortunate given the impact the development will have on the existing home. Staff recommends a condition whereby the applicant shall install a fence, the maximum height allowed by code, on top of the retaining wall along the north property line. The purpose of this fence would be to provide a transition between the existing single family home and the proposed project and buffer noises somewhat from the driveway that abuts the property line and from the garages that open to the north. 3. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses There are several potential impacts to surrounding uses by the proposed project. An increase in impervious area could cause a corresponding increase in existing drainage problems on adjacent properties. To avoid this, the applicant would be required to install a stormwater control system that carries runoff away from the developed property to the south and the single family residential property to the north. It would be dispersed by means of a spreader in the northwest corner of the property (see "Notes to Applicant" section of this report). Although the property to the north is also within the Residential Multi-family—Infill Zone, there would be an impact to the single family residence located to the north, caused by the proximity of the building and its bulk. The proposed building meets the setback requirement on the north and is not above the height limit of 35 feet. A condition has been proposed whereby a fence will be required in order to buffer the existing home from the new development. 4. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site The proposed project, planned for only the more gradually sloped east half of the project, is sited to minimize the impact to the property by avoiding the very steep western half. sitepinrev.doc City of Renton PB/PW Department Adn ative Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFSEPTEMBER 15,2000 Page 6 of 10 5. Conservation of area-wide property values Development of the property should not have a negative impact on area-wide property values. 6. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation Landscaping indicated on the conceptual plan may inhibit visibility for drivers exiting from the project driveway onto Aberdeen Avenue NE. Staff recommends that revisions to the landscape plan be made to ensure visibility. It does not appear from review of the site plan that a walkway,separated from the driveway, will be provided to connect the project to the sidewalk that will be located along the street frontage. Staff recommends a site plan revision that demonstrates that a walkway, physically separated from the driveway by either a curb or raised curb abutting the sidewalk, be provided. The dumpster enclosure would located at the west boundary of the developed portion of the site, near the vehicle turn-around. It should not conflict with pedestrian traffic. 7. Provision of adequate light and air It appears that this criteria would be met by the proposed project. 8. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions It appears that this criteria would be met by the proposed project. The dumpster would be located at the west boundary of the developed portion of the site, at the farthest point from the residential units. 9. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use Public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use are available in Aberdeen Avenue NE. 10. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight It appears that this criteria would be met by the proposed project. The project improvements, as proposed, would be consistent with plans, policies, and regulations of the City of Renton. 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: 1. Request: The Applicant has requested Environmental Review and Site Plan Approval for the Aberdeen Apartments, LUA00-040, ECF, SA-A. sitepinrev.doc City of Renton PB/PW Department Ad, `native Site Plan Review Staff Report ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFSEPTEMBER 15,2000 Page 7 of 10 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. Site Plan Review: The applicant's site plan application complies with the requirements for information for site plan review. The applicant's site plan and other project drawings are entered as Exhibits No. 2 through 10. 4. Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential Multi-family— Infill (RM-I). 5. Zoning: The proposed project generally complies with the zoning requirements and development standards of the Residential Multi-family— Infill (RM-I) Zoning designation, with the exception of walkway and setback requirements, which would be in conformance following plan revisions that are a condition of the site plan decision. The zoning map is entered as Exhibit 11. E. Conclusions 1. The subject proposal complies with the policies and codes of the City of Renton. 2. The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential Multi-family — Infill (RM-I); and the Zoning designation of Residential Multi-family— Infill (RM-I) Zoning. F. Decision The Site Plan for Aberdeen Apartments, File No. LUA-00-040, is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The site plan must be revised to meet code requirements, including side yard setbacks. 2. A site lighting plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Department and approved prior to building permit approval. 3. A solid wood fence, design and materials to be approved by the Development Services Department, at the maximum height allowed, shall be installed on top of the retaining wall along the north property line. Such installation shall be completed prior to occupancy of the building. 4. A site plan revision shall be submitted prior to building permit, that demonstrates that a walkway will be provided that connects to the public sidewalk and that is physically separated from the project driveway by either a curb or raised curb and sidewalk. Such revision to the site plan shall be made by the applicant and approved by the Development Services Department prior to building permit issuance. 5. A revision to the landscape plan shall be made to ensure visibility at the driveway entrance to and from the project. Such revision shall be made by the applicant and approved by the Development Services Department prior to building permit issuance. 6. A Native Growth Protection Easement(NGPE) shall be established for the area of the property having slopes at forty percent(40%) or greater(approximately the western half of the property). The NGPE shall be recorded prior to obtaining an occupancy permit. sitepinrev.doc City of RentonPB/PWDepartment Adn ,Native Site Plan Review Staff Report • ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFSEPTEMBER 15,2000 Page 8 of 10 EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: September 15, 2000. SIGNATURES: )211` il\f/() /4°° Jennifer Toth Henning,Zoning Administrator date TRANSMITTED this 15th day of September, 2000, to the owner/applicant and contact: Gerald Rieker Soung Hee Rieker 11017-101st Place NE Kirkland,WA 98033 Frank Heffernan, AIA Ferrari Design Group 12277—134"Ct NE Redmond,WA 98052 TRANSMITTED this 15th day of September, 2000, to the parties of record: See Attachment A' TRANSMITTED 15th day of September, 2000, to the following: Larry Meckling,Building Official Charles 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 the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM September 29, 2000. If no appeals are filed by this date,the action 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. 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. Plan Review—Sanitary Sewer 1. This project is outside of the Aquifer Protection Zones. 2. There is an existing 10" sanitary sewer main in Aberdeen Avenue NE. 3. Providing a gravity system to this site will be extremely difficult due to the topography. The project sitepinrev.doc City of Renton PB/PWDepartment _ Adn, ative Site Plan Review Staff Report ' ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 15,2000 Page 9 of 10 engineer has indicated that separate grinder pumps will be installed under the building permit. Plans shall be noted to'reflect this. Plan Review—Water 1. There is a 16"water main in Aberdeen Avenue NE. 2. This site is located in the 435 Pressure Zone. 3. A water main extension will be required on site. 4. All new construction must have a fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 gpm and must be located within 300 feet of the structure. There are fire hydrants in the vicinity that may be counted towards the fire protection of this project, but are subject to verification for being within 300 feet of the nearest corner of the building. This distance is measured along a travel route. This project will require a minimum of 2,500 gpm fire flow. An additional fire hydrant will be required to be installed onsite to meet this criteria. 5. Water System Development Charges of$510 per unit are applicable to this project. The Development Charges will be collected as part of the construction permit. Plan Review—Stormwater Drainage 1. A storm drainage narrative and conceptual plan has been submitted and reviewed. It has been given preliminary approval, with the exception that the drainage system will be required to be tightlined to the northwest corner of the property and dispersed via a spreader due to the surface water problems on the abutting property to the south. 2. Final storm drainage report and design shall comply with the King County Surface Water Design Manual, 1990 Edition. 3. No on-site detention is required. 4. Surface Water System Charges of$15,985 are applicable to this project. The Development Charges will be collected as part of the construction permit. Plan Review—Street Improvements 1. Full street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, street signs, and street lights are required, if not already in place. 2. All new electrical, telephone, and cable services and lines must be undergrounded. Plan Review—General 1. The applicant is responsible for securing and necessary private utility easements. 2. All required utility, drainage, and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 3. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5 percent of the first$100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4 percent of anything over$100,000, but less than $200,000, and 3 percent of anything over $200,000. Half of this fee must be paid upon application for construction permits (preliminary plat improvements), and the remainder when the construction permit is issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. Construction Services 1. Stairways cannot pass through garages. Fire Prevention 1. The preliminary fire flow is 2500 gpm, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and two sitepinrev.doc City of Renton PB/PW Department _ Adn ative Site Plan Review Staff Report • ABERDEEN APARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 15,2000 Page 10 of 10 additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Separate plans and permit are required for the installation of the sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 3. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways are a minimum 20 feet in width with a turning radius of 45 feet outside and 25 feet inside. 4. Fire department dead-end access roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. Planning 1. Retaining walls in excess of four(4)feet require engineered drawings and a separate building permit. 2. Construction easements obtained from abutting property owners may be necessary prior to construction of retaining walls on or near property lines. These agreements must include protection measures for(or permission to potentially damage or remove) trees located on abutting properties within 20 feet of the property line. 3. Performance Standards for Land Development Permits (RMC 4-4-130K), including "Protection Measures During Construction" (RMC 4-4-130K7) relating to trees, shall be followed by the applicant. The applicant shall adhere to the definition of"tree" a found in RMC 4-11-200, "drip line"as found in RMC 4-11-040, and the measurement of trees as found in RMC 4-11-030. sitepinrev.doc . , , \ i i 1 i i il ri - . _ _ _ _i i i _ FERRARI 1.• I I I DESIGN 11 __ _ • I I GROUP I I i 7 i A1 8 ,.• , B x aaf S e. i?. ii, a.1 i ` Ieyi _ i i VINIZTI :�s: I �. 3 _•A: i' — • • :e - Iz .v I i .�,9t` zlgg :.i / ! noi nub•, n �r n iw ' ";..k•R • o I ABER DEEN \—__—__—__—__—__—__—__—__—__—__—__--_—__ __—e,-.—_•_ __ _— • _ __ -_ __ __—__—_ _ _ • APARTMENTS �:..�.�I .% o i AVENUE G ;, ••,•a•••.•"• eoe ,oe- I• SITE PLAN; •1 Iwenemmem T t LEGEND 1 I I . I LEGEND SITE PLAN ® GROUND LEVEL/PARKING LAYOUT ,., N ..— CAMSRIDGE I I "'....".... HOMES NW O •.vwsran•.a WSA.l PM Pa MU LEGAL DESCRIPTION .., ........�. ...o.,L.,,w.,.,,,oPRY N/A PROJECT DATA BUILDING DATA II' 6. — 4.,,..rm..w..M.....L....0 ememnrano MM. ,.... o n Lo,s pre nom ee.1.M,w % SITE ; ;(:)_S a =EX, . '.^:117..;:r r 6 PAL:fial:: \''...:.\ III ti74...,...ti5.:::48'1'.: iLlaAl.P1, 7117:77•-. ? SOL.412..ell.T-0 as•no..N.O.O.In.s.• �, „�.,,.o en VICINITY MAP S D 1 • • SEC Aid 8, TW\ 23 \ , 5 E. ,. W. M . z () INSTRUMENT: NIKON TOTAL STATION DTM-AIOLG J i— (5 SECOND INSTRUMENT). z METHOD USED: FIELD TRAVERSE WITH ACTUAL Q Ex.S FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANGLES GRAPHIC SCALE RIM S1.111 .69 n- < SMH WAC 332-130-070 - - - INV EL-207.64 iimm F m DATE OF SURVEY: JANUAR Y,2000 1 IH RLT) 2 Z CENTER LINE OF ABERDEEN AVENUE NE I Inch-20 u Q Q N 01'59'17" W CtW 4, BENCHMARK: CITY OF RENTON MON #71, TOP 2 1/2" BRASS DISK 0W SET IN CONCRETE MONUMEN T11.8' S AND 9' E OF INTERSECTION OF Q ABERDEEN AVENUE NE AND NE 12TH STREET. w ELEVATION = 284.63' (86.76M) a xaK/,0 „INI�„AU. .,>�Ko.lo. I 1. • 5.00 VATI w ae • Ok Y �Q / _ II T 3 0' 4- PI yy C .. ,589'51'00'W 607.61" wi • -1 II I yyZl11 a II W I __ li Wr . .•/ � [NCLTIPG �. , I Q 11 1 " C� C If 12 II ICI ♦ G 1 O • ,♦ ' ] , I p 1. O 1 I z • Iw,cC`` _ :o I{ F I {♦ C 1B: a ‘I N ' FF 204 • ali . — ,� r lI 69 1 • — i _ 1 . In • a i6!`1 1s 1 \ .Cart. KGCfD. MH M.1W HNv4CV - gH� 1,._ W '+ \ —07 .0 . W I . • 1 \ 1 • \ - - - - - - -- - - ----I . LEGAL DESCRIPTION ®EX.SSMH TRACT 11 OF HARRIES GARDEN HOME TRACTS.ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RIM EL-212.15 RECORDED IN VOLUME 34 OF PALTS,PAGE 38,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON: INV EL-202.10 EXCEPT THE NORTH 37.5 FEET THEREOF. 2 - - - - ;__..f.. d Rom_=� I , 5 i DRIVEWAY PROFILE ?°°° �..—i--__1 70UMA sumcr6R d LAND SVRVEI'pP5 --- - -.,.��*.___� � i a,W I __, ! ABERDEEN APARTMENTS —1907:!,E T i— n aaiw sau �1w a+. N0. I R0n5gN --.--_ BY !DATE i MPR -,—_—..—_..___'-_ _—.----------- Ira 2 w .17. .1.1411 h 7(.5 • • o� , = o ti 154.3 0 0 0 8 ! • 1 1 ! I . 166 0 • I I 1 I 73 0 1 I II I ! Ph 0 180.00 I • I I • i ! 1 00 q 1 I V 11 —I 0 164 a I 1 I I !I 8 185.52 I Z I I I ; i I I I\) • i CA Z.I. 191.05 I 'u i N 1 v I i I I ! I /73 N a Ir. 19!a 1 1 V 1 8 196.57 • 1 f��l I i 8 1 V I ! ; 1 202.09 •• i •, 1 • • w 204 5 ( I BVCS: .+98.96 1_ D 5 5 8 207.62 • I BVCE: 207.50 x o m T. 8 ° ' `a 1 . H ' EVCS: 5+23.96 � N°i u F.+7 is Is. EVCE 209.13 f m m I A 11. '' 1 4 F "�m�a J" . F 4 CXS N RIM EL-21.69 X I WV EL-2 .61 1 III l" >- o �wINV EL-207.64 tY Wa - I O¢ _ J W W C LI CC SCALE 1"=20' GRAPHIC SCALE !! I,<�L " I w W� ,Z it s t, — R0 `� 4Di hi r-.. — .r - •;,� ` ""s:v.!f' .c,�. -.. _s'B�9'SYoo•W 6016,:. - -- 'I 1 �Y):'�c��'�F''. .Y2 F{�y�22+) .t r.»»,a�y��::: �'ys[.. ):;;TT���� x ;> �' ; �!�J 1�1 r • 'r•.•i�?�>:.c. ..ch$,,c:>}'1): ?�"Ik`nR.,�.Y;e.,17$.t,¢. '6 .6::r.•::C.r. - ��'..:,.�! �i.�' , "frQt a4}.a Ck'\<):e. . ,a:'i,;f'"2' .FC'7,. a',.: ,:2•- Z ',.•:C::::: .:+t:;x.;�r,.,.r,..:a::.;t.:.,.a�;Y..�,:•r,.y:y:./.,...y,.,.,�,.F::ac.,...�....,•.a _ i'' i..,I • .•'%t4 oo i .}t++ .:R,{.,.,, i;: -. :..::.1;1. ,R.;e:f;.,ps?.g!:v:.�„x).w,y,..:.,:.. • 1 NCm� �(, h:'.'\�>��11:'fv �,YY:lYvY.�T. .vJ�: :/.�: `Y: � • w ldl I 1 Iis >. •(�¢.�[�„` rr",. /,,�itq���i„i, .,,,�. „of/%,'0. :4✓.r-.i%aZei.,./,. ,{/:',;r,�/.i:.. 3 d f~ '• �' •':'' .•'2R. ''/ _ '.:f/' ,/— fiH„ .� ./,:/ f„ .. i ;{/i' �qI '•� o •. s:.:,'p v ,.y.� °:..: .It><tb+L[': �': / :y',/(. .S ., q/,'; / Lp:r ::i7/ �� '% /r •!; S:<;'y'%:" I at�. .'�``Y�� Y„ti t?s)..�... .a�.;• :.m.}:• �i /i/, l ,f �3�- is>r;%%. /; f f .///„ � / r _ i;' I it "ii.� r Total...v I IIIII 3 ` .0 o.,..m I-u e.m.-1 i swE o-ux 1.'r I sses.l IeJm.an. ».61 .an o ee�,.. av:,.. oes We. I SLOPE fe-99r —__, I acne'.ox-fo6x t WI ' 1 EX.SSLN RN EL-212.15 INV EL-206.05 �I, ,ull SEC 8, TWN 23 \ , 5 E. , W. N . _= z U) INSTRUMENT: NIKON TOTAL STATION DTM—A 1OLG 5— (5 SECOND INSTRUMENT). METHOD USED: FIELD TRAVERSE WITH ACTUAL a. � FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANGLES GRAPHIC SCALE WAC 332-130-070CD DATE OF SURVEY.• JANUARY,2000 im� m ��� z CENTER LINE OF ABERDEEN AVENUE NE I We m 1R k- Q N 01'59'17" W UW Q BENCHMARK: CITY OF RENTON MON #71, TOP 2 1/2" BRASS DISK W SET IN CONCRETE MONUMENT11.8' S AND 9' E OF INTERSECTION OF _ l3_I 0 ABERDEEN AVENUE NE AND NE 12TH STREET. ' LLI W ELEVATION = 284.63' (86.76M) I W O !It F - • I 1 �a ;. W 5 a Q I 30• I z ��Og � — — — N — — — — S89'S1'OO-W 607.61" — — — — — — — — 1 I!" �bin p — — — _ — — a+� - _ — — _ — — N T;um --- I Iw �i - � o i�A_ m eia.,. N o I Q ` © 10- t II I z 1 , IA P y21 16 1 1 EIS 13 12 II 10 4 a , 7 0 a ] %. iiion; lam-,iim- i1 I ILI fi f 1 f Ip yX. \ \ 11-1 M 1 1'.I 1 — 11 — — — — 589'51'a0'W 590.8}' — — — — — jT 30' W al If x0 CONST006110N THIS AREA MON1Tr OF CONSTRUCTION IRIS AREA I Q y \ • ----.-1- 1----QI ' • 6 SG 11111 \ NOTT Au TREES 01 THE Ndwn OP TREE LEGEND I I CONSTRUCTION TO RC REMOVED. Q. MAPLE . ` _ - -- -- -- ® ALDER --1--. 51 -/J_. ;�j EVERGREEN a \ V APPLE I • ' \ I I� - - \ - - - - - -�- - - - - - - - - - - - -�-J- - -�1- 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION • TRACT 11 OF HARRIES GARDEN HOME TRACTS.ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF. RECORDED IN VOLUME 34 OF PALTS,PAGE 30,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE NORTH 37.5 FEET THEREOF. • • • . . . i I i ' • j. I j MN I I FERRARI . I al DESIGN z ARCHITECT.►. ----'--�-- — --- -- ---'- - -- - - - - ---- -'—.,A�� i GROUP I 1 z • some — 'ArjlJ I > J 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 . �• . ri I z It: lD I LU ABERDEEN 16 15 14 13 12 I I 10 q 8 "1 6 5 4 3 2 Iy, j w UJ AVENUE O. I APARTMENTS ENTB calm' i; • m" 1Rt. ell — VW, �l$ .. .ids,.. f°oi %i i OL:-- % I "ness" ~ ©�0 ir��,��Oo©O _ _"i �Is" �"-�.JQdIOm� _ �...:i p,0 —•:A Nn I Il G • i , ` e'•. I I m LANDSCAPE o<"z4`o5.AN bed or., i I PLAN Ile I Q I I I I . j I LANDSCAPE PLAN I I(1 I i • I I CAMBRIDGE j I HOMES NW EMI re ion• .e I etbassaterasea PLANTING NOTES: PLANT LIST-SHRLBR Ouontity Botanical None Common Nome Sire pysbel ALL PLANT 5 RIAL L NA+SERY ORO,.1 O.MI YEAR MIN ,�, TO TIC ANC.c DESK. Aro SIM CdonV E P•,ALL DE eaar-wr To TM ATTENTION OP Toe COVERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO PROCEEDwfi WA • ALL Dabbl rs FOR PLANT IEISIO.SPREAD Are CALIPER ARE MINIMS REMIREPENTS ALL PLANTE.AREAS TO RECEIVE D•PINE DAHL PALL. W Acer Rvbrum Red Sunset' Red Sunset Mople 2•cal TOP• a ro Be PACNIc TOPSOIL s-rur MIA TOPSOIL DEPTH TO BE•'IN LANS AREAS TOPSOIL DEPTH TO DE 6•IN BED AREAS ...BAT,.PRIOR SYSTEM SMALL BE FILLY OPERATIONAL — "--Y HATER ALL RANTED AREAS IM•EDIATELY AFTER PLANTING. - RJR RANT MATERIAL TO RECENT FORw4A•22 TRANSPLANTER AS NANPA.TwCD BY Corms rlorldo rlor+erAg Do9Mood 2-cal •vv ill- ) 61RLal+aMso[mrtRR�i Ea Len eACN�� TES MATERIAL TO A TABLETS PLANS. RECEIVE A6RIPpu,PLANT esters Al-BRAT,AT DC FOLLg0N6 RATES ,}yam Sw4 TABLETS US•a TAETS EACH Meg/noire Stello10 Star Magnolia 4' 60 V \ CONDUCTOR TO DETERwNE MANTISES of PLANT MATERIAL Pros muse mega Mega Plne 5 gal >k IRRIGATION NOTES: A �M._. Nydrongea mocrophylla Hydrangea 5 gol HO ^ ALL PLANne u AREAS TO D rz LI e IRRIaAD MmLY AUTOMATED IRRIGAoN SYSTEM _ TIjo O.Emerald Green' Emerald Green Pyramldolls 6' l'/ SYSTEM TO MEET REONREMCNTS Or LOCAL CODES �PlCrls J.Volley Fire' PIerIS 5 gal Irh LATERAL MA LINE 3NALL BE 5.Aa NC PIPE _==. .. LANDSCAPE PLAN PREPARED BY: Erica CP-nea Med.Pak' Heather Med.Pink' I gal e • SCOTT RADFORD.-LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ahanla ogevalivm Oregon Grope 5 gal d WASHINGTON LIE.#688 M CAMS stolcnlrere Red TMIg Dogwood 3 gal Clifford Quality Landscapes a Rho.Everest' Evergreen Aroleo'Everest' 3 gal ^,; 2713 W.FORT STREET,SEATTLE,WA 98199 M an Rhododendron Ilnigve LASgee Rhododendron 24•-30• C4 (425)864-2797 FAX:(206)685-6570 L 1 �� MSS • FERRARI DESIGN GAX•ROUP • m.iw. VVW I melwr ..r.,wr LLLJ m1�wr r...�wr L w •wr = ,1=0, r ___ --__ --_ ABFADEEN -- - -- -•- AVENUE APARTMENTS FIRST FLOOR PLAN rn1a� .®rn«..w..u..v N FIRST FLOOR PLAN; SECOND FLOOR PLAN; LEGEND; KEYNOTES CAMSRIDGE HONES NW 1>mit11b1`a NI IULL16*MA • • WA • �,wr �,w. er r 1.7 1 �,w. �,w. rm.,wr • T. SECOND FLOOR PLAN V� .��......».,. N ., Al • • MI „.. FERRARI • • .. W DESIGN GROUP ' r— - ----.---- —— --- '1 _-' ___ —— ---__— —' _�- . . • j j _ - 1 WOO PO. ww w _= ROI.MCA w.•• b .b ' a•k .? �•-'i'LL .a - ..-... I Jt'L nr} .a $ ; f r'- - I._. 4 I'�4.. �r •TII �lQ'i F • ri—I42or II 4•1 I I I"°� • ;r�N I Q . i IFFJ -4 • _ ( ABERDEEN 1 j } .•P 1 1 AVENUE I I APAN711E77'- —j—•—• PIMA rr.1-., j IpI ti I 1= Epp ---f---� I i 'II~ . I`--• � -----.IL L��Ft----_ I ENLARGED + la-sr I. '+ .o a.• L �� o.0. ' •o I, . , + fro r.• l a FLOORPLANI; {T fi 1 {7 LEGEND; KEYNOTES ENLARGED FLR.PLAN-TYPE "A"UNITV� ENLARGED FLR.PLAN-TYPE "I"UNIT j/V .,.�.A•,.....r N ,,..., r am.,. N Q ..` CAMBRKWE HOMES NW lama g1K11.9,1.,Iq" • •• .e •. ' .c , •o• ..e• - •c fir., .. "4'' 1 I ,m,., WA V M HI 1 .,b. . l' El 111 �" • ° I I 1- ---. .-" gym, I I �,a. I — . _ f f ENLARGED FLR. PLAN-TYPE "2"UNIT ... .1aor.,r..w.r. N I A2 • . . . . ......_...................__....______.... ri • ... ..„.:::,:.,,,:....„..,:,,,,,,r„.„.....7.„:„... :'-::':'•7:•.';' •a• ':I'..:':""'!"•: .............. _= FERRARI ' DESIGN GROUP i - NORTH ELEVATION MIALT xre,Va•1p ABERDEEN AVENUE . APARTMENTS W.n.aN " M n v _ _ = _=--_ EXTERIOR n► Imo. CAMBRIDGE ________ ✓' ,....---, ,.-----.. ^ HOMES NW ______., ... NnYd N.linpn.NT SOUTH ELEVATION ,a.. WA k k Y ■I-mm , 0 �. .Q ,.,,. yam. 11.M.Ill EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION POMMONNIN A3 ... i ,q�,.,,.'.», D4 • 5. T23N R5E E vZ. . .1-C) • • A --LN-i 12th' St.{ I I .�, . -• Q ... —R_s• —• --I I L i-1 . R-8 }-R-_-8_ •• R_10 U- p 7_----w .. - moo . 900 - - Opp. ----.6-; . • . ' ..= , ... \\Ilk ; IIT' Ot IV - RM_I -. .. � `.. 1 Oth • - .-0M.=I. I 1. 0%- i r r RM i 1J1M .. I • : N��9tL RM-I co I I I .[ __id, ' . Q'T - 7 --al:I: ffilet1111: :.T _ 7 94 -.' fro N -- p - 6 If ..ril .. ill .4? . \ um*/.. s' - ' 010:. ,:tki z R4_ 0 lit 1 • . . N. 8th ' . el .111 1 1 Iritrito ' "il *al 1 N . -.II- 1 ilitiftr,VINIft ' . ''.*.ti ' ----' ' le- I liatilHvillWa glii...4''' b• 'N' / (4. R-.7_,-8 . -: .11 014 7th . --n 4 • iii. *.. 9,3 .4r- - • \I----T11-- ' 4,1,4.,41'. ***OZ... .. 1 . 7:- - .. win R-LB \; • , I 1 _ `/H . ' ki' :-:::: . 4?:!P'2 . :. . • I 1 1 i (1 • . = / �s „ti :.,:....., : ..*:44 Ikt .:.:. .,,,, ,L.:..:., .. • . ..: , . , , to" .,7 �0, mo�d� 0,,:. ...-:.::r:..• • 4i-;" io,‘ * 4e, . • ./•. 1 • r ri Ay' itilir‘itt6 ' r• --F1617.0§? it, • eill/.... ......... , ..L.L.L.11.:... 1 N '-f__.' CA .r? 67 • . 11 \ • . '- . :.:.i- H''::. .K.' ' L Iri\•1: Ir. _ F4 • 17T23NR5EE1/2. j01�1 1,4 Cs— HAcf . ° Q�. o ,... 1) G �+� i�aaoo E4 . + p C5ERVICBSE,-4-k i w rf II ::8: T2,3S R5E E 1/2 - ' • -'r."-. ' •"; • ''' • 1•.',:•::'..': •- :•:- •.- •;--. -- ---:;• ;,-,'.•,;',X,•,-;..7:.5f.',',",, ::41,'"-' : ' " ,:.-=:'- ; ,,'::f'- ,,,,,,,,. . ...• , . . .- ..... - ,„ . .. ,. . ,.. , . . . ,. . . . • ., . .• .. , . ., . -• . - " -"-7 -,, . . - - • ZONING:- , MAP BOOK : . . . .. I Tiii.pi 93 . r'S.-',1:r 4451 I k''',11•11;*,Ar 14;A 59 i -.4%.-:?zrholi....,,.-91 "a. ,--,' fs::::J.::;.:::.:.:ia -!......-. .• la'Jr:. ..._J • -•.L.1. .-,F.i: .-•E0-..i,-,4.inri,• • .: .,,,;4 ,L --sir,-r 1 • - ---ta.-fft`f ---. _;--!".1474,•:•i3--3E''&-••••Ri..4*i: f pr-,-;-,,.:-. • /r tlle ; .-, • '.tr:E,:sx•ty,t•Re's: ; .-"rrvt.; ...e.'t ,r ..... '',-.4::'' • •,:-1,440----:---- ;-•:%•.-K-: '.x.:-.:-.-111" '`•is,.4---,.-..• '.',, ',,li :,•;::xXIT.,Fge^^.""••• '•' -•II-- 3:,,,I16,4k- g-ir -.---0,-: '''1'.C."' =Z.1 '-''•'1.,g. .r.t.,::,?0,1", -:.,:„.lit ;7,'-:. . ;;. :.,:t,,.6,- --_.„„,,,,,,,, ,, :-,.,..„......,,:,....,:...,,..„. JAI:-;;;;.44,i44 ' , - r,,•,,'',14, :J$,),,, .--, A .; s_:. ti ; ,--- r •.r.r. ,t,: Am IT!,\ i . ,.,, -"_.:Em.R-aasta:&1:4---t..: r •.N';i '=:rz''',E4 --••' ,' - ' 0 124',- \r'''',"'.: R6.6"' ,•-7 •sKa-31•Ktig.".--::4-.5 2,-...-k-_,-.....,-, — ' -,:,,,,,,,;,:4-••-'• , kk _ • ,, ? iliii• :11 4i, ,*•.,• !'•"•_,, 26 T24N!RSE ZI.,rt--."11:111M r i"ii ,1 ::::e-z--.05,EW rit.-",-2:::Irk::,,i01ftik... ''...;.,--.......:::..ertxu,z,z4".41 al.,, 1!,.!-.1 • , .; !-'"••• 7ti. . 41.09. ! • ' '''.4 if:4,;-t, ,,:_,:rwr:p:-:A,:::.,1 . : \-' 41,,--•:r...':::2.4:=•:-!-e Ot.l.x;;;:•••-:-T-.--.-1.k. -Lif..;t:•-•:--etc:,;;;",{ ,'"-''I I. I. 1 ta.N.:,•.:' -':F ..r`-' -* ' , ., ;::::,-.-7.,:;:,--,-;::::::::::g::,,%:5.-•• -•-----.- K."...._-•.-E•52 -L.::::::•;";.-••.:7,t3r2t : i6 A ' --...-'-',0."" i. ' "' - 8.: :-'' 4 "'-- '1-4:-' 4":--:4:4-:;',:.-. 14-4W-: I-(4-4;4-f-f:4 5'.:;;;;-:-R,.-47;;4:.---:k--,4 ---t ....7-t...'• ,--Iv. 1 ' ' 111'' 1,111,4 lektkria5,2,ig,,,,,...Le-VI-C-iti:X;•-•-':---;:g:Z•a:kfil--" iii•I. ' le,;.1;.P .-i/1116.4 '''' '''."-r '•... . , .j L;41...zdaitti.vain....:-..-.:-,---f.E.,--,:.,:::Q E4iMat.:-:?•-•k,,,,,t'M'sitig 1- . . .-.i ., ,•`.---,$„:1..,..RiEr.. • t IA.-. -2 •T:24N R5E -. 11114.111,_Ili,1 ....;..4iiiiii!EUEME-Egg,!:!:!;!:!iZ-'74Pa!Eat,EM:t • , „,.,1 I !--'1' .--: 7., ,,.---- , .- . ..„',, ,. -,--4 -'. ,E7Eri:K:KrE,.E=3:- V)' 0 In i 1 i 5 f 4. ',..,'\ - - ,, •G I V ', I. •0 1 C :: N.' , .w'•-• -,7,-..•-••, ,,, ...-\„„A,. ••,1'.,,:,..,,,,, 071111 ........................ ........................ i,,!: 1i.`Wi-, 1141r741-0A4-04.'Wn -----i.,A;:-E t Ili.i I.;,1 --0111:, I--.rr-. :AV,',..,t r,4% _ ,0 r;,, -•r ,.. ii 1111416 iljh --E::::.'t .1ft-1:. g:.i.a , ril .,9,,,.. 1--r,,i, f'.... ' ,..1. uifi,!-, •two -.:,- A i ,,, ,, i 0 ,2.. ,_tat: i -_-_--_-= ‘i ' 0.11":..'..'"'E'A'1/4C"' '..1 I 4.4. , ,,,,..,.... „.. g:M,1”;;;:;?K:Kaatit..„--•tZ,.•,14 1:',. '.. 1 , J s,. eAlti;,;.,,e; :..,•-; -:-.-:'',,23 '-• '.1 !IM.1411 ,))1:i: .pE: -.--- , 1: ,, .•c ,k44gi, , '1..,..._._.: __-1)44 •rv,_,,ki-„ ',,,, ,i: . i\ a,, ,,,,,, ,,it,t) :..-• ,,_._ . ,- U..11M,,,...., ' - k. ii.INFAkirM ,„,.•,a'\' lliii -..,2..-Vtlik :s. - ..-:•: - "7- -\it,Ars) . 41'ii"),:i'. 'c ::...= .1v,.:' 4"''''': 1 12=' Nt.tvr I.9:,,, nyttwo ....-6-..m.:#-'-v:-, .''.: ,-7.1'.-•:".;ek ,,.,.;., ;'--,- -' ,t k.c.i. (-1,- ;.,....-:.:: • ,,.. lrqii 4; : '-;.•111! It . A',-.'.'-. r -,,,,,"-fL. '.1\,' ...g...._:.,,,,,,,,,, ,.1:4-- 'i% -.-"n_ „ er....„.„. c . rt. . 1,,,,,,,, ,I.J.i,:„,_. ,, ,44_•„,ii , ••. 1,y _,. id .. . • .,,;:,..,,, „;,„a,,,... : •, 42, ..frimi, i 5E W f.'„,-d 43 17,_ i, ••„:44.1 ,t, ;7 i E,-.; . .11 la) - „_-,-..,111 R5E i 5IIIIIP IIPV •i ' '": ).,'•' *14-4;', •2 ,PAter-k‘ -Fp', '-.141."'A-. / ' I-f0 , '4°-. fi e• I • .1 ••,, I 17#' ' ' --'4--- ,4,,,, -• gr•AO .--i.t;.=_-_, v..q...?r) , .,-*--,'- ' , : L., , A . ' - _. ; , „,„ •. 4 •:_n-, - • ' Vi.e4/1*' - "7•'''''''' "..-'''',- \-- N`l..-M-,•-lq-.'.. 1 ' 1 e - - ,.. • .— ,.....„1 , , • ,,,,,,, ,.. 1 1 . _. ' • '-,•41' I.,••,-, , , -%, • ,,.•... --,N4:1,,, ,---'-. 7441•-•,,,-N--, 1 • t 4%-•,,,11.4; -", i ,, 7-`,, • --.'•, ?,,, , . . 7 7-•-liT-1 p! -40-.--,, .• - ; ) , - -3,.rt. ::L.J, __,. ,. jtt" • •' %.\ - • F.' ,',i f,... ., V I MI,N\1 ^••..-4'1 ''''''4i ' - 1.1 I ' ii N,. ... ,-.: ,..tr..,..4..a..it,6 .----!-.._,: r. 1._. j • ; ,3`R;~rii) ,1,..G,.`it .4'4c lin ,;.',... •• .,.. Iji-,.17, ; ,1 ot„ ig,-6F_•,-1 ,1 '-' 111111L . 1 Tii,. ' I Li 11 'le''• ......-„ , N3-,5,.. 1 j 044_ p. v•;;:...,.:-1F4 ,i-' •rk- 371 -IL. '''.81. VIII '''• •i, :-.4" ' . is tv v • -11-,!--,- - , ---J e ,,,,„.„,:_,?f- \____,,, ? _ . , , „ ., , • • ....,,,,,,....,,,,,, „ .„,,. ., „,,,... ,,,,..2:..-..--: ,,„...:.,. ,,.,„1, ,, 4, , --,., `4. 7"'` ..-.. 40 i N - --1: - „, : 1 z ;., ) -7 ---, - -,•,,,,, - ILi ,, r.r- -4,,,_<, , . : „ ,... . ,,,)„ .41/ _ ,•,,,, .,,..., 1 . 1, 2 ••''41#•! '''',•:•.... •. 'INV ‘Mie' 1 ,..::----..--2-A k,-,‘ N '7.1- )..., -,0'144';1' ;11 -.."1...- 122 T23N R5W:._)-.,-- 23 T23N R5E, i'4- • i- ' • , ,L)0, .Id., .-: ,:4 4 Eit--64. ,, ----=-------__[_—. ',.4.1 f.,,k!i.1.-1._ .I----,r- ' • i '115 ,(.. i Ai2A 82 1 'I' _ „.-e-1.-,— .-. --0.-- ;-r 4.''•'",•:,, ••_*, A • .., i ':-.:,,i-.:Lmi '';,.'4' (ii...,; ''''-.--•r -I1:1 : ' 0, 3-111/4 tri .., 1 -7): ,, 7-f ii.?,1-...„..: - - i -,:-.,-.t:/-:i:i . , ,. ', . ,,-' ,, ..„. ,,.. ,.yam•*i 4. -: - 0 /-,:, :, ,: ,,Vi'.;, 1 V----- r(11511 Y. Ar4' •-••it „.r 1;it; i : :. t.; ,. . . .8251 ii -4-•---i, : — - 1 ••- ••-.-...- --_-* t;r1 : : .• ,_ fc -4, ,,,,—.:• '-:;f:r.9 ''';)--:;,4„,::-.. '1,' -I- ; .v.,,) _, •, . . :,.".,,,....7,i..., . 1 ..,, . , 1 r...la , . .4 .: _J•:,. , F.'.•_.-, ,•-t: 1 •••r•.-....- :--r, - A vt„.f't, , -r-, . . ..-1, l 4.- - :" , • • . .1-- -. it I • : !=t6,i, ;`-1.•.:. . 1 : 17 r 3N R4E4 1 f2 R5E 1 '': - -3 iL,pi n. 3N":- ,-•' .' 3N"5E ! 35 723N :::::::::- 36 •-. 4. • -,..\:.„.I': I,A-. e- _ r_:„.:.:,_;_:, gilL' _601 ::.'7--• ,..i. -6.0:l'ii-.::,--:, ', .-.. 0°i.- . Icel.:, :-: : 4,,4 -,.,t1F, ay 833 --E--E--E--f-i--E--E--E--E--E-: 8 J - ii . • f ''`.- ':'I -11: r'.-•'''' A i i i 1,,'' 't ';'-0.1 •A .v'li c. ,' : ,, il,4, . : ,•,•_.) ...II, . ..,.--, )14. . . -_,„_, .k i : .,'!:4-',. t•.•,,,?".4 i,- , . 22N R4E , - . - II r_ "'77--.7 . 6 .14 -. 6 T2 _.5a. .t1 E . ,4,_ E;.,; 3 T R:E-'.„;. 1 2 722N R5E . • , . . . , . • KROLL- Re stereo Conservation -' i - : ' I CC I Convenience Commercial..:-:: .., . ..(P)• Publicly Owned R-I I Residential 1 dulac • '''• • t•• .- 1-7 Residential-5 du/ac - N Center Neighborho .", ' . • • : I C Neighborhood I ' 2 I CS I Center Suburban.. •Renton City Limits ,,: ,, -•-•••- Adjacent City Limits - . • - ...., . , i I Ll,,;:i (Grey Text) Prezones :....• -.-: T—I Residential•13:Wti/ac 1,• : •• . • CD I Center Downtown. :• ,',••••.. , • SECT/TOWN/RANGE• . - • • • , .• •- :- . -, ICIM Residential Manufactured-Homes •1311 Center Office Residential -' - la; Automall District A : • EMI Residential 10 clubse . • ... . ;I CA I Commercial Arterial '._ • I•;•:.:I.Automall District-El - . . --- • DM Residential 14 dui.. . • • . F--1 Commercial Office • ! For additional regulations in overlay districts• . • not shown on this map, please see RMC 4-3.to 3 •• -- I RN-I I Residential Multi-Family infill- "..: : •.. : " _Di I Industrial -:Heavy • "-• - i ,.. x L4 F1R. . RF:1-1Residential Mp#i-Ftimpy Neighbo4llolfo Ceritpr::.:• 1 IN i Industrial - M PAGE , -- m • . z - :•' IRM-C I Residential bitiliEllefitikAbukri,antlr 1,-'11 r1,:findustrial - Light •.' ',',. 4 • . ,.. . INDEX. ... . . . •• , IRM-111 Residential Multi-Family erllari Cettlex,!, - • : a[1.-.1 I Public Use . ., :,- • '-• -• j i - ,• iT-7 N141 t..---,.....1 •. 0 . • e • .. . . . , ATTACHMENT 'A' Iv'r. Norm Mode Vay Kiesling Clousing 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. E318 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. C210 Apt. C-310 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Susan Lauth Cheryl Jayne Phyllis Turner 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. E315 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. D211 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. D11 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Terra Schmidt Karen Loos Melody Grieves 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. B106 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. B105 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. B206 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Micheal Bradley John& Patricia Clayton Annelle Perry 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. B306 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. A-102 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt A101 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Muhammad Faisal Patty Reynolds Patricia Dolan 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt.A101 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. C107 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. 307 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Francia Personett Juanita McIntosh Natalie Hester 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. F220 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. C110 949 Aberdeen Ave NE,Apt. C308 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Mr. & Mrs. R. Beach Kathryn Carrigan Terrie Cater 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, E115 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. E116 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. E216 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Helen Del Rasario Lawrence&Carol Lanczak Albert&Sandra Jarvela 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. E215 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. E118 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. E117 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Lan Le Darsie Brown Cheryl Wald 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. F219 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt. F119 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. C108 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Ed Niblock Eleanor Brown Hal & Erin Pugmire 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. D213 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt D313 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. D314 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 ATTACHMENT 'A' Ronal Yasui Doug Graef Helen Burch 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Apt. E317 New Home Trends 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 8034 118th Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Kirkland, WA 98033 Lisa Young Art Gossan 1000 Aberdeen Avenue NE 7301 NE 175th, #124 Renton, WA 98056 Kenmore, WA 98028 •. CITY )F RENTON y.., Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator July 21, 2000 Mr. Frank Heffernan,AIA Ferrari Design Group PS 12277-134h Court NE Redmond,WA 98052 SUBJECT: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Project No. LUA-00-040, SA-A, ECF Dear Mr. Heffernan: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC)and is to advise you that they have completed their review of the environmental review portion of your application.. The ERC, on July 18,2000, issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. See the enclosed Mitigation Measures document. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM August 7, 2000. If no appeals are filed by this date, the action 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 arergoverned 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 Administrative Site Plan has not been approved. This Report and Decision will be issued under separate cover. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at(425)430-7382. For the Environmental Review Committee, Elizabeth Higgins,AICP Senior Planner cc: Parties of Record • Gerald and Soung Hee Rieker/Owners Enclosure dnsm(tr 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 iSZThis naner cnntains 50%recycled material 90%nost consumer CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICANT: Gerald Rieker and Soung Hee Rieker PROJECT NAME: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story, twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family — Infill Zone (RM-I). The project requires environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: , 917.Aberdeen Avenue NE MITIGATION MEASURES: • 1. Site construction activities shall be limited to the months of April through October. 2. The recommendations of the geotechnical report,"Aberdeen Apartments Project No.T-4479", by Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 30, 1999, shall be incorporated into the project design and construction. • 3. The applicant shall pay the applicable Transportation Mitigation Fee at the rate of$75.00 per each new average weekday trip attributable to the project, estimated to be 6.47 average weekday trips per multi-family unit.The Transportation Mitigation Fee is due prior to building permit. 4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$388.00 per multi-family unit. The fee is due prior building permit. 5. The applicant shall pay the Parks Mitigation Fee equal to$354.51 per multi-family unit. The Parks Mitigation Fee shall be paid prior to building permit. • mitmeasures CITY'OF RENTON . . DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICANT: Gerald Rieker and SoungHee Rieker PROJECT NAME: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story, twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family — Infill Zone (RM-I). The project requires environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)determination by the City of,Renton Environmental Review Committee. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE 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. Plan Review—Sanitary Sewer 1. This project is outside of the Aquifer Protection Zones. 2. There is an existing 10"sanitary sewer main in Aberdeen Avenue NE. .. 3. Providing a gravity system to this site will be extremely difficult due to the topography. The project engineer has indicated that separate grinder pumps will be installed under the building permit. Plans shall be noted to reflect this. ' Plan Review—Water 1. There is a 16"water main in Aberdeen Avenue NE. 2. This site is located in the 435 Pressure Zone. 3. A water main extension will be required on site. • 4. All new construction must have a fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1.,000 gpm and must be located within 300 feet of the structure. There are fire hydrants in the vicinity that may be counted towards the fire protection of this project, but are subject to verification for being within 300 feet of the nearest corner of the building. This distance is measured along a travel route. This project will require a minimum.of 2,500 gpm fire flow. An additional fire hydrant will be required to,be installed onsite to meet this criteria. 5. Water System Development Charges of $510 per unit are applicable to this project. , The Development Charges will be collected as part of the construction permit. Plan Review—Stormwater Drainage 1. A storm drainage narrative and conceptual plan has been submitted and reviewed. It has been given preliminary approval, with the exception that the drainage system will be. required to be tightlined to the northwest corner of the property and dispersed via a spreader due to the surface water problems on the abutting property to the south. AberdeenAvenue Apartments, LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF Advisory Notes (continued) Page2of2 2. Final storm drainage report and design shall comply with the King County Surface Water Design Manual, 1990 Edition. 3. . No on-site detention is required. 4. Surface Water System Charges of $15,985 are applicable to this project. The Development Charges will be collected as part of the construction permit. Plan Review—Street Improvements 1. Full street improvements including,but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, street signs, and street lights are required, if not already in place. 2. All new electrical,telephone, and cable services and lines must be undergrounded. Plan Review—General 1. The applicant is responsible for securing and necessary private utility easements. 2. All required utility, drainage, and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 3. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5 percent of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4 percent of anything over$100,000, but less than $200,000, and 3'percent of anything over$200,000. Half of this fee must be paid upon application for construction permits.,(preliminary plat improvements), and the remainder when the construction permit is issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. • Construction Services 1. Stairways cannot pass through garages. Fire Prevention 1. The preliminary fire flow is 2500 gpm, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and two additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Separate plans and permit are required for the installation of the sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 3. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways are a minimum 20 feet in width with a turning radius of 45 feet outside and 25 feet inside. 4.. Fire department dead-end access roadways.over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. Planning 1. Retaining walls in excess of four(4)feet require engineered drawings and a separate building permit. 2. Construction easements obtained from abutting property owners may be necessary prior to construction of retaining walls on or near property lines. These agreements must include protection measures for (or permission to potentially damage or remove)trees located on abutting properties within 20 feet of the property line. 3. Performance Standards for Land Development Permits (RMC 4-4-130K), including "Protection Measures During Construction" (RMC 4-4-130K7) relating to trees, shall be followed by the applicant. The applicant shall adhere to the definition of"tree"a found in RMC 4-11-200, "drip line"as found in RMC 4-11-040, and the measurement of trees as found in RMC 4-11-030. ADVISORYNOTES • %0 CITY . )F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator July 21, 2000 • • 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 July 18, 2000: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story, twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a. Residential, Multi-family--IInfill Zone (RM-I). The project requires environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. Location: 917 Aberdeen Ave. NE. 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 7, 2000. 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. If you have questions, please call me at(425)430-7382. For the Environmental Review Committee, Elizabeth Higgins,AICP . Senior Planner cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division . . Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources . Don Hurter, Department of Transportation Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) US Army Corp. of Engineers agonryltrk 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED). MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICANT: Gerald Rieker and Soung Hee Rieker PROJECT NAME: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story, twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family — Infill Zone (RM-I). The project requires environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE MITIGATION MEASURES: • 1. Site construction activities shall be limited to the months of April through October. 2. The recommendations of the geotechnical report, "Aberdeen Apartments Project No. T-4479", by Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 30, 1999, shall be incorporated into the project design and construction. 3. The applicant shall pay the applicable Transportation Mitigation.Fee at the rate of$75.00 per each new average weekday trip attributable to the project, estimated to be 6.47 average weekday trips per multi-family unit.The Transportation Mitigation.Fee is due prior to building permit. 4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$388.00 per multi-family unit. The fee is due prior building permit. 5. The applicant shall pay the Parks Mitigation Fee equal to$354.51 per multi-family unit. The Parks Mitigation Fee shall be paid prior to building permit. mitmeasures CITY OF RENTON • DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF ,/ APPLICANT: . Gerald Rieker and Soung Hee Rieker' PROJECT NAME: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review,and Approval for a two-story, twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family — .Infill. Zone (RM-I). The project requires environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: . 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE 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. .. Plan Review—Sanitary Sewer 1. This project is outside of the Aquifer Protection Zones. 2. There is an existing 10"sanitary sewer main in Aberdeen Avenue NE. 3. Providing a gravity system to this site will be extremely difficult due to the topography. The project engineer has indicated,that separate grinder pumps will be installed under the building permit. Plans shall be noted to reflect this. Plan Review—Water 1. There is a 16"water main in Aberdeen Avenue NE. 2. This site is located in the 435 Pressure Zone. ' 3. A water main extension will be required on site. 4. All new construction must have a fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 gpm and must be located within 300 feet of the structure. There are fire hydrants in the vicinity that may be counted towards the fire protection of this project, but are subject to verification for being within 300 feet of the nearest corner of the building; This distance is measured along a travel route. This project will require a minimum of 2,500 gpm fire flow. An additional fire hydrant will be required to be installed onsite to meet this criteria. ' ' 5. Water System Development Charges of $510 per unit are applicable to this project. The Development Charges will be collected as part of the construction permit. Plan Review—Stormwater Drainage . . . 1. A storm drainage narrative and conceptual plan has been submitted and reviewed. . It has been given preliminary approval, with the exception that the drainage system will -be required to be tightlined-to the northwest corner of the property and dispersed via a spreader due to the surface water problems on,the abutting property to the south. Aberdeen Avenue Apartments LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF Advisory Notes (continued) Page2of2 2. Final storm drainage report and design shall comply with the King County Surface Water Design Manual, 1990 Edition. 3. No on-site detention is required. - 4. Surface Water System Charges of$15,985 are applicable to this project. The Development Charges will be collected as part of the construction permit. Plan Review—Street Improvements . 1.. Full street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, street signs, and street lights are required, if not already in place. 2. All new electrical, telephone, and cable services and lines must be undergrounded. Plan Review—General 1. The applicant is responsible for securing and necessary private utility easements. 2. . All required utility, drainage, and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 3. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5 percent of the first $100,000of'the estimated construction costs; 4 percent of anything over$100,000, but less than $200,000, and 3 percent of anything over $200,000. Half of this 'fee must be paid upon application for construction permits.(preliminary plat improvements), and the remainder when the construction permit is issued. There may be.additional fees for water service related expenses. Construction Services i. 1. Stairways cannot pass through garages. Fire Prevention 1. The preliminary fire flow is 2500 gpm, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and two additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Separate plans and permit are required for the installation"of the'sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 3. Fire Department access roadways are required to.within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways are a minimum 20 feet in width with a turning radius of 45 feet outside and 25 feet inside. 4. Fire department dead-end access roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. Planning • 1. Retaining walls in excess of four(4)feet require engineered drawings and a separate building permit. 2. Construction easements obtained from abutting property owners may be necessary prior to construction of retaining walls on or near property lines. These agreements must include protection measures for (or permission to potentially damage or remove)trees located on abutting properties within 20 feet of the property line. 3. Performance Standards for Land Development Permits (RMC 4-4-130K), including "Protection Measures During Construction" (RMC 4-4-130K7) relating to trees, shall be followed by the applicant. The applicant shall adhere to the definition of"tree"a found in RMC 4-11-200, "drip line"as found in RMC 4-11-040, and the measurement of trees as found in RMC 4-11-030. ADVISORYNOTES • f - ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story,twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential,Multi-family—Inbll Zone(RM-I).The project requires environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee.Location:917 Aberdeen Ave.NE. - 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 7,2000.If no appeals are fled by • this date,both actions will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required 675.00 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 maybe obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510 THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. e1a�fi�N:.ItSY is; _, 1/4 v SITE ;:.rr Orh YY N � il+Yi {.� NI • Q guNs"r 4 w L� m -. o er L c 9 't15,E •Y�,w r \\I • • 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, A n,JYP Duw , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby • /the described property on . .• 2,( ob. Signed: 1, " r ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me,a Nortary Public,in and for the State of Washington residing m , on the `' day of f 9 o-o LLA ,,�, �91r�F <� �� ;; , 6EFF MARILYN KAMCHEFF STATE®F 1NASHINGTOPI MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-2G 03 CO IMI� ION EXPIRES ; • alN 29r 2003 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Charlotte Ann Kassens, first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal newspaper ofgeneralpublication and is now and has been for more than six NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTALM DETERMINATION months prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ENTEnglish language continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, The Environ�en aA ReviewON Committee Washington. The South County Journal has been approved as a legal has issued a Determination of Non- newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King Significance-Mitigated for the following pro- ject under the authority of the Renton County. Municipal Code. The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS County Journal (and not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to Evi o , l r A, ECF Ennvironnmmenental review for 2-story, 12 unit the subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a apartment building. Location 917 Aberdeen Ave. NE. Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-6801 and/or the land use decision as published on: 7/24/00 must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM August 7, 2000. If no appeals are filed The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of by this date, both actions will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together $43.13, charged to Acct. No. 8051067. with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, Legal Number 7996 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA ' 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are gov- erned by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information / regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)430-6510. egal Clerk, South County Journal Published in the South County Journal ��// July 24.2000.7996 Z o Subscribed and sworn before me on this y of� , 2000 •St r�!, rra)--g C4d- .• � Pt; t. 1 Notary Public of the State of Washington •.• n o°�Ci$ residing in Renton >,v n• .... •?'•��c °'� King County, Washington />ae F Li/A S `1�>>° NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON,WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF Environmental review for 2-story, 12 unit apartment building. Location 917 Aberdeen Ave. NE. 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 7, 2000. 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. Publication Date: JULY 24, 2000 Account No. 51067 dnsmpub.dot CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICANT: Gerald Rieker and Soung Hee Rieker PROJECT NAME: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story, twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). The project requires environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of 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 7, 2000. 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. PUBLICATION DATE: July 24, 2000 DATE OF DECISION: July 18, 2000 SIGNATURES: \ ate /g od / Zman Administrator DAT egg Department of Planning/Building/Public Works • _ ...., ;.4 7(4 P76 1.C rm hepherd, Ad inist for DAT Corn unity Services z ' S �� 7 �, ��o /� s? G.-� / �v`` ll Lee Wheeler, Fire hief DATE Renton Fire Department eresignature CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICANT: Gerald Rieker and Soung Hee Rieker PROJECT NAME: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story, twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family — Infill Zone (RM-I). The project requires environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Site construction activities shall be limited to the months of April through October. 2. The recommendations of the geotechnical report, "Aberdeen Apartments Project No. T-4479", by Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 30, 1999, shall be incorporated into the project design and construction. 3. The applicant shall pay the applicable Transportation Mitigation Fee at the rate of$75.00 per each new average weekday trip attributable to the project, estimated to be 6.47 average weekday trips per multi-family unit. The Transportation Mitigation Fee is due prior to building permit. 4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$388.00 per multi-family unit. The fee is due prior building permit. 5. The applicant shall pay the Parks Mitigation Fee equal to $354.51 per multi-family unit. The Parks Mitigation Fee shall be paid prior to building permit. mitmeasures CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICANT: Gerald Rieker and Soung Hee Rieker PROJECT NAME: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story, twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family — Infill Zone (RM-I). The project requires environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE 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. Plan Review—Sanitary Sewer 1. This project is outside of the Aquifer Protection Zones. 2. There is an existing 10"sanitary sewer main in Aberdeen Avenue NE. 3. Providing a gravity system to this site will be extremely difficult due to the topography. The project engineer has indicated that separate grinder pumps will be installed under the building permit. Plans shall be noted to reflect this. Plan Review—Water 1. There is a 16"water main in Aberdeen Avenue NE. 2. This site is located in the 435 Pressure Zone. 3. A water main extension will be required on site. 4. All new construction must have a fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 gpm and must be located within 300 feet of the structure. There are fire hydrants in the vicinity that may be counted towards the fire protection of this project, but are subject to verification for being within 300 feet of the nearest corner of the building. This distance is measured along a travel route. This project will require a minimum of 2,500 gpm fire flow. An additional fire hydrant will be required to be installed onsite to meet this criteria. 5. Water System Development Charges of $510 per unit are applicable to this project. The Development Charges will be collected as part of the construction permit. Plan Review—Stormwater Drainage 1. A storm drainage narrative and conceptual plan has been submitted and reviewed. It has been given preliminary approval, with the exception that the drainage system will be required to be tightlined to the northwest corner of the property and dispersed via a spreader due to the surface water problems on the abutting property to the south. Aberdeen Avenue Apartments LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF Advisory Notes (continued) Page 2 of 2 2. Final storm drainage report and design shall comply with the King County Surface Water Design Manual, 1990 Edition. 3. No on-site detention is required. 4. Surface Water System Charges of $15,985 are applicable to this project. The Development Charges will be collected as part of the construction permit. Plan Review—Street Improvements 1. Full street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, street signs, and street lights are required, if not already in place. 2. All new electrical, telephone, and cable services and lines must be undergrounded. Plan Review—General 1. The applicant is responsible for securing and necessary private utility easements. 2. All required utility, drainage, and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 3. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5 percent of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4 percent of anything over $100,000, but less than $200,000, and 3 percent of anything over $200,000. Half of this fee must be paid upon application for construction permits (preliminary plat improvements), and the remainder when the construction permit is issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. Construction Services 1. Stairways cannot pass through garages. Fire Prevention 1. The preliminary fire flow is 2500 gpm, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and two additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Separate plans and permit are required for the installation of the sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 3. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways are a minimum 20 feet in width with a turning radius of 45 feet outside and 25 feet inside. 4. Fire department dead-end access roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. Planning 1. Retaining walls in excess of four(4)feet require engineered drawings and a separate building permit. 2. Construction easements obtained from abutting property owners may be necessary prior to construction of retaining walls on or near property lines. These agreements must include protection measures for (or permission to potentially damage or remove)trees located on abutting properties within 20 feet of the property line. 3. Performance Standards for Land Development Permits (RMC 4-4-130K), including "Protection Measures During Construction" (RMC 4-4-130K7) relating to trees, shall be followed by the applicant. The applicant shall adhere to the definition of"tree"a found in RMC 4-11-200, "drip line" as found in RMC 4-11-040, and the measurement of trees as found in RMC 4-11-030. ADVISORYNOTES REPORT City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works DECISION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW& • ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION DECISION DATE: July 18, 2000 Project Name: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Applicant: Gerald Rieker and Soung Hee Rieker Cambridge Homes NW 12228 NE 112th Place#A-1 Kirkland WA 98033 Owner. (same) File Number: LUA-00-040, ECF, SA-A Planner: Elizabeth Higgins, AICP Project Summary: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story, twelve-unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). The project requires environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. Project Location: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE Exist. Bldg. Area SF: N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area SF: 16,332 sf Site Area: 37,585 sf(0.86 acre) Total Building Area SF: 16,332 sf / .1 •i�'7 9g5 CO�Oo Q}1�Ca tt Y E�B� � � '11 i A z // v i �OGp4\p2102,5 39 I P •t® "Na}l9 .re,��d„ N E 107— \ / V 10B • o a e •1 �k` use ran / 0� / 0�0N00. 'lO\'' "r s tee.. y.g. �� 0 6N0' ° / EII '°'" y �. / y c;. R� ,�t aM ;' 1' @ Pay ''„ ti 9.cs �° • �� /G , -� ° /�/ to H" a..w O0� •p r Lk: tN oA Ito 7° —� 1 / . ce.a >FX �j°e �L"" y 2 , ,9t`e G. . •`JCAeTG -'W -7-,: ,/ 9. .9.90 e . / ot,' VI , t ‘V IU oifit i I % Z $ % M1/ \1 I ' R >ie.•L. N E 10TH , ST O vt ,�- \®/ 0o \ AI.ar CCC 4 R Nsi•.a.AO ram.,../ 'sr, rn ° r j .� n a 1 Y SITE &s / ee.n e 0 �,,s16 W8° a 1 Z x - \�(. `�IOe + C // 1 9 _ � @ZC 7 a a \ 10 I ui o `I° I I b M e Dc. c J `� ; . [` y .�� 0 y '�� /© °� ,af1 "��° A A.,h`es( ASP A AA�A _ � 4l � �717'� • wo"'Ilt' a»» mil L ... .,.J�9 a �A. .v1� 'l n.qs �� ..."..�f Je Z °, C9 - e 6 � a _$ ,„N�uMs i% d�� � �'me o: sua : E : 04 N— r W e zs,p. c G ..IywW✓Nr r Jae1,C 22. 21 e a �\� '� 1 .$ .Q VOL.g3J19-21 813790 p- _�_/��. i e � ,Ge z l_n__ .. e �69:7 /1*-?-1 /dam'r 7-- 9 . J v, City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envi ental Review Committee Staff Report ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFJULY 18,2000 Page2 of 13 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a single, two- story, twelve-unit apartment building. The project is located on a 37,585 square foot property at 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE. The property is 62.5' wide and approximately 600 feet long. The property fronts on Aberdeen Avenue NE, north of its intersection with Sunset Boulevard NE. The building would be situated on the eastern half of the site, which is more gently sloping (5% to • 10%)than the western half, which has slopes in excess of forty percent that are, therefore, regulated by the City of Renton. The building coverage of the site will be approximately 17% and the total impervious area will be about 43%. The wood-framed building would be approximately 35' in height. The roofline would be staggered, matching the angle of slope and the roofs articulated with peaks and architectural details. Vertical walls would be surfaced in a horizontal siding-type material of unspecified composition. The 12 apartment units will be either 978 or 996 sf each and be two bedroom units. The property is 37,451 sf in size and has approximately 10,097.83 sf of protected slopes. The net acreage is 0.63 acre. Therefore, the proposed project,at 12 units, has a density of 19.11 dwelling units per net acre. Parking for individual units would be in an enclosed garage under the main structure. Additional parking would be on site at uncovered, surface parking areas. The total parking available on site would be 21 spaces. Of these, 1 would be dimensioned as an accessible space, 5 would be compact spaces in uncovered parking areas and, the remainder, 15 would be in garages. The property is located in a Residential, Multi-family— Infill Zone (RM-I). Abutting zones are all residential. They are Residential 1 (R-1) to the west, and the same zone (RM-I) to the north, south, and east. R-1 allows residential development at 1 dwelling unit per net acre, but the area may be too environmentally sensitive to make development feasible. The project requires environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.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 site slopes from east to west, more gently on the east half and more steeply on the western half. Slopes on the west portion of the property meet the City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance for ercsitepinrev.doc City of Renton PB/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envi ental Review Committee Staff Report ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFJULY 18,2000 Page3 of 13 protected slopes (40% or greater with a vertical increase of 15' or more). Development would occur on the east 300' of the site, outside of the area regulated for steep slopes. A geotechnical report, by Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 30, 1999, was submitted by the applicant. The field exploration by the geotechnical engineers indicates that the site is generally underlain by medium dense silty sands overlying medium dense to dense sandy silts with clay and silty fine sand. The geotechnical engineers' opinion is that the soil conditions are suitable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations of the report are incorporated into the project design and construction. Because of the potential for erosion when soils of this type are exposed, the report recommends site construction be limited to the drier months of summer. Staff concurs and suggests a condition be placed on the plat that requires site construction activities be limited to the months of April through October. Mitigation Measures: 1. Site construction activities shall be limited to the months of April through October. 2. The recommendations of the geotechnical report, "Aberdeen Apartments Project No. T-4479", by Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 30, 1999, shall be incorporated into the project design and construction. Policy Nexus: State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) RCW 43.21C.240 2. Air Impacts: It is anticipated that some adverse air quality impacts would be associated with the site work, building construction phase of the project, and to a certain extent, with subsequent occupation of homes. Project development impacts include dust resulting from grading, exhaust from construction vehicles, and odors from roofing installation, and roadway paving. Dust would be controlled through the use of temporary erosion control measures and the sprinkling of the site with water during construction as needed. Odor impacts from construction equipment are unavoidable, but would be short-term in nature. Post development impacts include vehicle exhaust and the exhaust from heating. Vehicle and construction equipment exhaust, and exhaust from heating sources are controlled by state and federal regulations. No further site specific mitigation for the identified impacts from exhaust are required. Mitigation Measures: None required. Nexus: Not applicable 3. Water and Stormwater • Impacts: There are no known surface water bodies or wetlands on the site. According to the geotechnical report(referenced above) groundwater seepage may be encountered if excavations below two to four feet deep occur during winter to mid-summer. A "Level I Analysis for Aberdeen Avenue Apartments, File No. 719-007-001," by Touma Engineers (no date) was submitted by the applicant. This report states that the site is the only property in a small drainage basin. It further states that drainage sheet flows across the property to the northwest corner. In addition to the Level I Analysis, comments from Exterior Research & Design, LLC/Trinity Engineering in their report"Sunset Garden Site Investigation & Repair," dated January 18, 2000, were provided by owners ercsitepinrev.doc City of Renton PB/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Enid, mtal Review Committee Staff Report ABERDEEN APARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFJULY 18,2000 Page4 of 13 of condominiums at Sunset Gardens. Sunset Gardens is a six-building condominium development located immediately south of the proposed project. According to comments from condominium owners received by staff, four of the six buildings at Sunset Gardens have experienced severe damage from surface and subsurface stormwater that is inadequately drained away from the buildings. The residents of Sunset Gardens have expressed concern that the development of the proposed project will exacerbate the situation. Although the report they submitted does not indicate that runoff from off-site is contributing to the problem, staff is aware that increased runoff from the proposed development could have a negative impact on Sunset Gardens. For this reason, stormwater control recommendations for the proposed project have been included in the "Notes to Applicant" section of this report. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required. Policy Nexus: N/A 4. Plants Impacts: The property is wooded with mixed evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs and groundcover. It apparently has never been developed so existing vegetation is unmanaged and not maintained. According to the Tree Inventory that was submitted by the applicant, approximately 16 trees will be removed for development. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the application that indicates an equal number of new trees will be planted following construction. Other plants on the proposed landscaping plan are appropriate for the situation. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required. Policy Nexus: N/A 5. Transportation Impacts: It is estimated that the proposed project would generate approximately 6.47 new average daily trips (weekday) for each new multi-family residential unit. Twelve units have been proposed. Therefore, an estimated 78 trips per day will be added to the transportation system. The City of Renton has adopted a Transportation Mitigation Fee to address the impacts to the City's transportation system caused by development, including this proposed project. The applicant would need to pay the appropriate Transportation Mitigation Fee of$75.00 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project. The fee is estimated to be $5,823.00, and is payable prior to building permits. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall pay the applicable Transportation Mitigation Fee at the rate of$75.00 per each new average weekday trip attributable to the project, estimated to be 6.47 average weekday trips per new unit. The Transportation Mitigation Fee is due prior to building permits. Nexus: Environmental (SEPA) Ordinance (Code Section 4-6); Transportation Mitigation Fee Resolution and Adopting Ordinance 6. Fire Protection Impacts: The proposal would result in the construction of a 12 unit apartment building. Future residents would potentially have the need for emergency services, which would impact the City's Fire Department. Fire Prevention Bureau staff report that they can serve this development provided that the City Code ercsitepinrev.doc City of Renton P/B/PWDepartment Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envir rntal Review Committee Staff Report ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFJULY 18,2000 Page5 of 13 required improvements are installed, appropriate fire access is provided, and Fire Mitigation Fees are paid. In order to offset the impacts associated with new development, all new residential construction is subject to a Fire Mitigation Fee. The fee is calculated on a per unit basis. The current fee is $388.00 per unit. The total fee for this proposed project would be $4,656.00. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the Fire Mitigation Fee equal to $388.00 per new single family lot. The Fire Mitigation Fee shall be paid prior to building permit. Nexus: Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution and Adopting Ordinance; Environmental (SEPA) Ordinance (Code Section 4-6). 7. Parks and Recreation Impacts: It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate future residents that would utilize existing City park and recreation facilities and programs. The City has adopted a Parks Mitigation Fee of $354.51 per multi-family unit to mitigate these potential impacts. The total estimated fee for the proposed project would be$4,254.12. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the Parks Mitigation Fee equal to $354.51 per multi-family unit. The Parks Mitigation Fee shall be paid prior to building permit. Nexus: Parks Mitigation Fee Resolution and Adopting Ordinance; Environmental (SEPA) Ordinance (Code Section 4-6). 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 NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON- SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. X Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment and Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with a Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. C. Mitigation Measures 1. Site construction activities shall be limited to the months of April through October. 2. The recommendations of the geotechnical report, "Aberdeen Apartments Project No. T-4479", by Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 30, 1999, shall be incorporated into the project design and construction. 3. The applicant shall pay the applicable Transportation Mitigation Fee at the rate of$75.00 per each new average weekday trip attributable to the project, estimated to be 6.47 average weekday trips per multi- family unit. The Transportation Mitigation Fee is due prior to building permit. eresitepinrev.doc City of Renton PB/PWDepartment Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envir ntal Review Committee Staff ffReport ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFJULY 18,2000 Page6 of 13 4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$388.00 per multi-family unit. The fee is due prior building permit. 5. The applicant shall pay the Parks Mitigation Fee equal to $354.51 per multi-family unit. The Parks Mitigation Fee shall be paid prior to building permit. 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. Plan Review—Sanitary Sewer 1. This project is outside of the Aquifer Protection Zones. 2. There is an existing 10" sanitary sewer main in Aberdeen Avenue NE. 3. Providing a gravity system to this site will be extremely difficult due to the topography. The project engineer has indicated that separate grinder pumps will be installed under the building permit. Plans shall be noted to reflect this. Plan Review—Water 1. There is a 16"water main in Aberdeen Avenue NE. 2. This site is located in the 435 Pressure Zone. 3. A water main extension will be required on site. 4. All new construction must have a fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 gpm and must be located within 300 feet of the structure. There are fire hydrants in the vicinity that may be counted towards the fire protection of this project, but are subject to verification for being within 300 feet of the nearest cornerof the building. This distance is measured along a travel route. This project will require a minimum of 2,500 gpm fire flow. An additional fire hydrant will be required to be installed onsite to meet this criteria. 5. Water System Development Charges of$510 per unit are applicable to this project. The Development Charges will be collected as part of the construction permit. Plan Review—Stormwater Drainage 1. A storm drainage narrative and conceptual plan has been submitted and reviewed. It has been given preliminary approval, with the exception that the drainage system will be required to be tightlined to the northwest corner of the property and dispersed via a spreader due to the surface water problems on the abutting property to the south. 2. Final storm drainage report and design shall comply with the King County Surface Water Design Manual, 1990 Edition. 3. No on-site detention is required. 4. Surface Water System Charges of$15,985 are applicable to this project. The Development Charges will be collected as part of the construction permit. Plan Review—Street Improvements 1. Full street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, street signs, and street lights are required, if not already in place. 2. All new electrical, telephone, and cable services and lines must be undergrounded. ercsitepinrev.doc City of Renton PB/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envir ntal Review Committee Staff Report ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFJULY 18,2000 Page7 of 13 Plan Review—General 1. The applicant is responsible for securing and necessary private utility easements. 2. All required utility, drainage, and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 3. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5 percent of the first$100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4 percent of anything over$100,000, but less than $200,000, and 3 percent of anything over $200,000. Half of this fee must be paid upon application for construction permits (preliminary plat improvements), and the remainder when the construction permit is issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. Construction Services 1. Stairways cannot pass through garages. Fire Prevention 1. The preliminary fire flow is 2500 gpm, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and two additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Separate plans and permit are required for the installation of the sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 3. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways are a minimum 20 feet in width with a turning radius of 45 feet outside and 25 feet inside. 4. Fire department dead-end access roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. Planning 1. Retaining walls in excess of four(4) feet require engineered drawings and a separate building permit. 2. Construction easements obtained from abutting property owners may be necessary prior to construction of retaining walls on or near property lines. These agreements must include protection measures for(or permission to potentially damage or remove) trees located on abutting properties within 20 feet of the property line. 3. Performance Standards for Land Development Permits (RMC 4-4-130K), including "Protection Measures During Construction" (RMC 4-4-130K7) relating to trees, shall be followed by the applicant. The applicant shall adhere to the definition of"tree" a found in RMC 4-11-200, "drip line" as found in RMC 4-11-040, and the measurement of trees as found in RMC 4-11-030. ercsitepinrev.doc City of Renton PB/PWDepartment Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envi mtal Review Committee Staff Report ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFJULY 18,2000 Page8 of 13 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 Site Plan Review Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Conditional Use Binding Site Plan 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, environmental review and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 2: Drawing No. SD1, Site Plan and Vicinity Map (dated March 8, 2000) Exhibit No. 3: Drawing No. 1, Grading Plan (dated June 2000) Exhibit No. 4: Drawing No. 2, Roadway Profile (dated February 2000) Exhibit No. 5: Drawing No. 3, Site Slope Analysis (Received June 21, 2000) Exhibit No. 6: Drawing No. 4, Tree Cutting Plan (dated June 2000) Exhibit No. 7: Drawing No. L1, Landscape Plan (dated March 8, 2000) Exhibit No. 8: Drawing No. Al, First&Second Floor Plans (dated February 21, 2000) Exhibit No. 9: Drawing No. A2, Enlarged Floor Plans (dated February 21, 2000) Exhibit No.10: Drawing No. A2, Building Elevations (dated March 8, 2000) Exhibit No.11: Zoning Map (dated January 11, 2000) C. Consistency with Site Plan Criteria In reviewing the proposal with respect to the Decision Criteria for Level I Site Plans as set forth in Section 4-9-200(E) of the Renton Municipal Code, the following issues have been identified by City Departmental Reviewers and Divisional Reviewers: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its objectives and policies The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for the property is Residential Multi-Family— Infill. The objective and policies of this land use element are as follows: Objective LU-L: Encourage the development of infill parcels in existing multi-family districts with compatible projects. The neighborhood of the proposed project has both single family houses and multi-family apartment and condominium developments. The Sunset Garden Condominiums (60 units) • are located to the south, abutting the proposed project. There are three single family houses to the north. A 168 unit condominium development, Renton Ridge, is north of the single family houses. Adjacent to the project, across Aberdeen Avenue, are both multi-family ercsitepinrev.doc City of Renton PB/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envi, rntal Review Committee Staff Report ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFJULY 18,2000 Page9 of 13 developments and single family houses. This project is compatible with the other multi-family projects in the area, although the neighborhood has not completely transitioned from single family residential. Policy LU-64: Development density should generally be in the range of ten to twenty dwelling units per acre. The proposed project, at 12 units, has a density of 19.11 dwelling units per net acre. Policy LU-65: New development in Residential Multi-family Infill designations should be compatible in size, scale, bulk, use, and design with other existing multi-family developments. The proposed project is compatible with other multi-family developments in the area. Policy LU-66: Design standards should be applied that reflect present development patterns and are sensitive to unique features and differences among established neighborhoods. Although design standards have not been developed in the Renton Municipal Code for this land use zone, the proposed project meets the requirements of the Development Standards (RMC Section 4). These standards address building height, lot width, and building setbacks. Policy LU-67: Siting and design of new structures should be sensitive to site constraints and adjacent uses. Provision of adequate buffers or setbacks or scaling down building heights may be required to transition from Residential Multi-family Infill designations to adjacent lower density uses. The proposed project would be built on the eastern half of the property that is not constrained by protected slopes. The stormwater control system will be designed to carry run-off away from the developed portion of the property and the adjacent development. Unfortunately, the single family residential property, abutting to the north, will be very heavily impacted by the proposed project. Due to the narrow configuration of the project site, the proposed building will be built close to the adjacent property. Even though the building is designed to be closer to the opposite property line, leaving the width of the driveway between the new building and the existing single family house, a greenhouse will be heavily shaded by the new structure. Policy LU-68: Adequate green spaces, recreation, design amenities, signing, and lighting should be determined as part of the site planning process. Allowable densities should be based on meeting these objectives. Approximately half of the property will be left in its undeveloped state. Although it is unlikely the undeveloped area will be used for recreational purposes, it will provide a buffer between the development and Interstate 405, located to the west. A relationship between allowable density and site design considerations cannot be supported by code requirements. Regardless, no information has been submitted regarding project signing or site lighting. Staff recommends that a sign permit application be submitted and approved prior to building permit approval. Staff further recommends that a site lighting plan be submitted and approved prior to building permit approval. b. Conformance with existing land use regulations The following development standards apply in the RM-I Zone: Density: minimum 10 du/net acre, maximum 20 du/net acre The project has a net density of 19.11 du/a. ercsitepinrev.doc City of Renton PB/PWDepartment y Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envir,_ rntal Review Committee Staff Report ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFJULY 18,2000 Page)0 of 13 Minimum lot width: 50 feet The property is 62.5 feet wide. Minimum lot depth: 65 feet The property is 607.61 feet deep. Setbacks (minimums): front— 20 feet; rear— 15 feet; side — greater of 5 feet or 10% of lot width (rounded up to next whole integer); additional 1 foot for each story in excess of two The proposed project is above the front and rear setback minimums. The side setbacks must be 7 feet each, based on lot width of 62.5 feet. An additional 1 foot must be added for the additional story above two. Therefore the side setbacks must be 8 feet. It appears the plan must be revised to meet this standard on the south side. This relocation of the building may impact the driveway width on the north side of the building. Height: 35 feet or 2.5 stories The proposed building has two levels of residential units above one level of parking. The total height is 35 feet above finish grade. Building coverage (maximum): 35% The proposed building would have 17% coverage of the property. Impervious area (maximum): 75% The proposed project would result in 43% impervious area. Landscaping: Setback areas and open space areas shall be landscaped unless otherwise determined through the site plan'review process. Landscaping has been proposed for the front and south side setback areas. The north setback, abutting the single family residence, does not have landscaping proposed because the driveway falls within the setback area. This is extremely unfortunate given the impact the development will have on the existing home. Staff recommends a condition whereby the applicant shall install a fence, the maximum height allowed by code, on top of the retaining wall along the north property line. c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses There are several potential impacts to surrounding uses by the proposed project. An increase in impervious area could cause a corresponding increase in existing drainage problems on adjacent properties. To avoid this the applicant will be required to install a stormwater control system that carries runoff away from the developed property to the south and the single family residential property to the north. It will be dispersed by means of a spreader in the northwest corner of the property. The impact to the single family residence located to the north will be caused by the proximity of the building and its bulk. The proposed building meets the setback requirement on the north and is not above the height limit of 35 feet. A condition has been proposed (see above)whereby landscaping will be required in order to buffer the existing home from the new development. d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site The proposed project, planned for only the more gradually sloped east half of the project, is sited to minimize the impact to the property by avoiding the very steep western half. ercsitepinrev.doc City of Renton PB/PWDepartment Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envin ntal Review Committee Staff Report ABERDEENAPARTMENTS - LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFJULY 18,2000 Pagel of 13 e. Conservation of area-wide property values Development of the property should not have a negative impact on area-wide property values, with the exception of the single family residences located to the north, unless they become available for redevelopment. f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation Landscaping indicated on the conceptual plan may inhibit visibility for drivers exiting from the driveway onto Aberdeen Avenue NE. Staff recommends that revisions to the landscape plan be made to ensure visibility. It is not appear from review of the site plan that a sidewalk, separated from the driveway, will be provided to connect the project to the sidewalk that will be located along the street frontage. Staff recommends a site plan revision that demonstrates that a walkway, physically separated from the driveway by either a curb or raised curb and sidewalk, be provided. g. Provision of adequate light and air It appears that this criteria would be met by the proposed project. h. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions It appears that this criteria would be met by the proposed project. i. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use Public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use are available in Aberdeen Avenue NE. j. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight It appears that this criteria would be met by the proposed project. 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: 1) Request: The Applicant has requested Environmental Review and Site Plan Approval for the Aberdeen Apartments, LUA00-040, ECF, SA-A. 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) Site Plan Review: The applicant's site plan application complies with the requirements for information for site plan review. The applicant's site plan and other project drawings are entered as Exhibits No. 2 through 11. ercsitepinrev.doc City of Renton PB/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envi ental Review Committee Staff Report ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFJULY 18,2000 Page12 of 13 4) Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential Multi-family— Infill (RM-I). 5) Zoning: The Conditional Use as presented, complies with the zoning requirements and development standards of the Residential Multi-family— Infill (RM-I) Zoning designation. E. Conclusions 1) The subject proposal complies with the policies and codes of the City of Renton. 2) The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential Multi-family — Infill (RM-I); and the Zoning designation of Residential Multi-family— Infill (RM-I) Zoning. F. Decision The Site Plan for Aberdeen Apartments, File No. LUA-00-040, is approved subject to the following conditions. CONDITIONS: 1. A sign permit application shall be submitted and approved prior to building permit approval. 2. A site lighting plan shall be submitted and approved prior to building permit approval. 3. A fence at the maximum height allowed shall be installed on top of the retaining wall along the north property line. 4. A site plan revision shall be submitted prior to building permit, that demonstrates that a walkway will be provided that is physically separated from the driveway by either a curb or raised curb and sidewalk. 5. A revision to the landscape plan shall be made to ensure visibility at the driveway entrance to the project. 6. A Native Growth Protection Easement(NGPE) shall be established for the area of the property having slopes at forty percent(40%) or greater(approximately the western half of the property). The NGPE shall be recorded prior to obtaining an occupancy permit. EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURES: Jana Hanson,Zoning Administrator date ercsitepinrev.doc City ofRenton PB/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Envii ,mtal Review Committee Staff Report ABERDEENAPARTMENTS LUA-00-040,SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OFJULY 18,2000 Pagel of 13 TRANSMITTED this 18th day of July, 2000, to the applicant and owner: Gerald Rieker Soung Hee Rieker 11017—101st Place NE Kirkland,WA 98033 TRANSMITTED this 18th day of July, 2000, to the parties of record: Frank Heffernan, AIA Ferrari Design Group 12277-134hCtNE Redmond,WA 98052 TRANSMITTED July 18, 2000, to the following: Larry Meckling,Building Official Charles 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 7, 2000 (14 days from the date of publication). 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. ercsitepinrev.doc July 12, 2000 • Sunset Garden Condominiums 949 Aberdeen Ave.NE, #318 Renton, WA 98056 Elizabeth Higgins AICP, Senior Planner Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Ms. Higgins: We,the undersigned, are submitting the following comments regarding Land Use Number: LUA-00-040, SA-A, ECF, named Aberdeen Avenue Apartments. Deny Request for Construction Permit We are requesting that you deny the application for a construction permit for the property identified as 917 Aberdeen Ave.NE. Drainage Problems Documented for Hillside Four out of six buildings located at 949 Aberdeen Ave.NE have suffered from moisture drive up through their floors, causing damage to vinyl-covered surfaces. The slope of the hillside at 949 is extremely steep. The slope of the property at 917 is even steeper. Has anyone from your department walked the 917 hillside and ravine? How could a building be constructed on this property without considerable in-fill? How would this in-fill be stabilized? The 917 buildings could slide down the hill, like those in Seattle. In addition to the run-off that comes down the hill, the water table is relatively close to the surface. At several places at 949, underground springs seep up through the surface of our driveway throughout the year. In a nutshell, our condominium,built in 1991, has just received bids for approximately $250,000 worth'of work. (The high bid was $500,000.) This work is caused by the excess water at the 949 property and failure of the developer and builder to provide the necessary construction methods and materials to mitigate the problems of building on such a hillside. Not only is there the monetary cost, but also to be endured is the considerable inconvenience of removing all landscaping in order to dig a 4' deep trench around the buildings, cutting down our larger trees, and jackhammering out and replacing the patios and sidewalks. To locate several buildings as well as an asphalt driveway and parking lot north of our property will only exacerbate our problem. Certainly the new buildings will have problems of their own. Living proof at 949 shows that a developer and builder must go beyond the narrow requirements of applicable codes in order to build on this type of site. I am aware that codes are to insure health and safety, not quality. However, it seems that sheer common sense would have prompted the City of Renton to require adequate drainage for multiple buildings accompanied by asphalt driveways and parking lots. The City should be protecting the taxpayer who was to move into these buildings and trusts that the city's planning and inspection departments would have required adequate construction methods: Currently, each homeowner at 949 Aberdeen is facing at least a $4,000 lump sum payment in order to add new and to replace existing footing drains on the property. We are not only writing for ourselves but for the unfortunate homeowners of tomorrow who will be moving into 917 Aberdeen Ave NE: homeowners, like those at 949, who • will be faced with financial hardship at best, bankruptcy at worst, due to poor planning and development practices in regards to soil preparation and drainage systems. • Sincerely, Homeowner Address At05RA4 M°DC G a� 9�91473 KDe 60 ,oE G3/o -3-e C (fov iy ?A P✓c&' 41,o LA Cz 5 U 'ii ) ���z j 'A .QL��" n/ i'' N� 3/�. al k-To(. \e- Aagitinggq i ,4c-�u�Da-� P4-r LLI T ay.) iZ. . tom- 4Y9 Aegeptto AJ& N D 1 -Te v r eLSc in.rvm d t mac ., ci 9 Mbe vd cen. v et) N5l OC, fl\e\bdj 6r�c�e�hue� r7'� r qv/Job/dew 4:! 'w)6 M'c AI-77 ..919 Qta EFV Avg -306 61 nDEk. 44l;/ bev-d ee4.\ Ave NZ A--toe G. rt4 i 1704-d /We NG 11/oZ , Y)42c1.1k/i4ziPe.i. t- /4/ •c�•ia 'Fd�iS� °11l°` �Cb^ct2Q'�C�� �V� N� { \t)\ 9' !-�La��al,�P1 ape tee/47 gynag/‘ i ,l�i 4-1 �'�[4L Abe.re!ee_n AUe, t1. -. 14- C - 3o'7 1644 t J rS CN+e '.y V? PI-herb e /174l?1 f 2 2 0 ges-1-exz / 9 'r/ // A 94N /z1eff Al6 4E1/5 ./044/4") azeA,zzi.„v El/6 c9.14ke; CCia-tfVf.4101 �v 9JJ/ /9-6;P-been 4a ill E, A# € elvAitir �1 9 �'�� 29 d E 7(T 0/o/ n ' ' # F 2/67 9tOitt 070(AL '144 A-berd en / Aic 11�! CLi 2cL i\i) q`41 Mocteieet 4ic 1Qe -rks1 -21 .2-- 321/u6,/c., &VOA( '”2 /tegre-sv - -/t) ri n 17K rnt Puffiviki 9Y9 fber&en l .e NC b34 4(1-: AiLd `/ IS- zp.i,, l.lcv4 - D 31`k Exterior Research & Design, . Sunset Garden Trinity Engineering Site Investig�_- n & Repair- 1.18.2000 iii III. DISCUSSION : : The root of Sunset Garden Condominium's under-slab drainage PIissues can be summarized as follows: imig • The perimeter foundation drains are not intercepting water as iril designed. The plastic gravel wrap has no mechanism to allow water to enter the system from the soil, and the drain lines themselves have no holes to allow the water to be carried away to collection lines. • When water from the roof enters clean-outs or catch basins, it is immediately transferred to the foundation drains because the foundation drains are below the roof lines. Consequently, the (- - ]- foundation drain lines and surrounding gravel are saturated for long periods because water has no outlet into the surrounding soil. .iA_A•. • The absence of an under-slab drainage blanket puts the slab in direct contact with the glacial till. • The glacial till has a significant percentage of fines in the soil matrix. These fines that can facilitate capillary water movement. Silts and fine sands are particularly good conductors of capillary water and moisture. - The earlier report by Northwest GeoHydro Inc. determined that the water table was sufficiently below the slab grade. However, the foundation drainage system may be creating artificial water tables next to the buildings that are feeding the glacial till with enough water to create a capillary gradient. The fact that the majority of the unit floor space is covered with carpet that allows the slab to breath complicates areas that are covered with vinyl. The carpet allows moisture in the slab to evaporate, thus setting up a vapor drive from the saturated foundation, through the soil, and out the • carpeted areas. The vinyl is staining because moisture from this vapor drive is trapped under the vinyl and therefore providing mold a growth medium. > The temperature and humidity gradients from the soil to the unit interiors are the driving force of the vapor drive. The problem is This report shall not be reproduced outside Exterior Research&Design,LLC except by the named client,without written authorization of the named client,in which case the report shall be reproduced in its entirety. Please note that this report is provided at the request of Richard Levin,Esq.,whom we understand is acting on behalf of the Ashford Park Homeowners Association. No liability,warranty of merchantability,or guarantee of building service life is accepted or implied. 7 .. >.-:s�stlfelrvla PTSs:�3itd•i.'l..r:.l.a...r__.¢.;.9_T..•.a�:7,.. •e. ..._ a.n__....- _ _a - -- Exterior Research & Design, Sunset Garden Trinity Engineering - Site InvestiL,21 n & Repair- 1.18.2000 compounded by inadequate slab thickness and the absence of granular material under the slab. In addition, WJE noted that there were holes in the vapor retarder. It is not known if this is a condition present in the complex. (See Figure 4 of the WJE report in Appendix IV). Soil borings conducted by ERD confirmed earlier WJE reports that the soil directly underneath the slab is dry. ERD's excavation of the underlying soils to a depth of 10" confirmed a high level of moisture at lower levels. If the slabs were experiencing saturation, the underlying soil would be uniformly wet. Evaporation and capillary action would show drier soils closer to the moisture exit point. See "Groundwater" by R.A. Freeze and J.A. Cherry (1979). • IV. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS fI Based on the observations and investigations and information provided from previous investigations, the major cause of the vinyl staining at Sunset Garden Condominiums is the non-performance of foundation drains and absence of an under-slab drainage blanket. • Other influencing factors are: substandard slab thickness, compromised vapor retarder, as noted by WJE and the under-slab drainage system's connection to roof tightlines. I 11 The foundation drains should be replaced with perforated lines, and the gravel should be wrapped in a geo textile that permits water to enter the gravel, but keeps soil out of the drainage system. The lines can be installed without sharp 90° corners that can cause future • sedimentation problems. At the time of exposure, the foundation exterior should be dampproofed. The absence of an under-slab drainage blanket is a considerable concern. Because installing a drainage blanket and another vapor barrier underneath the slab would be prohibitively expensive, it is recommended that a foundation drain be installed around the entire perimeter of each building. As a further precaution, the roof tighlines should be completely separate from foundation drains around the building perimeter. These recommendations are made in an effort to remove as much water from the capillary soil as possible. The foundation drains around the building should be replaced with a 4" perforated PVC pipe. This report shall not be reproduced outside Exterior Research&Design,LLC except by the named client,without written authorization of the named client,in which case the report shall be reproduced in its entirety. Please note that this report is provided at the request of Richard Levin,Esq.,whom we understand is acting on behalf of the Ashford Park Homeowners Association. No liability,warranty of merchantability,or guarantee of building service life is accepted or implied. 1 lye■ i - 8 n , 3,i,.t-tut4 ,� =.Z n._.-.--1 • :iYi" ;'"'.,n...,b'.1.T+.•-`.-)`1r[ .-+ - w .,r .. Exterior Research& Desigr, Sunset Garden Trinity Engineering Site Invest ir,_Ion & Repair- 1.18.2000 The installation of a perforated footing drainage combined with dampproofing on the footings and good drainage below the footing line will substantially reduce the moisture below the slab. To further reduce moisture at the slab/vinyl interface a vapor sealer can be applied to"the surface of the slab and the cold joint between the footing and the slab can be filled with a closed cell !.1 backer rod and sealer. Literature describing each of the material is attached for review. Pricing for the entire project will be obtained as requested. In order to obtain pricing, a specification will be drafted for bidding. Prices will include the completion of all the work at one time and the option of carrying at the work in stages. This Scope is outside of our original fixed fee and will be billed on a time and expense basis. A Scope of Work can be drafted and bid within two weeks of instruction. • Should you have any questions or require any further information, kindly contact the writer. Yours sincerely, 4. EXTERIOR RESEARCH & DESIGN, LLC TRINITY ENGINEERING • Colin Murphy, RRC for the firm • This report shall not be reproduced outside Exterior Research&Design,LLC except by the named client,without written authorization of the named client,in which case the report shall be reproduced in its entirety. Please note that this report is provided at the request of Richard Levin,Esq.,whom we understand is acting on behalf of the Ashford Park Homeowners Association. No liability,warranty of merchantability,or guarantee of building service life is accepted or implied. A -r 9 M _ .. .• > CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM • DATE: July 11, 2000 TO: - Elizabeth Higgins FROM: Jan Illian X7216 SUBJECT: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS LUA 00-040 917 -ABERDEEN AVE NE I have reviewed the application for this 12-unit apartment complex at 917 Aberdeen Ave NE and have the following comments: SANITARY SEWER: • This project is outside the Aquifer Protection Zones • There is an existing 10" sanitary sewer main in Aberdeen Av NE. • Providing a gravity system to this site will be extremely difficult due to the topography. The engineer has indicated that separate grinder pumps will be installed under the building permit. Plans shall be noted to reflect this. • Sewer System Development Charges of $350 per unit are applicable to this project. The Development Charges are collected as part of the construction permit. • WATER: • There is a 16"watermain in Aberdeen Av NE. • This site is located in the 435 Pressure Zone. • A watermain extension will be required on site. • All new construction must have a fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 gpm and must be located within 300 feet of the structure. There are fire hydrants in the vicinity that may be counted towards the fire protection of this project, but are subject to verification for being within 300 feet of the nearest corner of the building. This distance is measured along a travel route. This project will require a minimum of 2,500 gpm fire flow. An additional fire hydrant will be required to be installed onsite to meet this criteria. ABERDEEN AVE APARTMENTS LUA00-0401 k ." (/1 Page 2 1 I /i trii 1 � • Water System Development Charges of $510 per unit are applicable to this project. The Development Charges will be collected as part of the:construction permit. DRAINAGE: • A storm drainage narrative and conceptual plan has been submitted and reviewed. It has been given preliminary approval. Final storm drainage report and design shall comply with the King County Surface Water Design Manual, 1990 Edition. Note: The drainage system will most likely be required to be tightlined to the west end of the property and dispearsed due to the surface water problems present at the adjacent property to the south. • No detention is required • Surface Water System Development Charges of$15,985 are applicable to this project. The Development Charges will be collected as part of the construction permit. STREET IMPROVEMENTS: • Full street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb & gutter, storm drain, street signs and street lights are required if not already in place. • All new electrical, phone and cable services and lines must be undergrounded. • Traffic Mitigation Fees will be $5,823.00. These shall be paid as part of the building permit. GENERAL: • The applicant is responsible for securing all necessary, if any, private utility easements. • All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. • Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000, and 3% of anything over $200,000. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. cc: Neil W. ABERDEEN AVE APARTMENTS LUA00 1/4111 Page 2 • Water System Development Charges of $510 per unit are applicable to this project. The Development Charges will be collected as part of the construction permit. DRAINAGE: • A storm drainage narrative and conceptual plan has been submitted and reviewed. It has been given preliminary approval. Final storm drainage report and design shall comply with the King County Surface Water Design Manual, 1990 Edition. • No detention is required • Surface Water System Development Charges of$15,985 are applicable to this project. The Development Charges will be collected as part of the construction permit. STREET IMPROVEMENTS: • Full street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb & gutter, storm drain, street signs and street lights are required if not already in place. • All new electrical, phone and cable services and lines must be undergrounded. • Traffic Mitigation Fees will be $5,823.00. These shall be paid as part of the building permit. GENERAL: • The applicant is responsible for securing all necessary, if any, private utility easements. • All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. • Permit application must include an.itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000, and 3% of anything over $200,000. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. cc: Neil W. City of I- _on Department of Planning/Building/,Public _irks e—VV t/ ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: L0Vkb C, to dMMENTS DUE: JULY 11, 2000 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 27, 2000 APPLICANT: Gerald Rieker&Soun Hee Rieker PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Hi insR 4�.mF ,� ® PROJECT TITLE: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments WORK ORDER NO: 78667 JUN 2 /� LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE 20�0 CCONOMIC DEVELOPpIENT, SITE AREA: 87,585 sq.ft. (0.86 acre) - BUILDING AREA ross : 16,332 s . AND N4R 7CQ��oO PL NNI c SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story, unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family—Infill Zone(RM-I). The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. 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 5i7-s 1 S OL�1G.N13Zd (L^31 DL `7Iram-r1ULT1l�1�7"112�Y 1K�J l✓I LL - pPs52-7tC_ULf 1 t7c to-vim S1----cuLr) (" Lc," P>r11O w 1-ir,I 1Ir,j t_.41-17 fliVr, c�LI �Lcr 0 tv i l-i c; f' C c�L /3 J f c ornr7 TU T fvo-gZ-7 H , NC) 0 71 -CO L. C.-Y I SSuu�S . U7� 57 Y.azI .' 17N2+l/C__ C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have review-• a••lication with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where.dditiona!informa lo,r- --ded to properly assess this proposal. wry V/)9/00 Signature of Dire tor or Auth ed Representative Date routing Rev.10/93 411, 0 July 8, 2000 CITY._. aEN � . R ,, 91ED J U L 1 0 2000 Ms. Elizabeth Higgins,AICPi BUILDING DIVISION Senior Planner, City of Renton - 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Project No. LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF 917Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Dear Ms. Higgins: This letter is being sent to your regarding the recent application to build a twelve(12)unit apartment complex, adjacent to my single family home. I have many deep concerns, reservations, and questions regarding this project. The property in question, to date, has never been developed,though a previous attempt to do so was aborted due to the narrowness of this site. The property was once an orchard with a wide variety of fruit trees, but has been left unattended by its previous owners for the past fifty years. My parents and I have owned the adjacent property(957 Aberdeen Avenue NE)since 1950. I am submitting this letter and list of concerns and comments for your expert consideration. 1. The size of the project vs. usable land. The square footage of the site in total is about 37,585, with the western half having a forty degree(40°)slope or greater. This leaves the remaining usable land at only forty-five percent(45%). How then is it possible to have a fair evaluation using the land density codes? The project plans show almost all of the site to be covered by either pavement or building. 2. The finished grade,drainage and surface run-off. If the project is allowed to raise the elevation, this will undoubtedly cause greater run-off and drainage problems to be generated on my property. I have a basement and a greenhouse which will become even lower in relationship to the project site. Water seepage will most likely become an ongoing problem as the water seeks a lower level. How does the project purpose to deal with increased run-off and drainage? Will any retention or holding ponds be employed? The northwest portion of the project and the southwest portion of my property come together to form a natural drainage trough which will be greatly affected with added changes in elevation and run-off. A very large(80 foot) California Redwood tree is located at this juncture,on my property, only twenty-one(21)feet from the property line. The • Ms.Elizabeth Higgins July 8,2000 Page 2 purposed project bulkhead wall extends westward beyond this point. The damage here would be significant. 3. Bulkhead,retaining wall and fence. If a bulkhead or retaining wall are proposed to support the difference in elevation, how can it be placed directly on the property line,without a footing to support it? My property has many trees,rhododendrons and shrubs in close proximity of the property line. For example,there are two(2) seventy-five foot(75')Cedar trees within three feet(3') of the property line. Any digging will cause irreparable harm or even kill them. They cannot be replaced. Various other trees and plants will be disturbed or would have to be removed to erect a wall on the property line. Does this project propose a fence? How high would it be? 4. Total height of the structure vs.sunlight. The plans show a parking area below the first and second story, how is a thirty-five foot(35')height restriction to be measured? Winters in the pacific northwest are cloudy at best and the sun is at a very low angle and sets in the southwest. The increased final grade level will allow the structure to block out needed sunlight and place the southside of my home in shadow over six months out of the year. Frost, ice and snow could last much longer without the suns warmth. This condition will undoubtedly cause harm to both my home, side yard and garden. 5. Noise and carbon monoxide fumes. My home is located nineteen feet(19')from the property line, with an attached greenhouse only nine and one-half feet(9.5')from the property line. Two of my bedrooms have a southern exposure also within nineteen feet(19') of the property line. The project places its driveway egress and parking garage on the northside, making my home subject to constant car noise and volumes of carbon monoxide fumes. I will be directly exposed to a minimum of twenty-two(22) vehicles entering and leaving at all hours of the day or night. It is one thing to have one new neighbor, but twelve(12)families certainly will erase any privacy and quiet. How does the project propose to deal with the added noise and carbon monoxide fumes? 6. Building size vs.narrowness of site. The plan shows that the upper two stories extend out over the parking area an additional four feet(4') on the northside. This makes the building thirty-two feet (32')in width. Is this architecture keeping within the allowable square footage based on the narrowness of the site? 7. Construction schedule. If this project is allowed to go forward,how will the added noise from machinery and labor be addressed? My home life will be greatly affected by the noise, dust and debris throughout the construction phase. Mt Documents\Aberdeen Ave Apes Con emedor • ,• ,Ms. Elizabeth Higgins July 8, 2000 Page 3 In conclusion,I have enclosed a project lay-out showing the locations of my home, greenhouse,trees and shrubs in relationship to the property line and project. The proposed project covers almost all of the 325' x 62.5' site with pavement and building. The structure is over three stories with the pitched roof shown in the plan. The elevation plan using views from east and west show a finished slope towards my home on the northside. This development,given just a few of the problems which will undoubtedly occur can only degrade and have an adverse effect on my home and property value. I hope you and other members of the planning department will consider closely all my concerns and deep reservations. Thank you for your attention to this letter. Sincerely, Helen D. Burch 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 (425)255-4921 CAW Documads'Abcrdcrn Avc Apts Concansdoc IX ' i_... ooy • , pl.; Li .,c, - V e /. . , Now V�SA • • �1�` �`TWA W �° c 0—� F towfdtllJ�g{} 3 .g V►o�'15 l� 1 l' 889'51'00"W 60�61'1 9�.: tt'(0p t0 0 :o000 o O 0 (° ,0.I,, I _�_ — — — — — — — — ®o ® �w.3' 3 �� _,�I ck- 12"DID �� �!a ";n,G6x N • •. O N p N rf '� t0 W _ O — W • fib h4. yy��... 4� ,12"ALD - f�ticv 21 15"M �^{� 16 I I 14 �= 13 12 11 10 19 I 8 !Al 7 I b 15 4 I • I 2 �= I l!) S"Ai IQ D v. b f I 11_____r_f_711 .-!f. I — 11 ilk . • 7-1-1 VIL_ 1: • S89'51'I0"W 590.83' f; L---i VICINITY OF CONSTRUCTIC THIS ARE:; 6 i/ 1 w 1 . • _ 1' • NOTE: ALL TREES IN THE VICINITY OF TREE LEGEND CONSTRUCTION TO BE REMOVED. - • . MAPLE.. ALDER _--- • OT 10 EVERGREEN �`````�� ` 1 APPLE ' 1 i • co..imigiiiiiiiill , . i c_ i F- L C :g .. rnyi ii 2 © ., ' L,„...______, ;i;� .rt::YY£ ..: LEGAL DESCRIPTION �L-/S A/c My �lo#11 .� 62gxJ lCSE 1WOOD SHED 14 1U- 4 ceJf7A' v /g /or Pk o PErz-Ty Li&) mA-A)y k E__-reEes, Roca ooei ip j5 P E-t.ow IA1 $ atas /clief, Gdf7x i,V 6.' D40 I igWashington State Northwest Region Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North Sid Morrison P.O. Box 330310 Seattle,WA 98133 9 Secretary of Transportation 1'0�;,� k`CNT (206)440-4000 U�FREN�oNNING July 6, 2000 JUL 0 7 2000 P sa Elizabeth Higgins �VD City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055-3232 RE: SR 405, MP 5.15, CS 1743 Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Dear Ms. Higgins: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the Notice of Application for the Aberdeen Avenue Apartments,which are located at 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE. We have reviewed the subject document and have no comments. The project will not have significant impact on the state highway system. If you have any questions,please call John Collins at(206) 440-4915. Sincerely, ��..�. • - F02 Craig J. Stone,P.E. Area Administrator- South King CJS:jc JTC cc: file CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: July 11, 2000 TO: Elizabeth Higgins FROM: Jan IIlian X7216 SUBJECT: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS LUA 00-040 917 -ABERDEEN AVE NE I have reviewed the application for this 12-unit apartment complex at 917 Aberdeen Ave NE and have the following comments: SANITARY SEWER: • This project is outside the Aquifer Protection Zones • There is an existing 10" sanitary sewer main in Aberdeen Av NE. • Providing a gravity system to this site will be extremely difficult due to the topography. The engineer has indicated that separate grinder pumps will be installed under the building permit. Plans shall be noted to reflect this. • Sewer System Development Charges of $350 per unit are applicable to this project. The Development Charges are collected as part of the construction permit. • WATER: • There is a 16" watermain in Aberdeen Av NE. • This site is located in the 435 Pressure Zone. • A watermain extension will be required on site. • All new construction must have a fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 gpm and must be located within 300 feet of the structure. There are fire hydrants in the vicinity that may be counted towards the fire protection of this project, but are subject to verification for being within 300 feet of the nearest corner of the building. This distance is measured along a travel route. This project will require a minimum of 2,500 gpm fire flow. An additional fire hydrant will be required to be installed onsite to meet this criteria. ABERDEEN AVE APARTMENTS LUA00-041'" 94AI page 2 1 • • Water System Development Charges of $510 per unit are applicable to this project. The Development Charges will be collected as part of the:construction permit. DRAINAGE: • A storm drainage narrative and conceptual plan has been submitted and reviewed. It has been given preliminary approval. Final storm drainage report and design shall comply with the King County Surface Water Design Manual, 1990 Edition. Note: The drainage system will most likely be required to be tiqhtlined to the west end of the property and dispearsed due to the surface water problems present at the adjacent property to the south. • No detention is required • Surface Water System Development Charges of$15,985 are applicable to this project. The Development Charges will be collected as part of the construction permit. STREET IMPROVEMENTS: • Full street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb & gutter, storm drain, street signs and street lights are required if not already in place. • All new electrical, phone and cable services and lines must be undergrounded. • Traffic Mitigation Fees will be $5,823.00. These shall be paid as part of the building permit. GENERAL: • The applicant is responsible for securing all necessary, if any, private utility easements. • All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. • Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000, and 3% of anything over $200,000. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. cc: Neil W. • cm ... ..:........... . ............... ... ................ �` Project Name Ah-zvieei A✓cnge 4ar7 i4-e0l5 Project Address '`' q17 Abevfeev' Ave. iU- Contact Person £e✓al(A keickev Address Phone Number 1-125 -- 222 25 83 Permit Number L OA - Od - 0140 Project Description 12 r_n i t afa vDvtr-e Land Use Type: Method of Calculation: ApArtmeHI (22(0) Er Residential CITE Trip Generation Manual pax/ 3!I ❑ Retail 0 Traffic Study Recfe.- rG.q t 0 Non-retail 0 Other • Calculation: /Ocw .a /avaie ceai/tl lv s > (12)(6 . W7) = 77, (,Li c(uriv lops At $75 F-Q) to 7) ( 75 ) (77, 6q ) = 45823. e. 0 Transportation Mitigation Fee: 5$Z 3 0 Calculated by: Date: 6/7/op Accou umb Date of Payment 1 1 PERTY SERVICES FEE REVIEW #201 2 3 IX DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ❑ PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET 0 OTHER / APPLICANT: �iCRA-L?2 RE-1 f! Q RECEIVED FROM 473/ JOB ADDRESS: 9/7 AUE/ZDE —A) ,4t1g iVic."- WO# (date) NATURE OF WORK: /2 Njyii A.. 7E?TM E-NJ' D og-4apA4 ---k T GREEN# IS SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND CONNECTION FEES APPLIED NEED MORE INFORMATION: 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ❑ SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND CONNECTION FEES ESTIMATED 0 VICINITY MAP ❑ NOT APPROVED FOR APPLICATION OF FEES 0 FRONT FOOTAGE 0 OTHEROT����� ❑ VESTED 0 NOT VESTED \�� ¢540(93 Y''dy \ ❑ This fee review supersedes and cancels fee review# dated . ❑ PARENT PID#(subject to change)_ SUBJECT PROPERTY PID# 3//qQO -0 6 66-- 0 King Co.Tax Acct#(new) It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below may be applicable to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are potential charges that may be due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e.underground utilities,street improvements,etc.) Triggering mechanisms for the SDC fees will be based on current City ordinances and determined by the applicable Utility Section. Please note that these fees are subject to change without notice. Final fees will be based on rates in effect at time of Building Permit/Construction Permit application. The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees,side sewer permits,r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS OR FEE Latecomer Agreement(pvt)WATER Latecomer Agreement(pvt)WASTEWATER Latecomer Agreement(pvt)OTHER Special Assessment District/WATER /--- Special Assessment District/WASTEWATER Joint Use Agreement(METRO) Local Improvement District * Traffic Benefit Zones $75.00 PER TRIP, CALCULATED BY TRANSPORTATION FUTURE OBLIGATIONS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-WATER #OF UNITS/ SDC FEE O Pd Prey. 0 Partially Pd(Ltd Exemption) ® Never Pd SQ. FTG. Single family residential$850/unit x Mobile home dwelling unit$680/unit in park Apartment, Condo$510/unit not in CD or COR zones x 12- T G, /2,6 .00 Commercial/Industrial, $0.113/sq. ft. of property(not less than$850.00)X Boeing,by Special Agreement/Footprint of Bldg plus 15 ft perimeter(2,800 GPM threshold) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-WASTEWATER ❑ Pd Prey. 0 Partially Pd(Ltd Exemption) IN Never Pd Single family residential dwelling unit$585/unit x Mobile home dwelling unit$468/unit x Apartment, Condo$350/unit not in CD or COR zones x /2.. s` 4,,20o,Co Commercial/Industrial, $0.078/sq. ft. of property(not less than$585.00)x REDEVELOPMENT CREDIT: (New-Old Flow)/New Flow X Above Fees SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-SURFACEWATER ❑ Pd Prey. 0 Partially Pd(Ltd Exemption) ® Never Pd Single family residential and mobile home dwelling unit$385/unit x All other properties$0.129/sq ft of new impervious area of property x /51 �-� S 7 D 62'd,7 (not less than$ 5.00) `7 ---------- ¢X--- PRELIMINARY TOTAL $ I2 p 3 8"2,0 7 Signatur of Reviewing Authorit DATE )p 0 *If subject property is within an LID, it is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept. for paid/un-paid status. n O **The square footage figures used are taken from the King County Assessor's map and are approximate only. ' c:/template/feeapp/tgb EFFECTIVE July 16, 1995/Ord.Nos.4506,4507,4508,4525,and 4526 2 )1/- W 10 4 Ps City Department of Planning/Building/Pua_.,_Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ii'I✓2 a( -OVA COMMENTS DUE: JULY 11, 2000 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: 27 •'0� APPLICANT: Gerald Rieker&Soung Hee Rieker PROJECT MANAGER: i t=�•ir4� W ' ll� PROJECT TITLE: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments WORK ORDER NO: 7 -,i LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE MN l2 7 !•_ SITE AREA: 87,585 sq.ft. (0.86 acre) I BUILDING AREA(gros : 16 l SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Re i w and A tory,twel - unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Re The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. • 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 A)U NerV- /— /1:ye 0p te-�1 B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS altdd CI'Le CA ir 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 he e additional i rmation is needed to properly assess this proposal. 6 /3v a6 Sig t re of Director or ut rized Representative Date routin Rev.10/93 M TY 1. O VI• ® , CITY OF RENTON 'el?c, re FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: June 30, 2000 TO: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner LiFROM: Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal .., 0/ SUBJECT: Aberdeen Av. Apartments, 917 Aberdeen Av. NE MITIGATION ITEMS; 1. A fire mitigation fee of$4,656.00 is required based on $388.00 per unit. FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The preliminary fire flow is 2500 GPM, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and two additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Separate plans and permit are required for the installation of the sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 3. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways are a minimum 20 in width with a turning radius of 45 foot outside and 25 foot inside. 4. Fire department dead-end access roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 1 City a,-.. .Iton Department of Planning/Building/ ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: CoTASTY&t cxhc/)JQ/d/LOA COMMENTS DUE: JULY 11, 2000 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 27,2000 • APPLICANT: Gerald Rieker&Soung Hee Rieker PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Higgins PROJECT TITLE:.Aberdeen Avenue Apartments WORK ORDER NO: 78667 cI`TY OF RENTO,' LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE • SITE AREA: 87,585 sq.ft. (0.86 acre) I BUILDING AREA(gross): 16,3 .``1-.0.f? - °oo SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review ai jjo#w�l ty,twelve- unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Resid JJkk �I� reffill7afie(RM-I). The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. 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 ,c 1 Pr 1 i&,) Acrs c- -' i NoT M4ss T1-1k o u 6 4-6 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date routing Rev.10/93 City t' ,, -,nton Department of Planning/Building/Pu:;:,;, Norks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: p AA/I(-S COMMENTS DUE: JULY 11, 2000 , 1 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 27,2000 0 en '2 LliAPPLICANT: Gerald Rieker&Soung Hee Rieker PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Higgins PROJECT TITLE: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments WORK ORDER NO: 78667 i� LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE 0 20 2 SITE AREA: 87,585 sq.ft. (0.86 acre) BUILDING AREA(gross): 16,332 sq.ft. `� SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story,twelvd) unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family—Infill Zone (RM-I). The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. 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 ,fibai,,,,,,,,dt /lo tivi,17291--e--)L--3 I 34, 1 /OM, T7-1a-) civ2-t--t /(7 onit--- .. C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS aZUL_7Z-0 /9 l 20 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�us re additional information i eded to properly assess this proposal. wi - 1/(677/ Signature of Director or Au orized Representative Date routing Rev.10/93 i City`.,..T:::: cn Department of Planning/Building/PO',,_ wks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Po I I L, COMMENTS DUE: JULY 11, 2000 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 27,2000 APPLICANT: Gerald Rieker&Soung Hee Rieker PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Higgins PROJECT TITLE: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments WORK ORDER NO: 78667 LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE • . SITE AREA: 87,585 sq.ft. (0.86 acre) I BUILDING AREA(gross): 16,332 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for a two-story,twelve- unit apartment building to be constructed on a 37,585 square foot property located in a Residential, Multi-family—Infill Zone(RM-I). The project will require environmental review and a State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. 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 t\ .O'l 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 wheta additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director o d A thorized Representative Date Rev.10/93 routing PROJECT LUA-00-040-, SA-A, ECF Aberdeen Avenue Apartments City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET (Continuation) POLICE RELATED COMMENTS 11.04 Police Calls for Service Estimated Annually(in addition) CONSTRUCTION PHASE Theft from construction sites is one of the most common reported crimes in the city. To protect materials and equipment it is recommended that all materials and tools be locked up when not in use. The site will need security lighting and any construction trailer should be completely fenced in with portable chain-link fencing. The fence will provide both a physical and psychological barrier to any prospective thief and will demonstrate that this area is private property. Construction trailers should be kept locked when not in use, and should also have a heavy-duty deadbolt installed with no less then a 1-1/2" throw when bolted. Glass windows in the trailer should be shatter-resistant. I also recommend the business post the appropriate"No Trespassing"signs on the property while it's under construction(flier attached). This will aid police in making arrests on the property after hours if suspects are observed vandalizing or stealing building materials. COMPLETED BUILDING Each unit should have solid core doors,preferably metal or metal over solid wood with peepholes and heavy-duty dead bolt locks. The bolts need to be at least 1-1/2"in length when extended and installed with 3"wood screws. Lower unit sliding windows, including glass patio doors,will need additional locks; these locks will need to secure the panes from being pried out of the frames vertically. This means the locks will need to be placed into the top or bottom of the frames, in addition to any lock that limits horizontal movement. Alarm systems are recommended for each unit. Solid walls in any stairway or decking should be avoided; this would serve to limit the visibility and provide a place for a criminal to hide while waiting for a resident to return home. Each unit should have their individual unit numbers listed clearly with the numbers at least 6"in height of a color that contrasts with the color of the building and preferably placed under a light. In addition, there should be some directive outside the building for visitors. This will also aid police or medics who respond to a call in finding the unit they need to go to. Page 1 of 2 PROJECT LUA-00-040-, SA-A, ECF Aberdeen Avenue Apartments City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL &DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET (Continuation) Proper lighting in the parking areas will help residents feel safer traveling to and from their vehicle and it will also help protect the vehicles that will be parked at these locations. Landscaping in and around the exterior of the property should not be too dense or high. It is important to allow visibility. Too much landscaping will give the property the look of a fortress and make the residents feel isolated, and could also possibly give a burglary sufficient coverage to break into an apartment. Page 2 of 2 • " 4 Trespass iiMMAEratIUSI Enforcement ::.WATCH:` • Quite often, business owners and managers are faced with crimes that occur on the property after the businesses are closed and the employees have gone home. Some of the crimes that occur are burglary, vandalism, graffiti, trespassing, drug dealing and robbery in the parking lots. There is a way for police and business owners to discourage these types of crimes from taking place on private property, and that is by enforcing the City of Renton's Municipal Trespass Code 6-18-10. In order for police to be able to make an arrest for Trespass, business owners or managers need to purchase signs and display them in conspicuous areas on the property. These signs need to include the following language: 1. Indicate that the subject property is privately owned and; 2. Uninvited presence on the specified property is not permitted during the hours the business is closed, and; 3. Violators will be subject to criminal sanctions pursuant to Renton City Code 6-18-10. MOST IMPORTANTLY-THE SIGNS SHOULD BE CONSPICUOUS FROM ALL POSSIBLE POINTS OF ENTRY TO THE PROPERTY,AND ALSO BE PLACED ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDINGS. This way when a suspect is arrested, he/she will not be able to claim as a defense that he/she did not know he or she was trespassing. EXAMPLES FOR TRESPASS SIGNS: NO TRESPASSING NO TRESPASSING This is private property. Persons without specific No Trespassing after business hours business are not authorized to be on the premises between (insert specific times). Anyone on the the hours of(insert the hours your business is closed). premises after business hours is subject to Violators are subject to arrest and/or citation for criminal arrest and/or citation for Criminal Trespass pursuant to Renton City Code#6-18-10.. Trespass and/or impoundment of vehicle. Per Renton City Code #6-18-10. By enforcing the Trespass Ordinance, business owners and police will be sending a message to criminals that they are not allowed to conduct criminal activity on the property. In making arrests for Trespass, police may be preventing the more serious crimes from taking place. ^X r COURTESY OF RENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME PREVENTION UNIT 4-L� 235 - 2571 LI , &C.)(CY C)N't 1.P.; r-N Awf • .Q ANFE EINIEMENiii Project Name Ah-evdee✓I Iu!-e►4l5 Project Address 4f17 Abevdeevi Ave. iJE Contact Person Geia/c'( lkeicke✓ Address • Phone Number 426 — 222 — 25 83 Permit Number L UA - .d OLIO Project Description 12 op it t i pa vDri r Land Use Type: . Method of Calculation: AFurti.pie 4 (220) Q' Residential CITE Trip Generation Manual pule 311 ❑ Retail ❑ Traffic Study fe - 6,47 dolt ❑ Non-retail ❑ Other Calculation: A.),w .aver e ceai/(4 1 v►p s > 02)(6 . /47) = 77, (0 c{u i rcy lops At $75 f.-e-) t r►�, . . • . ( 75 ) (77, 6q ) = 45823. co . o Transportation Mitigation Fee: 5$Z 3 Calculated by: Act, War/ Date: 6.7/oo Accou umb Date of Payment :::::>::::;::::::::>:::>::<:::>::::�>:»::::»::>::>::::>::>::><: .............. E.... . ...5. 1[.IC.ES.. IUISIQ.N....................................... .......................... PROJECT NAME: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS 917 ABERDEEN AV. RENTON APPLICATION NO: LUA . 00 - 040 , 5dP1 . e—Gf 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 • F fT. 5. • +, • r DEVELOP CITY OF EN7ONNING ., MAR 2 12000 RECEIVED (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) I (Continued) NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER Applicant Certification r I, G��^A��_L Qi e--1< ° , hereby certify that the above lists) of adjacent property (Print Name) owners and their addresses were obtained from: City of Renton Technical Services Records + m KingTitle Co Countypany Records Assessors Records Signe �� Date _ �nK, (Applic t) NOTARY .11 4f �,oTar�y, ATTESTED: scri d and sw. r� before e, a Notary P • Ct �}1d�•L h� if Washington, residing at • the j -fir' • ,'�j•EMBER 0:'c .00O *� F • Signed ,n -y�� ' ,r st0 WASN�.• (Notary Public) 'cWaans•-- s;s:>s>i::::::: :i::>::>r::;::::;::>::<:: :<., 'vt* :.;.:.;....:::.:::: .: ,...:.;;•.; ::::»»::..•. s>::;;: : For:.:Ctt :.of::Renton:: • <:::.>:;:::> ::::> v ; ;:.CE . C. : :O ..OF: (LING. :............. .......:..:... ��� El`F ::»:>::>::>::>::>::> ::>::: . ;::.: ::::»:; .:.<:>:: : :;::::>::: ; :::>::;>::>::>::: <:: .... RTIFI...ATI.. N...... .MA ............................. .................... . .................. ;<:>:.;;:<..7� ereb _:certif:` that .:..tice'`:f hii: .`.o..os ..: : :i><:>C to ee :<:>::::>::;::::>:::::::::.;:.>;:. ::::>:::: ::::>::::>::::>::::»::.>:.;:<: : :. :. !. :Em...Y....) :.. ::.:::::::.: ::: ::::. .: .t`2.I�MT11YtS�1: ...:.: .: .. .: :.;:.;:.:;.;:;:;:;.::.;:.;: 1.4 ;;sx+:t;:�1 each:alsfed<: ro ert :;:Qw_er<.o :» ..:>:::>::;�:;:>..f�...... .. ................:.. ... .... .............i�.!`�;.�.::..,:a.,.:�t�03: .::>:;>;;:. :>::;>::::>:<:::>:::>::>:<:; ;::::P.::.:P:. ..;X.::.:;;�.;;:.:: :.n. to vte � . .... ...�............ ....... :.::.;::.:;:<.;:.;;;;;:.: :v: • • NOTARY >:>: >': ` <>< ' . ....••::::•..: > •• tech'..savor"`before :;:«a<a No'a:< P.0 ::::s ::.a::::::;d o e.1 tp:<o:1 '`st ;<: >'on es d TT ST. .:subsr :::.::....:. :..:..::.:: .:.:..,....:.::.rn....�:...tiki1 6.;:i, bl.:.:.,.:kn.:.::n..:f.:r#.::..: .:. i], :.:0....7.•:: . t .',::.:.:.:::.n i.ii at:.,: ;.....ate„;.. . .Lc ... . .... . . .... � . . .::;:.::. . ,;::i:;i„:]::i::.::.:0Mi•:i•4%''''..::.i:i:.:•::::.I‘,e'':".::.'i•:.:'.:::*::.**:::i4Vir:':':'::::::::.••••.••••:••••••••• HEFF 6-293doc MARILYN �FPRES: -0liRsEro 0P7/98 APPO^ 1NP EX - • r / ,sroScan/King (WA) I - Owner : Nguyen Michael Doan C;Nguyen Dung Tri Parcel# : 082305 9007 04 Site : 902 Sunset Blvd NE Renton 98056 Sale Date : 07/22/1998 Mail : 902 Sunset Blvd NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : Use : 101 Res,Single Family Residence Asd.V : $219,000 Lgl : STR 082305 TAXLOT 7 S 1/2 OF NW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 4 Bth F3H: 1 /1 / Stories: 1 BldgSF: 2,130 Ac: .88 YB:1940 Ph: 425-271-5548 Owner : Nguyen Michael Doan C;Nguyen Dung Tri Parcel# : 082305 9007 04 Site : 902 Sunset Blvd NE Renton 98056 Sale Date : 07/22/1998 Mail : 902 Sunset Blvd NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : Use : 101 Res,Single Family Residence Asd.V : $219,000 Lgl : STR 082305 TAXLOT 7 S 1/2 OF NW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrin : 1 Bth F3H: /1 / Stories: 1 BldgSF: 400 Ac: .88 YB:1940 Ph: 425-271-5548 Owner :Nguyen Michael Doan C;Nguyen Dung Tri Parcel# : 082305 9007 04 Site : 902 Sunset Blvd NE Renton 98056 Sale Date : 07/22/1998 Mail : 902 Sunset Blvd NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : Use : 101 Res,Single Family Residence Asd.V : $219,000 Lgl : STR 082305 TAXLOT 7 S 1/2 OF NW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 1 BldgSF: 720 Ac: .88 YB:1943 Ph: 425-271-5548 Owner :.Storage Venture Partners Llc Parcel# : 082305 9041 02 Site : 1105 Sunset Blvd NE Renton 98056 Sale Date : 10/09/1998 Mail : 8011 1St Ave NE Seattle Wa 98115 Sale Price : $98,466 Full Use : 251 Com,Retail Store,Less Than 10K Sqft Asd.V : $288,000 Lgl : STR 082305 TAXLOT 41 POR OF N 3/4 Q :NE ,S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : Bth F3H: / / Stories: 1 BldgSF: 2,040 Ac: 1.78 YB:1920 Ph: Owner : Storage Venture Partners Llc Parcel# : 082305 9041 02 Site : 1105 Sunset Blvd NE Renton 98056 Sale Date : 10/09/1998 Mail : 8011 1St Ave NE Seattle Wa 98115 Sale Price : $98,466 Full Use : 251 Com,Retail Store,Less Than 10K Sqft Asd.V : $288,000 Lgl : STR 082305 TAXLOT 41 POR OF N 3/4 Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : Bth F3H: / - / Stories: 1 . BldgSF: 1,388 Ac: 1.78 YB:1950 Ph: Owner : Storage Venture Partners Llc Parcel# : 082305 9041 02 Site : 1105 Sunset Blvd NE Renton 98056 Sale Date : 10/09/1998 Mail : 8011 1St Ave NE Seattle Wa 98115 Sale Price : $98,466 Full Use : 251 Com,Retail Store,Less Than 10K Sqft Asd.V : $288,000 Lgl : STR 082305 TAXLOT 41 POR OF N 3/4 Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : Bth F3H: / / Stories: 1 BldgSF: 1,240 Ac: 1.78 YB:1948 Ph: Owner : Storage Venture Partners Llc Parcel# : 082305 9041 02 Site : 1105 Sunset Blvd NE Renton 98056 Sale Date : 10/09/1998 Mail : 8Q 11 1St Ave NE Seattle Wa'98115 Sale Price : $98,466 Full Use : 251 Com,Retail Store,Less Than 10K Sqft Asd.V : $288,000 Lgl : STR 082305 TAXLOT 41 POR OF N 3/4 Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : Bth F3H: / / Stories: 1 BldgSF: 720 Ac: 1.78 YB:1941 Ph: Owner : Williams James D Parcel# : 082305 9045 08 Site : *No Site Address*Renton Sale Date : Mail : 4091 E 3Rd Ave Napa Ca 94558 Sale Price : Use : 901 Vacant,Residential Asd.V : $500 Lgl : STR 082305 TAXLOT 45 POR OF SE 1/4 Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrin : Bth F3H: / / Stories: BldgSF: Ac: .06 YB: Ph: The Infornation Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. ,_.oScan/King (WA) Owner : Auguston Donald R&Frances M Parcel# : 082305 9103 07 Site : 912 Sunset Blvd NE Renton 98056 Sale Data : 05/02/1986 Mail : 912 Sunset Blvd NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : Use : 101 Res,Single Family Residence Asd.V : $159,000 Lgl : STR 082305 TAXLOT 103 POR S 1/2 OF Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 1 BldgSF: 2,500 Ac: .36 YB:1951 Ph: 425-255-0100 Owner : Tan Chao Peng;Guan Wan Hua Parcel# : 082305 9107 03 Site : 1006 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton 98056 Sale Date : 01/11/1999 Mail : 1006 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $148,000 Full Use : 101 Res,Single Family Residence Asd.V : $151,000 Lgl : STR 082305 TAXLOT 107 BEG AT PT 92 Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 1 BldgSF: 1,120 Ac: .27 YB:1960 Ph: Owner : Blair Robert&Peggy Parcel# : 082305 9114 04 Site : 950 Sunset Blvd NE Renton 98056 Sale Date : 06/24/1988 Mail : 950 Sunset Blvd NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $73,000 Use : 101 Res,Single Family Residence Asd.V : $134,000 Lgl : STR 082305 TAXLOT 114 N 60 FT MEAS Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 /1 / Stories: 1 BldgSF: 2,360 Ac: .26 YB:1950 Ph: Owner :Kronenfeld David H Parcel# : 082305 9116 02 Site : 916 Sunset Blvd NE Renton 98056 Sale Date : 05/27/1999 Mail : 916 Sunset Blvd NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $160,000 Full Use : 101 Res,Single Family Residence Asd.V : $141,000 Lgl : STR 082305 TAXLOT 116 S 45 FT OF N Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 1 BldgSF: 2,360 Ac: .21 YB:1951 Ph: Owner :Young Lisa C;Fka Brown Lisa C Parcel# : 082305 9130 04 Site : 1000 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton 98056 Sale Date : 10/09/1998 Mail : 1000 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : Use : 101 Res,Single Family Residence Asd.V : $137,000 Lgl : STR 082305 TAXLOT 130 N 85 FT MEAS 0 :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 1 BldgSF: 910 Ac: .21 YB:1955 Ph: Owner : Schendel Jack S/Ruby F Parcel# : 082305 9141 01 Site : 958 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton 98056 Sale Date : 02/03/1999 Mail : 958 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $111,500 Full Use : 101 Res,Single Family Residence Asd.V : $121,000 Lgl : STR 082305 TAXLOT 141 S 100 FT OF Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 1 BldgSF: 960 Ac: .10 YB:1955 Ph: Owner :Kupferer Cofy/Lora Parcel# : 082305 9175 00 Site : Sunset Blvd NE Renton Sale Date : 10/21/1999 Mail : 2200 NE 10Th St Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price: : $176,450 Full Use : 921 Vacant,Cominercial,Less Than 1 Acre Asd.V : $50,000 Lgl : STR 082305 TAXLOT 175 LOT 1 OF Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : Bth F3H: / / Stories: BldgSF: Ac: .33 YB: Ph: Owner : Gonzalez Jose J;Hernandez Sofia Parcel# : 082305 9186 07 Site : 964 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton 98056 Sale Date : 06/22/1998 Mail : 408 Monroe Ave NE#112 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $114,500 Full Use : 101 Res,Single Family Residence Asd.V : $123,000 Lgl : STR 082305 TAXLOT 186 POR OF SE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 1 BldgSF: 960 Ac: .18 YB:1954 Ph: 425-228-9958 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. I . _ -•oScan/King (WA) , Owner : Andrews Nick&Rodopi Parcel# : 311990 0050 02 Site : 907 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton 98056 Sale Date : 12/07/1992 Mail : 907 Aberdeen Ave NE#1 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : Use : 112 Res,Apartment,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $957,300 Lgl :LOT 8 HARRIES GARDEN HOME TRS LESS Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 15,622 Ac: .97 YB:1979 Ph: Owner : Andrews Rodopi Trustee Parcel# : 311990 0051 01 Site : 905 SW Sunset Blvd Renton 98055 Sale Date : 07/21/1998 Mail : 3325 84Th Ave SE Mercer Island Wa 98040 Sale Price : $117,000 Use : 102 Res,Duplex Asd.V : $136,000 Lgl : LOT 8 HARRIES GARDEN HOME TRS S 70 Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 1 BldgSF: 2,080 Ac: .22 YB:1937 Ph: 206-232-1204 Owner : Rieker Gerald L/Soung Hee Parcel# : 311990 0065 05 Site : 917 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton 98056 Sale Date : 09/30/1999 Mail : 917 Aberdeen Ave Ne Sale Price : $130,900 Full Use : 911 Vacant,Multiple,Less Than 1 Acre Asd.V : $112,200 Lgl : LOT 11 HARRIES GARDEN HOME TRS Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : Bth F3H: / / Stories: BldgSF: Ac: .85 YB: Ph: Owner :Burch Helen Parcel# : 311990 0066 04 Site : 957 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton 98056 Sale Date : 04/12/1994 Mail : 957 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $120,000 Full Use : 101 Res,Single Family Residence Asd.V : $167,100 Lgl : LOT 11-12 HARRIES GARDEN HOME TRS Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrrn : 3 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 1 BldgSF: 1,390 Ac: 1.23 YB:1937 Ph: 206-255-4921 Owner : Meldon Properties Limited Liability Comp Parcel# : 311990 0075 03 Site : 965 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton 98056 Sale Date : 02/25/1997 Mail : 19511 SE May Valley Rd Issaquah Wa 98027 Sale Price : $110,000 Full Use : 101 Res,Single Family Residence Asd.V ' : $132,100 Lgl : LOT 12-13 HARRIES GARDEN HOME TRS Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 1 BldgSF: 960 Ac: 1.10 YB:1948 Ph: Owner : Meldon Properties Limited Liability Comp Parcel# : 311990 0075 03 Site : 965 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton 98056 Sale Data- : 02/25/1997 Mail : 19511 SE May Valley Rd Issaquah Wa 98027 Sale Price : $110,000 Full Use : 101 Res,Single Family Residence Asd.V , : $132,100 Lgl : LOT 12-13 HARRIES GARDEN HOME TRS Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 1 BldgSF: 1,450 Ac: 1.10 YB:1938 Ph: Owner : Newbury Janis G&Paul R Parcel# : 722750 0100 00 Site : 2198 NE 9Th PI Renton 98056 Sale Date : 12/22/1983 Mail : 2322 216Th Ave SE Issaquah Wa 98029 Sale Price : Use : 101 Res,Single Family Residence Asd.V : $97,000 Lgl :BLK 2 LOT 5 RENTON HIGHLANDS ADD Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 1 BldgSF: 1,780 Ac: .25 YB:1942 Ph: 425-392-9219 Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0006 03, Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#Prkg Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $41,300 Lgl :LOT UNIT PRKG RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R • 05E Bedrm : Bth F3H: / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. 'oScan/.bang (WA) Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc. Parcel# : 722935 0010 07 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#H102 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price` : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $46,200 Lgl :LOT UNIT H102 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrin : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 632 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0020 05 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#H103 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,000 Lgl : LOT UNIT H103 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrin : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Lewis Ruby Parcel# : 722935 0030 03 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#H104 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 11/12/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#H104 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $81,250 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,000 Lgl :LOT UNIT H104 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0040 01 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#H101 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $100,000 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V ; : $53,200 Lgl : LOT UNIT H101 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrin : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0050 08 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#H202 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $47,600 Lgl : LOT UNIT H202 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 694 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0060 06 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#H203 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $60,900 Lgl :LOT UNIT H203 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 922 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Serrantes Pelita Q Parcel# : 722935 0070 04 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#H204 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 12/20/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#H204 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $85,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $60,900 Lgl : LOT UNIT H204 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrin : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 922 Ac: 8.39 ' YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0080 02 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#H201 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $55,300 Lgl :LOT UNIT H201 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 832 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. ,a:•oScan/King (WA) • Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0090 00 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#H302 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price. . Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $48,300 Lgl :LOT UNIT H302 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 694 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner :Phillips Patricia K Parcel# : 722935 0100 08 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#H303 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 09/17/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#H303 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $78,500 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $61,600 Lgl :LOT UNIT H303 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories:3 BldgSF: 922 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Findley March Parcel# : 722935 0110 06 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#H304 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 10/12/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $80,500 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $61,600 Lgl : LOT UNIT H304 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 922 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0120 04 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#H301 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,000 Lgl : LOT UNIT H301 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 832 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0130 02 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#K102 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $46,200 Lgl :LOT UNIT K102 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 632 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0140 00 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#K103 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominiuin,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,000 Lgl :LOT UNIT K103 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0150 07 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#K104 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,000 Lgl : LOT UNIT K104 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0160 05 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#K101 Renton 98056 Sale Date Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $53,200 Lgl :LOT UNIT K101 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. i > a;vScan/King (WA) Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0170 03 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#K202 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $47,600 Lgl : LOT UNIT K202 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 694 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0180 01 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#K203 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $60,900 Lgl :LOT UNIT K203 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 922 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0190 09 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#K204 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $60,900 Lgl :LOT UNIT K204 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 922 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Orwig Christopher L Parcel# : 722935 0200 07 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#K201 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 12/16/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $74,750 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $55,300 Lgl :LOT UNIT K201 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 832 Ac: 8.39 ; YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0210 05 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#K302 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/06/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $48,300 Lgl :LOT UNIT K302 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 694 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Javier Ofelia A Parcel# : 722935 0220 03 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#K303 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 09/24/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#K303 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $77,250 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $61,600 Lgl : LOT UNIT K303 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 922 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Basic Amra;Bosnjakovic Andrija/Nadzija Parcel# : 722935 0230 01 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#K304 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 11/19/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#K304 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $85,950 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units .Asd.V : $61,600 Lgl :LOT UNIT K304 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 922 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Jeremic Velibor/Nedeluka Parcel# : 722935 0240 09 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#K301 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 11/22/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $75,950 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,000 Lgl :LOT UNIT K301 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 832 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. .oScan/King (WA) Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0250 06 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#L104 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price . Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $46,200 Lgl : LOT UNIT L104 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 632 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel#r : 722935 0260 04 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#L101 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,000 Lgl :LOT UNIT L101 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories:3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner :Marusic Cedo/Rada Parcel# : 722935 0270 02 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#L102 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 12/15/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $80,500 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,000 Lgl : LOT UNIT L102 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel : 722935 0280 00 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#L103 Renton 98056 Sale Date : ' Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $54,600 Lgl : LOT UNIT L103 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 832 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# , : 722935 0290 08 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#L204 Renton 98056 Sale Datc : 03/06/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $47,600 Lgl :LOT UNIT L204 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 694 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0300 06 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#L201 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $60,900 Lgl :LOT UNIT L201 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 922 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0310 04 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#L202 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Prrc : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $60,900 Lgl :LOT UNIT L202 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 922 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0320 02 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#L203 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $55,300 Lgl :LOT UNIT L203 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 832 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. /Icing (WA) Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0330 00 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#L304 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $48,300 Lgl :LOT UNIT L304 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 694 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Chan Lai Kwan Anne;Wan Robert Parcel# : 722935 0340 08 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#L301 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 06/10/1993 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $94,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $61,600 Lgl :LOT UNIT L301 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 922 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Huff James M Parcel# : 722935 0350 05 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#L302 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 08/18/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#L302 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $75,500 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $61,600 Lgl :LOT UNIT L302 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 922 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Santiago Paul R Parcel# : 722935 0360 03 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#L303 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 09/13/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#L303 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $69,950 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,000 Lgl :LOT UNIT L303 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 832 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0370 01 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#J104 Renton 98056 Sale art: : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $46,200 Lgl : LOT UNIT J104 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 632 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0380 09 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#J101 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,000 Lgl :LOT UNIT J101 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner :Norris Karen Parcel# : 722935 0390 07 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#J102 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 09/22/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#J102 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $74,500 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,000 Lgl :LOT UNIT J102 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Runner Teresa L Parcel# : 722935 0400 05 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#J103 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 09/17/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#J103 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $68,950 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $53,200 Lgl :LOT UNIT J103 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed 1__ •oScan/King (WA) Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0410 03 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#J204 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $47,600 Lgl :LOT UNIT J204 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 694 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: - Owner :Norambuena Hernan/Sharon Trustees Parcel# : 722935 0420 01 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#J201 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 07/23/1997 Mail : 17829 155Th Ave SE Renton Wa 98058 Sale Price : $68,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $60,900 Lgl :LOT UNIT J201 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE ' S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 922 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: 425-255-8488 Owner : Kroskie Melissa A Parcel# : 722935 0430 09 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#J202 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 09/24/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#J202 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $79,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $60,900 Lgl : LOT UNIT J202 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 922 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner :Fellers Charlotte J Parcel# : 722935 0440 07 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#J203 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 12/20/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#J203 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $72,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $55,300 Lgl :LOT UNIT J203 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 832 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0450 04 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#J304 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $48,300 Lgl : LOT UNIT J304 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories:3 BldgSF: 694 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner :Mulani Mohan B;Moolani Nand Kumar B Parcel# : 722935 0460 02 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#J301 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 11/16/1993 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $94,000 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $61,600 Lgl :LOT UNIT J301 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 922 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner :Holmes Paula Elaine Parcel# : 722935 0470 00 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#J302 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 10/08/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#J302 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $80,460 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $61,600 Lgl : LOT UNIT J302 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 922 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0480 08 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE 0303 Renton 98056 Sale Date . : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,000 Lgl :LOT UNIT J303 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 832 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. ,oScan/King (WA) Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0490 06 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#G104 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $46,900 Lgl :LOT UNIT G104 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 632 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Chin Sin Beng Robin Parcel# : 722935 0500 04 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#G101 Renton 98056 Sale Date. : 03/11/19.93 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $88,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,700 Lgl :LOT UNIT G101 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Goh Ban Hock Andrew Parcel# : 722935 0510 02 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#G102 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 01/29/1993 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#G102 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,700 Lgl : LOT UNIT G102 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0520 00 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#G103 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $48,300 Lgl :LOT UNIT G103 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 832 Ac: 8.39 • YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0530 08 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#G204 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $61,600 Lgl : LOT UNIT G204 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 694 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Tan Melvyn Kim Leng;Soh Chui Geok Parcel# : 722935 0540 06 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#G201 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 09/03/1993 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $90,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $61,600 Lgl :LOT UNIT G201 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 922 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Buttar Rashpal KBaljinder Parcel# : 722935 0550 03 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#G202 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 05/24/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#Prkg Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $71,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condoininium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $61,600 Lgl :LOT UNIT G202 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 922 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0560 01 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#G203 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $83,000 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,000 Lgl :LOT UNIT G203 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 832 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. ,;/.oScan/King (WA) Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0570 09 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#G304 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/06/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $72,000 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $49,000 Lgl : LOT UNIT G304 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrrn : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 694 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0580 07 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#G301 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $91,000 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $62,300 Lgl :LOT UNIT G301 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 922 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Romero Eleanor C Parcel# : 722935 0590 05 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#G302 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 06/08/1999 Mail : 25424 34Th P1 S Kent Wa 98032 Sale Price : $73,500 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $62,300 Lgl :LOT UNIT G302 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 922 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0600 03 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#G303 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/06/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,700 Lgl :LOT UNIT G303 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrrn : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 832 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner :Buchanan Linda M Parcel# : 722935 0610 01 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#A101 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 10/25/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $89,950 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $68,600 Lgl : LOT UNIT A101 RENTON PJDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrrn : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0620 09 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#A102 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 04/22/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $100,000 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $68,600 Lgl :LOT UNIT A102 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrrn : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Sivasayan Rasanayagam/Thirumakhel Parcel# : 722935 0630 07 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#A103 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/04/1993 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $100,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $68,600 Lgl :LOT UNIT A103 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrrn : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Gallegos Wayne C/Michelle L Parcel# : 722935 0640 05 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#A104 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 12/17/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#A104 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Pri::: : $90,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $68,600 Lgl : LOT UNIT A104 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE. S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrrn : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. .1. ..•,`,oScan/Icing (WA) Owner :Marusic Radenko/Kata Parcel# : 722935 0650 02 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#A201 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 12/15/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $93,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $69,300 Lgl : LOT UNIT A201 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0660 00 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#A202 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/06/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $101,500 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $69,300 Lgl :LOT UNIT A202 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0670 08 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#A203 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/06/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $101,500 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $69,300 Lgl :LOT UNIT A203 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Singh Anokh;Kaur Mindo Parcel# : 722935 0680 06 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#A204 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 01/29/1993 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $101,500 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $69,300 Lgl :LOT UNIT A204 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0690 04 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#A301 Renton 98056 Sale Date; : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $102,500 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $70,000 Lgl : LOT UNIT A301 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0700 02 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#A302 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/06/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $102,500 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $70,000 Lgl :LOT UNIT A302 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0710 00 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#A303 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/06/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $102,500 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $70,000 Lgl : LOT UNIT A303 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel ' : 722935 0720 08 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#A304 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $102,500 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $70,000 Lgl :LOT UNIT A304 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. ;roScan/King (WA) Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0730 06 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#B101 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $67,900 Lgl :LOT UNIT B101 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Chan Kee Chiang;Hew Lai Peng Dorothy Parcel,l : 722935 0740 04 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#B102 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 12/31/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $100,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $67,900 Lgl : LOT UNIT B102 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner :Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0750 01 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#B103 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $100,000 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $68,600 Lgl :LOT UNIT B103 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0760 09 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#B104 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $100,000 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $68,600 Lgl :LOT UNIT B 104 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner :Berg Howard A Parcel# : 722935 0770 07 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#B201 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 06/25/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#B201 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $84,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $69,300 Lgl : LOT UNIT B201 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0780 05 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#B202 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Pricc : $101,500 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $69,300 Lgl : LOT UNIT B202 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0790 03 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#B203 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/06/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $101,500 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $69,300 Lgl :LOT UNIT B203 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories:3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0800 01 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#B204 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $101,500 Use : 124 Res,Condominiuin,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $69,300 Lgl :LOT UNIT B204 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. : _ 1\, ro,S'can/King (WA) Owner : Can Paul S Iv Parcel# : 722935 0810 09 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#B301 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/30/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#B301 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $85,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $70,000 Lgl :LOT UNIT B301 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner :Delic Almir/Vesna Parcel# : 722935 0820 07 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#B302 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 12/07/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#B302 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $91,950 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $70,000 Lgl :LOT UNIT B302 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner :Keim Steven W/Jeanne M Parcel# : 722935 0830 05 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#B303 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 10/01/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $85,950 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $70,000 Lgl :LOT UNIT B303 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0840 03 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#B304 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/06/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $102,500 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $70,000 Lgl :LOT UNIT B304 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,028 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0850 00 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#C101 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $102,500 Use : 124 Res,Condoniinium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $70,000 Lgl :LOT UNIT C101 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories:3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0860 08 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#C102 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/06/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $104,500 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $70,000 Lgl :LOT UNIT C102 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities Associates A Washingt Parcel# : 722935 0870 06 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#C103 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 05/04/1999 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K 3V Saskatche Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $70,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $70,000 Lgl :LOT UNIT C103 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0880 04 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#C104 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price . Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $69,300 Lgl :LOT UNIT C104 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. i___4roScan/King (WA) Owner : Ling Kie Siong/Lay Lee Parcel# : 722935 0890 02 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#C105 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 12/28/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $87,500 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,700 Lgl :LOT UNIT C105 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R . 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 870 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner :Buttar Baljinder Parcel# : 722935 0900 00 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#C106 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 12/14/1998 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#C106 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $67,500 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,700 Lgl :LOT UNIT C106 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrnz : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 870 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0910 08 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#C201 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/06/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada- Sale Price : $104,000 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $70,700 Lgl : LOT UNIT C201 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Associates Parcel# : 722935 0920 06 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#C202 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 07/01/1999 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Sale Price : $70,700 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $70,700 Lgl :LOT UNIT C202 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrnz : 3 BthF3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Whitman Christopher J/Claudia A Parcel# : 722935 0930 04 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#C203 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 11/22/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $95,950 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $70,700 Lgl : LOT UNIT C203 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 BthF3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0940 02 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#C204 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $104,000 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $70,700 Lgl : LOT UNIT C204 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0950 09 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#C205 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price . Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $57,400 Lgl : LOT UNIT C205 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 870 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Chien Chung Ming;Oey Bie Lan Parcel# : 722935 0960 07 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#C206 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 04/01/1993 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $90,500 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $57,400 Lgl :LOT UNIT C206 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 870 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. J..- ;roScan/King (WA) - Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0970 05 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#C301 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $105,000 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $71,400 Lgl : LOT UNIT C301 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / , Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0980 `03 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#C302 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $107,500 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $71,400 Lgl :LOT UNIT C302 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 0990 01 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#C303 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $107,500 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $71,400 Lgl : LOT UNIT C303 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories:3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1000 07 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#C304 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $105,000 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $71,400 Lgl :LOT UNIT C304 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner :Yang Choon Siang;Ong Ah Moey Parcel# : 722935 1010 05 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#C305 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/11/1993 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $90,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $58,100 Lgl :LOT UNIT C305 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 870 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1020 03 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#C306 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $92,000 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $58,100 Lgl :LOT UNIT C306 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 870 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1030 01 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#D101 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $102,500 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $70,000 Lgl : LOT UNIT D101 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Associates A Washi Parcel# : 722935 1040 09 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#D102 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 05/04/1999 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave Ca Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $56,700 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $69,300 Lgl :LOT UNIT D 102 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteea. 1, ___.iroScan/King (WA) Owner :Lim Tow Ken Jefferson Robert Parcel# : 722935 1050 06 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#D103 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 06/06/1994 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominiuin,100 To 199 Units Asd.V • : $69,300 Lgl :LOT UNIT D103 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Ong Choon Hock Lionel/Betty Nee Kho Kwee Parcel# : 722935 1060 04 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#D104 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 07/21/1993 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $102,000 Use : 124 Res,Condoininium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $69,300 Lgl :LOT UNIT D104 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrnz : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Cheng Joo Wei;Goh Kui Hwa Veronica Parcel# : 722935 1070 02 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#D105 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 12/31/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $83,125 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,700 Lgl : LOT UNIT D105 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrnz : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories:3 BldgSF: 870 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Andrews Susan M Parcel# : 722935 1080 00 , Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#D106 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/20/1998 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#D106 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $73,000 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,700 Lgl : LOT UNIT D106 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 870 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner :Furomoto Kenny K/Eunice U Revocable Trus Parcel# : 722935 1090 08 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#D201 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 01/07/1998 Mail : 99-708 Holoai St Aiea Hi 96701 Sale Price : $70,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $70,700 Lgl :LOT UNIT D201 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrnz : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1100 06 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#D202 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $106,000 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $70,700 Lgl : LOT UNIT D202 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1110 04 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#D203 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $106,000 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $70,700 Lgl : LOT UNIT D203 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1120 02 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#D204 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $104,000 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $70,700 Lgl : LOT UNIT D204 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrnz : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. _ 'roScan/King (WA) Owner : Cheng Joo Wei;Goh Kui Hwa Veronica Parcel# : 722935 1130 00 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#D205 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 12/31/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Pric•, : $84,550 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $57,400 Lgl :LOT UNIT D205 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 870 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1140 08 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#D206 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $90,500 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $57,400 Lgl : LOT UNIT D206 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 870 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1150 05 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#D301 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $105,000 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $71,400 Lgl :LOT UNIT D301 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E . Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1160 03 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#D302 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $107,500 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $71,400 Lgl : LOT UNIT D302 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1170 01 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#D303 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $107,500 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $71,400 Lgl :LOT UNIT D303 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1180 09 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#D304 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $71,400 Lgl : LOT UNIT D304 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,121 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1190 07 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#D305 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominimn,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $58,100 Lgl :LOT UNIT D305 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S :'08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 870 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1200 05 • Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#D306 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/10/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $92,000 Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $58,100 Lgl : LOT UNIT D306 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 870 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. _ . ,•oScnn/King (WA) Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1210 03 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E102 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $46,200 Lgl :LOT UNIT E102 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 641 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner :Petrova Nadejda Parcel# : 722935 1220 01 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E103 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 10/15/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $74,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,000 Lgl :LOT UNIT E103 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 864 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1230 09 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E201 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $53,900 Lgl :LOT UNIT E201 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bednn : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1240 07 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E202 Renton 98056 Sale Date . Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $46,900 Lgl :LOT UNIT E202 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 632 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Wong May Parcel# : 722935 1250 04 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E203 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 08/05/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $96,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,700 Lgl :LOT UNIT E203 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner :Phua Chor Kok;Heng Guek Hee Parcel# : 722935 1260 02 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E204 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 12/31/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $86,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,700 Lgl :LOT UNIT E204 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Davidson James R Parcel# : 722935 1270 00 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E205 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 01/28/1998 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E205 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $55,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $53,900 Lgl :LOT UNIT E205 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1280 08 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E206 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $53,900 Lgl :LOT UNIT E206 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. 1 __.'MoScan/King (WA) Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1290 06 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E207 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $53,900 Lgl :LOT UNIT E207 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel#• : 722935 1300 04 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E208 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V ' : $56,700 Lgl : LOT UNIT E208 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner :Brndic Senad/Sanela Parcel# : 722935 1310 02 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E301 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 11/30/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E301 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $75,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $54,600 Lgl :LOT UNIT E301 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Won Albert Fai;Li Kathy Lai Li Boyle Parcel# : 722935 1320 00 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E302 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 09/18/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $79,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $47,600 Lgl :LOT UNIT E302 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 632 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner :Yu Alan Able Choi;Kwok Tsim Chin Parcel# : 722935 1330 08 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E303 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 08/05/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $96,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $58,100 Lgl :LOT UNIT E303 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Wong Hon Yee;Poon Doris Kim Chun Parcel# : 722935 1340 06 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E304 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 08/05/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $90,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $57,400 Lgl :LOT UNIT E304 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Leng-Reynolds Madelin Yuek Lin Parcel# : 722935 1350 03 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E305 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 01/06/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E305 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $54,600 Lgl :LOT UNIT E305 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1360 01 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E306 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $54,600 Lgl :LOT UNIT E306 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. Scan/King (WA) Owner :Rethnam Chandra Mohan;Chan Angela Mui Ch Parcel# : 722935 1370 09 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E307 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 01/29/1993 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $90,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $54,600 Lgl :LOT UNIT E307 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner :Ng Cho Hin Joe -Parcel# : 722935 1380 07 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E308 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 08/05/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $90,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $57,400 Lgl : LOT UNIT E308 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Cheng Sek Hung Timothy/Susie Sin Ying Parcel# : 722935 1390 05 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E403 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 08/05/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $94,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $58,800 Lgl :LOT UNIT E403 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Wong Hon Yee;Poon Doris Kim Chun Parcel# : 722935 1400 03 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E404 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 08/05/1992 Iviail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $94,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $58,800 Lgl : LOT UNIT E404 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1410 01 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E405 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominiurn,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $55,300 Lgl : LOT UNIT E405 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Phung Ken Hung Parcel# : 722935 1420 09 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E406 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 11/29/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E406 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $70,700 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $55,300 Lgl :LOT UNIT E406 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Tham Seong Chee/Soong Chon Leonard Parcel# : 722935 1430 07 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E407 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 02/12/1993 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $94,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $55,300 Lgl :LOT UNIT E407 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Taylor Jason R Parcel# : 722935 1440 05 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E408 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 05/03/1999 ��Iail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#E405 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $70,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $58,800 Lgl : LOT UNIT E408 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: 206-204-8729 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. /King (WA) Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1450 02 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F106 Renton 98056 Sale Date- : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $52,500 Lgl :LOT UNIT F106 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrin : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 776 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1460 00 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F107 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $52,500 Lgl : LOT UNIT F107 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 776 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1470 08 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F201 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condonunium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $53,900 Lgl :LOT UNIT F201 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner :Miller John F Parcel# : 722935 1480 06 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F202 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 12/15/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $84,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominiuin,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $46,900 Lgl : LOT UNIT F202 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrin : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 632 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Yu Doris Ngan Ha Parcel# : 722935 1490 04 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F203 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 08/05/1992 Mail : 51 E Mt Kellett Rd The Peak Hong Kong Hong Kong Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,700 Lgl : LOT UNIT F203 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Mcdowell Troy D/Carey S Parcel# : 722935 1500 02 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F204 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 04/21/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F204 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $70,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,700 Lgl :LOT UNIT F204 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1510 00 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F205 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $53,900 Lgl : LOT UNIT F205 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R :05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1520 08 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F206 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $53,900 Lgl : LOT UNIT F206 RENTON RIDGE Qi : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrin : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. 1 /King (WA) Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1530 06 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F207 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $53,900 Lgl :LOT UNIT F207 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrnz : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Associates A Washi Parcel# : 722935 1540 04 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F208 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 05/04/1999 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave Ca Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $56,700 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $56,700 Lgl :LOT UNIT F208 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1550 01 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F301 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $54,600 Lgl :LOT UNIT F301 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner :Fernstrom Eric Parcel# : 722935 1560 09 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F302 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 08/20/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $56,750 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $47,600 Lgl :LOT UNIT F302 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 632 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner :Yu Alan Abel Ying Choi;Kwok Tsim Chin Parcel# : 722935 1570 07 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F303 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 08/05/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $96,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $57,400 - Lgl :LOT UNIT F303 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Chow Kon Wing;Leung Po Chu Parcel# : 722935 1580 05 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F304 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 08/05/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $90,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $57,400 Lgl :LOT UNIT F304 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1590 03 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F305 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $54,600 Lgl :LOT UNIT F305 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1600 01 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F306 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $54,600 Lgl : LOT UNIT F306 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. i ..roScan/King (WA) Owner : Conrad Terry G/Laurel T Parcel# : 722935 1610 09 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F307 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 04/23/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F307 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $65,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $54,600 Lgl : LOT UNIT F307 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Leung Heung Pong Parcel# : 722935 1620 07 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F308 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 08/05/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $90,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $57,400 Lgl :LOT UNIT F308 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner :Ng Sai Yong;Lau Wing Yuk Parcel# - : 722935 1630 05 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F403 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 08/05/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $94,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units , Asd.V : $58,100 Lgl : LOT UNIT F403 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Cheng Sek Hung Timothy/Susie Sin Ying Parcel# : 722935 1640 03 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F404 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 08/05/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $94,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $58,100 Lgl :LOT UNIT F404 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Wong Fiona Man Shuen;Yu Doris Ngan Ha Parcel# : 722935 1650 00 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F405 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 08/05/1992 Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : $88,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $55,300 Lgl : LOT UNIT F405 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Keim Andrew F Parcel# : 722935 1660 08 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F406 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 09/21/1999 Mail : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F406 Renton Wa 98056 - Sale Price : $71,700 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $55,300 Lgl : LOT UNIT F406 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: , Owner : Interwest Equities(Us)Asc Parcel# : 722935 1670 06 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F407 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 2402 Millar Ave S7K Saskatoon Canada Sale Price : Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $55,300 , Lgl :LOT UNIT F407 RENTON RIDGE Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 766 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: Owner : Germeau Jack P Parcel# : 722935 1680 04 Site : 975 Aberdeen Ave NE#F408 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 12/10/1999 Mail : 224 Rose St Port Townsend Wa 98368 Sale Price : $76,000 Full Use : 124 Res,Condominium,100 To 199 Units Asd.V : $58,100 Lgl :LOT UNIT F408 RENTON RIDGE Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 852 Ac: 8.39 YB:1990 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. i. .,JroScan/King (WA) Owner :Perry Annelle Parcel# : 812865 0010 00 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#101 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 06/20/1997 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#A101 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $95,000 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $78,800 Lgl :BLK A LOT UNIT 101 SUNSET GARDEN Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Clayton John A Parcel# : 812865 0020 08 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#102 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 10/24/1994 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#A-102 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $99,500 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $85,500 Lgl :BLK A LOT UNIT 102 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,031 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : O'Grady Katy Parcel# : 812865 0030 06 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#201 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 10/27/1998 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#A201 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $93,500 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $80,700 Lgl : BLK A LOT UNIT 201 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Faisal Muhammad;Ghani Farheen Parcel# : 812865 0040 04 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#202 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 12/14/1999 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $106,500 Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $87,400 Lgl : BLK A LOT UNIT 202 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,031 Ac: 2.58 . YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Filion Kris D Parcel# : 812865 0050 01 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#301 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 05/21/1992 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#A301 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $94,950 Full Use : 123 Res,Condonuniuin,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $88,300 Lgl :BLK A LOT UNIT 301 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories:3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Koshikawa Takashi Parcel# : 812865 0060 09 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#302 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 07/12/1994 Mail : 65 Marion St Seattle Wa 98104 Sale Price : Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $95,000 Lgl : BLK A LOT UNIT 302 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,031 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Yamada Eric T/Rose D Parcel# : 812865 0070 07 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#103 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 07/29/1992 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#B103 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $86,450 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $78,800 Lgl :BLK B LOT UNIT 103 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Johnson Jennifer Parcel# : 812865 0080 05 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#104 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 12/30/1998 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#104 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $79,995 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $67,400 Lgl :BLK B LOT UNIT 104 SUNSET GARDEN Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 795 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. ,roScan/King (WA) Owner :Mccormack Tracy L Parcel# : 812865 0090 03 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#105 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 02/21/1992 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#B-105 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $71,950 Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $67,400 Lgl :BLK B LOT UNIT 105 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 795 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Schmidt Terra D Parcel# : 812865 0100 01 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#106 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 05/22/1995 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#B-106 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $66,750 Use : 123 Res,Condoininium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $62,700 Lgl :BLK B LOT UNIT 106 SUNSET GARDEN Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 689 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Hiu Dennis S C&Joycelyn G Parcel# : 812865 0110 09 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#203 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 02/21/1992 Mail : 98-1787 Kupukupu St Aiea Hi 96701 Sale Price : $84,950 Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $80,700 Lgl :BLK B LOT UNIT 203 SUNSET GARDEN Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Baisch Kirk D Parcel# : 812865 0120 07 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#204 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 06/18/1998 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#B204 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $84,950 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $69,300 Lgl : BLK B LOT UNIT 204 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 795 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Quigtar George C Parcel# : 812865 0130 05 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#205 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 02/21/1992 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#B-205 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $74,950 Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $69,300 Lgl : BLK B LOT UNIT 205 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 795 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Grieves Melody D Parcel# : 812865 0140 03 • Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#206 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 02/25/1992 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#206 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $72,450 Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $67,000 Lgl : BLK B LOT UNIT 206 SUNSET GARDEN Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 689 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Cornelius Eileen K Parcel# : 812865 0150 00 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#303 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 09/15/1997 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#B303 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $89,500 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $87,900 Lgl :BLK B LOT UNIT 303 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Inoue Kunio&Kazuyo Parcel# : 812865 0160 08 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#304 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 02/21/1992 Mail : 4446 Somerset Blvd SE Bellevue Wa 98006 Sale Price : $77,950 Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $74,100 Lgl : BLK B LOT UNIT 304 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 795 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. 1.-_ !,oScan/King (WA) - Owner :Rothnie Janet C Parcel# : 812865 0170 06 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#305 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 02/25/1992 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#B305 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $77,950 Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $74,100 Lgl :BLK B LOT UNIT 305 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 795 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Bradley Michael Lee Parcel# : 812865 0180 04 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#306 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 09/09/1997 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#B306 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $75,000 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $74,600 Lgl :BLK B LOT UNIT 306 SUNSET GARDEN Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrin : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 689 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Reynolds Patricia Parcel# : 812865 0190 02 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#107 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 04/23/1996 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#C-107 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $88,000 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $81,700 Lgl :BLK C LOT UNIT 107 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Waid Cheryl Fay Parcel# : 812865 0200 00 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#108 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 09/30/1998 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#C108 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Pricy : Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $69,300 Lgl :BLK C LOT UNIT 108 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 795 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Coon Bucky W Parcel# : 812865 0210 08 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#109 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 05/22/1992 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#C109 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $86,950 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $77,900 Lgl :BLK C LOT UNIT 109 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Mcintosh Robert L/Juanita K Parcel# : 812865 0220 06 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#110 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 09/16/1992 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#C110 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $91,450 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $88,300 Lgl :BLK C LOT UNIT 110 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,031 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Sakiyama Fumio Parcel/ : 812865 0230 04 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#207 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/17/1992 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#C-207 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $94,950 Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $83,600 Lgl :BLK C LOT UNIT 207 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Baxter Todd A Parcel# : 812865 0240 02 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#208 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 08/27/1999 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#C-208 Sale Price : Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $71,200 Lgl :BLK C LOT UNIT 208 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 795 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. 1 >'�oScan/King (WA) Owner : Koshikawa Takashi Parcel# : 812865 0250 09 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#209 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 07/12/1994 Mail : 65 Marion St Seattle Wa 98104 Sale Price : Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $79,800 Lgl :BLK C LOT UNIT 209 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Clousing Jeffrey C Parcel# : 812865 0260 07 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#210 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 12/30/1994 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#C-210 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $97,000 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $90,200 Lgl : BLK C LOT UNIT 210 SUNSET GARDEN Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,031 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Dolan Patricia Irene Parcel# : 812865 0270 05 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#307 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 04/06/1999 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#307 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price . Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $91,200 Lgl : BLK C LOT UNIT 307 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Hester Natalie Parcel# : 812865 0280 03 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#308 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 08/24/1999 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#308 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $74,500 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $78,400 Lgl :BLK C LOT UNIT 308 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrtn : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 795 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Skeels Iku K Parcel# : 812865 0290 01 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#309 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 06/22/1992 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#C309 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $90,000 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $84,500 Lgl :BLK C LOT UNIT 309 SUNSET GARDEN Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Mode Norman L Parcel# : 812865 0300 09 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#310 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 09/15/1998 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#310 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $108,650 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V' : $95,000 Lgl : BLK C LOT UNIT 310 SUNSET GARDEN Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,031 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: i Owner : Turner Phyllis D Parcel# : 812865 0310 07 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#111 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 10/31/1997 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#D111 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $98,500 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $85,500 Lgl :BLK D LOT UNIT 111 SUNSET GARDEN Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,031 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Housing Christopher Parcel# : 812865 0320 05 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#112 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 05/30/1997 Mail : 2025 1St Ave#240 Seattle Wa 98121 Sale Price : $85,000 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $71,200 Lgl :BLK D LOT UNIT 112 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. 1__.._vScan/King (WA) Owner :Housing Christopher Parcel# : 812865 0330 03 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#113 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 05/30/1997 Mail : 2025 1St Ave#420 Seattle Wa 98121 Sale Price : $85,000 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V • : $71,200 Lgl : BLK D LOT UNIT 113 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Hughes Tom R Parcel# : 812865 0340 01 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#114 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 05/26/1995 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#D114 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $96,000 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $85,500 Lgl :BLK D LOT UNIT 114 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H:2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,031 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Jayne Cheryl Ann Parcel# : 812865 0350 08 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#211 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 04/30/1992 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#D211 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $90,950 Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $87,400 Lgl : BLK D LOT UNIT 211 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,031 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Shields Joel E Parcel# : 812865 0360 06 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#212 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 02/25/1992 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#D212 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $78,950 Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $73,100 Lgl :BLK D LOT UNIT 212 SUNSET GARDEN Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Tockey Stephen Robert&Young Parcel# : 812865 0370 04 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#213 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 02/25/1992 Mail : 2995 Silver Oak Trl Marion Ia 52302 Sale Price : $79,950 Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $73,100 Lgl :BLK D LOT UNIT 213 SUNSET GARDEN Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Siebers Kurt J Parcel# : 812865 0380 02 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#214 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 02/09/1999 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#214 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $108,500 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $87,400 Lgl :BLK D LOT UNIT 214 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,031 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Duzenbery Robert Q&Jeanne M Parcel# : 812865 0390 00 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#311 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/19/1993 Mail : 10203 47Th Ave SW#D18 Seattle Wa 98146 Sale Price : Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $92,100 Lgl :BLK D LOT UNIT 311 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R • 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,031 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: 206-768-1312 Owner :Heylmun Cathy L Parcel# : 812865 0400 08 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#312 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 10/20/1995 Mail : 315 W Duranta St Roseville Ca 95678 Sale Price : $81,000 Full • Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $77,900 Lgl :BLK D LOT UNIT 312 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. i . roScan/King (WA) Owner :Brown Eleanor S Parcel# : 812865 0410 06 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#313 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 07/01/1999 Mail : 7100 132Nd PI SE#102 Newcastle Wa 98059 Sale Price : $95,900 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $77,900 Lgl :BLK D LOT UNIT 313 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Pugmire Harold Denney/Erin Michelle Parcel# : 812865 0420 04 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#314 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 02/12/1999 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#D314 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $108,000 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $95,000 Lgl :BLK D LOT UNIT 314 SUNSET GARDEN Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,031 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Palmer Penny L;Beach Ronnie D Parcel# : 812865 0430 02 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#115 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 05/20/1992 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#E115 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $89,950 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $81,700 Lgl : BLK E LOT UNIT 115 SUNSET GARDEN • Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Corrigan Kathryn E Parcel# : 812865 0440 00 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#116 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 09/27/1996 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#E-116 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $73,000 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $69,300 Lgl :BLK E LOT UNIT 116 SUNSET GARDEN Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 795 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Jarvela Albert M/Sandra S Parcel# : 812865 0450 07 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#117 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/31/1995 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#E-117 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $69,365 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $69,300 Lgl : BLK E LOT UNIT 117 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 795 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Lonczak Lawrence L/Carol A Parcel# - : 812865 0460 05 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#118 Renton 98056 Sale Dare : 03/09/1998 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#118E Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $86,725 Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $81,700 Lgl : BLK E LOT UNIT 118 SUNSET GARDEN Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Del Rosario Helen Parcel# : 812865 0470 03 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#215 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 06/27/1997 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#E215 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $86,000 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $83,600 Lgl : BLK E LOT UNIT 215 SUNSET GARDEN Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Carter Terrie R Parcel# : 812865 0480 01 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#216 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/20/1996 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#E216 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $79,000 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $71,200 Lgl :BLK E LOT UNIT 216 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 795 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. i. �oScan/King (WA) Owner :Mulvihill James M Parcel;l : 812865 0490 09 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#217 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 05/09/1996 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#E217 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $71,200 Lgl :BLK E LOT UNIT 217 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 795 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Koshikawa Takashi Parcel# : 812865 0500 07 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#218 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 07/12/1994 Mail : 65 Marion St Seattle Wa 98104 Sale Price : Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $83,600 Lgl :BLK E LOT UNIT 218 SUNSET GARDEN Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Lauth Susan R Parcel# : 812865 0510 05 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#315 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 02/21/1992 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#E-315 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $96,950 Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $91,200 Lgl : BLK E LOT UNIT 315 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Peterson Jack E Parcel# : 812865 0520 03 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#316 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 04/17/1996 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#E-316 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $78,500 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $78,800 Lgl : BLK E LOT UNIT 316 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 795 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Yasui Ronald Parcel# : 812865 0530 01 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#317 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 02/25/1992 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#E-317 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $85,950 Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $78,800 Lgl :BLK E LOT UNIT 317 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 795 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Kiesling Gay Parcel# : 812865 0540 09 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#318 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 08/09/1996 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#E318 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $92,979 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $91,200 Lgl :BLK E LOT UNIT 318 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 914 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Brown Darsie E Parcel# : 812865 0550 06 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#119 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 07/22/1999 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $84,950 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $73,100 Lgl : BLK F LOT UNIT 119 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 795 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Sunset Garden Ltd Parcel# : 812865 0560 04 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#120 Renton 98056 Sale Date : Mail : 18868 SE 42Nd St Issaquah Wa 98027 Sale Price : Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $62,700 Lgl : BLK F LOT UNIT 120 SUNSET GARDEN Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 689 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. :roScan/King (WA) Owner :Le Huong Lan Thi Parcel# : 812865 0570 02 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#219 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 10/08/1998 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#F219 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $80,000 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $75,000 Lgl : BLK F LOT UNIT 219 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 795 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Finch Francia L Parcel# : 812865 0580 00 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#220 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/27/1992 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#F-220 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $69,950 Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $64,600 Lgl :BLK F LOT UNIT 220 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 689 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Nishimoto Cynthia Y Parcel# : 812865 0590 08 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#319 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 09/30/1999 Mail : 611 N Stadium Way Sale Price : $87,000 Full Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $82,600 Lgl :BLK F LOT UNIT 319 SUNSET GARDEN Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 795 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Mccown Cory Allen Parcel# : 812865 0600 06 Site : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#320 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/17/1992 Mail : 949 Aberdeen Ave NE#F-320 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : Use : 123 Res,Condominium,50 To 99 Units Asd.V : $72,200 Lgl :BLK F LOT UNIT 320 SUNSET GARDEN Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrin : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 689 Ac: 2.58 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Thornsberry Karla L Parcel# : 813790 0010 08 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#101 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 09/03/1991 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#A101 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $85,950 Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $84,100 Lgl : BLK A LOT UNIT 101 SUNSET VIEW Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,066 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Smalls Tony E Parcel# : 813790 0020 06 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#102 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 12/06/1995 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#A-102 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $77,900 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $68,400 Lgl :BLK A LOT UNIT 102 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 866 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Crayton William D&Pamela S Parcel# : 813790 0030 04 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#103 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 07/12/1991 Mail : 6344 138Th P1 SE Bellevue Wa 98006 Sale Price : $70,450 Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $68,400 Lgl : BLK A LOT UNIT 103 SUNSET VIEW Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 851 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: 425-641-7473 Owner : Sonnenberg Cassandra J Parcel# : 813790 0040 02 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#104 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 06/26/1998 Mail : 4293 148Th Ave NE#K106 Bellevue Wa 98007 Sale Price : $102,500 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $90,000 Lgl : BLK A LOT UNIT 104 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R . 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,066 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guarantees:. 1i• .roScan/King (WA) Owner :Houghton Harriet A Parcel# : 813790 0050 09 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#201 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 08/01/1991 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#A201 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $88,950 Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $86,100 Lgl :BLK A LOT UNIT 201 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,066 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Liston Dwayne/Nancy M Parcel# : 813790 0060 07 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#202 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 12/10/1997 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $70,400 Lgl :BLK A LOT UNIT 202 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrnz : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 877 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Tat Phuong A Parcel# : 813790 0070 05 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#203 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 07/12/1991 Mail : 5022 Lakeview Dr#200 San Ramon Ca 94583 Sale Price : $74,950 Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $70,400 Lgl : BLK A LOT UNIT 203 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrnn : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 851 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Kim Hae Sook Parcel# : 813790 0080 03 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#204 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 11/08/1993 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $97,000 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $91,900 Lgl :BLK A LOT UNIT 204 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,066 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: 425-227-4270 Owner : O'Neal Leta Rae Parcel# : 813790 0090 01 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#301 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 04/13/1994 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#A301 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $99,000 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $91,000 Lgl :BLK A LOT UNIT 301 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,066 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Grunert Steve A Parcel# • : 813790 0100 09 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#302 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 11/29/1993 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#A302 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $86,000 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $75,300 Lgl :BLK A LOT UNIT 302 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 877 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Pappas Lonnie;O'Dell Patti Lynn Parcel# : 813790 0110 07 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#303 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 08/27/1992 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#303 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $86,746 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $75,300 Lgl :BLK A LOT UNIT 303 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE _S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 851 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Caven Thomas L Parcel# : 813790 0120 05 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#304 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 08/30/1996 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#A304 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $97,500 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $99,800 Lgl :BLK A LOT UNIT 304 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,066 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: • The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed ) » .oScan/King (WA) Owner : Williams Mollie J Parcel# : 813790 0130 03 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#105 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 10/26/1995 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#B-105 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $95,000 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $87,100 Lgl : BLK B LOT UNIT 105 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,103 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: 425-430-0631 Owner : Merritt Diana J Parcel# : 813790 0140 01 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#106 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 07/12/1991 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#B-106 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $73,950 Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $71,400 Lgl : BLK B LOT UNIT 106 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 851 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Nielsen Janet C Parcel# : 813790 0150 08 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#107 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 07/21/1993 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#B-107 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $98,000 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $87,100 Lgl :BLK B LOT UNIT 107 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,066 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Leonard Cheryl Parcel# : 813790 0160 06 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#205 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 01/21/1998 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#B-205 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $104,900 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $91,900 Lgl :BLK B LOT UNIT 205 SUNSET VIEW Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,103 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Tatarek Patricia Parcel# : 813790 0170 04 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#206 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 11/27/1991 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#B206 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $77,950 Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $73,400 Lgl :BLK B LOT UNIT 206 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 851 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Smith Alvin H&Irene D Parcel# : 813790 0180 02 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#207 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 07/12/1991 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#B-207 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $97,450 Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $89,000 Lgl :BLK B LOT UNIT 207 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,066 Ac: 2:00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Shoda Darren A Parcel# : 813790 0190 00 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#306 Renton 98056 Sale Date. : 07/12/1991 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#B-306 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $73,950 Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $78,200 Lgl : BLK B LOT UNIT 306 SUNSET VIEW Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 851 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Kromer Mardell L Parcel# : 813790 0200 08 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#307 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 05/26/1994 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#B307 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $118,000 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $96,900 Lgl :BLK B LOT UNIT 307 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,066 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. 1 _:'oScan/King (WA) Owner : Van Deventer David Parcel# : 813790 0210 06 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#108 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 08/31/1998 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#C108 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $84,500 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units ,Asd.V : $77,300 Lgl : BLK C LOT UNIT 108 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrrn : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 851 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Austin Marie C Parcel# : 813790 0220 04 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#109 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 05/28/1998 Mail : 633 Radbury P1 Diamond Bar Ca 91765 Sale Price : $83,500 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units .Asd.V : $73,400 Lgl :BLK C LOT UNIT 109 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrrn : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 866 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Medzegian Pamela L Parcel# : 813790 0230 02 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#110 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 07/25/1991 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#C-110 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $75,950 Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $73,400 Lgl :BLK C LOT UNIT 110 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 851 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Page Paula J Parcel# : 813790 0240 00 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#111 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 09/23/1994 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#C-111 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $83,000 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $77,300 Lgl : BLK C LOT UNIT 111 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 851 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Sebastian Ellyn L Parcel# : 813790 0250 07 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#208 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 09/04/1991 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#C208 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $86,950 Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $79,300 Lgl :BLK C LOT UNIT 208 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 851 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Swift Karyn A/Arlene J Parcel# : 813790 0260 05 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#209 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 05/26/1998 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#C209 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $94,950 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $75,300 Lgl :BLK C LOT UNIT 209 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrrn : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 877 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Smith Stacia Parcel# : 813790 0270 03 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#210 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 04/01/1996 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#C210 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Prict° : $79,000 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $75,300 Lgl :BLK C LOT UNIT 210 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrrn : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 851 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Glocker Julia M Parcel# : 813790 0280 01 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#211 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 07/12/1991 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#C-211 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $80,450 Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $79,300 Lgl :BLK C LOT UNIT 211 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 851 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. • I__-i•oScan/King (WA) Owner :Kisinger Deborah A Parcel# : 813790 0290 09 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#308 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 07/25/1995 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price . : $86,800 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $84,100 Lgl :BLK C LOT UNIT 308 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 851 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: 425-271-3530 Owner :Mccoy Cheryl A Parcel# : 813790 0300 07 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#309 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 02/28/1994 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#C-309 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $92,950 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $80,200 Lgl : BLK C LOT UNIT 309 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 877 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Johnson Janis A Parcel# : 813790 0310 05 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#310 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 09/17/1999 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $96,000 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $80,200 Lgl :BLK C LOT UNIT 310 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 851 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Best Rick/Lynda Parcel# : 813790 0320 03 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#311 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 12/24/1997 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#311 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $90,850 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $87,100 Lgl :BLK C LOT UNIT 311 SUNSET VIEW Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 851 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Mckinley Susan J Parcel# : 813790 0330 01 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#112 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 07/23/1999 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE# 112 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $111,000 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $93,000 Lgl : BLK D LOT UNIT 112 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,066 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Cummings Sean P E Parcel# : 813790 0340 09 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#113 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 06/25/1998 Mail : 901 W Sunset Way#D Issaquah Wa 98027 Sale Price : $95,250 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $73,400 Lgl :BLK D LOT UNIT 113 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 851 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Aaselund Gina M Parcel# : 813790 0350 06 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#114 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 09/30/1998 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#D114 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $92,500 Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $73,400 Lgl : BLK D LOT UNIT 114 SUNSET VIEW Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrnz : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 851 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Meneses Oscar/Regina E Parcel# : 813790 0360 04 • Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#115 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/31/1999 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#D 115 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $111,000 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units .Asd.V : $93,000 Lgl :BLK D LOT UNIT 115 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,066 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. 1. _.,' oScan/King (WA) Owner : Carlson Richard L/Maile Tran Parcel# : 813790 0370 02 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#212 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 02/10/1998 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#D212 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $104,950 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $94,900 Lgl :BLK D LOT UNIT 212 SUNSET VIEW Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,066 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Ho Kenny Parcel# : 813790 0380 00 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#213 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 08/26/1997 Mail : 6822 Beacon Ave S Seattle Wa 98108 Sale Price : Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $75,300 Lgl :BLK D LOT UNIT 213 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 851 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Not Available From County Parcel# : 813790 0390 08 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#214 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 07/31/1998 Mail : 21726 121St Pl SE Kent Wa 98031 Sale Price : $36,870 Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $75,300 Lgl :BLK D LOT UNIT 214 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 851 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Donckers Madeline Parcel# : 813790 0400 06 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#215 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 07/12/1991 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#D-215 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $102,950 Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $100,800 ,Lgl :BLK D LOT UNIT 215 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,066 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner :Lepage-Jones Sharon Kay Parcel# : 813790 0410 04 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#312 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 05/13/1996 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#D312 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $102,700 Lgl : BLK D LOT UNIT 312 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 3 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 1,066 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Yamada Koji Parcel# : 813790 0420 02 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#313 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 06/25/1993 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#D-313 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price : $83,000 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $83,200 Lgl :BLK D LOT UNIT 313 SUNSET VIEW Q : NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 851 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: 425-271-8392 Owner : Chandler Scott A Parcel# : 813790 0430 00 Site : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#314 Renton 98056 Sale Date : 05/28/1999 Mail : 901 Sunset Blvd NE#314 Renton Wa 98056 Sale Price, : $96,000 Full Use : 122 Res,Condominium,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $83,200 Lgl :BLK D LOT UNIT 314 SUNSET VIEW Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 2 Bth F3H: 2 / / Stories: 3 BldgSF: 851 Ac: 2.00 YB:1991 Ph: Owner : Neyhart Douglas J Parcel# : 922590 0025 02 Site : 962 Sunset Blvd NE Renton 98056 Sale Date : 05/28/1993 Mail : 315 Seneca St Seattle Wa 98101 Sale Price : Use : 112 Res,Apartment,10 To 49 Units Asd.V : $1,318,000 Lgl : LOT 5 WEEDS VIEW TRS Q :NE S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories:4 BldgSF: 26,162 Ac: .44 YB:1967 Ph: The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteeb I _ roScan/King (WA) Owner :Nelson Craig R;Hall Margaret E Parcel# : 922590 0030 05 Site : 958 Sunset Blvd NE Renton 98056 Sale Date : 03/09/1999 Mail : 5349 229Th Ave SE Issaquah Wa 98029 Sale Pric,' : $279,500 Full Use : 111 Res,Apartment,5 To 9 Units Asd.V : $184,500 Lgl :LOT 6 WEEDS VIEW TRS Q :NE . S : 08 T: 23N R : 05E Bedrm : 1 Bth F3H: 1 / / Stories:2 BldgSF: 5,910 Ac: .50 YB:1942 Ph: • The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable,But Is Not Guaranteed. • r�NrrO t Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Ms.Elizabeth Higgins,AICP,Senior Planner NOTICE OF APPLICATION Development Services Division,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on July 10,1999. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail,contact the AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- Project Manager.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically became a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project.SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) CONTACT PERSON: ELIZABETH HIGGINS (425)430-7382 I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE: June 26,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF APPLICATION NAME: ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested an Administrative Site Plan Review and Approval for two-story, nto to t ie v foot rayred in a Rlil M lami fi Zone(RM-I) The project require environmental review and a State Environmental Act (SEPA)determination by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. V emu. — `7 •coy Y�o�Het (�/''� /� o 7e4? PROJECT LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE ` • S�' ---• ,... ) y of ROenton DETERMINATION the significant OF nt environmental impacts MITIGATED(DNS,M)result As the Lead pro osed pro project.It Therefore, r•�R-E�'�`'©� __ yl--� „ rJ'j� to give notice that a bb.:==-�i• ; vie l •), W Renton has determined that signifcanl environmental Impacts are unlikely to result from the prop P 1 r-� Qr==g,... as permitted underttheRCW 43.mmet periods e City ofr of the nct usingdprocessepopoisedlNE-M) I j -•{9- u DNS-M Is likely lobe issued.Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single -__ f I c,, r� ?mike; .: W�„ comment period.There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- I , Significance Mitigated(ONS-M).A 14-day appeal period will follow the Issuance of the DNS-M. ; „a„..., g,:• ?zpfT�v, •coxooxrxmM I March 21,2000 > 51 TE `iea umn ` -y�� nZ" df PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: L :-1 �' LKl a Kl NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 26,2000 '7-f, I L1 PermitslReview Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Administrative Site Plan Approval • • - Qj �,.=y' Building and construction permits I - ''•'• 'II h' i,,�'7 LEi Other Permits which may be required: _ l. - Requested Studies: Environmental Checklist,Level I Drainage Analysis,Geotechnical Report, ; °�. e3L-x7fe-- Tree Inventory i rSU-N r q N•~ j-2, i. Location where application may Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services �v I V `. Ei Pit. . r, be reviewed: Department,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 - >o _______ `1 � � EI•.- � am AG i i� NC _ • , a AC.� rpm i, Land Use: : OVERVIEW: _ -- S}(I1 i'1 T,J� W +'i` -��� Vacant m c 9V2?�R,'E N''`ti�.ri J'.l..�ll' sj1; Y*.> i:T'� Land Use: -Cq�f�p�y ij' yr" • Environmental Checklist,Level 1 Drainage Analysis,Geolechnical D y lhb-J y_ 8jliPii!; Environmental Documents that Report,Tree Inventory '< a S - j '* '� Evaluate the Proposed Project: z s W,„„ ® '�9•; c° ^_' %� Development Regulations Renton Municipal Code,State Environmental Policy Act ' Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures will likely be Imposed on the proposed project.Other mitigation may be required following existing further review codes and of the d aguiaprect oposcited se recommended mitigation measures address project impacts not covered 1. Fire Mitigation Fee:Fire Mitigation Fee is$388.00 per new single family residential parcel. 2. Parks Mitigation Fee:Parks Mitigation Fee Is$354,51 per new multi-family residential parcel. 3. calcula nstarre based on the institutes of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Manual,Filth Edition].tigation Fee Is$75.00 per each new average daily trip[trip Erosion Control: erosion control measures for all 4 Temporary Erosion lControl Measuresmust be Installedstockpiled and maintained throughout the uraton of the p oject.s:The a — 5. Geotechnlcal Engineering:Applicant shall follow the recommendations contained In the geolechnical report. NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION - _ ---------' , CERTIFICATION I, drc.e f 34 mw , hereby certify that copies of the above l� 3 document were posted by me m conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on�c,,�,� Z av r • Signed: ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me,a Nortary Public, m and for the State of ' Washington residing"' !`(a-, , on the L--D, day of 7�®�. RILL FtAr C . : / _' �d/ j s STATE®F INASHINGT®N CC?MIiAlSSIOf�EXPIRES A, MARILYN6 KAMCHEFF . '. . �u`$Uh? 29,,2003 MY POINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29 O3 "u ti,•..,,.' s - �I4 , :: CITE „CoF RENTON . 77 ;-7.1fitr Planning/Building/Public Works Department s Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator Jesse Tanner,Mayor June 27, 2000 Mr. Frank Heffernan,AIA Ferrari Design Group PS 12277 134 h Court NE Redmond,WA 98052 SUBJECT: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Project No. LUA-00-040, SA-A, ECF Dear Mr. Heffernan: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is now complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, has been accepted for review. This project is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on July 18, 2000. Prior to that review, you will be notified if additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me, at(425)430-7382, if you have any questions. Sincerely, • °17 , Elizabeth Higgins, AICP. Senior Planner cc: Cambridge Homes NW/Owners New Home Trends, Ms. Helen Burch acceptance 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 FERRARI DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, PS Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, AICP June 14, 2000 Senior Planner City of Renton Planning / Building /Public Works Department 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 0 SUBJECT: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Re Project No. LUA-00-040, SA-A, ECF Dear Ms. Higgins: m We are in receipt of your letter of March.31, 2000 indicating that your Department has determined the referenced application incomplete. Please note the following with respect to the eight issues that were raised in your letter: 1. .We have included with this submittal 12 total copies (1 original and 11 copies) of the Master Application form, notarized and signed by Soung Hee Rieker, also listed on the title report as a property owner. 2. We have had our Civil Engineer and Surveyor, Touma Engineers, prepare a Tree Cutting / Land Clearing plan addressing trees located either on the subject property or within 25' of the subject property on adjacent properties. 3. We are including with this letter,a copy of a slope study plan produced by Touma Engineers. The study shows areas of relative slope on site. All areas of slope exceeding 40% occur in the western portion of the site, beyond the limits of the approximately 310' (as measured from the east property line) of the site proposed for development. We believe that a variance request as outlined in your letter will not be necessary. 4. The location and the height of the retaining wall has been clarified on the civil drawing please refer to the Site Grading Plan drawing. The architectural Site Plan drawing, drawing SD-1 has also been revised to note the retaining wall. The wall co is located on the property line and varies in height from 2'-0" to 4'-0". An eccentric footing is proposed however it is likely that a construction easement will be necessary in order to construct the wall. The easement will be obtained prior to c .the start of construction. • N ' 5. The retaining wall referenced above in item no. 4 has been added to the Building Elevation drawing. The face of the wall will be unfinished, poured-in-place 00 co concrete, cast against a form liner to give the wall a textured face surface. CO CO 6. The Vicinity map on.Drawing SD-1 notes the locations of structures on the °° adjacent properties. This infork afr '�� ✓ Iso'°alpears on the Site Plan on SD-1 v ' Prt;n'f w I, JUN 2 1 2000 a I 1 7-7 ] 4THHcT. N.E., SUITE 203, REDMOND, WA 98052-2433 `����1...�:xit`: a i���i�i��d I I 7. The Project Narrative and the appropriate page from the Environmental Checklist have been revised to show the cut and fill quantities. Updated copies of these documents have been attached to this submittal. 8. We had been led to believe that we had received a waiver from the traffic study requirement due to the scale of the project and the mitigation contribution proposed based upon ITE numbers. See Environmental Checklist item 14f. Also see the waiver form submitted with the initial application materials. Pleas advise me if we need to take further action on this issue. Copies of the revised materials accompany this letter. We have furnished the same quantities of the documents as required in the initial application. Please advise me if you need anything in addition. Sincerely, FERRARI DESI GR•UP ARCHITECTS, PS ;(1111Pf rank Heffernan A Architect Enclosures 991201tr1.doc\fh ; ; CITY •F RENTON ..�{l Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator • .. ; . March 31, 2000 :...,.. raw Mr. Fran Heffernan,AIA Ferran.Design Group PS . 12277—134 h Court NE Redmond, WA 98052 SUBJECT: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Project No. LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF Dear Mr. Heffernan: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is not complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, has not been accepted for review. The following items must be submitted to the sixth floor of Renton City Hall: 1. A notarized Land Use Permit Master Application signed by SOUNG HEE RIEKER (shown as property owner on title report submitted). 2. A Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan is required if any trees or vegetation are to be removed or altered. This plan must include any trees on neighboring properties that are within 25 feet of the subject property and that may be impacted by excavation, grading, or other improvements. 3. If removal of any vegetation is to take place on slopes greater than forty percent (40%), a variance from the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance will be required and must be requested at the time of application. It appears that areas of slope greater than 40% may be within the site construction area. 4. The location and height of the retaining wall. The grading plan does not include a legend and it is not clear where the wall is located and the top and bottom of wall elevations are not provided. What is the location of the wall in relation to the property line? Do you intend to request a construction easement from the neighbor on the north to construct the wall? 5. The retaining wall is not shown on the building elevations. What does the face of this wall look like? e000ptonoo 1.055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer • 6. Because the requested land use action is a.site•plan review, the following criteria will be used; "mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses" and "provision-'of adequate light-and air?' For this reason, please provide the location of existing structures on abutting properties. . 7.. .The.."estimated: quantities and type of materials involved if any fill or. :. excavation..is.proposed".are required as part of the Project Narrative. The . project narrative addresses this by referring to "the civil. engineering attachments: The Environmental Checklist states-that this information is "to • "=" ' � -: be determined. Please provide this information;• or clarify where in the - submittal materials it will be found. 8. A traffic study may be required for this project. Please contact Neil Watts at 425-430-7278 regarding a traffic study. Please contact me, at (425) 430-7382, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Elizabeth Higgins, AICP . Senior Planner cc: Cambridge Homes NW/Owner Touma Engineers Neil Watts acceptance v ii:?�i�!:ii;:;}:iii::}}}}i::ii i:iii'r:$iiii?::ji:+?ii:ii}iii:i;Yii:iiiji!S:i:•�?v'ii ii:�iii:^?i:+�ii i iii:•:{:iii;isiiiiiiiiii}{:tivii};;:�:i:i!::::i:ii$i}:�ii:i�iiiii�i:r:'fi:::::�:ti iiiiiiii:iii}i::i;:iC �iiiii: }i:::ij::i:::iv'{{h:4;:.:�}}:4}}iiii}:{{•i.:}:•}}}i}}}:{•i}}v:::.vm::::w::.:.......:::;::::::::::.} i.}l:.i};::}:h:?4{:•}i}}i:•}}r.}}:ii?'r:ii .:}}:yh};•;}}}:•}}i}:?i::i'i nvh:?};•y:{:.. .;rn:y......................v::.v::r:::...........;::v• C•}i'+: :.....:... ....v.....r... '....: :?:»::::.+»:::.v..:::.... •::•}:}'•}}::{{ .r... ":'.. i .:::.::. - :}:}::ii}}::::}i:.}}}}}:hii::{h;•}T}:•}}:-}}iiYh:i•}:ti:i:::i::ii:::ii::ii:.}}i:G: ..r...... .....r .r.r}.......f.. ..................:.:. ..... x /.3n.....+I..J.....f....t f.. ....v............. 5... ....n ... h:v:Aii::-:::..... :... ...yMM� ...:...:..... ..r. ...nv.. .r. tt:M ii:?:i::i.iw::{:::::!{{h;C•}}:?.}}}}:•;{?!::......v::::::::..i}:•}.'•}i.'•S:J:•}}:4}iJi:v'}}::ii?i:::v;•:::nu?yv:y..+.r. ...:vrv,C!.:n?r•,,,,.n............v.vv.:v.<m ..n. i.v.......:�... ..}....... �..... ::�»: ::........:..r.::•::...,... ...::w:.....:::::::.::r::::::n............ ::.:.;f.4;::.,v...........v....;v;..:v..:....:::r.r:......;..:. .•:v:.;{.::...v;•}.::. v:::?:•.w..... ..........v::.......:.v:::::h;;;v, .. :: . ..:. .. y. .: ......:v;v+h}}}:4:6}}}:G:in}}:h:•;h}:h}}:{{?{{h;{h:{h}:::::::::::::::::..r•}:t}iy}:•}}:•}i .:.fir wn,!w::::v;}M;p•:r..:: v .. /.. •:-. :•. :.:i .. :: ::::?:is?}}}ii}:•}:.::C•;{•}:?.}:?�:}i;•}:x{.}}}.}}}}}::•}}:{•}:�:%ii:}:::ii?� ii}}}:{{}i};•}}}}i: :$1js:;i}:}:v}`}::'ii:tn::Y::y::$I}�:{jiiiSiY.{{•:ti{?}isC�:ir::::}�i}}:;{•:4i:•n::}}::}%•�•�-�jij::j:}}::;.,..S'r;}r}:J}:i:i:{•r:<:?:C•}:• .r: i{?ti'}i:��'r ii}i`i::ii:i:::��:::h}:}:CC}C{{O:{{r:h}:hvr.?r{C.i'{?hi!}.}i}}'h}hY::} .�v�:C$i:•i::f::is::•::?.'i{i{.:'::�•itiii::i::':i ii::::i}iiii}ii}::::;::i:j::•ihiiii}:}:ii:}iji<v}: }nv{vvv:::.v:�v:i%iii:{{>•:•:?!!?.; v:.:w: .......: ....f ...............n...:...::::»::...:.. . .............;•'f.:.}i:Y.•i}};h}:h}:h}:}:•}:•i i}}:•}:•}...........:: •i'r'h'-}}:;:.:ti{,is}}}y.::' C v. :%ii::iii':.::{!h}}:•i}i:i?}}iii:•i:{:h}:�:•i:•i ii .n.».... .:....r.r::.....:...:-.: :{C:{»r:{':»::: v....v.........................1:?{:•i}}}}: :?::•i:'?�::i:r.v::h:::::.v:.::::.v}.:}::i ii::i::iii::??}•i:::::::ii::::}::-i:•:}::�i:: ':i:: ».v:.vy:....%hi}}i:v::::................. ...:.{{{::::m:::::r:::.v.v •}::::.:::.v:vt::.{::::.;:.i}i:{•}:?:{{{•i}:?{h:.}i:•}:+•:•:h}}}:•}:•:{•}:hi}Y{:4:h}i:i }::}}:•ii ::i:::::.:y i:i<{:}:::iii::j::}:.....r .v::}rr}}::•}y X{i.}}:•}}}}:.........»....:v.v::::.v:::::::w:::.v:::»}:{•i}:nv.v:i::v:4{:.............................»::.v. r. ............. AsTii::} • ?:; . : ::}::4:;ii:t; ::;:?.•:}: {:::'.;:;i:>}:v.}::i:v:'r:'':}::jii}i}:::iv::i;�::?-Ea-:.: .:.: v.v. :. .. .:: ::::.. ... :}`... ::: ii}::i}}r}}::::}:ti:}i:::?}:}: 'i:. ':PPE' ..: .:: w:: ::. .: .::: + .. :.::.v:::::::::.v:::;•:.v:::::::::::::::::-.::;v;•.h:{.}}}}::::.:v::::•}:::: i:{:is?Simi?iij:{•::v}}ii;??i::i:>:i:;i:iii::•:i:vY:ii::•'i:•::f: :.:::>}{i<;:::i::ii: :ii:::�i::i{:i::::>::sis�:.}:{{?:}:�:.: ; :i:.:i ;i::{.i:}i;i};;;;i:.}:}:{.}:�}>:.}}} i:{.:{{.i:.<:iiii:.;: i.}:.< ,:.:<{.:.; }:. :.:}} : };}>.:.}:.i:}}:.}:.:}>}}}>}: >::i::>::i»>:iii>::>::i}:�::i::i>::::::iii< ',: :«:i::::>i::::i::i:::{::�::::>:;::::>:::;:::< :i::::<::ii:<:�:. �.pER; `'�>��'�t.1f.N. R . .... ::::>:::»�::::�. O'''�:EC �NFORM �°:: �?: `� ><;>>��� �>< < > <; Not .<: i:<::<::.;,•i.:..i.ore tha o e ie'•'iaE.aii �?'pteasa'atta h.iin edditiai'ial:.,If.thece..ls�.� c .t- .. • }:-}:}}:;•ii};:.}::i::.:{?.i::y::::::::{•is:•}:•-;•>;;;ii::ii:.};i:.:.. .. :rtcterifad:>IGie's'ter:>t�pplicafioit::.fa�:eaiit>d'WR ....::.. .. PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: • NAME: GERALD RIEKER AND ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS SOUNG• HEE RIEKER PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: 11017 101 PLACE NE 917 ABERDEEN AVENUE NE KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): CITY: KIRKLAND , WA ZIP' 98033 311 -990-0065 TELEPHONE NUMBER: EXISTING LAND USE(S): ( 2 0 6) 300-5911 • 111111111:11APPLICANT::{r!f�th+r.K::'�t�...�::...:....:.:.:..:.:.�.::::::::::.::::::::.�. SITE IS CURRENTLY VACANT .............. PROPOSED LAND USES: NAME: GERALD AND SOUNG HEE RIEKER MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMPANY(if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: CAMBRIDGE HOMES NW MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: 1 2 2 2 8 NE 101 , PLACE #A 1 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE.PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CITY: KIRKLAND , WA ZIP: 98033 EXISTING ZONING: RM I ( RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY TELEPHONE NUMBER: I N F I L L ) ( 4 2 5 ) 8 2 8 —2 5 8 3 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable):__ ' ry o' « �:��•::t3NTACT>P�RS UN CHANGED RM /I ) SITE AREA'(SQ. FT. OR ACRE GE). J,I NAME: FRANK HEFFERNAN AIA 3' • N2� 2000 • 37', 585 SF ( • 6s ,�D11 S) . �©1VlSION , • COMPANY(if applicable): . = PROJECT VALUE: - FERRARI DESIGN GROUP PS "", $7.50•; 000 . 00 ADDRESS: :,,x.:�!°:, 1 2 2 7 7 1 3 4 t h CT NE IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? NOT THAT WE ARE AWARE OF CITY: R E_D M O.N ..W.A ZIP: 9 8.0.5.2..__ • IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? - TELEPHONENUMBER: ( 425 ) 821 -3383 CITY GREENBELT MAP _ — EROSION /SLIDE HAZARD MAP — +n•fi::>?+,{m:<•.;r,.., • :: is i4:iii:vi<:i::4: [.. .10. .D TY. F..P!ROPER... A ra e<�..1�<:::<::::<;:<.,,,„�:::::`�cessar'�' IC A e.�h.. � eet.,f.rt LOT. 11 HARRIES GARDEN HOME TRACTS LESS THE NORTH37 .5 FEET . • • • 1= P : .I C Q111•..�I,.. ..E•E '� <w��•.�.� <<:�••_ ><> . :.<.>:>:_<:� >. _ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: •• _COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ • _ REZONE $ _ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _SPECIAL PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT $ _TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ _CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ . _ PRELIMINARY PLAT $ g SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ _ FINAL PLAT $ _GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ (NO. CU. YDS: ) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ _VARIANCE $ (FROM SECTION: ) _ PRELIMINARY _WAIVER $ FINAL _WETLAND PERMIT• $ ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ • _BINDING SITE PLAN $ • SHORELINE REVIEWS: SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ _CONDITIONAL USE $ _VARIANCE . $ _ EXEMPTION $No Charoe ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ REVISION $ I, (Print Name)„(pvr> A/2A Rk it/.Weigtare that I am (please check one) he owner of the property involved in this application,_the authorized representative to act for the property owner(plei igigittach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are iRTkezec . e and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. yj Z• °' A11 w •VI" TTEST: Subscribejd and sworn to before e, a tart'Pu is in and c d e / .w l�/ .� 42: r the State of - residing at c l•.Jv-10 (Name of Owner/Representative)) * PVS‘'�G t - , on the jday of (Signature of caner/Representative) CF W ure of N ry Public) ................................................,..............................................................................................R............:..: ... ... toff..)::.:::::.:�::::::::::.�:.:,..:::::.:.�:.:.:::::::::::::::.:::.:.;:.:.:;.:.:�:.::.�:.::�::._:..:.::: .................... .... .................. ................ .........:::........... :....................:..................::.::....5...:.:::CaP::S::...CAP.,:.U::.:::CP..A.....GU.A:::::.CE1.H..:...ECF....LLA:.�.�:::..:..::.. ...........:::.::.:................:::::::... .....PF.i�P.R.....R. .IVFF.....5.. ....... ...H...:SFIPI;=/\::..'>SfPl . ......SP..... M::>:>:S MASTERAP.DOC REVISED 8/97 - - - :<.;;:•• :.;:.;:•••••••••:.;:.;:.:.;;:.•::::.>::•.•::•:>;:.;•:.;:.:::;:.::<:;:::.::.........•.•......•.•.•. nipliqp!!!!!!iiimpoimmimr ................................................. . .. .. . .. ...................................... ............. .fit . . 'ttoFoRM.:T »::::>:>>::>::::>::>:::<:>::»::>::>::>: Note ``If the:r®.is xiEir re than:::one legal owner�:;;please attach an additional; natarixed.Nester.Applicetion.fcr:.each.ovirner.... : PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: GERALD RIEKER AND Aberdeen Avenue Apartments SOUNG HEE RIEKER PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: 1 1 0 1 7 101 PLACE NE • 917 AberdeenrAvenue NE CITY: K I R K L A N D , WA ZIP: 98033 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 311 -990-0065 TELEPHONE NUMBER: ( 2 0 6 ) 3 0 0-5 91 1 EXISTING LAND USE(S): Site is currently vacant NAME: GERALD RIEKER AND PROPOSED LAND USES: SOUNG HEE RIEKER Multi - Family Residential • COMPANY(if applicable): CAM B R I D G E HOME S NW EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Multi - Family Residential ADDRESS: 12228 NE 112th PLACE #A1 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): Multi - Family Residential CITY: K I R K L A N D , WA ZIP: 98033 EXISTING ZONING: • RM- I ( Residential MultibFamily TELEPHONE NUMBER: (4 2 5 ) 8 2 8-2 5 8 3 I n f i l 1 ) �F� p�9 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): At O,(.4, U - nchan ed RM I 9 ( SITE,AREA:(S"Q„FT. OR ACREAGE): NAME: FRANK HEFFERNAN AIA �� ® ®®� ( . 86_ Acres ) •g,41: COMPANY (if applicable):, F E R R A R I DESIGN GROUP • P S .' PROJECT"VALUE; ADDRESS: 1 2 2 7 7 1 3 4 t h CT NE ISSTHBSITE.LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? Not that we • are aware of CITY: REDMOND , WA ZIP: 98052 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? TELEPHONE NUMBER: ( 425 ) 821 -3383 City Greenbelt Map ; Erosion/Slide Hazard Map >::>;::::::::::>;::::::»::<»;::::::::::;:;::::<:>::::; . . , ::1. .: :... ,:<::<:<:><::<:::<:::>::»:::::<><:::><>::>:<::::::LEGAI::::�ES.•:1,,. • ,t.�11�... .F.....R .. R. . Lot 11 Harries Garden Home tracts less the North 37 . 50 feet • ::>;::>:::>::>::»::>::;>:<;::>:>:<:>::::>::::<>:::::::>::>.<�};':<,:' a . ..�ca#.+��.... . es..th�:t.� . ... ..... �. . >:eta.................. ...�...............e....+ees.......::..:................................... _ANNEXATION $ • SUBDIVISION: _ COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ _ REZONE $ _ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _ SPECIAL PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT $ _TEMPORARY PERMIT $ TENTATIVE PLAT $ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ _ PRELIMINARY PLAT $ X SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ If 2c2 _ FINAL PLAT $ GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ b" (NO. CU. YDS: ) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ _VARIANCE " $ _ (FROM SECTION: ) _ PRELIMINARY _WAIVER $ _ FINAL _WETLAND PERMIT $ ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ BINDING SITE PLAN $_ SHORELINE REVIEWS: _SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ _ CONDITIONAL USE. $ _VARIANCE $ _ EXEMPTION $No Charge X ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ .6) REVISION $ I, (Print Name) , declare that I am (please check one)_the owner of the property involved in this application,_the " authorized representative to act for the property owner(please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Ig'iss RA• Use ..yJ�pvY�.E.�p°... ATTEST: Subscribed a sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in and ' �-+O t 0 .1AA y, ; for the St of residing at (Name of Owner/Representative) t� ;, , on the �day of .r (Signature of Owner/Re resentative) �,�q .el,BaOr. •�`' FO (Sigma ure Notary Public) I.eted..b. ..0....Staff,1:....:.. . .....:::..:......:...... :..... :...::..:.. .: � .:::::::.. • S . H.. .SH.Fh..A....SHPL..I-).....SP.....Sl�i.....5.11�1>�.........P.......................8....:V..H.....W..... il.l \.1" .....:�';.:.:;JI.�:•.ti..:I:.1' ..::I.:I;I:11.:::!.;�11';I111:).,�::.�I:::)..;1.:...�:II:1 ................................. ....�':.I:;1{,11.....:.:;:......:.:•.;F:V:....:•:...t:::':...Y ...I"I'I1:�:'.... ...�... ...1';I11.::.:::.::� ;'i:•i:i:}:::?:Liii::v:i:::is i::::i:;}:.:.y..;:.v: '::.::..:::.:::.::w:;;;.}::;: •.... ..::::is :::::::. .:.�:::::::::.�::...........::::.:::..:..•.;...::'+.•i:...:..:.:..:...i....:.,.:..;..{.....:}}}ii;:'.iii: ::..:`:iY::.'::i'M..i}iii:it<ii;b{>vi% ij;?is i:Y.;i•i;•i}iiiii:O:U.+ �MASTEflAP.DOC':;::z::::>;:•:":REVISED .8 97;:.:.;;:.......................................................................................................................................... .................................................................. I i ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS 917 ABERDEEN AVENUE N.E. RENTON, WASHINGTON FDG PROJECT NO. 99120.00 PROJECT NARRATIVE The proposed project involves the construction of a twelve unit apartment development on the subject site. The "Aberdeen. Avenue Apartments" as noted above is located in the 900 block of Aberdeen Avenue N.E. in Renton, Washington. The site is an approximately 37,585 s.f. (.86) acre) site currently zoned RM-I (Residential Multi-Family Inf ill). Sites to the north and south are zoned RM-I, sites to the east are zoned RM-I and R-8, and the site to the west is zoned R-1 and is also a Puget Sound Energy transmission line right-of-way. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The slope of the site varies. On the east end of the property, the site slopes westward 5% to 10% providing 30'-0" of relief in the first 400' of the property. The western portion of the property contains slopes of 40% or greater. A survey is provided for review. Soils types as identified in the soils report provided are silty sands, medium dense to dense. A preliminary drainage analysis and an accompanying preliminary grading and drainage plan have been completed for the project and are included with this submittal. The following statistics are included in this narrative by way of detailing size and scope of the Aberdeen project: Lot Area: 37,585 s.f. Building Footprint: 6,288 s.f. Building Area: 16,332 s.f. Parking Area: 9,697 s.f. (21 stalls) :')- % Coverage (by building): 17% ✓ `I, Impervious Area: 15,985 (43%) 0 e0 400�� (12) 2 bedroom units: 976 s.f. each 0 Building Height: 2 stories* 35' maximum / Q0/lam 0 * UBC Defined Story . ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS 917 ABERDEEN AVENUE N.E. RENTON, WASHINGTON FDG PROJECT NO. 99120.00 PROJECT NARRATIVE (CONTINUED) Curb gutter and sidewalk are proposed along the project frontage on Aberdeen Avenue. Construction costs for the project are estimated in the range of $775,000.00 or $66.75 per square foot of living area. The surveyor, Touma Engineering, has prepared a tree cutting plan, copies of which are included with this submittal. Quantities of grading and fill material are estimated by the civil engineer as follows: cut 1 ,583 cubic yards, fill 266 cubic yards. Source of material remains to be determined. No additional easements or dedications are proposed for the development of the project. All portions of the site not proposed to be covered by building or pavement (including sidewalk) will be landscaped per the landscape plan submitted with this application. / do, 4,7:0 , oiN� 2000 FH 1412/III CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION DESCRIPTION ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS FDG PROJECT NO. 99120.00 Construction of the Aberdeen Avenue Apartments is anticipated to occur during the summer and early fall months of the year 2000. We look for a construction permit in early August, and hope to complete construction by November 15, 2000. Hours of operation during the construction period are anticipated to be 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday over an approximately four month time period. Transportation/hauling routes will be along Sunset Boulevard connecting with Interstate 405. A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan will be prepared incorporating a construction drive access, tire wash area, silt fence, etc. for City review and approval prior to start of construction. Additional City recommendations to mitigate development impacts will be considered. We don't anticipate the need for an extensive traffic control plan associated with utility tie ins on Aberdeen Avenue, but will take direction from the City associated with street use permits secured for the project at the time work is scheduled. gAOG 10 VA FH 1413/III ° ��Y Chi ®c• CITY OF RENTON ,NTo� FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: July 22, 1999 TO: Laureen Nicolay, Planner • FROM: Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Aberdeen Av. NE Apartments, 917 Aberdeen Av. NE Fire Department Comments: 1. The preliminary Fire flow is determined by the total square footage and type of construction of the individual buildings. The total square footage and type of construction is needed to determine fire flow for the project. The Fire Code requires one fire hydrant within 150 feet of each building and additional hydrants within 300 feet of each building. Number of required hydrants is based on required fire flow. 2. The fire department access roadway turnaround shall be per attached diagram. 3. A fire mitigation fee of$5,820.00 is required based on $388.00 per unit. 4. Separate plans and permits are required for the required sprinkler and fire alarm systems. ELOPMENENTONNG Please feel free to contact me if you have any questiAgtrrY of MAR 2 2000 RECEIVED ABERDEEN APARTMENTS 917 Aberdeen Ave.NE Pre-Application Meeting Thursday,August 5, 1999 WATER: 1 The Water System Development Connection charge is $510 per unit. 2. There is a 16-inch water line available in Aberdeen Ave.NE. 3. One fire hydrant is required for each 1000 gpm of required fire flow. Each fire hydrant delivers 1000 gpm of fire flow„ 4. The primary hydrant is to be within 150-feet of the structures, but not closer than 50-feet. The secondary hydrants must be within 300-feet of the structures. 5. Drawings to adhere to City of Renton drafting standards available at the 6th floor counter. Show meter,valve line, sizes and locations. 6. If required fire flow is over 2500 gpm a water loop system is required. A loop system is required to be located in a 15-ft. Utility Easement. The required fire flow will be determine by the Fire Prevention Department. 8. The irrigation meter needs to be shown on the water service plan with a separate tap to the main. SEWER: 1. The wastewater System Development Connection charge is $350 per unit. 2. If the project produce fats, oils, or grease, then an appropriate removal system will be required per plumbing code . 3. Side sewer line to have a 2%slope to property line. 4. Side sewer to have a cleanout 5-feet out from the structure and every 100-feet. 5. A conceptual plan for utilities-will be required for SEPA Review. 6. The proposed site is located in the Lake Washington East Basin. 7. The drawing size is to be 22 x 34 sheets and 20-scale. 8. A 10-inch sewer main is available in Aberdeen Ave.NE. • SURFACE WATER: 1. The Storm System Development Connection charge is$510 per unit. 99CM065 W.DOC1 • 2. •A level 1 Storm Drainage Report required per 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Address all core requirements and Special requirements. 3. Use NAVD 1988 Datum for project civil plans. - 4. Construction plans to be prepare in accordance with the City of Renton drafting standards which is available at the 6th floor counter. 5. Runoff collected from the pavement surface with vehicle access/parking must flow through an oil/water separator or adequate biofiltration system. 6. Site drainage construction plans and erosion/sedimentation control plans are to meet the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual requirements. 7. Show topography of entire site and minimum of 30-feet outside the property. TRANSPORTATION: 1. The Transportation Mitigation charge is $75 per new trip generated. 2. Curb, gutter and sidewalk is required fronting the property to Aberdeen Ave. NE. Match existing curb,gutter and sidewalks. 3. Maximum driveway width is 30-feet. 4. Street lighting is required on Aberdeen Ave. Design level is 0.6-ft.c and 4:1 uniformity ratio. 5. All electrical and communication facilities to be underground. 99cm065w !,fiYY1/7?e,Y43 ain't MG�rvr v (5f25) • 99CM065W.DOC\ AIM . ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS (*pip/41S PRELIMINARY PROJECT REVIEW MEETING LIST OF QUESTIONS/ISUES _ FDG PROJECT NO. 99120.00 • cfl planning • Will formal landscaping/irrigation plans be required? • Will a licensed landscape architect be required? • Can we develop up to 17 units on this site? • Review trash/recycling enclosure requirements. • Where is building height calculated to? • How is parking counted/allocated? • Is a tree survey/removal plan required? • Will a traffic analysis be required? • Is a SEPA review required? • Review impact fees. • Dedications or easements required. • Mailboxes and addressing standards. Building • Review City sprinkler ordinance as it affects us. • Review ocupancy and construction type. L e VI sf- +-( f-Pi r '�c t • How does UBC 311 .2.2.1 affect us? •- Po�s�b�e • Review area separation wall impacts/benefits. • Review allowable area calculations (Table 5B). k � `� • Review 904.2.9 UBC. —' nok- c c.k ev a'^f ��` `"� • Review 310.2.2 UBC. • Review 310.10 UBC. e • • Review 1004.2.3.2 UBC and 1004.2.3.3 URC. f Fire • Will on site hydrants be requried? • Review proposed hammerhead turn around. • Is fireflow a concern for this site? • Alarm and sprinkler system requirements. • Fire lane striping requirements for site. • Building addressing requirements. 17 k lsnv6 iis-cziZ rCosW (3 RECW ► JUL 2 0 .1999 • ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. • • NEIGHBORHOODS. AND STRATEGIC PLANNING • MEMORANDUM • DATE: '7—(0 —99 TO: Long Range Planning • • FROM: Jana Hanson, Development Services Division Director SUBJECT: New Preliminary Application: 4be, pig Apaiikneruta LOCATION: l (g Avz �j PREAPP NO. '1 —fir I Please review the attached preliminary project plans for consistency with applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies. Please submit your written comments to ��2 (%- no later than AF-� . Thank you. We will not be able to include comments received after this date in the presentation/summary we prepare for the applicant. �K Eca/-1 Atidpkcirl /-71i 2 is 2e3t o aNn,1 /3't- MUD,1 Fig l L.Y - i ry s"-1 cc_ 1 N 1-I -115- CO M P(US) ccYV 5 l V% PL TJI /kr\10 nor i00 ('i 1-I , r1C 5176- ffiPPoP iz5 TU INC,I,u0e 5w91'3 ovate Lto7 . yNc.t I i 15 N c r c l.J 1-1-t-7 F-tS3-A., i 446 rse D33 Lst iat,— Et)U c 7 CI) F?1 er. T14-,- G.2C S S / T_6'73 r nl Celt-6 u(:../ Aram /•i S)L 45 I i`7/ 11�� ea-el 1n05 I�L r � MY;�^r ��� c+vz-re-��NsE. c:N oTozYZ C tX �/S' �{ )SS uv3. / cs-G�✓n.ft2, preapp a. Development Planning Section PREAPPLICATION COMMENTS ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE August 4, 1999 The applicant, Jeff Rieker, has proposed to develop a 15-unit apartment complex in two buildings on a .86 acre site with 25 associated parking spaces. The buildings are proposed to be three stories and 35 feet in height and will be situated on a long, narrow lot. The site abuts a single-family residential zone (R- 5) on the westerly boundary. The site plan scale is listed at 1" = 30', however, it is actually drawn at a 1" = 40' scale. This will need to be changed prior to formal application submittal. General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application materials 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 and the Codes in effect on the date of review. No site visit was conducted. The applicant is cautioned that review comments may 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. • Land Use Permits Required: The proposal will require an administrative site plan review and environmental review. As now proposed, several administrative parking regulation modifications (for tandem spaces, total number of stalls, a driveway closer than 5 feet to the side property line) are also required. Processing time for the combined site plan review/environmental review/parking modification requests will be approximately 8 to 10 weeks, assuming no appeals are filed. The site plan/environmental application fee is $1,500.00 plus postage costs (33 cents per mailing label). There is no fee for the modification requests. A building permit will also be required. As proposed, the project will either need to provide special amenities through the site plan review process to allow more than 2.5 stories in height or must submit for a Board of Adjustment height variance. Processing time for a project needing a Board of Adjustment Variance will increase by approximately 4 weeks, assuming no appeals are filed. The variance application fee is an additional $500.00. A complete variance/site plan/environmental/modification application package and a Board of Adjustment application deadline and meeting schedule are attached. At the applicant's option, the building permit may be submitted simultaneously with the-land use applications. The processing time for a building permit is approximately 8 weeks. A complete building permit application package and fee schedule is attached. • Uses Permitted: The subject site is zoned Residential Multi Family Infill (RM-I) which allows a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per net acre (subtracting sensitive areas—i.e. slopes 40% and greater). No more than 20 dwelling units per net acre are permitted by this zone. Based upon City maps (applicant to provide slope analysis and topography map to verify), it appears once slope_s 40% and greater are deducted, that the proposal will exceed the maximum density. My very rough calculations put the maximum number of units closer to 11 for this site. • Access: The site has direct access off of Aberdeen Avenue NE. The applicant has proposed a driveway of 20 feet in width abutting the southern border of the site. RMC Section 4-4-080 I allows multi-family residential uses to have driveways up to 30 feet in width, however, since the subject site has only about 62 feet of street frontage, a driveway width of 25 feet would be the maximum since the code also prohibits multi-family driveways from exceeding 40% of the property's street frontage. The proposed driveway must be relocated a minimum of 5' from the side (south) property line in order to comply with Section 4-4-080I2b. The driveway cannot exceed a maximum slope of 15% without a variance from the 3oard of Public Works and cannot exceed 8% unless "slotted drains at the lower end with positive drainage discharge to restrict runoff from entering the [structures] or crossing any public sidewalk". Applicant to note driveway grade on site plan prior to formal site plan/environmental application submittal. Parking: The current parking code will required a total of 1.75 parking spaces per unit. If 15 units are possible under the site zoning, the total number of required parking stalls required would be 26. The standard stall size is 9' by 20', however, the code permits a maximum of 30% of required parking spaces to be compact size (8.5 by 16'). Based upon a total of 26 stalls, a maximum of 8 of these stalls could be compact. Of the 26 required stalls, one must be an accessible parking space a minimum of 16' by 20'. An additional 20-foot long accessible guest parking space must also be provided (8 to 13 feet in width depending on whether the access way for the first accessible stall can be shared): A minimum of 24 feet of backout room is required. The total required parking is 26 units and the applicant is proposing a total of 25 spaces. To provide any less than 1.75 spaces per unit will require an administrative parking regulation modification. The applicant has proposed that six spaces be "tandem". The current code does not permit tandem parking for apartment development, however, a code amendment is in process which may allow this at some point in the future. Although the site plan is not dimensioned, the proposed compact spaces seem smaller than the minimum compact stall width (8.5'). If this is the case, the applicant will not need to obtain an administrative parking modification for the size of stalls as well, as stall type (tandem), and number of stalls (25 instead of 26. The City has not yet approved a parking modification to permit a standard stall size less 18 feet or a width of less than 8.5 feet. The decision criteria for approving a modification request are listed in RMC Section 4-9-250D. The applicant should be aware that the City is in the process of considering amendments to the parking code. Depending on the date of project application, the new parking amendments may affect the development. Height: The maximum height limit in the RMI Zone is 2 '/ stories and 35 feet. No elevation drawings were provided with the preliminary site plan, however, the applicant has stated that while the proposed buildings will comply with the 35- foot height limitation, they will be three stories in height. There are two options to obtain approval of a structure over 2.5 stories: 1) Provision of"additional amenities such as pitched roofs, additional recreation facilities, underground parking, and/or additional landscaped/open space areas, as determined through the site plan review process"; or 2) A Board of Adjustment variance. The applicant did not provide any information supporting the need for and/or justification for such a variance or modification request, so I am unable to comment on the feasibility. Standard RMI Setbacks: this zone requires A 20-foot front yard setback and the proposal provides for a 20-foot setback. The rear yard required by the zone is only 15 feet and the proposed structures are several hundred feet from the rear lot line. The Uniform Building Code requirements for setbacks from slopes and/or the slope setbacks recommended by the geotechnical report will be the determining factor for construction on the westerly portion of the site. Side yard setbacks in the zone are required to be a minimum of 10% of the lot width and "if 10% of the lot width is not equal to a whole integer, the percentage shall be rounded up to determine the required setback . . ." Although no lot width was provided for the easterly portion of the lot, it appears to be 62.74 feet in width. Ten percent of 62.74 feet results in a percentage that if rounded up would require a 7-foot side yard setback. The proposed plan indicates only 6-foot side yard setbacks. Special Setbacks for Structures over 2 stories in height: Since the proposal is 3 stories in height, all setbacks must be increased by "an additional foot for each story in excess of 2 : . .". This means that the front yard setback will be 21 feet, the rear yard will be 16 feet and the side yards will be 8 feet each for this particular project. Tree Cutting/Land Clearing: A tree cutting plan indicating sizes/types/locations of all trees to be removed and retained will be required as part of the formal site plan/environmental application package. Any tree cutting or land clearing must be in accordance with the approved site plan/tree cutting plan. No trees or vegetation can be disturbed prior to building permit issuance. It appears that approximately 1/3 of the site is steeply sloping with slopes approximately 40% or greater. No tree cutting is permitted in areas with 40% or greater slopes (westerly portion of site). 3 al -V Landscaping: All required landscaping must be sprinklered. Setback areas are required to be landscaped "unless otherwise determined through the site plan review process". The applicant will be required to provide an analysis indicating total square footage of parking lot/aisle way area. If the square footage is'10,000 square feet or greater, a minimum of 5% of the interior of the lot must also be landscaped. • This figure will also be used to determine compliance with impervious surfacing limitations (75% maximum). Lot Coverage/Impervious Surface Maximum: 35% maximum building coverage and 75% total maximum impervious surfacing. The proposal appears to comply with these provisions. Dumpster location and Screening: Not permitted in any setback areas. Must comply with provisions of RMC 4-4-090. We recommend you contact the service provider, Rainier Waste Management, to obtain their approval prior to submitting your formal site plan/environmental application to the City. Mitigation Fees: $388.00 per unit Fire Mitigation Fee. $354.51 per unit Parks Mitigation Fee. $497.25 per unit Transportation Mitigation Fee. Sensitive Areas: The site (or a portion of the site) is indicated as sensitive on the City's greenbelt, erosion hazard, and slide hazard maps. A geotechnical • report, addressing the issues noted in RMC 4-3-070G3, will be required as part of the formal site plan application in order to determine any building issues related to the slopes on the on the western border of the site. • Also, Jones Creek may be located on or near the site. If so please indicate the location of the creek on the site plan and/or the neighborhood map and indicate the closest distance to site boundaries. There is a minimum 25-foot setback required for the creek. No vegetation or trees can be removed within this 25-foot area. The greenbelt regulations, Section 4-3-070, only apply to those areas of the site that are indicated on the City's greenbelt map. It appears that only a very small portion of the site is actually indicated on the greenbelt map. Applicant's engineer/surveyor to verify. Special Design Standards:. This site abuts an R-5 single family residential zone. The RMI Zone development standards sta e: "Properties abutting a less intense residential zone may be required to incorporate special design standards (e.g., additional landscaping, larger setbacks, facade articulation, solar access, fencing) through the site plan review process." Comments by: Laureen Nicolay (425) 430-7294 • .......................................... . RK .........................................................:.:::::::.::::.:::::::: ...................::::...................................................... DENSITY• •• • •• • • ..• 1. Gross area property: 1. 37 50 square feet • 2. Certain areas are excluded from the c to . • These include public roadways an sensitive areas*. ,(c Total excluded area: .),,A. p, 2. I square feet 3. Subtract line 2 from line I for net area (or total of lot areas): 3. _ square feet • 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage: 4. f 5e)7 acres 5. Number of dwelling units (d.u.) planned: 5. / units 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: 6. /j, ' l' d.u./acre • vntr5 Js would result in a net density of � dwelling units per acre. * Sensitive areas are defined as "areas not suitable for development which are included within the City's greenbelt, geologically hazardous, wetlands, or flood plain regulations." (City Code Section 4-31-2: Definitions r9 ,t GppZ K .?4G - 91)G(a2-;-Z.74' DENSITY.DOC • ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS PRELIMINARY PROJECT REVIEW MEETING LIST OF QUESTIONS/ISUES FDG PROJECT NO. 99120.00 - Planning • Will formal landscaping/irrigation plans be required? • Will a licensed landscape architect be required? `J • we developupto 17 units on this site?/VO7 / jlj c ems/ Can dhtaiJe6? r ?d3-r1 • Revier t rash recy clingg clo�ur nid rne/n • wheeG ^bu. d7g h4ht cGta'cl((aen`"1``'Ih€� Cf�GL (ii D' ce J� • How is parking counted/allocated? /,75"&paces,4 • Is a tree survey/removal plan required?/cS • Will a traffic analysis be required? flO • Is a SEPA review required? 5 - ,, e//in iu.t ,t • Review impact fees. rj,,o ,t3g� ,0,44)435i6,51 -/? j ee f O G�C� y ;� � ?1/lG7dn 2 er-c e4 easements re fired.iII / i'2 C� • Dedications or q � • Mailboxes and addressing standards. GQ77-ac(- s! c 2c2 ,(-c✓air • Y r,G /o- idhf .�, 4 (-Oaf aSs ? & 7t -f'Le S/-fc /rtiS /5t"B/ H 23' ' .�coree i ilows s evrat. • Review City sprinkler ordinance as it affects us. • Review ocupancy and construction type. • How does UBC 311 .2.2.1 affect us? • Review area separation wall impacts/benefits. • Review allowable area calculations (Table 5B). • Review 904.2.9 UBC. • Review 310.2.2 UBC. • Review 310.10.UBC. • Review 1004.2.3.2 UBC and 1004.2.3.3 URC. it • Will on site hydrants be requried? • Review proposed hammerhead turn around. • Is fireflow a concern for this site? • Alarm and sprinkler system requirements. • Fire lane striping requirements for site. • Building addressing requirements. 4-11-020 • BUFFER,SHORELINES:A parcel or strip of land 7-22-1985 (Minutes),3-12-1990 (Resolution that is designed and designated to permanently • 2787), 7-16-1990 (Resolution 2805), 9-13-1993 remain vegetated in an undisturbed and natural • (Minutes) and Ord.4716,4-13-1998) condition to protect an adjacent aquatic or wetland site from upland impacts,to provide habitat for BUILDING CODE: Building Code is the Uniform wildlife and to afford limited public access. Shore- Building Code, promulgated by the International line Master Program (Ord. 3758, 12-5-1983, Re- Conference of Building Officials, as adopted by vised 7-22-1985 (Minutes), 3-12-1990 this jurisdiction. (Ord.3719, 4-11-1983) (Resolution 2787),7-16-1990 (Resolution 2805), 9-13-1993 (Minutes) and Ord. 4716, 4-13-1998) BUILDING COMPLEX, MULTIPLE:A group of structures housing more than one type of retail BUFFER,WETLAND: Areas that surround and business, office or commercial venture and gen- protect a wetland from adverse impacts to its erally under one ownership and control. (Ord. functions and values. 4720,5-4-1998) BUILDABLE AREA:The portion of a lot or site, • BUILDING DRAIN:See RMC 4-6-100. exclusive of required yard areas, setbacks, land- , scaping or open space within which a structure BUILDING ENVELOPE:The allowable building may be built. area permissible for the construction of one single REAR LOT LINE _ family dwelling unit in a residential cluster. T___..-1--____...._ i. FEAR BUILDING FACADE:That portion of any exterior l I 1 elevation of a building extending from the grade �__.1 _._ ... ___ .eosir*ur __ to the top of the parapet wall or eaves,and the en- •\ ` ' '' �' fire width of the building elevation. (Ord. 3719, S• SIDE ",\ :: = ;:::::•r.',:i.a' SIDE •n YnFm YARD S 4-11-1983) E l____ BUILDING FOOTPRINT:The area of a lot or site e�nnlr�urE included within the surrounding exterior walls of a FRONTYIRD 1 building or portion of a building, exclusive of courtyards. In the absence of surrounding exte- FRONT LOT-LINE rior walls, the building footprint shall be the area under the horizontal projection of the roof. D Buildable Area BUILDING HEIGHT:The vertical distance above a referenced datum measured to the highest point BUILDING: Any structure having a roof sup- of the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a ported by columns or walls and intended for the mansard roof or to the average height of the high- shelter, housing or enclosure of any individual, est gable of a pitched or hipped roof. The refer- animal, process, equipment, goods or materials ence datum shall be selected by either of the of any kind or nature. following whichever yields a greater height of building: BUILDING:Any existing structure containing one or more dwelling units and any grouping of such A.The elevation of the highest adjoining sidewalk structures which were operated as rental units as or ground surface within a five foot (5') horizontal converted buildings are the subject of a single distance of the exterior wall of the building when declaration or simultaneous declaration filed pur- such sidewalk or ground surface is not more than suant to the Horizontal Property Regimes Act ten feet (10') above lowest grade measured (chapter 64.32 RCW). (Ord. 4351, 5-4-1992) within a five foot(5') horizontal distance of the ex- terior wall of the building. BUILDING: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use B. An elevation ten feet (10') higher than the low- - only.) Any structure having a roof intended to be est grade when the sidewalk or ground surface used for the shelter or enclosure of persons, described in subsection A above is more than ten plants, animals or property. Shoreline Master feet (10') above lowest grade measured within a Program (Ord. 3758, 12-5-1983, Revised five foot (5') horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the building. 11 - 7 4-11-020 — • • • • , GABLE-HP TYPE ROOF • METHOD'A' FLAT ROOFS METHOD'A /-F* HFarr /� FACiF, ,/ F F F.O''FLIr€ / 1-- 1 —.-r---� ; HEIGHT -- I .: llnnnhlni PL n NOY i3 Minn10 It ' PJ41 Inifi�1��t!7'.Tu1.l • In+- +� / / F i'+ - I O FT 11 " •• <10 FT r---� T.',FTi' ILOWE`•T GABLE-HP TYPE ROOFS • FLAT ROOFS METHOD 8' METHOD 8 • • /HI=H c:-,nr.• — --- / HE� y r; InInInlnl neua?;r_ 5,.P_ LI 2 'I 4— , # l O FT l 111 ^'F r ^.'TI J.! > 10 FT ■■ FT �'-�ATUI I: ff 1 v F i FIF_+EF: �� I FT J Tr,•hLJ.:E•T 4_______,... , L^lc1J r�FYr `I " =.. BUILDING LINE: The line between which the F,°.i.E street line or lot line, no building or other structure or portion of a structure,except as provided in this MANSARD DROOFS Title, may be erected above the grade level. The building line is considered a vertical surface inter- \ secting the ground on such line. iunnnhin1 \ BUILDING,MULTI-OCCUPANCY:A single struc- ture'`- housing more than one type of retail busi- r = t♦♦nnn I ness, office or commercial venture and generally MIMI F, ,1 •:_- under one ownership and control. (Ord. 4720, 5-4-1998) • BUILDING OFFICIAL: The officer or other per- son charged with the administration and enforce- . ment of this Title, or his duly authorized deputy. MANSARD ROOFS METH77>; (Ord. 3719, 4-11 1983) BUILDING, PRINCIPAL: (This definition for RMC 4-4-100, Sign Regulations, use only.) A building 1111111111111 - in which the principal use of a property is con- y _ nnm i ducted. In •- -- - - ___- BUILDING,SINGLE OCCUPANCY:A building or structure with one major enterprise, generally un- * der one ownership.A building is considered to be • "single occupancy" if: A. It has only one occupant; and • 11 -8 • • _ IIII=1111 =1„-IIIIIlII =1111 NH: = H a.. J 11 E 1111 =IIII IN A BUILDING WITH ONLY ONE FLOOR, IF "H" IS 8' OR LESS OR "h" IS 4' OR LESS FOR MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF PERIMETER, THE FLOOR LEVEL IS THE FIRST STORY. FIRST STORY • • • IIII=IIII _1�1=IIIIIIII• IIII IIII= II=IIII (AT ANY POINT) =IIII h L IN A BUILDING WITH ONLY ONE FLOOR, IF "H" IS MORE THAN 8' OR "h" IS MORE THAN 4' FOR MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF PERIMETER, THE FLOOR LEVEL IS THE BASEMENT. BASEMENT • • • D TOP OF . FLOOR T H B rin_1111- 1111E1111IIII=I � 5, ÷ -IIII • A IF "H" IS MORE THAN 12' (AT ANY POINT), OR IF "h" IS MORE THAN 6' FOR MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF PERIMETER, THEN B IS A STORY AND CONSIDERED THE FIRST STORY. STORY • - - �.... • GRADE • FLOOR • ELEVATION V GRADE 100' �I f` F.G. 96'�.� F.G. 103' • • A i-- • , --- i A • FLOOR ELEVATION 100' B B • F.G. • • 10 3' L F.G. F.G. 10 4' 102 • • GRADE GRADE FLOOR ELEVATION 1\Z- 10 0' < > 6' 5' B-B GRADE - (ADJACENT GROUND ELEVATION) Section 408 • III-5 4-9-2401 ' 3. Hours of operation of the temporary use 3. A maximum of one,one year extension. • are specified,and would not adversely impact may be granted for uses referred to in sub- surrounding uses; section K2 of this Section. 4. The temporary use will not cause nui- L. REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY USE sance factors such as noise, light, or glare REQUIRED: which adversely impacts surrounding uses; Each site occupied by a temporary use shall be left free of debris, litter, or other evidence of the • 5. If applicable,the applicant has obtained temporary use upon completion of removal of the the required right-of-way use permit. use. I. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: M. SECURITY: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administra- 1. General:The Planning/Building/Public tor or designee may require security in conform- Works Administrator or designee may estab- ance with RMC 4-9-060C to assure compliance • lish conditions as may be deemed necessary with the provisions of the temporary use permit as to ensure land use compatibility and to mini- approved.The amount of the security will be de- mize potential impacts on nearby uses.These termined by the Planning/Building/Public Works include, but are not limited to, requiring that Administrator or designee, but in no case shall it notice be given to adjacent property owners be less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). prior to approval,time and frequency of oper- The security may be used by the City to abate the ation, temporary arrangements for parking use and/or facilities. and traffic circulation, requirement for screen- ing or enclosure, and guarantees for site res- N. PERMIT REVOCATION: toration and cleanup following temporary uses. 1. Revocation of Temporary Use Permit: Should the Planning/Building/Public Works 2. Facilities Required: Each site occupied Administrator or the Administrator's designee by a temporary use shall have access to or determine that information has been provided provide for restroom facilities (may be a tern- to the City which was false, incomplete, or porary facility) and garbage disposal;electri- has changed,such that the decision criteria in cal hookups will be required as needed. subsection H of this Section are incorrect, false,or have not been met,or the temporary J. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: use actually being used is different than or The temporary use permit may initiate permits and greater than that applied for,or if the use itself inspections from both Fire Prevention and/or De- is a nuisance, unhealthy, unsafe or poses a velopment Services Division to insure that the substantial risk of harm to persons or prop- temporary use is in compliance with Fire/Building erty, then the Administrator may revoke the Codes. temporary use permit upon ten (10) days' written notice,unless an emergency exists, in K. EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION: which case the Administrator may declare such an emergency and immediately revoke 1. Except as specified in subsection K2 of the temporary use permit. this Section, a temporary use permit is valid . for up to ninety (90) calendar days from the effective date of the permit, unless the Plan- 4-9-250 VARIANCES, WAIVERS, ning/Building/Public Works Administrator or MODIFICATIONS, AND ALTERNATES: designee establishes a shorter time frame. A. PURPOSES: 2. The Planning/Building/Public Works Ad- ministrator or designee may approve a tern- 1. Variances: A grant of relief from the re- porary use permit for up to one year for quirements of this Title which permits con- temporary sales or rental offices in subdivi- struction in a manner that otherwise is sions, multi-family or nonresidential projects prohibited by this Title. or other longer term uses. 9 -72 . 4-9-250B 2. Waivers: (Reserved) 2. Filing of Application:A property owner, • or his duly authorized agent, may file an ap- 3. Modifications:To modify a Code re- plication for a variance which application quirement when there are practical difficulties shall set forth fully the grounds therefor and involved in carrying out the provisions of this the facts deemed to justify the granting of Title when a special individual reason makes such variance. the strict letter of this Code impractical. (Ord. 4346, 3-9-1992) 3. Submittal Requirements and Applica- tion Fees: Shall be as listed in RMC 4. Alternates:To allow the use of any ma- 4-8-120C, Land Use Applications, and terial or method of construction not specifi- 4-1-170, Land Use Review Fees. cally prescribed by this Title. (Ord. 4346, 3-9-1992) 4. Public Notice and Comment Period: Notice of the application shall be given pursu- B. VARIANCE PROCEDURES: ant to RMC 4-8-090, Public Notice Require- ments. 1. Authority and Applicability: 5. Decision Criteria:The Reviewing Offi- a. Hearing Examiner Variances:The cial shall have authority to grant a variance Hearing Examiner shall have the author- upon making a determination in writing that ity to grant variances from the provisions the conditions specified below have been of this Title where the proposed develop- found to exist: ment requires or required any permit or . approval as set forth in RMC 4-1-050H. a. That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary b. Board of Adjustment Variances: because of special circumstances appli- The Board of Adjustment shall have au- cable to subject property, including size, thority to grant variances from the provi- shape, topography, location or surround- sions of this Title upon application to the ings of the subject property,and the strict Development Services Division where no application of the Zoning Code is found to approval or permit is required for the pro- deprive subject property owner of rights posed development which must be and privileges enjoyed by other property granted by the Hearing Examiner pursu- owners in the vicinity and under identical ant to RMC 4-1-050H. The Board of Ad- zone classification; justment shall have no authority to vary the terms or conditions of any permit, rec- b. That the granting of the variance will ommendation or decision issued by the not be materially detrimental to the public • Hearing Examiner. welfare or injurious to the property or im- provements in the vicinity and zone in c. Administrative Variances: The which subject property is situated; Planning/Building/Public Works Adminis- trator or his/her designee shall have the c. That approval shall not constitute a • authority to grant variances from the fol- grant of special privilege inconsistent lowing development standards when no with the limitation upon uses of other other permit or approval requires Hearing properties in the vicinity and zone in Examiner Review: which the subject property is situated; i. Residential Land Uses: Lot d. That the approval as determined by width, lot depth, setbacks, allowed the Hearing Examiner or Board of Adjust- projections into setbacks, and lot ment is a minimum variance that will ac- coverage; and complish the desired purpose. ii. Commercial and Industrial 6. Special Review Criteria for Variances Land Uses: Screening of surface from the Aquifer Protection Regulations: mounted equipment and screening See chapter 8-8 RMC. of roof-mounted equipment. 9 - 73 4-9-250C , 7. Continuation of Public Hearing: If for become null and void and in the event that • any reason testimony in any manner set for the applicant or owner of the subject property public hearing, or being heard, cannot be for which a variance has been requested has `, completed on date set for such hearing, the failed to commence construction or otherwise person presiding at such public hearing or implement effectively the variance granted meeting may, before adjournment or recess within a period of two (2) years after such of such matters under consideration,publicly variance has been issued. announce the time and place to and at which said meeting will be continued,and no further 12. Extension of Approval: For proper notice of any kind shall be required. (Ord. cause shown, an applicant may petition the 3463, 8-11-1980;Amd. Ord. 4648, 1-6-1997) Reviewing Official for an extension of the two (2) year period, specifying the reasons there- 8. Board of Adjustment Decision Pro- for. The Reviewing Official may extend the cess: time limit, but such extension shall not ex- ceed one additional year in any event. (Ord. • a. Board of Adjustment Shall An- 3463,8-11-1980;Amd.Ord.4648, 1-6-1997) pounce Findings and Decisions: Not more than thirty(30)days after the termi- C. WAIVER PROCEDURES: nation of the proceedings of the public hearing on any variance,the Board of 1. Authority for Waiver, General: (Re- Adjustment shall announce its findings served) and decision. If a variance is granted,the record shall show such conditions and 2. Authority for Waiver of Street Im- limitations in writing as the Board of Ad- provements:The Board of Public Works justment may impose. may grant waiver of the installation of street improvements subject to the determination b. Notice of Decision of Board of Ad- that there is reasonable justification for such justment: Following the rendering of a waiver. decision on a variance application, a copy of the written order by the Board of 3. Application and Fee:Any application for Adjustment shall be mailed to the appli- such a waiver shall specify in detail the reason cant at the address shown on the appli- for such requested waiver and may contain cation and filed with the Board of such evidence including photographs, maps, Adjustment and to any other person who surveys as may be pertinent thereto. The ap- requests a copy thereof. plication fee shall be as specified in RMC 4-1-170, Land Use Review Fees. c. Reconsideration: (Reserved) 4. Decision Criteria,General: (Reserved) d. Record of Decision: Whenever a variance is approved by the Board of Ad- 5. Decision Criteria for Waivers of Street justment,the Development Services Divi- Improvements: Reasonable justification sion shall forthwith make an appropriate shall include but not be limited to the follow- record and shall inform the administrative ing: department having jurisdiction over the matter. a. Required street improvements will al- ter an existing wetlands or stream, or 9. Conditions of Approval:The Review- have a negative impact on a shorelines ing Official may prescribe any conditions area. upon the variance deemed to be necessary and required. b. Existing steep topography would make required street improvements in- 10. Finalization: (Reserved) feasible. 11. Expiration of Variance Approval:Any c. Required street improvements would variance granted by the Reviewing Official, have a negative impact on other proper- unless otherwise specified in writing, shall ties,such as restricting available access. 9-74 .. - 4-9-260 • r d. There are no similar improvements in E. ALTERNATE PROCEDURES: • the vicinity and there is little likelihood that the improvements will be needed or 1. Authority:The provisions of this Title are required in the next ten (10) years. not intended to prevent the use of any mate- rial or method of construction or aquifer pro- e. In no case shall a waiver be granted tection not specifically prescribed by this unless it is shown that there will be no Title, provided any alternate has been ap- detrimental effect on the public health, proved and its use authorized by the Plan- safety or welfare if the improvements are Wing/Building/Public Works Administrator. not installed, and that the improvements are not needed for current or future de- 2. Decision Criteria:The Administrator velopment. may approve any such alternate, provided he/she finds that the proposed design and/or D. MODIFICATION PROCEDURES: methodology is satisfactory and complies with the provisions of this Title and that the 1. Application Time and Decision Au- material, method or work offered is,for pur- thority:Modification from standards,either in pose intended, at least the equivalent of that whole or in part, shall be subject to approval prescribed in this Title in suitability, strength, by the Planning/Building/Public Works De- effectiveness, durability, safety, maintainabil- partment upon submittal in writing of jurisdic- ity and environmental protection. tion for such modification.Application will be made prior to detailed engineering and de- 3. Substantiation:The Department Admin- sign. istrator shall require that evidence or proof be submitted to substantiate any claims that may 2. Decision Criteria: Whenever there are be made regarding its use. practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title,the Department 4. Record of Decision: The details of any Administrator may grant modifications for in- action granting approval of an alternate shall dividual cases provided he/she shall first find be written and entered in the files of the Code that a specific reason makes the strict letter of enforcement agency. (Ord.4367,9-14-1992) this Code impractical, and that the modifica- tion is in conformity with the intent and pur- pose of this Code,and that such modification: 4-9-260 VIOLATIONS OF THIS CHAPTER AND PENALTIES: a. Will meet the objectives and safety, function,appearance,environmental pro- Unless otherwise specified, penalties for any tection and maintainability intended by violations of any of the provisions of this the Code requirements, based upon Chapter shall be in accord with RMC 1-3-2, sound engineering judgment; and Civil Penalties. (Ord.4722, 5-11-1998) b. Will not be injurious to other prop- erty(s) in the vicinity; and c. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and d. Can be shown to be justified and re- quired for the use and situation intended; and • e. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. (Ord. 4517, 5-8-1995) 9-75 ""'""a""'llii"ENVIRON"NIENTAL"'"CH"ECKLISTems"""""Bm PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the . quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations dr project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know"or"does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. 'The agency to which you•submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be • . significant adverse impact. • USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on poli5ies, plans and-programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "prop' La 1ssite" should be read as "proposal," - "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. 17 'c5 '7 p- e No 2 Op Environmental Checklist A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 2. Name of applicant: 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting checklist: 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. 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. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. - - 2 A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 1 . Name of project, if applicable: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments 2. Name of Applicant: Cambridge Homes Northwest 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Gerald and Soung Hee Rieker 12228 N.E. 112th Place, #A1 Kirkland, WA 98033 Contact: Frank Heffernan, AIA (425)821-3383 4. Date checklist prepared: January 31 , 2000 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction to begin late Spring 2000 Completion by December 2000 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. Soils report, storm drainage analysis, site survey (topo), site tree survey. 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. None that we are aware of. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Building permit, grading permit, street use permit, mechanical and electrical permits. • 11 . Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. Development of a twelve unit single building apartment project with 21 parking spaces. Site development to include landscaping and utilities. Site size equals .86 acres. 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 of 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 tot his checklist. Project is located at 917 Aberdeen Avenue, Renton, Washington B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1 . Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other East end of property slopes westward 5%-10%; 30' of relief in 400'. West end slopes ±40%. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate per erat��. Q �o. i 40% slopes occur on site. JUN 21 2000 c. What general types of soils are found on the site (;fc�r[DRU N9Igroplay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classi i_c�-_dio Lo agttcu uraal soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Silty sands are found on site. Refer to attached soils report for details. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Refer to page no. 3 of soils report. e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Grading will be required to prepare site for construction - structural fill will be imported. Quantities have been estimated by the civil engineer as follows: Cut= 1 ,583 cubic yards Fill = 266 cubic yards Source remains to be determined. 3 f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. A T.E.S.C. Plan will be prepared and adhered to during construction. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? No more than 50% of the site area will be covered with impervious surface upon completion. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. T.E.S.C. Plan during construction. All portions of site not covered by building or paving will be landscaped upon completion. 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. Vehicle emissions from equipment during construction. Vehicle emissions from resident vehicles upon project completion. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Surrounding residential development/Interstate 405 vehicle emissions. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. No exceptional measures are proposed. 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, salt water, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Lake Washington lies ± 2 miles from site. Jones Creek is located near the site. 4 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 and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 1 00-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. Groundwater: 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. Project will connect to existing sanitary and storm sewer systems. No waste discharge to ground. 5 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. Storm water from roofs and parking areas will be routed to City storm system per King County Development Standards. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Adherence to King County Development Standards regarding surface water management. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other 41— other types of vegetation - blackberries b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Portions of site will be cleared for construction and relandscaped as part of project development. 6 c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: See enclosed Site Landscape Plan and Tree Removal Plan. 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 (see next page): Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, they Mammals: deer, bear, elk, r Rodents Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known on site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: No exceptional measures are proposed. 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. Electrical power for heating, lighting and hot water. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Conformance with energy code requirements for insulation, heating, lighting and glazing. 7 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. No special services anticipated. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: No exceptional measures are proposed or necessary. b. Noise 1 . What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? Vehicular traffic from Interstate 405, surrounding arterials and residential developments. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short term during construction - construction equipment. Long term upon completion - residents and vehicle noises. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: No exceptional measures limit hours of construction to 7 a.m. - 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Site is vacant; surrounding are residential uses, both single and multi- family. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. 8 c. Describe any structures on the site. No structures on site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? (RM-I) Residential multi-family (infill). f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Residential. 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. Steep slopes on western portion of site (+40%). i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 25 residents. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None required. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. Design of project in conformance with City of Renton zoning standards. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. Twelve middle income units will be provided. 9 b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. No existing units will be eliminated. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. None required, project will add to existing affordable housing stock. 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? Tallest height proposed will be 35'-0", as allowed in the zone. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. Conformance with design standards for the RM-I zone. 11 . Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposals produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Building and site lighting (during evening hours) will be created by the project. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Surrounding arterials and residential developments will produce light affecting subject property. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. Strategic placement of fixtures and use of directional fixtures and shields. 10 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None in immediate vicinity of the site. 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 proposed. 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 known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. None proposed. 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. Site is served by Sunset Blvd.; Aberdeen Avenue; Interstate 405. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Not known. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 21 stalls are proposed, no stalls will be eliminated. 11• 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). Not that we are aware of. 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. Per ITE manual estimate for this use (general apartment). Weekday 6.63/DU x 12 unites = 79.56 Assume peak volumes to be 6 - 8 a.m. and 5 - 7 p.m. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. Conformance with City of Renton Development Standards and MDNS Conditions. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. All the referenced public services will be required for this development consistent with developments of similar scale. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Conformance with City of Renton Development Requirements/MDNS Conditions/Impact Assessments directed by City. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at 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 utilities providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity & Gas: Puget Sound Energy Telephone: GTE Sanitary Sewer/Water: City of Renton Refuse: Rabanco/Waste Management C 12 C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: 171004/CosiNNENN"I Name Printed: etiallp, Date: fr1Bitsvielpiii • C:11 • Chicago Title .Insurance-Company 10500 NE 8th, Suite 1700 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Bellevue, WA 98004 CITY OF RENTON PHONE: (425) 646-9883 MAR 2 1 2000 FAX: (425) 646-9879 EASTSIDE TITLE UNIT FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: 9cNw, 0- F r e-p_ YY\ COMPANY: PHONE Number: Date: a--(0 _6 6 FAX Number. _ 3,Z13 NUMBER OF PAGES RE: c O /L/9 (including cover page) Original To Follow Via: 0 Regular Mail 0 Overnight 0 Courier 0 No Original to Follow ❑ SHAWNA CRUIKSHANK ❑ TIM DANIELS ❑ BILL QUASI' 0 DAWN APPEL ❑ JANE PERRY 0 REA BUZZELL ❑ ANGELA STUMPF 0 SHERRY CHAMPION COMMENTS: The materials enclosed with this FAX transmission are private and confidential and art the property of the sender. The information contained in the materials is privileged and is intended for the use of the individuals or entities named above. If you have received this FAX transmission in error.please immsdiately notify us by telephone to arrange for the return of this documents to us. • ICOFp; Z LIPl1 I.L3 L69g 8Z9 907.. Xt'd S£:OZ 0007.:1oi-'70 • CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 10500 NE 8TH,#1700,BELLEV UE,WA 98004 EXTENDED MORTGAGEE POLICY • SCHEDULE A Policy No.: 540949 Date of Policy: SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 at 3 :43 PM Amount of Insurance: $98,175.00 1. Name of Insured: FIRST SAVINGS BANK, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION 2. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in: GERALD L. RIEKER AND SOUNG HEE RIEKER, HUSBAND AND WIFE 3. The estate or interest in the land described in Schedule A and which is encumbered by the insured mortgage is: FEE SIMPLE • 4. The insured mortgage,and assignments thereof,if any,are described as follows: SEE ATTACHED DESCRIPTION 5. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: TRACT 11 OF HARRIES GARDEN HOME TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED :N VOLUME 34 OF ?L. TS. PAGE 38, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON: EXCEPT THE NORTH 37-1/2 FEET THEREOF. Z00P Z .LI l IL) L692 8Z9 907, XV.3 9£:07, 000Z/01/ZO CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY EXTENDED MORTGAGEE POLICY SCHEDULE A (Continued) Policy No.. 540 94 9 INSURED MORTGAGE AND ASSIGNMENTS,IF ANY DEED OF TRUST TO SECURE AN INDEBTEDNESS: GRANTOR: GERALD L. & SOLING HER RIEICER, HUSBAND AND WIFE TRUSTED: NORTHWEST FINANCIAL CORPORATION, A WA N5GN PNTNEENEFICTARY' WASHINGTON, A WASHINGTON CORPPCRATION AMOUNT: DATED: $ 98, 175 .00 SEPTEMBER 23, 1999 RECORDED: SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 RECORDING NUMBER: 19990923002575 LOAN NUMBER: NOT DISCLOSED • • COOZ .LI. J1 I.LO L699 8Z9 90Z rvd L£:OZ 000ZiOT/Z0 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY EXTENDED MORTGACiEh POLICY SCHEDULE B (Continued) Policy No.: 5 9 0 9 4 9 PART I This policy does not insure against loss or damage(and the Company will not pay costs,attorneys'fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: ** END OF SCHEDULE B - PART I ** 7 a Pon;'\LND4,I e. 600P Z ,LIMA II0 L899 879 907. YYd LE:OZ 000'!OTiZO • • CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY EXTENDED MORTGAGEE POLICY SCHEDULE B (Continued) Policy No.: 540949 • .PART II In addition to the matters set forth in Part I of this Schedule,the title to the estate•or interest in the land described or referred to in Schedule A is subject to the following matters,if any be shown,but the Company insures that such matters are subordinate to the lien or charge of the insured mortgage upon said estate or interest: NONE ** END OP SCHEDULE B ** eihadVifigi• a(14"11"2*L AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY • • Loan Policy Endorsements: 2696 AND 269'; Owner' s Policy Endorsements: 100, 8.1 ANT) 116 500in Z LINiI I.L:) L69 9Z9 90Z Xb•i L£:OZ 000Z/0I/ZO • Your 1' "rcnce: RJEKEIs ENDORSEMENT • • Attached to and forming a part of Policy No. 540949 Issued by CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Dated: September 30, 1999 ENDORSEMENT 100 The Company hereby insures against loss which said Insured shall sustain by reason of the following matters: (1) Any incorrectness in the assurance which the Company hereby gives: la) That there are no covenants, conditions or restrictions under which the lien of the mortgage referred to in Schedule A can be cut off, subordinated or otherwise impaired; :b) That there are no present violations on said land of any enforceable covenants, conditions or restrictions; (c) That, except as shown in Schedule B, there are no encroachments of buildings, structures or improvements located on said land onto adjoining lands, nor any encroachments onto said land of buildings, structures, or improvements located on adjoining lands. 2)(a) Any future violations on said land of any covenants, conditions, or restrictions occurring prior to acquisition of title to said estate or interest by the Insured, provided such violations result in impairment or loss of the lien of the mortgage referred to in Schedule A, or result in lose of the title to said estate or interest if. the Insured shall acquire title in satisfaction of the indebtedness secured by such mortgage; (b) =marketability of the title to said estate or interest by reason of any violations on said land, occuring • prior to acquisition of title to said estate or interest by the Insured, of any covenants, conditions, or restrictions. (3) Damage to existing improvements, including lawns, shrubbery or trees (a) Which are located cr encroach upon that portion of the land subject to any easement shown in Schedule B, which damage results from the exercise of the right to use or maintain such easement for the purposes for which the same was granted or reserved; (b) Aooulting from the exercise of any right to use the surface of said land for.the extraction or development of the minerals excepted from the description of said land or shown as a reservation in Schedule B. (4) Any final court order or judgment requiring removal from any land adjoining said land of any encroachment shown in Schedule 9: Wherever in this endorsement any or all of the words "covenants, conditions or restrictions" appear they shall not be deemed tc refer to or include the terms, covenants and conditions contained in any lease referred to in Schedule A. For purposes of this endorsement, the words "covenants," "conditions" or "restrictions" shall not be deemed tc refer to or include any covenants, conditions or restrictions relating to environmental protection, except to the extent that a notice of a violatior or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy and is not excepted in Schedule B. The total liability of the Company under said policy and any endorsements therein shall not exceed, in the aggregate, the face amount of said policy and costs which the Company is obligated under the conditions and stipulations thereof to pay. This, endorsement is r.ade a part of said policy and is subject to the exclusions from coverage, schedules, and conditions and s pulatians therein excep as dified the provisions hereof. Authorized Signatory Note: This endorsement shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized signatory 900p Z .LIN11 I.LD L69S 9Z9 90Z XVd SE:OZ 000Z/OT/ZO • Your. drence: RIEKER ENDORSEMENT Attached to and forming a part of Policy No. 540949 Issued by CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE.COMPANY Dated: September 30, 1999 ALTA ENDORSEMENT-PORN 2.1 WASHINGTON POEM 110.9 The insurance afforded by this endorsement is only effective if the land is used or is to be used primarily for residential purposes. The Company insures the Insured against lose or damage sustained by reason of lack of priority of the lien of the insured mortgage over: a. any environmental protection lien which. at Date of Policy, is recorded in those records established under state etatutea at Date of Policy for the purpose of imparting coaatructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without knowledge, or filed in the records of the clerk of the United States district court for the district in which the land is located, except as set forth in Schedule e; or b. any environmental protection lien provided for by any state statute in effect at Date of Policy. 'except environmental protection liens provided for by the following state statutes: The "Mill Tailings Licensing and Perpetual Care Act of 1979", and amendments thereto, codified as P.^W 70.121.010, et seq. Thsa endorsement is made a part of the policy and is subject to all the terms and provisions thereof and of any prior endorsements thereto. Except to the extent expressly stated, it neither modifies any of the terms and provisions cf the policy and prior endorsements, if any, nor does it extend the effective date of the policy and prior endorsements or increase the face amount thereof. mil W Yw/,+_ Authorized Signatory Mote: This endorsement shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized signatory Ley DC RS I C PWA,N: LeorJ Z I.LD L695 9Z9 90r TV'd 6e:oZ oo0Z/oI/7.o • • Your. arence: • RIEKER ENDORSEMENT Attached to and forming a part of Policy No. 540949 Issued by CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY • Dated; September 30, 1999 ENDORSEMENT 116 The Company assures the Insured that at the date of this policy there is located on said land A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE known as: 917 ABERDEEN AVENUE NORTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON 98056 The Company hereby insures the Insured against loss which said Insured shall sustain in the event that the assurance herein shall prove to be incorrect. This endorsement is made a part of the policy and is subject to all the terms and provisions thereof and of any prior endorsements thereto. Except to the extent expressly stated, it neither modifies 'a.ny of the terms and provisions of the policy and prior endorsements, if any, nor does it extend the effective date of the policy and prior endorsements or increase the face amount thereof. Authorized Signatory Not This endorsement shall not be valid or binding . until countersigned by an authorized signatory EN!X)RSEC;RDMI,NY 800F2 Z 11Na IID L699 9Z9 90Z XVd 6c:0Z 000Z/Oi%i0 • 'EVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Calculations, Survey, I n Drainage Report 2 Elevafi..ns ;Accf�it..:..tur sAN a Elevations, Grading 2 o e Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) 4 • Flood':Pla n:Map,if•ap .11.ca. .e.a :.... : :::::.. ...... :....:::::. .:.:.::..:::.::..:.::.:::::..:::::.. ............. ......::.:.:.:..;: >•.;::::.,.. :::. Floor Plans 3AND4 Grading Plan, Conceptual 2 King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site 4 Legal Description 4 erf List;ofSurro.undin ::Pro -• ;::::;:;::<:.:>:;:;::::.::::<:<::::<::::;> :;:::.;;:,: :. :..;,:.;:..:.;•:.;;>:::;::<:::<:;.::.:;::>;>;<:;:;;;....: • Mailing Labels for Property Owners 4 Ma .of:.E ist n :Site:Co ditions.a l . n Master Application Form 4 Monument>Ca�ds>'one; er<monum'ent ; Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4 PfanRedu:ctionsP:,.MTs .4. ` :::';::: Postage 4 Public:-Works:A ro.val:Letters PP .. Title Report or Plat Certificate 4 Too r ah ;:Ma :. 5 :contou s 3 Traffic Study 2 VP 141 Tree:Cuttin Ne etatiion.ClearingPlan:4 Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 Wetla ds Delinea o a a n tI n M Wetlands Planting Plan 4 r. Wetlands`Stud 4.. � >' >. «. ::::< : , ` This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section DATE: 4. Development Planning Section h:\division.s\develop.ser\dev.plan.Ing\waiver.xls ******* x******************************************************** City of Renton WA Reprinted: 03/21/00 16 : 19 Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R0001428 Amount: 1, 562 . 70 03/21/00 16 : 16 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: R&R LAND #3096 Init: JEJ Project #: LUA00-040 Type: LUA Land Use Actions Location: 917 ABERDEEN AV NE Total Fees: 1, 562 . 70 This Payment 1,562 . 70 Total ALL Pmts : 1, 562 . 70 Balance: . 00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 .345 . 81. 00 . 0007 Environmental Review 500 . 00 000 .345 . 81. 00 . 0017 Site Plan Approval 1, 000 . 00 000 . 05 .519 .90 .42 . 1 Postage 62 . 70 !//' ' 'y ', CITE :DF RENTON NIL Ifs,, `�• ' Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator June 27, 2000 Mr. Frank Heffernan,AIA Ferrari Design Group PS 12277—134 h Court NE Redmond,WA 98052 SUBJECT: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Project No. LUA-00-040, SA-A, ECF Dear Mr. Heffernan: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is now complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, has been accepted for review. This project is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on July 18,. 2000. Prior to that review, you will be notified if additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me, at(425)430-7382, if you have any questions. Sincerely, • #°t, Elizabeth Higgins,AICP. Senior Planner cc: Cambridge Homes NW/Owners New Home Trends, Ms. Helen Burch acceptance 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 FERRARI DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, PS D Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, AICP June 14, 2000 Senior Planner WI City of Renton Planning / Building /Public Works Department { 1055 South Grady Way z Renton, Washington 98055 -- A m c n x SUBJECT: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments g Project No. LUA-00-040, SA-A, ECF 11 z x x m Dear Ms. Higgins: m ri z • a z We are in receipt of your letter of March•31, 2000 indicating that your Department has determined the referenced application incomplete. Please note the following with respect to the eight issues that were raised in your letter: 1. We have included with this submittal 12 total copies (1 original and 11 copies) of the Master Application form, notarized and signed by Soung Hee Rieker, also listed on the title report as a property owner. 2. We have had our Civil Engineer and Surveyor, Touma Engineers, prepare a Tree Cutting / Land Clearing plan addressing trees located either on the subject property or within 25' of the subject property on adjacent properties. • 3. We are including with this letter,a copy of a slope study plan produced by Touma Engineers. The study shows areas of relative slope on site. All areas of slope • exceeding 40% occur in the western portion of the site, beyond the limits of the approximately 310' (as measured from the east property line) of the site proposed for development. We believe that a variance request as outlined in your letter will not be necessary. 4. The location and the height of the retaining wall has been clarified on the civil . drawing please refer to the Site Grading Plan drawing. The architectural Site Plan drawing, drawing SD-1 has also been revised to note the retaining wall. The wall co is located on the property line and varies in height from 2'-0"to 4'-0". An eccentric N footing is proposed however it is likely that a construction easement will be . r necessary in order to construct the wall. The easement will be obtained prior to c .the start of construction. N x5. The retaining wall referenced above in item no. 4 has been added to the Building Elevation drawing. The face of the wall will be unfinished, poured-in-place co co concrete, cast against a form liner to give the wall a textured face surface. co co N 6. The Vicinity map on.Drawing SD-1 notes the locations of structures on the 03 adjacent properties. This informatrortj d,� iva, tso a pears on the Site Plan on SD-1 . �p. em L 4 ri ill cm 11 b JUN 2 2000 a �.UIL.D/N , ITgii,1fTH CT. N.E., SUITE 203, REDMOND, WA 98052-2433 G. • 7. The Project Narrative and the appropriate page from the Environmental Checklist have been revised to show the cut and fill quantities. Updated copies of these documents have been attached to this submittal. 8. We had been led to believe that we had received a waiver from the traffic study requirement due to the scale of the project and the mitigation contribution proposed based upon ITE numbers. See Environmental Checklist item 14f. Also see the waiver form submitted with the initial application materials. Pleas advise me if we need to take further action on this issue. Copies of the revised materials accompany this letter. We have furnished the same quantities of the documents as required in the initial application. Please advise me if you need anything in addition. Sincerely, FERRARI DESI GR•UP ARCHITECTS, PS yi/V/7 rank Heffernan A Architect Enclosures 991201tr1.doc\fh • • If 17) CITY ,F RENTON s LL • Planning/Building/Public Works Department 7 e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator ' °:. .:'March°31; 2000 :. .. arowtX Mr. Heffernan,AIA Ferran.Design Group PS . 12277- 134hCourt NE Redmond, WA 98052 . SUBJECT: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments Project No. LUA-00-040,SA-A,ECF Dear Mr. Heffernan: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is not complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, has not been accepted for review. The following items must be submitted to the sixth floor of Renton City Hall: 1. A notarized Land Use Permit Master Application signed by SOUNG HEE RIEKER (shown as property owner on title report submitted). 2. A Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan is required if any trees or vegetation are to be removed or altered. This plan must include any trees on neighboring properties that are within 25 feet of the subject property and that may be impacted by excavation, grading, or other improvements. 3. If removal of any vegetation is to take place on slopes greater than forty percent (40%), a variance from the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance will be required and must be requested.at the time of application. It appears that areas of slope greater than 40% may be within the site construction area. 4. The location and height of the retaining wall. The grading plan does not include a legend and it is not clear where the wall is located and the top and bottom of wall elevations are not provided. What is the location of the wall in relation to the property line? Do you intend to request a construction easement from the neighbor on the north to construct the wall? 5. The retaining wall is not shown on the building elevations. What does the face of this wall look like? aooaptonco 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer • - . 6. ,Because the requested,land-use action Is a.site•plan review, the following criteria will be used; "mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses" and r"proviSibn-''of adequate light and" air:" For this reason, please . - provide the location of existing structures on abutting properties. 7.: .The.:."estimated; quantities and.type of materials involved if any fill or. excavation-is proposed".are required as part of the Project Narrative. The project narrative- addresses this by referring . to "the civil• engineering :,4,.: "attachment's:"`The Environmental`Checklisfi slates=that this information is "to �`-" - -' • �� - •= be determined. Please provide this information;'or clarify where in the submittal materials it will be found. 8. A traffic study may be required for this project. Please contact Neil Watts at 425-430-7278 regarding a traffic study. Please contact me, at (425) 430-7382, if you have any questions. Sincerely, • Elizabeth Higgins, AICP Senior Planner cc: Cambridge Homes NW/Owner Touma Engineers Neil Watts acceptance '::....:../ x..• ...... .... .:::::::::{::{+.?::::{:;::•..�.`;Y.;{i};?::;}};{•}::•}:•4::±•}:'?i}:::i'i}::i}::f:4{;:}:!4:.::?4:[?.;ri}:'r:J$i:<i�iii'r}isv}::ii':iv`viiiiri{:�iiiii{iiiiii:�}}iiYi >:iiji:i::tii':•}}:Y4:4:^:?4:?•}:??4}}::{:'r;:>::::;{:;i:;:i;:;:i?:ij;}: ;rr r..............J.....n........r..r...r........r....:..rr.:......:....r......r...............r...:.:..:::::J. •:O::x;r.::.:r..v....n......•:•,�.. r..::..}.•:::... •vw::.4:v;•.:::.r...........::::::::/:ri:nv.v::;:. `:: ^ C .... •}:4;:{:::::.�:.�{:v .. nr. ... ...:::r.rn.. .:....... f.:'•}:r.....Y...J...:x;4: :.v:.:::..:v::.�::::?•::::::::::::.�:::::::.�:::::}:..�::::::._::::::.�::y:{:: ...:rr... / r.... ........J£.•::....:.. 4:::;•:fA•:::::::; ....:. ......._....::Yvyf::•Y::x{:.r:::::::::.:r......:....::........... r.: � v.:. .: .... ...........:.v::h:4:•}N v...n .........••:::::::;:•4::{•}:•}:v:4i•i;;}}}}}}:}}}}::{'i..:.......:t'n:::..:nr. :r.J......::f{•^f.•: .................r.:.:::�..�,f...r.:.a ..�r..r........: :} .. .... ..................� :................... ..............x., ..n.... ........-::::....::v;. .....n......... ........r......•- .. .. ... .....v.... ::: n•}n?3}'?{??^}'f.0}}}}:4}:^:•}:•}}:w:::?4}}}:-}:4}}}.}}i}}:v:{{4:•:i:•}}}}iY:::.�:•:f4•. ..C. :}il...::::rr:::r.....::f.:::Y::::.�:::.�r::r:::::it ..r:.....r... .... .........r:..........r...........}r. .rr..: �:. :::;:: ?:. : ::4:•;•;•Y•4::::..:r.:.:.::..:::.::.r::::::44::::.::..:.:....} ?::.::::::.::::::: ........:.....,.....,..:.............r..... .......................:::....rr..... .. 0 .4 . . ..::. Y _ Em : }}::..?•Y:..i'.i:,.}:.}:.}}:.;:{.:Y:??•Y:.}:.:.Y:?.Y:.Y:.}:.}:.::.::.:.Y:.Y:?.::.:?.:?:..:�:4;..:':::::::::::.. ..:rrr..}: 4 rr.. :..:....:}}'::.:{.<:>:}: ...Y,4:::J.Y:.: .4i;....:.......Y.::{. ......... ... ... ::............::::...............::::: �. ............ .::::::.i:.:}:.i:;?.iY:.Y;:.ii:.i:.::.:.:}i}}}};:.}:.}}}}>;:.:?.Y.:.�: ::._::::::: Y:•:}:{i?;<.i is:;:}<}>:{,:•::::::::r:}:{:.Y::.:Y::..:..}:..,�:... :....:>:..:{.Y•:r{<{r..::..Y:Y•{::.:}...:.::.:::.::,.:::::._:::::::::::.:::,..... •+;;{<:r.;:.}:.:::::{<:::::><::::::.>:»:::>::::..}::..;.}::?.Yi:.:::.Y:.>::>:::ii:.}}:.}'.iY}:.{.}:>:}i:4;.:::::}•.>iY::.YYi:.>:.}:.}:.}:}:.;}:.;Y::.:{.Y:.}}:.::}:.:.iY:{?.Y:.Y;:.}:.i:.}:;»;:::}:;:::»>::>::>:<:>:;}i:.}:?:>:<YY:.:>' :Y}Y}}:�.;:4Y;Y;:.::.Y:.:.::,.YYY:<.}:.;:{.}:.:Y: .}:.:> ;}>:,:;: • • ;:.:;..ii ERS ` > ' « ` '> ::>:<:»::::;:>::;::>::>::::::> ::>�::>::: .:�}}:?.:::;i<;:.:{:}}} ;.i:::?? >': V<> :.QPEETHfN .•................................................•.•.. ?Not& If?tti'ere;i'9i xiitibr theft>o a Ia?a€oW iet';ptea3e attach an edditional � tamed Ma'stet:>�E�pplcatortfo«eoFt. .W . .. . PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: • NAME: GERALD RIEKER AND ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS SOUNG• HEE RIEKER PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: .. 11017 101 PLACE NE 917 ABERDEEN AVENUE NE KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): CITY' KIRKLAND , WA ZIP' 98033 311 -990-0065 TELEPHONE NUMBER: EXISTING LAND.USE(S): ( 2 0 6) 300-5911 SITE IS CURR ENTLY VACANTf<> 1gPPLCARTf<tthe .th t: :.: :.0.::: ::.. . PROPOSED LAND USES: NAME: GERALD AND SOUNG HEE RIEKER MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMPANY(if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: CAMBRIDGE HOMES NW MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: 1 2 2 2 8 NE 101 , PLACE #A 1 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE.PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CITY: KIRKLAND , WA ZIP: 98033 EXISTING ZONING: RM I ( RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY TELEPHONE NUMBER: IN FILL ) ( 4 2 5 ) 8 2 8—2 5 8 3 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable):_ c� >Y o p R GE RM I d .,UNCHANGED , / SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACRE 1GE): JU NAME: FRANK HEFFERNAN AIA b' iv21 2000 • 37•, 585 SF ( . 86g��RRES) , PROJECT VALUE: SDI V/SION COMPANY(if applicable): .y FERRARI DESIGN GROUP PS r $7:50:.; 000 . 00 ADDRESS: 1 2 2 7 7 1 3 4 t h CT NE IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? NOT THAT WE ARE AWARE OF M O.N ..W.A ZIF. 9 8.0:5.2.._-. = IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? - TELEPHONENUMBER: (425 ) 821 -3383 CITY GREENBELT MAP _ _ EROS ION /SLIDE HAZARD MAP .::......r.x.............:: .::::.. .: '.. :::: ', •ir :•i .: :.i i .}•'ay::;. ;::iii::. :;�.:::::::4i:4': ::5:::vx::I.• ::%:.•{::{5::.}•F,.;: ::.;n:;^:r.}•..:ryv:S,:.i;;:•ii:i:•:•;54:;:}::::::S•i: •iri'l.4':•iiii':'+'r:::..:•.:. .;...�::::.�:::::.k.:::..:::>:.< LFf�rA�...DE5 E1F,.::E�RO.PERT.,Y:.,.Atteeh>: . • LOT 11 HARRIES GARDEN HOME TRACTS LESS THE NORTH37 .5 FEET . • • • • • • . 'ti ..1=:>Q ...:p►...PLtAT(d44§ ::EE .. k1 gi 1!L ott s:;: Ira > t. ;::>:.:.;::.:;:G�e a a cat.. � t t ..... � . ... aft : . ... .r:mr .. <:1 _ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: _ COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ REZONE $ _ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _SPECIAL PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT $ _TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ _CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ . _ PRELIMINARY PLAT • $ g.S1TE PLAN APPROVAL $ _ FINAL PLAT $ _GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ (NO. CU. YDS: ) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ _VARIANCE $ (FROM SECTION: ) _ PRELIMINARY _WAIVER $_ FINAL _WETLAND PERMIT • $ _ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ • BINDING SITE PLAN $ • SHORELINE REVIEWS: _SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ _CONDITIONAL USE $ _VARIANCE . $ _ EXEMPTION $No Charae ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ _REVISION $ :>:::::>::>:>::::::::::>::>::::::::>::>:>:>::>:«:»>:>::Ilii:::>::::>::»:::::>:::>.>:>::>>.:>.:::>:: :.:>: ...A .F Aul... :QE.P.W .. ...:.........N.E .SI-#IP I, (Print Name)c`pLlr.r I/ �i iE/< legrare that I am (please check one) he owner of the property involved in this application,—the authorized representative to act for the property owner(ple igdat ach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted ere ei ec . e and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. J5P ........EXp°••. C-SOu ' p . y'V�O.(A� �•• TTEST: Subscribed a d sworn to before e, a taw Pu is in and r/ f�/ 0: r the State of b residing at c l+J� (Name of Owner/Representative) 0 V: . •• on the jday of (Signature of caner/Representative) OF W ure of N ry Public) :::::::`•.;CI:: File>Nulr beE < " r ''S ? € `' lD< ':: "'>t::: .............�:::....5.:::::::.C..aP.�S..:::CAP,:..tl.::::.CPA:::::GU.:A:::::.CE1: :`::<' �`......... HP.....FPU .....EP.�'P.R. .Ru P.....5....1�...SA. H.....:5; P..>�•.«::... : :. ; :: <::>;:::::> :�>::>;:: .- :><�> . :.;:::. :; ...... fVf ....... . ....... Fi ..:.::: . .:::.::::::::::: < :{TOTAL:.FEES . '>:::.>::.:>:>..;:.:><:>.:.: ::.:.»» :>>::.::.:.::.: : A. ;;.;::: :: :>.:».:».:>.:>.::<::<.::> ...... ............... TOTAL POS : �> .. .:;• : :<:.::.:;;::;:�:<::::.::<.:;::::::::;;::.;:•;;;:.::::;:::;:::>:> •:::::::>:: <.:::: ::............................,......................... ... .::.................... :..:. TAGE PRQUIDED :$::.;::::::..::;:.::.:::.;:.:: :..::.;.:.: ::..:;::.: ::.::.:;: MASTERAP.DOC REVISED 8/97 - _ E..EL ENT.. 1 <:CE;;>. : >> <: : < > >> Note:: f there:to niora:than one le al oWne' .tease attach;;an;additional>: (� P nataiiied.Master.Appl(cation.for.eac .Avirner.....,: PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: GERALD RIEKER AND Aberdeen Avenue Apartments SOUNG HEE RIEKER PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: 1 1 0 1 7 101 PLACE NE 917 Aberdeen;:Avenue NE CITY: K I R K L A N D , WA ZIP: 98033 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 311 -990-0065 TELEPHONE NUMBER: ( 2 0 6 ) 3 0 0-5 91 1 EXISTING LAND USE(S): Site is currently vacant - NAME: GERALD RIEKER AND PROPOSED LAND USES: SOUNG HEE RIEKER Multi - Family Residential • COMPANY(if applicable): C AM B R I D G E H 0'M E S NW EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Multi - Family Residential ADDRESS: 12228 NE 112th PLACE #A1 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): Multi - Family Residential CITY: K I R K L A N D , WA ZIP: 98033 EXISTING ZONING: • RM- I ( Residential Multi ®Family TELEPHONE NUMBER: ( 4 2 5 ) 8 2 8-2 5 8 3 I n f i l l ) cF<Op • PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): f�O4/4/i • 9 A Unchanged M-ha ed R I 9 L9 : : :: : : ::::::::: ::�::::::::. .:. :.�::::.�::.::.:::.::::::::: q N SITE,AIEA.f(S;Q.,,FT. OR ACREAGE): � ®® NAME: FRANK HEFFERNAN AIA • . "',,. : • 37,5'85 S-F ; ( . 86, Acres ) N- • COMPANY(if applicable):, F E R R A R I DESIGN GROUP P S ` PROJECTVALUEii ., F c $7;5Or•; 00.0 . 00 ADDRESS: 1 2 2 7 7 1 3 4 t h CT NE ISITHE)SITEi1:6CATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? Not that we • are aware of CITY: REDMOND , WA ZIP: 98052 • IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? TELEPHONE NUMBER: ( 425 ) 821 -3383 City Greenbelt Map ; Erosion/Slide Hazard Map ,.>Attach:se ............. �►#� �.... . .:.:...........:.: ............:... ................. • • Lot 11 Harries Garden Home tracts less the North 37 . 50 feet • • • • ffs::::::::::<:<:::::o;:::;:::::::;.;::m;: o . .. a . ....catQ.......... o.t...at.a . ... .....o.. ...$ta................ .ee�k ..............e ...ees... :..::...:.........................:....:... _ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: • _ COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ • _ REZONE $ _ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ • _ SPECIAL PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT $ • _TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ _ PRELIMINARY PLAT $ X SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ I f _ FINAL PLAT $ • _GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ (NO. CU. YDS: 1 • PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ _VARIANCE • $ (FROM SECTION: ) _ PRELIMINARY _WAIVER $ FINAL _WETLAND PERMIT $ • _ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ _ BINDING SITE PLAN $ SHORELINE REVIEWS: SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ _ CONDITIONAL USE. $ • _VARIANCE $ • — _ EXEMPTION • $No Charue X ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ .00 • REVISION $ I, (Print Name) • ,declare that I am (please check one)_the owner of the property involved in this application,_the authorized representative to act for the property owner(please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the'information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. N RAUs • • �•�,1 • E.�,a ATTEST: Subscribed a sworn to before me,a Notary Public, in and �-� �, � �. 3 c'O •tAI : for the St of residing at (Name of Owner/Representative) ;♦r • , on theday of • (Signature of Owner/Re resentative) q;•.MBER4•0.•;`: (Signature f-Notary Public) • Ts•>s ct :.. ::� :::.cc ete ::b.:::Ci '..>:Staff.:1<;::::::;:;;>::>:;�>:>:;::::;:>::>:::«::<:»:<;:<:>:; :::....:.::::<:::;:.::.. ...�.;.:::::::::::::::::::.;:. :>:::::<:>:>::><::>::»;<;Cit..:: its;Naether+:<:'•�..:...::::::::::::::....::.:..... ..................................................................................................................................... ...:.............................. :;.;>;:.>:;:;:;:>:::>:;MH.P.,:.:::.IrP....UI)......FP.)'R:g..:..Rym ......�A..A...... ....H.....�H.PL...A.....�NPi...H.....�.........SM.....5.[VIE.........P.......:................>�.....�l.H.....1!�....: MASTERAP.DOC REVISED�g•:97::.;:.;:........................ ........................................................................................................... .................................................................. I - ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS 917 ABERDEEN AVENUE N.E. RENTON, WASHINGTON FDG PROJECT NO. 99120.00 PROJECT NARRATIVE The proposed project involves the construction of a twelve unit apartment development on the subject site. The "Aberdeen Avenue Apartments" as noted above is located in the 900 block of Aberdeen Avenue N.E. in Renton, Washington. The site is an approximately 37,585 s.f. (.86) acre) site currently zoned RM-I (Residential Multi-Family Infill). Sites to the north and south are zoned RM-I, sites to the east are zoned RM-I and R-8, and the site to the west is zoned R-1 and is also a Puget Sound Energy transmission line right-of-way. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The slope of the site varies. On the east end of the property, the site slopes westward 5% to 10% providing 30'-0" of relief in the first 400' of the property. The western portion of the property contains slopes of 40% or greater. A survey is provided for review. Soils types as identified in the soils report provided are silty sands, medium dense to dense. A preliminary drainage analysis and an accompanying preliminary grading and drainage plan have been completed for the project and are included with this submittal. The following statistics are included in this narrative by way of detailing size and scope of the Aberdeen project: Lot Area: 37,585 s.f. Building Footprint: 6,288 s.f. Building Area: 16,332 s.f. � Parking Area: 9,697 s.f. (21 stalls) y'')- % Coverage (by building): 17% 1� g� Impervious Area: 15,985 (43%) �� x (12) 2 bedroom units: 976 s.f. each <0�,v 20 Building Height: 2 stories* 35' maximum Q0,�i 00 04, * UBC Defined Story ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS 917 ABERDEEN AVENUE N.E. RENTON, WASHINGTON FDG PROJECT NO. 99120.00 PROJECT NARRATIVE (CONTINUED) Curb gutter and sidewalk are proposed along the project frontage on Aberdeen Avenue. Construction costs for the project are estimated in the range of $775,000.00 or $66.75 per square foot of living area. The surveyor, Touma Engineering, has prepared a tree cutting plan, copies of which are included with this submittal. Quantities of grading and fill material are estimated by the civil engineer as follows: cut 1 ,583 cubic yards, fill 266 cubic yards. Source of material remains to be determined. No additional easements or dedications are proposed for the development of the project. All portions of the site not proposed to be covered by building or pavement (including sidewalk) will be landscaped per the landscape plan submitted with this application. di;''' 3'/ A o6q 1,111 ✓o 1 eUizoi��o/ Z000 FH 1412/III CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION DESCRIPTION ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS FDG PROJECT NO. 99120.00 Construction of the Aberdeen Avenue Apartments is anticipated to occur during the summer and early fall months of the year 2000. We look for a construction permit in early August, and hope to complete construction by November 15, 2000. Hours of operation during the construction period are anticipated to be 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday over an approximately four month time period. Transportation/hauling routes will be along Sunset Boulevard connecting with Interstate 405. A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan will be prepared incorporating a construction drive access, tire wash area, silt fence, etc. for City review and approval prior to start of construction. Additional City recommendations to mitigate development impacts will be considered. We don't anticipate the need for an extensive traffic control plan associated with utility tie ins on Aberdeen Avenue, but will take direction from the City associated with street use permits secured for the project at the time work is scheduled. E�014 NG 1 FH1413/III VA U‘rCY Obi `� ® CITY OF RENTON ��'Nrr°� FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: July 22, 1999 TO: Laureen Nicolay, Planner • FROM: Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal I SUBJECT: Aberdeen Av. NE Apartments, 917 Aberdeen Av. NE Fire Department Comments: 1. The preliminary Fire flow is determined by the total square footage and type of construction of the individual buildings. The total square footage and type of construction is needed to determine fire flow for the project. The Fire Code requires one fire hydrant within 150 feet of each building and additional hydrants within 300 feet of each building. Number of required hydrants is based on required fire flow. 2. The fire department access roadway turnaround shall be per attached diagram. 3. A fire mitigation fee of$5,820.00 is required based on $388.00 per unit. 4. Separate plans and permits are required for the required sprinkler and fire alarm systems. G Please feel free to contact me if you have any questiA cc of REPAN LN MAR 212®00 RECEIVED ABERDEEN APARTMENTS 917 Aberdeen Ave.NE Pre-Application Meeting Thursday,August 5, 1999 WATER: 1 The Water System Development Connection charge is$510 per unit. 2. There is a 16-inch water line available in Aberdeen Ave.NE. 3. One fire hydrant is required for each 1000 gpm of required fire flow. Each fire hydrant delivers 1000 gpm of fire flow: 4. The primary hydrant is to be within 150-feet of the structures, but not closer than 50-feet. The secondary hydrants must be within 300-feet of the structures. 5. Drawings to adhere to City of Renton drafting standards available at the 6th floor counter. Show meter,valve line, sizes and locations. • 6. If required fire flow is over 2500 gpm a water loop system is required. A loop system is required to be located in a 15-ft. Utility Easement. The required fire flow will be determine by the Fire Prevention Department. 8. The irrigation meter needs to be shown on the water service plan with a separate tap to the main. SEWER: 1. The wastewater System Development Connection charge is$350 per unit. 2. If the project produce fats, oils, or grease, then an appropriate removal system will be required per plumbing code . 3. Side sewer line to have a 2%slope to property line. 4. Side sewer to have a cleanout 5-feet out from the structure and every 100-feet. 5. A conceptual plan for utilities-will be required for SEPA Review. 6. The proposed site is located in the Lake Washington East Basin. 7. The drawing size is to be 22 x 34 sheets and 20-scale. 8. A 10-inch sewer main is available in Aberdeen Ave.NE. • SURFACE WATER: 1. The Storm System Development Connection charge is$510 per unit. 99CM065W.DOC\ 2. -A level 1 Storm Drainage Report required per 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Address all core requirements and Special requirements. 3. • Use NAVD 1988 Datum for project civil plans. 4. Construction plans to be prepare in accordance with the City of Renton drafting standards which is available at the 6th floor counter. 5. Runoff collected from the pavement surface with vehicle access/parking must flow through an oil/water separator or adequate biofiltration system. 6. Site drainage construction plans and erosion/sedimentation control plans are to meet the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual requirements. 7. Show topography of entire site and minimum of 30-feet outside the property. TRANSPORTATION: 1. The Transportation Mitigation charge is$75 per new trip generated. 2. Curb, gutter and sidewalk is required fronting the property to Aberdeen Ave. NE. Match existing curb,gutter and sidewalks. 3. Maximum driveway width is 30-feet. 4. Street lighting is required on Aberdeen Ave. Design level is 0.6-ft.c and 4:1 uniformity ratio. 5. All electrical and communication facilities to be underground. 99cm065w Gm�rr�v 3 t CG«lt Mc it (has)) 5`,50-7216' 99CM065W.DOC\ It . __ -7) AM. IISABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS PRELIMINARY PROJECT REVIEW MEETING LIST OF QUESTIONS/ISUES /-1r- FDG PROJECT NO. 99120.00 • . - ogiall Planning v i • Will formal landscaping/irrigation plans be required? • Will a licensed landscape architect be required? • Can we develop up to 17 units on this site? • Review trash/recycling enclosure requirements. , • Where is building height calculated to? • How is parking counted/allocated? • Is a tree survey/removal plan required? • Will a traffic analysis be required? • Is a SEPA review required? • Review impact fees. • Dedications or easements required. • Mailboxes and addressing standards. Building • Review City sprinkler ordinance as it affects us. • Review ocupancy and construction type. el/ S1 +1 f I f^� r �c�T • How does UBC 311 .2.2.1 affect us? •- Po�scbe • Review area separation wall impacts/benefits. • Review allowable area calculations (Table 5B). cc-4s��e G���. • Review 904.2.9 UBC. —' fok- I�l ev avn-- I w2 e-✓1• 3✓` CD• Review 310.2.2 UBC. — ..--- • Review 310.10 UBC. e e -0.r-r -ve,4 • Review 1004.2.3.2 UBC and 1004.2.3.3 URC. ,--- Fire • Will on site hydrants be requried? • Review proposed hammerhead turn around. • Is fireflow a concern for this site? • Alarm and sprinkler system requirements. • Fire lane striping requirements for site. • Building addressing requirements. Tiles teri VF- -INSSZIZ(rCr i`�)1-- c3 • RECE!VV ) JUL 2 U .1999 • ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, • NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING • MEMORANDUM DATE: '7--(Co -Rq TO: Long Range Planning • FROM: Jana Hanson, Development Services Division Director SUBJECT: New Preliminary Application: 4 v71f1/1 f w LOCATION: ' '1 All,c;h(r Al/LeI' PREAPP NO. q°J -t, • Please review the attached preliminary project plans for consistency with applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies. Please submit our written comments to l�12ei''- no later than A(.° 1 c °( . Thank you. We will not be able to include comments received after this date in the presentation/summary we prepare for the applicant. c.)A< a on 06092/)1011 7/245) .:�17 C )5 P63►&.Pj [ !`1 Lr i N CepM (u`l�clYv IV% PLC .11 /crO ZotiI Carl-I fHe sire- ffi6'?L Z5 To ING1.ur7t vwpts3 04e'n L.to`Z . y Jc I r` ,s AS or cLt z. W►1z T►f r�1-kc3 rs611.�13 w2;'fzc' ODEIDU c 7 619 i t r�. -r z G.(2.c s s /y2a7) n► C-Pf-c.c.uz A IArc_ r\s(1 On-vs I;y T Ni P6ze osliZ � �' M� t3�� cjVz-rz-Di,'Ns6 , No OTF Y Z.. 6'Cci of )SSub`3, ' mod'/ 5-l�rrd-1 eat I c_ eLI`}1vrJ J/1i L,. preapp Development Planning Section PREAPPLICATION COMMENTS ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE August 4, 1999 - The applicant, Jeff Rieker, has proposed to develop a 15-unit apartment complex in two buildings on a .86 acre site with 25 associated parking spaces. The buildings are proposed to be three stories and 35 feet in height and will be situated on a long, narrow lot. The site abuts a single-family residential zone (R- 5) on the westerly boundary. The site plan scale is listed at 1" = 30', however, it is actually drawn at a 1" = 40' scale. This will need to be changed prior to formal application submittal. General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application materials 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 and the Codes in effect on the date of review. No site visit was conducted. The applicant is cautioned that review comments may 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. Land Use Permits Required: The proposal will require an administrative site plan review and environmental review. As now proposed, several administrative parking regulation modifications (for tandem spaces, total number of stalls, a driveway closer than 5 feet to the side property line) are also required. Processing time for the combined site plan review/environmental review/parking modification requests will be approximately 8 to 10 weeks, assuming no appeals are filed. The site plan/environmental application fee is $1,500.00 plus postage costs (33 cents per mailing label). There is no fee for the modification requests. A building permit will also be required. As proposed, the project will either need to provide special amenities through the site plan review process to allow more than 2.5 stories in height or must submit for a Board of Adjustment height variance. Processing time for a project needing a Board of Adjustment Variance will increase by approximately 4 weeks, assuming no appeals are filed. The variance application fee is an additional $500.00. A complete variance/site plan/environmental/modification application package and a Board of Adjustment application deadline and meeting schedule are attached. At the applicant's option, the building permit may be submitted simultaneously with the land use applications. The processing time for a building permit is approximately 8 weeks. A complete building permit application package and • fee schedule is attached. Uses Permitted: The subject site is zoned Residential Multi Family Infill (RM-I) which allows a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per net acre (subtracting sensitive areas—i.e. slopes 40% and greater). No more than 20 dwelling units per net acre are permitted by this zone. Based upon City maps (applicant to provide slope analysis and topography map to verify), it appears once slop.es 40% and greater are deducted, that the proposal will exceed the maximum density. My very rough calculations put the maximum number of units closer to 11 for this site. Access: The site has direct access off of Aberdeen Avenue NE. The applicant has proposed a driveway of 20 feet in width abutting the southern border of the site. RMC Section 4-4-080 I allows multi-family residential uses to have driveways up to 30 feet in width, however, since the subject site has only about 62 feet of street frontage, a driveway width of 25 feet would be the maximum since the code also prohibits multi-family driveways from exceeding 40% of the property's street frontage. The proposed driveway must be relocated a minimum of 5' from the side (south) property line in order to comply with Section 4-4-08012b. The driveway cannot exceed a maximum slope of 15% without a variance from the 3oard of Public Works and cannot exceed 8% unless "slotted drains at the lower end with positive drainage discharge to restrict runoff from entering the [structures] or crossing any public sidewalk". Applicant to note driveway grade on site plan prior to formal site plan/environmental application submittal. Parking: The current parking code will required a total of 1.75 parking spaces per unit. If 15 units are possible under the site zoning, the total number of required parking stalls required would be 26. The standard stall size is 9' by 20', however, the code permits a maximum of 30% of required parking spaces to be compact size (8.5 by 16'). Based upon a total of 26 stalls, a maximum of 8 of these stalls could be compact. Of the 26 required stalls, one must be an accessible parking space a minimum of 16' by 20'. An additional 20-foot long accessible guest parking space must also be provided (8 to 13 feet in width depending on whether the access way for the first accessible stall can be shared). A minimum of 24 feet of backout room is required. The total required parking is 26 units and the applicant is proposing a total of 25 spaces. To provide any less than 1.75 spaces per unit will require an administrative parking regulation modification. The applicant has proposed that six spaces be "tandem". The current code does not permit tandem parking for apartment development, however, a code amendment is in process which may allow this at some point in the future. Although the site plan is not dimensioned, the proposed compact spaces seem smaller than the minimum compact stall width (8.5'). If this is the case, the applicant will not need to obtain an administrative parking modification for the size of stalls as well, as stall type (tandem), and number of stalls (25 instead of 26. The City has not yet approved a parking modification to permit a standard stall size less 18 feet or a width of less than 8.5 feet. The decision criteria for approving a modification request are listed in RMC Section 4-9-250D. The applicant should be aware that the City is in the process of considering amendments to the parking code. Depending on the date of project application, the new parking amendments may affect the development. • Height: The maximum height limit in the RMI Zone is 2 % stories and 35 feet. • No elevation drawings were provided with the preliminary site plan, however, the applicant has stated that while the proposed buildings will comply with the 35- foot height limitation, they will be three stories in height. There are two options to obtain approval of a structure over 2.5 stories: 1) Provision of"additional amenities such as pitched roofs, additional recreation facilities, underground parking, and/or additional landscaped/open space areas, as determined through the site plan review process"; or 2) A Board of Adjustment variance. The applicant did not provide any information supporting the need for and/or justification for such a variance or modification request, so I am unable to comment on the feasibility. Standard RMI Setbacks: this zone requires A 20-foot front yard setback and the proposal provides for a 20-foot setback. The rear yard required by the zone is only 15 feet and the proposed structures are several hundred feet from the rear lot line. The Uniform Building Code requirements for setbacks from slopes and/or the slope setbacks recommended by the geotechnical report will be the determining factor for construction on the westerly portion of the site. Side yard setbacks in the zone are required to be a minimum of 10% of the lot width and "if 10% of the lot width is not equal to a whole integer, the percentage shall be rounded up to determine the required setback . . ." Although no lot width was provided for the easterly portion of the lot, it appears to be 62.74 feet in width. Ten percent of 62.74 feet results in a percentage that if rounded up would require a 7-foot side yard setback. The proposed plan indicates only 6-foot side yard setbacks. . Special Setbacks for Structures over 2 stories in height: Since the proposal is 3 stories in height, all setbacks must be increased by "an additional foot for each story in excess of 2 : . .". This means that the front yard setback will be 21 feet, the rear yard will be 16 feet and the side yards will be 8 feet each for this particular project. _ Tree Cutting/Land Clearing: A tree cutting plan indicating sizes/types/locations of all trees to be removed and retained will be required as part of the formal site plan/environmental application package. Any tree cutting or land clearing must be in accordance with the approved site plan/tree cutting plan. No trees or vegetation can be disturbed prior to building permit issuance. It appears that approximately 1/3 of the site is steeply sloping with slopes approximately 40% or greater. No tree cutting is permitted in areas with 40% or greater slopes (westerly portion of site). 3alq Landscaping: All required landscaping must be sprinklered. Setback areas are required to be landscaped "unless otherwise determined through the site plan review process". The applicant will be required to provide an analysis indicating total square footage of parking lot/aisle way area. If the square footage is.10,000 square feet or greater, a minimum of 5% of the interior of the lot must also be landscaped. This figure will also be used to determine compliance with impervious surfacing limitations (75% maximum). Lot Coverage/Impervious Surface Maximum: 35% maximum building coverage and 75% total maximum impervious surfacing. The proposal appears to comply with these provisions. Dumpster location and Screening: Not permitted in any setback areas. Must comply with provisions of RMC 4-4-090. We recommend you contact the service provider, Rainier Waste Management, to obtain their approval prior to submitting • your formal site plan/environmental application to the City. Mitigation Fees: $388.00 per unit Fire Mitigation Fee. $354.51 per unit Parks Mitigation Fee. $497.25 per unit Transportation Mitigation Fee. Sensitive Areas: The site (or a portion of the site) is indicated as sensitive on the City's greenbelt, erosion hazard, and slide hazard maps. A geotechnical . report, addressing the issues noted in RMC 4-3-070G3, will be required as part of the formal site plan application in order to determine any building issues related to the slopes on the on the western border of the site. • Also, Jones Creek may be located on or near the site. If so please indicate the location of the creek on the site plan and/or the neighborhood map and indicate the closest distance to site boundaries. There is a minimum 25-foot setback required for the creek. No vegetation or trees can be removed within this 25-foot area. The greenbelt regulations, Section 4-3-070, only apply to those areas of the site that are indicated on the City's greenbelt map. It appears that only a very small portion of the site is actually indicated on the greenbelt map. Applicant's engineer/surveyor to verify. le-i . Special Design Standards:. This site abuts an R-5 single family residential zone. The RMI Zone development standards sta e: "Properties abutting a less intense residential zone may be required to incorporate special design standards (e.g., additional landscaping, larger setbacks, facade articulation, solar access, fencing) through the site plan review process." Comments by: Laureen Nicolay (425) 430-7294 e.n. , :„„„,,„„„„, • „....... ...• ............... „ ................, „ ..„ ........ ............ . • „, ..::..:•:• NSI- 1.WORKSHEET•••••• :::::::::::::::::::::::: •••••••••••••••• • • • • • • 1. Gross area property: �r square feet 2. Certain areas are excluded from the c do These include public roadways an sensitive areas*. ,(C Total excluded area: ),74.-y 407 ,%ate 2. / square feet 3. Subtract line 2 from line 9 for net area (or total of lot areas): 3. o? , 5 square feet 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage: 4. J7 acres 5. Number of dwelling units (d.u.) planned: 5. /) units 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: 6. . ' r d.u./acre • s would result in a net density of d� dwelling units per acre. * Sensitive areas are defined as "areas not suitable for development which are included within the City's greenbelt, geologically hazardous, wetlands, or flood plain regulations." (City Code Section 4-31-2: Definitions Vti041 "1,711 /2/ 1. DENSITY.DOC ? i ABERDEEN AVENUE APARTMENTS PRELIMINARY PROJECT REVIEW MEETING LIST OF QUESTIONS/ISUES FDG PROJECT NO. 99120.00 Planning • • Will formal landscaping/irrigation plans be required? • Will a licensed landscape architect be required? 'r) /PiCan we developup to 17 units on this site?A/ol / �_ • 5�7 • �� cii,dud • Reviewtrashh/rec clip nclo,�u�re ream emen s. • where is build ng h ghat calcula d t0 e€ • a� • How is parking counted/allocated? /,75"&pac&� ( .6 • Is a tree survey/removal plan required? ti CS • Will a traffic analysis be required? YID • Is a SEPA review required? eS &del/i,� wruf • Review impact fees. ri,�O L or easements re �5ired.�I/Q, i e C�� Z n e�`1 /�' �c4 • Dedications q � • • Mailboxes and addressing standards. i ael- s!44,9r.co f 'V irt- - ' A„� �u!LP 62 & Sf- s )% ` mB/ '�e-n•& Fx Ci�� ?U". i . od- t ¢ ew4. • Review City sprinkler ordinance as it affects us. • • Review ocupancy and construction type. • How does UBC 31 1 .2.2.1 affect us? • Review area separation wall impacts/benefits. • Review allowable area calculations (Table 5B). • Review 904.2.9 UBC. • Review 310.2.2 UBC. • Review 310.10.UBC. • Review 1004.2.3.2 UBC and 1004.2.3.3 URC. FjLe • Will on site hydrants be requried? • Review proposed hammerhead turn around. • Is fireflow a concern for this site? • Alarm and sprinkler system requirements. • Fire lane striping requirements for site. • Building addressing requirements. rt•4-�yt{::y•, 4-11-020 • BUFFER,SHORELINES:A parcel or strip of land 7-22-1985 (Minutes),3-12-1990 (Resolution that is designed and designated to permanently " 2787), 7-16-1990 (Resolution 2805), 9-13-1993 remain vegetated in an undisturbed and natural • (Minutes) and Ord.4716,4-13-1998) ' condition to protect an adjacent aquatic or wetland . site from upland impacts,to provide habitat for BUILDING CODE: Building Code is the Uniform wildlife and to afford limited public access.Shore- Building Code, promulgated by the International line Master Program (Ord. 3758, 12-5-1983, Re- Conference of Building Officials, as adopted by vised 7-22-1985 (Minutes), 3-12-1990 this jurisdiction. (Ord. 3719, 4-11-1983) (Resolution 2787),7-16-1990 (Resolution 2805), • 9-13-1993 (Minutes) and Ord. 4716, 4-13-1998) BUILDING COMPLEX, MULTIPLE:A group of structures housing more than one type of retail BUFFER,WETLAND: Areas that surround and business, office or commercial venture and gen- protect a wetland from adverse impacts to its erally under one ownership and control. (Ord. functions and values. 4720, 5-4-1998) • BUILDABLE AREA:The portion of a lot or site, • BUILDING DRAIN: See RMC 4-6-100. exclusive of required yard areas, setbacks, land- scaping or open space within which a structure BUILDING ENVELOPE:The allowable building may be built. area permissible for the construction of one single �` 1RLOT LIT family dwelling unit in a residential cluster. REAR YARD - BUILDING FACADE:That portion of any exterior li elevation of a building extending from the grade !_____I..__ . __. . ir 1L __d to the top of the parapet wall or eaves,and the en- ; _;,, , �' tire width of the building elevation. (Ord. 3719, 5 Y .` '.; SIDE �}y_, 4-11-1983) BUILDING FOOTPRINT:The area of a lot or site -Eramu urE 1-' -'- included within the surrounding exterior walls of a FRONT YARD building or portion of a building, exclusive of courtyards. In the absence of surrounding exte- Thorrr.orurF' rior walls,the building footprint shall be the area under the horizontal projection of the roof. f[ Buildable Area BUILDING HEIGHT:The vertical distance above a referenced datum measured to the highest point BUILDING: Any structure having a roof sup- of the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a ported by columns or walls and intended for the mansard roof or to the average height of the high- shelter, housing or enclosure of any individual, est gable of a pitched or hipped roof. The refer- animal, process, equipment, goods or materials ence datum shall be selected by either of the of any kind or nature. following whichever yields a greater height of building: BUILDING:Any existing structure containing one or more dwelling units and any grouping of such A.The elevation of the highest adjoining sidewalk structures which were operated as rental units as or ground surface within a five foot(5') horizontal converted buildings are the subject of a single distance of the exterior wall of the building when declaration or simultaneous declaration filed pur- such sidewalk or ground surface is not more than suant to the Horizontal Property Regimes Act ten feet (10') above lowest grade measured (chapter 64.32 RCW). (Ord. 4351, 5-4-1992) within a five foot(5') horizontal distance of the ex terior wall of the building. BUILDING: (This definition for RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, use B. An elevation ten feet (10') higher than the low- only.) Any structure having a roof intended to be est grade when the sidewalk or ground surface used for the shelter or enclosure of persons, described in subsection A above is more than ten plants, animals or property. Shoreline Master feet (10') above lowest grade measured within a Program (Ord. 3758, 12-5-1983, Revised five foot (5') horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the building. 11 - 7 4-11-020 " • — , GABLE-FF TYPE ROOF • METHOD'A' • FLAT ROOFS METHOD'A' f Fb'�H Fo r /� F.O(f� F.00F LII E / 1 ��---� — n PULPY;; FOG FT -10FT I�III/ •• �I a FT r----, F T •FT'f '1' ILCN4E•T GF.APE1 GABLE-HIP TYPE ROOFS • FLAT ROOFS METHOD 8' METH07 8 • rtl_-1 c:-a+. ----- -- -- - F, Y , =F:).7 F.OFLIUE-- -jHT J. -- 1 •�� 1111011111111111111 eui a r_ ct.r._ .. �� maim =-_ HT AL -.1:. 5 10 Fil lil L.1...___4.. ,El 111 Cr rir.PE "%=''_= BUILDING LINE: The line between which the F,=.GE+ street line or lot line, no building or other structure or portion of a structure,except as provided in this MANNSSARDROOFS Title, may be erected above the grade level. The building line is considered a vertical surface inter- secting the ground on such line. rr,"I LP �-----------------� 1111111111111111 BUILDING,MULTI-OCCUPANCY:A single struc- ture housing more than one type of retail busi- tt1�1n♦11 l -.. ness, office or commercial venture and generally Ifil,/ •,,., ,1, under one ownership and control. (Ord. 4720, y—s 5-4-1998) • = :° BUILDING OFFICIAL: The officer or other per- son charged with the administration and enforce- . ment of this Title, or his duly authorized deputy. MANSARD ROOFS METH77 R (Ord. 3719,4-11-1983) BUILDING, PRINCIPAL: (This definition for RMC 4-4-100, Sign Regulations, use only.) A building 1111111111111 _ in which the principal use of a property is con- _ 111011111 ducted. - ]n - 7..: _ _ ___ BUILDING,SINGLE OCCUPANCY:A building or 1 _ structure with one major enterprise, generally un- f-- der one ownership. A building is considered to be "single occupancy" if: A. It has only one occupant; and • 11 -8 • • • IIII=1111 f _I„=IIIIIIII -Mil _ H IIII= h 11 E 1111 =IIII IN A BUILDING WITH ONLY ONE FLOOR, IF "H" IS 8' OR LESS OR "h" IS 4' OR LESS FOR MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF PERIMETER, THE FLOOR LEVEL IS THE FIRST STORY. FIRST STORY • • IIII-1111 1141 11111111 IIII IIII= II-IIII (AT ANY POINT) =IIII h L IN A BUILDING WITH ONLY ONE FLOOR, IF "H" IS MORE THAN 8' OR "h" IS MORE THAN 4' FOR MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF PERIMETER, THE FLOOR LEVEL IS THE BASEMENT. BASEMENT . • • • • • • • D TOP OF FLOOR T h .Ji l l l- IIII B __vIlil_ EMI H - /2 ..� =IIII IIII= 1111E1111 EMI! • A L. J IF "H" IS MORE THAN 12' (AT ANY POINT), OR IF "h" IS MORE THAN 6' FOR MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF PERIMETER, THEN B IS A STORY AND CONSIDERED THE FIRST STORY. STORY j GRADE-- • FLOOR • 1 ELEVATION GRADE - 100' _. . A-A F.G. 96' - F.G. 103' • A <� A FLOOR ELEVATION • 100' • B B F.G. • 10 3' L r F.G. F.G. . 10 4' 102 GRADE GRADE FLOOR ELEVATION � l 10 0' 5' 5' B-B GRADE - (ADJACENT GROUND ELEVATION) Section 408 III-5 4-9-2401 ' 3. Hours of operation of the temporary use 3. A maximum of one,one year extension. • are specified,and would not adversely impact may be granted for uses referred to in sub- surrounding uses; section K2 of this Section. 4. The temporary use will not cause nui- L. REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY USE sance factors such as noise, light, or glare REQUIRED: which adversely impacts surrounding uses; Each site occupied by a temporary use shall be left free of debris, litter, or other evidence of the • 5. If applicable,the applicant has obtained temporary use upon completion of removal of the the required right-of-way use permit. use. I. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: M. SECURITY: The Planning/Building/Public Works Administra- 1. General:The Planning/Building/Public tor or designee may require security in conform- Works Administrator or designee may estab- ance with RMC 4-9-060C to assure compliance lish conditions as may be deemed necessary with the provisions of the temporary use permit as to ensure land use compatibility and to mini- approved.The amount of the security will be de- mize potential impacts on nearby uses.These termined by the Planning/Building/Public Works include, but are not limited to, requiring that Administrator or designee, but in no case shall it notice be given to adjacent property owners be less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). prior to approval,time and frequency of oper- The security may be used by the City to abate the ation, temporary arrangements for parking use and/or facilities. and traffic circulation, requirement for screen- ing or enclosure, and guarantees for site res- N. PERMIT REVOCATION: toration and cleanup following temporary uses. 1. Revocation of Temporary Use Permit.: Should the Planning/Building/Public Works 2. Facilities Required: Each site occupied Administrator or the Administrator's designee by a temporary use shall have access to or determine that information has been provided provide for restroom facilities (may be a tern- to the City which was false, incomplete, or porary facility) and garbage disposal;electri- has changed,such that the decision criteria in cal hookups will be required as needed. subsection H of this Section are incorrect, false,or have not been met,or the temporary J. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: use actually being used is different than or The temporary use permit may initiate permits and greater than that applied for,or if the use itself inspections from both Fire Prevention and/or De- is a nuisance, unhealthy, unsafe or poses a velopment Services Division to insure that the substantial risk of harm to persons or prop- temporary use is in compliance with Fire/Building erty, then the Administrator may revoke the Codes. temporary use permit upon ten (10) days' written notice,unless an emergency exists,in K. EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION: which case the Administrator may declare such an emergency and immediately revoke 1. Except as specified in subsection K2 of the temporary use permit. this Section, a temporary use permit is valid . for up to ninety (90) calendar days from the effective date of the permit, unless the Plan- 4-9-250 VARIANCES, WAIVERS, Wing/Building/Public Works Administrator or MODIFICATIONS, AND ALTERNATES: designee establishes a shorter time frame. A. PURPOSES: 2. The Planning/Building/Public Works Ad- ministrator or designee may approve a tern- 1. Variances: A grant of relief from the re- porary use permit for up to one year for quirements of this Title which permits con- temporary sales or rental offices in subdivi- struction in a manner that otherwise is sions, multi-family or nonresidential projects prohibited by this Title. or other longer term uses. 9 -72 • 4-9-250B 2. Waivers: (Reserved) 2. Filing of Application:A property owner, • or his duly authorized agent, may file an ap- 3. Modifications:To modify a Code re- plication for a variance which application quirement when there are practical difficulties shall set forth fully the grounds therefor and involved in carrying out the provisions of this the facts deemed to justify the granting of Title when a special individual reason makes such variance. the strict letter of this Code impractical. (Ord. 4346, 3-9-1992) 3. Submittal Requirements and Applica- tion Fees: Shall be as listed in RMC 4. Alternates:To allow the use of any ma- 4-8-120C, Land Use Applications, and terial or method of construction not specifi- 4-1-170, Land Use Review Fees. cally prescribed by this Title. (Ord. 4346, 3-9-1992) 4. Public Notice and Comment Period: Notice of the application shall be given pursu- B. VARIANCE PROCEDURES: ant to RMC 4-8-090, Public Notice Require- ments. 1. Authority and Applicability: 5. Decision Criteria:The Reviewing Offi- a. Hearing Examiner Variances: The cial shall have authority to grant a variance Hearing Examiner shall have the author- upon making a determination in writing that ity to grant variances from the provisions the conditions specified below have been of this Title where the proposed develop- found to exist: ment requires or required any permit or approval as set forth in RMC 4-1-050H. a. That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary b. Board of Adjustment Variances: because of special circumstances appli- The Board of Adjustment shall have au- cable to subject property, including size, thority to grant variances from the provi- shape,topography, location or surround- sions of this Title upon application to the ings of the subject property,and the strict Development Services Division where no application of the Zoning Code is found to approval or permit is required for the pro- deprive subject property owner of rights posed development which must be and privileges enjoyed by other property granted by the Hearing Examiner pursu- owners in the vicinity and under identical ant to RMC 4-1-050H. The Board of Ad- zone classification; justment shall have no authority to vary the terms or conditions of any permit, rec- b. That the granting of the variance will ommendation or decision issued by the not be materially detrimental to the public • Hearing Examiner. welfare or injurious to the property or im- provements in the vicinity and zone in c. Administrative Variances: The which subject property is situated; • Planning/Building/Public Works Adminis- trator or his/her designee shall have the c. That approval shall not constitute a • authority to grant variances from the fol- grant of special privilege inconsistent lowing development standards when no with the limitation upon uses of other other permit or approval requires Hearing properties in the vicinity and zone in Examiner Review: which the subject property is situated; i. Residential Land Uses: Lot d. That the approval as determined by width, lot depth, setbacks, allowed the Hearing Examiner or Board of Adjust- projections into setbacks, and lot ment is a minimum variance that will ac- coverage; and complish the desired purpose. ii. Commercial and Industrial 6. Special Review Criteria for Variances Land Uses: Screening of surface from the Aquifer Protection Regulations: mounted equipment and screening See chapter 8-8 RMC. of roof-mounted equipment. 9 - 73 4-9-250C 7. Continuation of Public Hearing: If for become null and void and in the event that any reason testimony in any manner set for the applicant or owner of the subject property public hearing, or being heard, cannot be for which a variance has been requested has completed on date set for such hearing, the failed to commence construction or otherwise person presiding at such public hearing or implement effectively the variance granted meeting may, before adjournment or recess within a,period of two (2) years after such of such matters under consideration,publicly variance has been issued. announce the time and place to and at which said meeting will be continued,and no further 12. Extension of Approval: For proper notice of any kind shall be required. (Ord. cause shown, an applicant may petition the 3463, 8-11-1980;Amd. Ord. 4648, 1-6-1997) Reviewing Official for an extension of the two (2)year period,specifying the reasons there- 8. Board of Adjustment Decision Pro- for. The Reviewing Official may extend the cess: time limit, but such extension shall not ex- ceed one additional year in any event. (Ord. a. Board of Adjustment Shall An- 3463,8-11-1980;Amd.Ord.4648, 1-6-1997) pounce Findings and Decisions: Not more than thirty (30)days after the termi- C. WAIVER PROCEDURES: nation of the proceedings of the public hearing on any variance, the Board of 1. Authority for Waiver, General: (Re- Adjustment shall announce its findings served) and decision. If a variance is granted,the record shall show such conditions and 2. Authority for Waiver of Street Im- limitations in writing as the Board of Ad- provements:The Board of Public Works justment may impose. may grant waiver of the installation of street improvements subject to the determination b. Notice of Decision of Board of Ad- that there is reasonable justification for such justment: Following the rendering of a waiver. decision on a variance application, a copy of the written order by the Board of 3. Application and Fee:Any application for Adjustment shall be mailed to the appli- such a waiver shall specify in detail the reason cant at the address shown on the appli- for such requested waiver and may contain cation and filed with the Board of such evidence including photographs, maps, Adjustment and to any other person who surveys as may be pertinent thereto. The ap- requests a copy thereof. plication fee shall be as specified in RMC 4-1-170, Land Use Review Fees. c. Reconsideration: (Reserved) 4. Decision Criteria,General: (Reserved) d. Record of Decision: Whenever a variance is approved by the Board of Ad- 5. Decision Criteria for Waivers of Street justment,the Development Services Divi- Improvements: Reasonable justification sion shall forthwith make an appropriate shall include but not be limited to the follow- record and shall inform the administrative ing: department having jurisdiction over the matter. a. Required street improvements will al- ter an existing wetlands or stream, or 9. Conditions of Approval: The Review- have a negative impact on a shorelines ing Official may prescribe any conditions area. upon the variance deemed to be necessary and required. b. Existing steep topography would make required street improvements in- 10. Finalization: (Reserved) feasible. 11. Expiration of Variance Approval:Any c. Required street improvements would variance granted by the Reviewing Official, have a negative impact on other proper- unless otherwise specified in writing, shall ties,such as restricting available access. 9-74 o _. 4-9-260 � r d. There are no similar improvements in E. ALTERNATE PROCEDURES: • the vicinity and there is little likelihood that the improvements will be needed or 1. Authority:The provisions of this Title are required in the next ten (10) years. not intended to prevent the use of any mate- rial or method of construction or aquifer pro- e. In no case shall a waiver be granted tection not specifically prescribed by this unless it is shown that there will be no Title, provided any alternate has been ap- detrimental effect on the public health, proved and its use authorized by the Plan- safety or welfare if the improvements are ning/Building/Public Works Administrator. not installed, and that the improvements are not needed for current or future de- 2. Decision Criteria:The Administrator velopment. may approve any such alternate, provided he/she finds that the proposed design and/or D. MODIFICATION PROCEDURES: methodology is satisfactory and complies with the provisions of this Title and that the 1. Application Time and Decision Au- material, method or work offered is,for pur- thority:Modification from standards,either in pose intended, at least the equivalent of that whole or in part, shall be subject to approval prescribed in this Title in suitability, strength, by the Planning/Building/Public Works De- effectiveness, durability, safety, maintainabil- partment upon submittal in writing of jurisdic- ity and environmental protection. tion for such modification.Application will be made prior to detailed engineering and de- 3. Substantiation:The Department Admin- sign. istrator shall require that evidence or proof be submitted to substantiate any claims that may 2. Decision Criteria:Whenever there are be made regarding its use. practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title,the Department 4. Record of Decision: The details of any Administrator may grant modifications for in- action granting approval of an alternate shall dividual cases provided he/she shall first find be written and entered in the files of the Code that a specific reason makes the strict letter of enforcement agency. (Ord.4367,9-14-1992) this Code impractical, and that the modifica- tion is in conformity with the intent and pur- pose of this Code,and that such modification: 4-9-260 VIOLATIONS OF THIS CHAPTER AND PENALTIES: a. Will meet the objectives and safety, function,appearance,environmental pro- Unless otherwise specified, penalties for any tection and maintainability intended by violations of any of the provisions of this the Code requirements, based upon Chapter shall be in accord with RMC 1-3-2, sound engineering judgment; and Civil Penalties. (Ord. 4722, 5-11-1998) b. Will not be injurious to other prop- erty(s) in the vicinity; and c. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and d. Can be shown to be justified and re- quired for the use and situation intended; and • e. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. (Ord. 4517, 5-8-1995) 9-75 • .::.:.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:::.::.:::.:::::.::.::.:::.::::::.::.::.::.::::.::.::.::.:::.:::. PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact • Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, • write"do not know"or"does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your • proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on polices, plans and-programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "prop Larz4site" should be read as "proposal," - "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. ol�po��/�C 4144 Pg- ®® Environmental Checklist A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 2. Name of applicant: 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting checklist: 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. 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. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. . A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 1 . Name of project, if applicable: Aberdeen Avenue Apartments 2. Name of Applicant: Cambridge Homes Northwest 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Gerald and Soung Hee Rieker 12228 N.E. 112th Place, #A1 Kirkland, WA 98033 Contact: Frank Heffernan, AIA (425)821-3383 4. Date checklist prepared: January 31 , 2000 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): • Construction to begin late Spring 2000 Completion by December 2000 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. Soils report, storm drainage analysis, site survey (topo), site tree survey. 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. None that we are aware of. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Building permit, grading permit, street use permit, mechanical and electrical permits. -{ 2 11 . Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. Development of a twelve unit single building apartment project with 21 parking spaces. Site development to include landscaping and utilities. Site size equals .86 acres. 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 of 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 tot his checklist. Project is located at 917 Aberdeen Avenue, Renton, Washington B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1 . Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other East end of property slopes westward 5%-10%; 30' of relief in 400'. West end slopes +40%. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate per^e;r:��tY,C apse 40% slopes occur on site. JUN 21 2000 c. What general types of soils are found on the site p(;f � plee, claw, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classifi_c.a. i.o.�_a.gricu_ ,uxal soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Silty sands are found on site. Refer to attached soils report for details. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Refer to page no. 3 of soils report. e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Grading will be required to prepare site for construction - structural fill will be imported. Quantities have been estimated by the civil engineer as follows: Cut= 1 ,583 cubic yards Fill = 266 cubic yards Source remains to be determined. 3 f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. A T.E.S.C. Plan will be prepared and adhered to during construction. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? No more than 50% of the site area will be covered with impervious surface upon completion. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. T.E.S.C. Plan during construction. All portions of site not covered by building or paving will be landscaped upon completion. 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. Vehicle emissions from equipment during construction. Vehicle emissions from resident vehicles upon project completion. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Surrounding residential development/Interstate 405 vehicle emissions. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. No exceptional measures are proposed. 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, salt water, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Lake Washington lies ± 2 miles from site. Jones Creek is located near the site. 4 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 and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 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. Groundwater: 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 systems) are expected to serve. Project will connect to existing sanitary and storm sewer systems. No waste discharge to ground. 5 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. Storm water from roofs and parking areas will be routed to City storm system per King County Development Standards. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Adherence to King County Development Standards regarding surface water management. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation - blackberries b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Portions of site will be cleared for construction and relandscaped as part of project development. 6 c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: See enclosed Site Landscape Plan and Tree Removal Plan. 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 (see next page): Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, ther Mammals: deer, bear, elk, r Rodents Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known on site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: No exceptional measures are proposed. 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. Electrical power for heating, lighting and hot water. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Conformance with energy code requirements for insulation, heating, lighting and glazing. 7 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. No special services anticipated. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: No exceptional measures are proposed or necessary. b. Noise 1 . What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? Vehicular traffic from Interstate 405, surrounding arterials and residential developments. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short term during construction - construction equipment. Long term upon completion - residents and vehicle noises. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: No exceptional measures limit hours of construction to 7 a.m. - 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Site is vacant; surrounding are residential uses, both single and multi- family. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. 8 c. Describe any structures on the site. No structures on site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? (RM-I) Residential multi-family (infill). f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Residential. 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. Steep slopes on western portion of site ( +40%). i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 25 residents. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None required. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. Design of project in conformance with City of Renton zoning standards. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. Twelve middle income units will be provided. 9 b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing. No existing units will be eliminated. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. None required, project will add to existing affordable housing stock. 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? Tallest height proposed will be 35'-0", as allowed in the zone. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. Conformance with design standards for the RM-I zone. 11 . Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposals produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Building and site lighting (during evening hours) will be created by the project. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Surrounding arterials and residential developments will produce light affecting subject property. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. Strategic placement of fixtures and use of directional fixtures and shields. 10 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None in immediate vicinity of the site. 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 proposed. 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 known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. None proposed. 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. Site is served by Sunset Blvd.; Aberdeen Avenue; Interstate 405. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Not known. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 21 stalls are proposed, no stalls will be eliminated. • 11 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). Not that we are aware of. 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. Per ITE manual estimate for this use (general apartment). Weekday 6.63/DU x 12 unites = 79.56 Assume peak volumes to be 6 - 8 a.m. and 5 - 7 p.m. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. Conformance with City of Renton Development Standards and MDNS Conditions. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. All the referenced public services will be required for this development consistent with developments of similar scale. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Conformance with City of Renton Development Requirements/MDNS Conditions/Impact Assessments directed by City. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at 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 utilities providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity & Gas: Puget Sound Energy Telephone: GTE Sanitary Sewer/Water: City of Renton Refuse: Rabanco/Waste Management 12 C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: fg ,(J Date: (�jirlarQ.444/211 CtOCD • Chicago Title .Insurance-Company 10500 NE 8th, Suite 1700 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Bellevue, WA 98004 CITY OF RENTON PHONE: (425) 646-9883 BAR 2 1 2000 FAX: (425) 646-9879 EASTSIDE TITLE UNIT • FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET • • TO: e-kt\) E F itY‘ft ) COMPANY: PHONE Number: Date: .1—(6 `"O a FAX Number. , eir NUMBER OF PAGES RE: s-g6 1 (including cover page) Original To Follow Via: 0 Regular Mail 0 Overnight 0 Courier ❑No Original to Follow ❑ SHAWNA CRUIKSHANK ❑ TIM DANIELS ❑ BILL QUAST 0 DAWN APPEL ❑ ,IANE PERRY ❑ REA BUZZELL ❑ ANGELA STUMPF 0 SHERRY CHAMPION COMMENTS: • The materials enclosed with this FAX transmission are private and confidential and arc the property of the sender. The information contained in the materials is privileged and is intended for the use of the individuals or entities named above. if you have received this FAX transmission in error.please immediately notify us by telephone to arrange for the return of this documents to us. • ICOFi Z LINil III L69S 9Z9 90Z %V'd Se:OZ 0007.'Oi-'ZG CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 10500 NE 8TH,#1700,BELLEV UE.WA 98004 • EXTENDED MORTGAGEE POLICY • SCHEDULE A Policy No.: 540949 Date of Policy: SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 at 3 :43 PM Amount of Insurance: $98,175.00 1. Name of Insured: FIRST SAVINGS BANK, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION 2. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in: GERALD L. RIEKER AND SOUNG HEE RIEKER, HUSBAND AND WIFE 3. The estate or interest in the land described in Schedule A and which is encumbered by the insured mortgage is: FEE SIMPLE • 4. The insured mortgage,and assignments thereof,if any,are described as follows: SEE ATTACHED DESCRIPTION 5. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: TRACT 11 OF HARRIES GARDEN HOME TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME }4 OF PLATS. PAGE 38, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE NORTH 37-1/2 FEET TFEREOF. ,x1r\irc/Rin,I9,9 Z00 7 Llti:l IL) L69Q 879 90i, XV.4 9C:07. 0007/0I/Z0 • CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY EXTENDED MORTGAGEE POLICY SCHEDULE A (Continued) Policy No.. 54094 9 INSURED MORTGAGE AND ASSIGNMENTS,IF ANY DEED OF TRUST TO SECURE AN. INDEBTEDNESS: GRANTOR: GERALD L. & SOUND HEE RIEICER, HUSBAND AND WIFE TRUSTEE: NORTHWEST FINANCIAL CORPORATION, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION BENEFICIARY. FIRST SAVINGS BANK OF WASHINGTON, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION AMOUNT: $ 98, 175 .00 DATED: SEPTEMBER 23, 1999 RECORDED: SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 RECORDING NUMBER: 19990923002375 LOAN NUMBER: NOT DISCLOSED • • • COO i 7. 1I0 I10 L699 $Z9 90Z YVA L£:OZ 0007../OT:ZO CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY EXTENDED MORTGAGEE,POLICY SCHEDULE B (Continued) Policy No.; 59 0949 PART I This policy does not insure against loss or damage(and the Company will not pay costs,attorneys'fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: ** END OF SCHEDULE B - PART I ** 7 nu)rer;rNn: 600 01 Z ,LIN;1 I,LD L692 9Z9 90Z XYd L£:OZ 000Z/01 7,0 • • CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY EXTENDED MORTGAGEE POLICY SCHEDULE B (Continued) Policy No.: 540949 .PART II • In addition to the matters set forth in Part I of this Schedule,the title to the estate•or interest in the land described or referred to in Schedule A is subject to the following matters,if any be shown,but the Company insures that such matters arc subordinate to the lien or charge of the insured mortgage upon said estate or interest: NONE ** END OF SCHEDULE B ** oni/l14.011,eg• aadilS4 2IL AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY • • :roan Policy Endorsements! 2696 AND 2697 Owner' s Policy Endorsements: 100, 8. 1 ANT) 116 mm45,:Nri'.itun .ix+: �0001 Z LINit I,L) Lti9S 8E9 90Z lb•d LE:OZ 000Z/OT,ZO • Your r',:rence: • RIEKEis END ORSEMENT • Attached to and forming a part of Policy No. 540949 : Issued by CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Dated: September 30, 1999 ENDORSEMENT 100 The Company hereby insures against loss which said Insured shall sustain by reason of the following matters, (11 Any incorrectness in the assurance which the Company hereby gives, la) That there are no covenants, conditions or restrictions under which the lien of the mortgage referred to in Schedule A can be cut off, subordinated or otherwise impaired; :b) That there are no present violations on said land of any enforceable covenants, conditions or restrictions; lc) That, except as shown in Schedule B, there are no encroachments of buildings, structures or improvements located on said land onto adjoining lands, nor any encroachments onto said land of buildings, structures, or improvements located on adjoining lands. 2i(a) Any future violations on said land of any covenants, conditions, or restrictions occurring prior to acquisition of title to said estate or interest by the Insured, provided such violations result in impairment or loss of the lien of the mortgage referred to in Schedule A, or result in lona of the title to said estate or interest if. the Insured shall acquire title in satisfaction of the indebtedness secured by such mortgage; (b) Unmarketability of the title to said estate or interest by reason of any violations on said land, occuring prior to acquisition of title to said estate or interest by the Insured, of any covenants, conditions, or restrictions. (3) Damage to existing improvements, including lawns, shrubbery or trees (a) Which are located cr encroach upon that portion of the land subject to any easement shown in Schedule E, which damage reaulte from the exercise of the right to use or maintain such easement for the purposes for which the same was granted or reserved; (b) Resulting from the exercise of any right to use the surface of said land for.the extraction or development of the minerals excepted from the description of said land or shown as a reservation in Schedule B. (i) Any final court order or judgment requiring removal from any land adjoining said land of any encroachment shown in Schedule B. Wherever in this endorsement any or all of the words "covenants, conditions or restrictions" appear they shall not be deemed tc refer to or include the terms, covenants and conditions contained in any lease referred to in Schedule A. For purposes of this endorsement, the words "covenants," "conditions" or "restrictions" shall not be deemed tc refer to or include any covenants, conditions or restrictions relating to environmental protection, except to the extent that a notice of a violatior or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy and is not excepted in Schedule B. The total liability of the Company under said policy and any endorsements therein shall not exceed, in the aggregate, the face amount of said policy and costs which the Company is obligated under the conditions and stipulations thereof to pay. This endorsement is made a part of said policy and is subject to the exclusions from coverage, schedules, and conditions and s ,ipulatione theerrein excep ae dified the provisions hereof. Authorized Signatory Note, This endorsement shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized signatory 900F1 Z ,LINII I,L3 1.69e 9Z9 90Z XVd 9£:0Z 000Z/OT/Z0 • Your_ erence: BILKER ENDORSEMENT Attached to and forming a part of Policy No. 540949 Issued by CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Dated: September 30, 1999 ALTA ENDORSEMENT-FORM 8.1 WASHINGTON FORM 110.9 The insurance afforded by this endorsement is only effective if the land is used or is to be used primarily for residential purposes. The Company insures the Insured against lose or damage sustained by reason of lack of priority of the lien of the insured mortgage over: a. eny environmental protection lien which, at Date of Policy, is recorded in those records established under state statutes at Date of Policy for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchaser's for value and without knowledge, or filed in the records of the clerk of the United States district court for the district in which the land is located, except as set forth in Schedule B; or b. any environmental protection lien provided for by any state statute in effect at Date of Policy. except environmental protection liens provided for by the following state Statutes: The "Mill Tailings Licensing and Perpetual Care Act of 1979", and amendments thereto, codified as R^W 70.121.010, et seq. This endorsement is made a part of the policy and is subject to all the terms and provisions thereof and of any prior endorsements thereto. Except to the extent expressly stated, it neither modifies any of the terms and provisions cf the policy and prior endorsements, if any, nor does it extend the effective date of the policy and prior endorsements or increase the face amount thereof. Authorized Signatory Note: This endorsement shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorised signatory DNDCRSI.C/4D:1,J':"? L00E Z .Llh:l I.LD L69g 9Z9 90Z XVd 6£:0Z 000Z;OT/Z0 • Your. creme: RIEKER ENDORSEMENT • Attached to and forming a part of Policy No. 540949 Issued by CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Dated: September 30, 1999 ENDORSEMENT 116 The Company assures the Insured that at the date of this policy there is located on said land A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE known as: 917 ABERDEEN AVENUE NORTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON 9805E The Company hereby insures the Insured against loss which said Insured shall sustain in the event that the assurance herein shall prove to be incorrect. This endorsement is made a part of the policy and is subject to all the terms and provisions thereof and of any prior endorsements thereto. Except to the extent expressly stated, it neither modifies 'any of the terms and provisions of the policy and prior endorsements, if any, nor does it extend the effective date of the policy and prior endorsements or increase the face amount thereof. Authorized Signatory Nate, This endorsement sball not be valid or binding until countersigned by an author.zed signatory EN9ORSECIRDA!CM4 900E Z .LINII LL0 L692 8Z9 90i.. INA 6£:OZ 000Z:OT 70 EVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS ................................. ............................. . ............................ ............................ ...........................................................................................................................:::.::: Calculations, Survey, Drainage Report 2 Elevations, Grading z E....:.tq Go ._n n S(Rec.:.ded;Co • Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) 4 to d Pla n a a:•:>.icable4 ' ''« :>:'': :: < Floor Plans 3ANo4 G.e e n t c ....................................... Grading Plan, Conceptual 2 • King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site 4 ala' '«;:"::. <<. >.:; :: <:`:': `'<> >' < 1 11:11 > > Legal Description 4 Lii t'of>Suiroundin'`'Pro' erf Owner Mailing Labels for Property Owners 4 Ma ::.of:.Existin ::Site;CondltiOnS.4 ;. ::>;:":;>::::>::»::>::>::>:;:<:>:::<:;:.;::. :>::<:;.>;;>::::;:.>.;:::.;.:::;::.>;::>:::: P g Master Application Form 4 M m n s one r m nument Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4 PlansReductionss PMTs:a' Postage 4 Public.Works•A ro.vai.Letter2 PP. • Title Report or Plat Certificate 4 Topography:_MaP. 5 •contours 3 Traffic Study 2 . ................. ................................................................................. .. Alegi e .e.e a . e i p n4 Tr. e Cutti N t tion i CI ar n .la Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 ..:.....: :;:. :::... .. .z rr is rr. Wetlands:Delineation Ma 4 :.;:::.:.:.::::;:.;:.:;:;:.:;>:.;:.<:.;;;:.:::;>.;:::>:.>;:::>::;:;::>: :::.:::::::: ;:<::... ,: ;:. :.;:::;:: Wetlands Planting Plan 4 et an..s:Stu.<Y.q • This requirement may be waived by: !+ 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section DATE: 4. Development Planning Section • h:\division.s\develop.ser\dev.plan.Ing\waiver.xls ~I, ******ir %******************************************************** City of Renton WA Reprinted: 03/21/00 16 :19 Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R0001428 Amount: 1, 562 . 70 03/21/00 16 :16 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: R&R LAND #3096 Init: JEJ Project #: LUA00-040 Type: LUA Land Use Actions Location: 917 ABERDEEN AV NE Total Fees: 1, 562 . 70 This Payment 1, 562 . 70 Total ALL Pmts: 1, 562 . 70 Balance: . 00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 . 345 . 81. 00 . 0007 Environmental Review 500 . 00 000 . 345 . 81. 00 . 0017 Site Plan Approval 1, 000 . 00 000 . 05 .519 . 90 .42 . 1 Postage 62 . 70 . J X : • I . . ...4 . : 06-' 0+0 (q i1 . • . .. .. t ,.„„............„ .. ,.., . ,......„ . -• mi • ...„.......,.. . . . .,...... ......._ . .. . . , lzi:.,-„i - - . . - .. - fn5 - • • 55 .1 .go .;i:,::-, . t'll fr'q (.. ':'' '`ii.1,;.-4A-,11,-:,t,--... • ...4:- ,„„:•.:.: ,-,- .,..._. - • •;.4.i.: . GEOTECHNICAL REPORT - - ....... • ::.,,., ......,...... ,......„... . ......_ • r,:.:f,.:,:. . !!!.:1; • . . . • - . ,,,..„, :.,:,,, . •-fy..:, Aberdeen Apartments gm„.,.,>. Aberdeen Avenue NE .'•:.-•':' .........• „.,...: Renton, Washington 04, .• • v:•.: . - • ,:••.-•-., . Mg . „,„:,..: • ::.,,,,.....,_ • . Hit. - . . Project No. T-4479 vo ?.....,„;:: . 0.:: . • • • ...... . F.„,„.. i.:•-:'•e:,.!-: - • . .,:,:...: • 40"''''.'m""` T,1 .,...f..'?..:'::.,:....m.!:.::::.:-...,::......,. :...'-...............................................................:".:....:.:!.1:::,.,:-::. .-....:4:.ii:K.:;?.5:::i:.M..:,,.::::.:i:;:i:.:.:...iiii:a.m.J:]:;:-;:....:...::.::.:.:;.:..:.:.s:;•!:,:-.. ....:7.. .:..':-!!4.;i;,......:*:-:::::;::-.:::!.:i(.-...- Pt: • ...:..:',-:.:Of:..;..':,•?i • . At‘,..,...••,.i.:,,• ••-,. ,.‘.'•?'.. - 7:7.'777,',!......,.:\ ,-,•Mrktkii. ' ^''' - - '•;•A0i\\..\X-"NA Terra Associates, Inc. • 4,.;V:•,k.:,\NN,,,Y.:4 %. I '.'""''''''''•-.-----..• `...... '.."' ' -"'' '':....."-' ..-..' '' ' ''. '''.' '' ' . -. ' ' '...' P,•''. :''' ' '' ,....9,, ' .-4,.. iNgicgi::::7:!:!i:igRie....:Vi'l:tgi,!!.:.',.:::: :::iggSkw,:•:;:',..'llYer'''''f!ggiR::::::4,:,:: :cY;:',,i,:ii::i..:;,:,•;.:4NUO.:'....;::•,':•:.::.'4:e:' .:i:..:''::.'.::!..).'..:::-".:1E.i.'••'•••:::•:'.....;:...:q::!.,:x: I ' 0:• A "v ••,0- • .•••4i,.•. • irr .... ,......-...:, i.f:g0 Prepared for. :••,•:..!i !•:„.,!••;,..:: ;,•;,:•'!..- *Cambridge Homes NW, Inc. :.,::..... ,: EvEL0FIAT RFNrros I Kirkland Washington ,.. .. ..:,.),:.• e„•• ••••• ,' • 'IV .,...,: .i•:::;;I:'':::. •koR 2 1;t:!1•::!: - RECOVE November 30, 1999 •.•:..::1::.: ...„,.., •,,i•e;,::•::,•! . . ......•... -:.:•!.;-:::,::::.i ,.,,.:...,.. ,.....,........ ,.,,,. ;:.„.,..,.:. -:•••:, ki;:'•1:. .,.,.:...,. .„,.,..... ,:.,,•:..... .,..,.,, • • • TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences • November 30, 1999 Project No.T-4479 Mr.Jeff Reiker Cambridge Homes NW, Inc. 11017— 101st Place NE Kirkland,Washington 98033 Subject: Geotechnical Report Aberdeen Apartments Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton,Washington Dear Mr. Reiker: As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical engineering study for the subject project. The attached report presents our findings and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction. Our field exploration indicates the site is generally underlain by medium dense silty sands overlying medium dense to dense sandy silts with clay and silty fine sand. In our opinion, these soil conditions will be suitable for support of the proposed development, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into project design and construction. We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please. • , Sincerely yours, ,., ,e TERRA AS CUTE; J . f• / ki T eodore J. Sche f er,P. �" Principal Engineer DKW/TJS:dvp DES 6/18/2 01 cc: Mr.Frank Heffernan,Ferrari Design Group Architects,P.S. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 Phone (425) 821-7777 • Fax (425) 821-4334 • terra@terra-associates.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Project Description 1 2.0 Scope of Work 1 3.0 Site Conditions 2 3.1 Surface 2 3.2 Soils 2 3.3 Groundwater 3 4.0 Geologic Hazards 3 4.1 Erosion 3 4.2 Landslide 3 4.3 Seismic 4 5.0 Discussion and Recommendations 4 5.1 General 4 5.2 Site Preparation and Grading 4 5.3 Excavations 5 5.4 Slopes and Embankments 6 5.5 Foundations 6 5.6 Lower Level and Retaining Walls 7 5.7 Slab-On-Grade Construction 7 5.8 Drainage 7 5.9 Utilities 8 5.10 Pavements 8 6.0 Additional Services 8 7.0 Limitations 9 Figures Vicinity Map Figure 1 Exploration Location Plan Figure 2 Appendix Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing Appendix A (i) Geotechnical Report Aberdeen Apartments Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton, Washington 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Aberdeen Apartments project consists of constructing one ten-unit building situated along the southeast property margin. We understand that the apartment building will be two stories and wood framed with the lower floor constructed at grade and used for parking. Primary access to the project will be from Aberdeen Avenue NE. Our understanding of the lot, building, and driveway configuration is based on the undated preliminary site plan provided to us by Ferrari Design Group Architects, P.S., shown on Figure 1. Details of actual building structural loads were not known at the time of our study. However, based on our previous experience with similar structures, we expect that perimeter load-bearing walls will carry between 2 and 4 kips per lineal foot and isolated spread footings will carry loads of approximately 50 to 75 kips. We expect that grading required to achieve construction elevations will be minimal. Retaining walls will be constructed along the north, south, and west margins of the project to facilitate grade changes. Passenger vehicles and occasional light commercial traffic are expected to use the lower parking floor slab. The recommendations in this report are based on our understanding of these design features. If actual features vary or changes are made, we should review them in order to modify our recommendations as required. We should review final design drawings and specifications to.verify that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK On September 23, 1999, we excavated four test pits to depths between seven and eight feet below existing surface grades. Using the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, we developed preliminary geotechnical recommendations for project design and construction. Specifically, this report addresses the following: • Soil and groundwater conditions • Suitability of native soils for use as fill • Recommendations for import fill material • Site preparation and grading • Foundation support alternatives • Slab-on-grade support November 30, 1999 Project No. T-4479 • Lateral earth pressures • Drainage • Excavations • Utilities • Pavements 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 Surface The project site is located in the 900 block of Aberdeen Avenue NE, near its intersection with Sunset Boulevard NE, in Renton, Washington. The 62- by 607-foot site is located along the west side of Aberdeen Avenue NE. There is currently no improved vehicle access to the site. The road shoulder slopes westward at the eastern property boundary with about four to six feet of relief. The approximate location of the site is shown on Figure 1. A single-family residence is located adjacent to the northeast property margin. Apartment buildings with paved parking are located immediately south of the site. The property is partially bordered by a fence that runs along the southern property margin. Currently, the site is vegetated with grasses, vines, tall brush, shrubs, and small to medium sized deciduous and fruit trees. The overall site topography slopes westward with approximately 30 feet of relief over a distance of 400 feet. The east end of the property slopes westward on the order of five to ten percent. The topography steepens along the south and west ends of the site to 40 percent or more. The west end of the property is bordered by a steep south- trending drainage ravine. Steep portions of the ravine slopes exhibit localized erosion and soil slumping. We did not observe water in the ravine bottom during our field work. 3.2 Soils In general, the project site is underlain by silty sands with varying amounts of gravel and fine sandy silt. The soils encountered in the test pits consist of approximately 8 to 16 inches of duff and topsoil overlying silty sands with varying amounts of gravel and occasional cobbles. The silty sand with gravel is generally medium dense and moist to dry in the upper 2.5 to 4.0 feet. Underlying the upper medium dense soil is medium dense sandy silt to silty sand, encountered between two and four feet. These silty soils are mottled and underlay the site to between four and seven feet below existing grade. Underlying the upper silt and sand layers are medium dense to dense silty sands and hard sandy silt with clay extending to the depths explored, 8.5 feet below existing grade. Roots were encountered in the test pits at depths ranging to about 18 inches. Appendix A provides a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits. The approximate test pit locations are shown on Figure 2. Page No. 2 November 30, 1999 Project No.T-4479 3.3 Groundwater We did not observe groundwater seepage or wet soils in any of the test pits. Our field work took place in late September, which coincides with the beginning of the new water year. The occurrence of surface water or subsurface seepage may not be evident on the site until later in the year. The upper medium dense sandy soils are somewhat permeable and will allow precipitation to infiltrate and become perched on the underlying silty soils, as evidenced by soil mottling. Fluctuations in groundwater seepage levels should be expected on a seasonal and annual basis. The amount of seepage will be highest during extended periods of heavy precipitation and during the wet winter months. Given the time of year our field exploration was completed, the groundwater conditions we observed likely represent seasonal low levels. Based on our study, the elevation of the mottled silt contact generally conforms to the surface gradients. Therefore, we anticipate that shallow groundwater seepage will generally flow westward across the site. Site grading involving excavations below depths of two to four feet will likely encounter groundwater seepage during the winter to mid-summer seasons. 4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 4.1 Erosion The soils encountered on-site are classified as Ragnar (RdC) fine sandy loam by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). With the existing slope gradients, these soils will have a moderate potential for erosion when exposed. Erosion protection measures, as required by the City of Renton, should be in place prior to the start of grading activity on the site. The erosion potential can be substantially reduced by completing grading activities during the drier summer months. Other management practices that should be applied to reduce the potential for erosion include covering exposed soils with straw mulch or plastic sheeting and controlling surface water runoff as required during construction grading. To contain sediment transport and prevent impacts to adjacent properties, construction stormwater should be routed through collection swales to a temporary sedimentation pond. Silt fencing should also be installed at the limits of site clearing. 4.2 Landslide During our site visit, we did not observe any evidence of past landslides or slope movement along the eastern portion of the site. The eastern site slopes appeared stable. The steeper western portion of the site has slopes at gradients between 15 and 20 percent. The slope gradient increases to over 40 percent in the drainage ravine. The slopes were steepened by runoff entering and flowing _ into the ravine bottom. The ravine slopes exhibited some erosion and slumping associated with the runoff incising the ravine. Page No. 3 November 30, 1999 Project No.T-4479 In our opinion, provided the recommendations in this report are followed, development of the site as proposed will not increase the potential for slope instability on-site or on adjacent properties. 4.3 Seismic The Puget Sound area falls within Seismic Zone 3, as classified by the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Based on the soil conditions encountered and the local geology, a soil profile type of Sc, from Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC, should be used for design purposes. We reviewed the results of our field and laboratory testing and assessed the potential for liquefaction of the site soils during an earthquake. The medium dense silty sands and sandy silt soils encountered are not susceptible to liquefaction. 5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 General Based on our study, there are no geotechnical considerations that would preclude development as proposed. The apartment building can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on competent native soils below the upper 12 to 18 inches of surficial soils. Alternatively, if required by desired final building elevations, structural fill placed and compacted above these native soils can be used to support the building foundations. Floor slabs and pavements can be similarly supported. The native soils encountered at the site contain a significant amount of fines and will be difficult to compact as structural fill when too wet. The ability to use native soils from site excavations as structural fill will depend on the moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions at the time of construction. If grading activities will take place during the winter season, the owner should be prepared to import free-draining granular material for use as structural fill and backfill. Detailed recommendations regarding these issues and other geotechnical design considerations are provided in the following sections. These recommendations should be incorporated into the final design drawings and construction specifications. 5.2 Site Preparation and Grading To prepare the site for construction, all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious materials should be stripped and removed from the developed portion of the site. Surface stripping depths of about ten inches should be expected to remove organic topsoil. Stripped vegetation debris should be removed from the site. Organic topsoil will not be suitable for use as structural fill but may be used for limited depths in nonstructural areas. Once clearing and stripping operations are complete, cut and fill operations can be initiated to establish desired construction grades. Prior to placing fill and preparing building and pavement subgrades, all exposed surfaces should be proofrolled to determine if any isolated soft and yielding areas are present. Proofrolling should also be performed in cut areas that will provide direct support for new construction. Page No.4 3111 November 30, 1999 Project No. T-4479 If excessively yielding areas are observed and cannot by stabilized in place by compaction, the affected soils should be cut to firm bearing and filled to grade with structural fill. In pavement areas, if the depth of excavation to remove unstable soils is excessive, geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi 500X or equivalent, can be used in conjunction with structural fill. In general, experience has shown that a minimum of 18 inches of a clean granular structural fill over the geotextile fabric establishes relatively stable bearing surfaces. A representative of Terra Associates, Inc. should observe all proofrolling operations. We also recommend field evaluations at the time of construction to verify stable subgrades. Our study indicates that most native soils contain a significant percentage of fines (silt and clay size particles). These soils will be difficult to compact as structural fill if they are too wet or too dry. Accordingly, the ability to use native soils from site excavations as structural fill will depend on the moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions when site grading activities take place. If grading activities are planned during the wet winter months or if they are initiated during the summer and extend into fall and winter, the owner should be prepared to import wet weather structural fill. For this purpose, we recommend importing a granular soil that meets the following grading requirements: U.S.Sieve Size Percent Passing 6 inches 100 No.4 75 maximum No. 200 5 maximum* *Based on the 3/4-inch fraction Prior to use, Terra Associates, Inc. should examine and test all materials imported to the site for use as structural fill. Structural fill should be placed in uniform loose layers not exceeding 12 inches and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction should be within two percent of its optimum, as determined by this ASTM standard. In nonstructural areas or for backfill in utility trenches below a depth of 4 feet, the degree of compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. 5.3 Excavations All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches, must be completed in accordance with local, state, or federal requirements. Based on current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, soils observed to the exploration depths would be classified as Group C soils. Accordingly, for excavations more than 4 feet and less than 20 feet deep, the side slopes should be laid back at a minimum slope inclination of 1.5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) or flatter. If there is insufficient room to complete the excavations in this manner or if excavations greater than 20 feet deep are planned, temporary shoring should be used to support the excavations. Page No. 5 November 30, 1999 Project No.T-4479 Groundwater seepage should be anticipated within excavations that extend two to three feet below existing surface grades. Based on our study, the volume of water and rate of flow into the excavation should be relatively minor and is not expected to impact the stability of the excavations when completed as described. Conventional sump pumping procedures and a system of collection trenches, if necessary, should be capable of maintaining a relatively dry excavation for construction purposes. This information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants and should not be construed to imply that Terra Associates,Inc. assumes responsibility for job site safety. Job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. 5.4 Slopes and Embankments All permanent cut and fill slopes should be graded with a finished inclination no greater than 2:1. Upon completion of grading, the slope face should be appropriately vegetated or provided with other physical means to guard against erosion. Final grades at the top of the slope must promote surface drainage away from the slope crest. Water must not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the slope face. If surface runoff must be directed towards the slope, the runoff should be controlled at the top of the slope, piped in a closed conduit installed on the slope face, and led to an appropriate point of discharge beyond the toe. All fill used for embankment construction should meet the structural fill requirements in Section 5.2 of this report. In addition, if new fills are to be placed over existing slopes of 20 percent or greater, the structural fill should be keyed and benched into competent native slope soils. 5.5 Foundations Spread Footings The building may be supported on conventional spread foundations bearing on competent native soils or on structural fills placed above competent native soils. Foundation subgrades should be prepared as recommended in Section 5.2 of this report. Perimeter foundations exposed to the weather should be a minimum depth of 18 inches below final exterior grades. Interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth below the floor slab. Foundations can be dimensioned for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). For short-term loads, such as wind and seismic, a one-third increase in this allowable capacity can be used. With structural loading as anticipated and this bearing stress applied, estimated total settlements will be less than one- half inch. For designing foundations to resist lateral loads, a base friction coefficient of 0.4 can be used. Passive earth pressures acting on the side of the footing wall can also be considered. We recommend calculating this lateral resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). We recommend not including the upper 12 inches of soil in this computation because they can be affected by weather or disturbed by future grading activity. This value assumes the foundation will be constructed neat against competent native soil or backfilled with structural fill as described in Section 5.2 of this report. The passive value recommended includes a safety factor of 1.5. Page No. 6 November 30, 1999 Project No. T-4479 5.6 Lower-Level and Retaining Walls The magnitude of earth pressure development on lower-level or retaining walls will partly depend on the quality of the wall backfill. We recommend placing and compacting wall backfill as structural fill. Below improved areas, such as pavements or floor slabs, the backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry unit weight, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). In unimproved areas, the relative compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. To guard against hydrostatic pressure development, wall drainage must also be installed. With wall backfill placed and compacted as recommended and drainage properly installed, we recommend designing unrestrained walls for an active earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weighing 35 pcf. For restrained walls, an additional uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf should be included. To account for traffic surcharge, the walls can be designed for an additional height of two feet. These values assume a horizontal backfill condition and that no other surcharge loading, such as sloping embankments or adjacent buildings, will act on the wall. If such conditions exist, then the imposed loading must be included in the wall design. Friction at the base of foundations and passive earth pressure will provide resistance to these lateral loads. Values for these parameters are provided in Section 5.5 of this report. 5.7 Slab-on-Grade Construction Slabs-on-grade may be supported on the subgrade prepared as recommended in Section 5.2 of this report. Immediately below the floor slab, we recommend placing a four-inch thick capillary break layer of clean free- draining sand or gravel that has less than three percent passing the No. 200 sieve. This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water through the underlying soil and subsequent wetting of the floor slab. Where moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, a durable plastic membrane should be placed on the capillary break layer. The membrane should be covered with two inches of clean moist sand to guard against damage during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. 5.8 Drainage Surface Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the building site at all times. Water must not be allowed to pond or collect -adjacent to foundations or within the immediate building area. We recommend providing a minimum drainage gradient of three percent for a minimum distance of ten feet from the building perimeter, except in paved locations. In paved locations, a minimum gradient of one percent should be provided unless provisions are included for collection and disposal of surface water adjacent to the structure. Subsurface If the elevation of the first floor is below the adjacent exterior grade, or if positive drainage away from the building perimeter as described is not provided, perimeter foundation drains should be installed. The drains should consist of a four-inch diameter perforated drainpipe that is enveloped in one-half inch minus drain rock. Page No. 7 November 30, 1999 Project No. T-4479 The drain rock should extend three inches below the pipe and six inches above and beyond the sides of the pipe. The pipe invert should be at the footing bottom. The foundation drains must also be tightlined to approved discharge independently of the roof drainage system. 5.9 Utilities Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA) or City of Renton specifications. As a minimum, trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural fill, as described in Section 5.2 of this report. As noted, soils excavated on-site should be suitable for use as backfill material dependent on soil moisture and prevailing weather conditions. If utility construction will take place during the winter, it may be necessary to import suitable wet weather fill for utility trench backfilling. 5.10 Pavements Pavement subgrades should be prepared as described in Section 5.2 of this report. Regardless of the degree of relative compaction achieved, the subgrade must be firm and relatively unyielding before paving. The subgrade should be proofrolled with heavy construction equipment to verify this condition. The pavement design section is dependent on the supporting capability .of the subgrade soils and the traffic conditions to which it will be subjected. For traffic consisting mainly of light passenger and commercial vehicles with only occasional heavy traffic, and with a stable subgrade prepared as recommended, we suggest the following pavement sections: • Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC)over four inches of crushed rock base(CRB) • Two inches of AC over three inches of asphalt-treated base (ATB) The paving materials used should conform to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) specifications for Class B asphalt concrete, ATB, and CRB. Long-term pavement performance will depend on surface drainage. A poorly-drained pavement section will be subject to premature failure as a result of surface water infiltrating into the subgrade soils and reducing their supporting capability. For optimum pavement performance, we recommend surface drainage gradients of at least two percent. Some longitudinal and transverse cracking of the pavement surface should be expected over time. Regular maintenance should be planned to seal cracks when they occur. 6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES Terra Associates, Inc. should review the final design and specifications in order to verify that earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in project design. We should also provide geotechnical services during construction in order to observe compliance with our design concepts, specifications, and recommendations. This will allow for design changes if subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Page No. 8 November 30, 1999 Project No. T-4479 7.0 LIMITATIONS This report is the property of Terra Associates, Inc. and was prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report is intended for specific application to the Aberdeen Apartments project and for the exclusive use of Cambridge Homes NW, Inc. and their authorized representatives. The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based upon data obtained from the test pits excavated on-site. Variations in soil conditions can occur, the nature and extent of which may not become evident until construction. If variations appear evident, Terra Associates, Inc. should be requested to re-evaluate the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with construction. Page No. 9 • I. 9 I 4:ee �I 8TH- 1 t. :.- r. ` -sT 4� NE NE 27TH :'. 1 's: r.... �`41i SE s6 x 5 7, 4 N 71 'r ` 27TH XfNNYDALE 2100.. 100•w ST E iw °27T t.• __ r. TCS Sf 90\ GS ae= i CT - LIONS •.:.,iq^',.; w:.L . -.1rv'.:�.;o 's x'. SE 99Tx N GF. . .'1 ' ,q 26TH 15x„PARK E. ,...`,. -..Z 4:;:d '•Y,t^ IF \ 0T I 5T - w w= !. 'a Tx :'im ,r Fj 100TH �`� J atV V rz •~cYT i . T}I,r z a,",:_ '...; f ST wE xrn tt F' . 1 •GARDEN H �irrama 1Ingi. I7 '.LTN ST . w 1700 MIMI T,. y e1 ta;"^- ,� 1- . ! HE N 4 3 ��� till \i^�- a v'+o tv + S 3 = 23Ro s' L . <' ;.'•:•. ..ti ' x¢ NE 21ST w J .' o ST op 22ND ST d 't,'P a,L _ oo � O o 'W Y ¢8 rig ST.. gyp �� �'.> '051 ;u= $NE 20TH H srd o �oN ty.T`� \ SE'105TH N y to *TRY i 2300 NE zo x s a + HON \CREEKI 5] •4N tanr axE�H sr , s�= S• • N. NE ST : j: T.OE 1/4' ' r`a. Cl3 �. TM r i a y W Cl PARK .,..;:< S'c NE �ljN ,I F:: 3 G B G , IS z 1 4 NE Si °r y.. ; o Y - _�y Y'i•'• I -' '"1IIJ.^.li�lilLWIiV�cuc I !, ...1„,. T` we+s,.s� 01 y 0 BOAT LAU CH f ra 5 . w w 2400= w P�G0. �� w 12 E''' z a 4.. a xE / e C �c '. `-' • oNE UID N TS .' Z 7 NE v wI< ¢U� ^vim W wv, sr �.r; ,,k,:• 14TH a o3 ST aq m HE A3TH RI ST ID T•Q s wllTH ST • �� DENE_COULOM a3= 6❑ -„ w c o 17TH ST w ° �' k:I '}ENE OR1A10,- ', � . :B ��'��° 12TH 'BEACN'PRK Lj NE 12TH o1ST NE \ •:`' '. N 2100 _ 10 34 0 w W 2 .' PL 0 1',�� PARK r7R r ���4•PO +`� t1n+ sr ITON y o C, ;. 9Q0— PORT , \ ,R / Q LOTH PL`a • + BOAT LAUNCH i/ •P��V• . © NE LOTH xl timpAEa!.4'.. w ? 33 NE n. I . >10 BOEING `\ % •°fpE Gy' ••:Z ).4( � NE lOTH sr xE��®�� s,� .?_ �q� NE • RENTON \\Y i) • oTM 0 3500 > . .' PLANT zl_ . . •'j� x = :� g E ¢ 9TH JO I R TR1C ; Iting - ; 9 FS ME (]Q ?, CEDAR ¢ N :TH ST! \ ` NE 1 �°`' , 8TH ST F ° . SIT..E 0 � = NE \o0 w 33NOE0 7TH ST` aOil" Tt� f• x[fall x � 7TH J LIR 1. - O ' pl '• 4. xE 7 .f�'e�+.cSli �a .a" 3HE, 7 c = N x --- .' _— i:yfi'l .4t4s NE 34 A. �_ _ ® O6THw_ •\ 6 NE xLEW RIM t MIND,{ - _ i• EMR ¢ _ -T\ y.PEN N �' w y�^y. i�—�snr ~- + i • 'II'6't$� �4�HE w E _ 3 x, ,,pf 4 AV NE Q o atx,a P xlwralAL N sr i," 4. Eovu es, d J} Q 9p RE' MS SrAa1u. 1 t� o �� ND 0. �� tt 1 � f' 'If . _ ¢ r. So .7 ) %t a �,- RENT. z � f �� r'�-.. s� FEPNWLE, NE.: � .: ; ¢ TELHN CAL L.wi 19 0 ,I ICLsi € l - - 4TH Q xl sr f � _ ate �.-, x ET ��< NE B COLLE E -S . 1\1 * t.n ? 1100 ¢I x - Al-- '• i4,„o 2500 xwI / \\ �� xwl ftia s� /o ♦ r m! �i°° _ c I GREE r ID O a s S� J �� O S\ ! w a O RENTON • m I. 3RD "‹ ST m y, ' • 6 _.1 Z M DRIAL FAIR AIRPORT—C-', ©SM1q • 1 25,.. �� ORT WY , ulsr ter' �O • + o PARK s .ja !L ` ` i NE 2ND ST f,Si 5 `,�� �sr ' STD _ �1 `' i I . 3. ram _TIL fatl\".t? _O I !tau HI / ; z ._ — �) 3aua �(s VICTOR! 30¢ vcas INi W� \ si 5§,$) •7=r ��� 21 • CTH f n `1.., 18 RENTON z v N 'ES�\ •r �;' 17 W jlHS • '°K a -LIBERTY n E : , MOUNT LEISURE S * _ 0 2ND PARK f d 2 ccrvEr 16 ESTATES +.;--—gdo S 1 ue\ M1 i/ .4 CEDAR..\ 0.. CEMETERY NIP N a FS' `*. --'-RIVER---- . RENT 3RD � axrtw i PARK 0 n' Art ST Q RP"' ';. , g04� • PO I'vs f"�. .^ --_------ 4 .----a-ai . „.,.. -. .§..1_r.1:_c_ cv/Ai 47H .^� .fir 471�,.•'v CF "' '` I 1 & q// Dn SE 5TH REFERENCE: THE THOMAS GUIDE, METROPOLITAN PUGET SOUND, PAGES 626 AND 656, 2000 EDITION. VICINITY MAP .5..:;" TERRA ABERDEEN APARTMENTS \���•��r\ ASSOCIATES RENTON, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj.No. 4479 Date NOV. 1999 Figure 1 • . . . , . . . . , .. • . 1 . 1 . I . 1 . . I ' 1 , ' t - — ——---—————1 I LOT 12 1 . • . I 1 IT 0 i ' g I . , ,\ \ . . . \ , , . x - - • t.,. II I t ' \ • I • 1 t . I • 1 it -1 • X I - 1 X I • \ • X I 1 I ' • / 1 . . 1 1 X i 1 . • I 1 1, 1 X \ A • i i A I 1, . X : . • rj . I 1 1 A 1 , ; 1 . . • / . I 1 A 1 \.. .... . I 1 RCIMING • • I . , ' ' 11 I 1 ............ •• ............• am••• •.m.mm IN di me.MED .1•• MEIBININMEM•M ••••••=1•••••.. •••mommumma am•••• am mmimmi•••••IIMII INII7.16.m . 1. /I 1 I - k I • , \ „, • 1 I , / / 1 ....•...4 - -' 1 // • • IS TP-3 1 TP-2 , ,/ e e , TP-I 1 t / ;.• . - . . , . . , ,' • .., ...i \ upope.1m mo p. p.o Me=1.1=1 1M• momm,in ma . IMMI•Immo• •WAI r - . I•1I••••••I I/I ,rr r mil r•• r•,-a m em .... ...-•• •=...1.-• . i1l. k_/___1i_3s. • .„--, —TERNACSLHOSU1IR 1E IM', I—IaN•_-1 i-I P.2--P•--1-.[=_P3.--Z=71---2M_---4 r--I--- 5 aP6 am7 ose 8 PPIN9 -.P11-P P m• 11 1 2omp--p:ijp;F ‘lIp .rpF ILpR,ep.E ap0l L 0\p pp 1 1 s r 40 14 17 TP-4 NOA I Pp m M= • M M Ma = m w " \ p - I 0,01 ' 1 RE7AINING TIERED ' RETUNING I / , \ . / ARLANEADSCAPE WALL / / r I I \ / ' /- ` / I I ,/ I 1 ' 1 l . /1 . I ' I ' ' ' \ . - /, / . i/ ' , • I . i.'r Kt , ca . . , <r) • 0 - 0 I ' \ . PI I \ ' a 'y. , _ LOT 10 ' \ • , • . . LEGEND: • t .. , . ., • . dr - APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION . • .. . . REFERENCE . . SITE PLAN PREPARED AND PROVIDED BY : ,..i . • . APPROXIMATE SCALE FERRARI DESIGN GROUP, P.S., PROJECT. . .• 40 40 • 80 feet NUMBER 99120, SHEET Al OF 1, DATED , . . • 16 NOVEMBER, 1999. . . . ' • , • , . • . EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN ABERDEEN APARTMENTS I WASHINGTON • i . ......... \ .,A.,,,,:: .,..:.: ASSOCIATES Date NOV. 1999 Figure 2 , Geotechnical Consultants Proj.No. 4479 1—....-,...—.......-1 • — . . 'toad> . .. ... •• - •—... .---,7 . . . - APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Aberdeen Apartments Renton,Washington On September 23, 1999, we performed our field exploration using a rubber-tired backhoe provided by Cambridge Homes NW,Inc. We explored subsurface soil conditions at the site by excavating 4 test pits to a maximum depth of 8.5 feet below existing grade. The test pit locations are shown on Figure 2. The test pit locations were approximately determined by pacing from known landmarks such as adjacent roadways, fence lines, and topographic features. The test pit logs are presented on Figures A-2 and A-3. A geologist from our office conducted the field exploration, classified the soil conditions encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System(USCS) described on Figure A-1. Representative soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in closed containers and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content of each sample was measured and is reported on the test pit logs. Grain size analyses were performed on two of the samples, the results of which are shown on Figure A-4. Project No. T-4479 • -. ' ' MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL Clean GW Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no GRAVELS Gravels fines. ,J 2 (less than Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or O mg; 5%More than fines) GP no fines. (A *co— WI 50% of coarse Silt fraction is Gravels GM fines gravels , gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic W t, a) larger than No. with fines Q �• 4 sieve E o GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. 0 CC cs•N Clean SW Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. d SANDS Sands III CD c Z (less than Poorly-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no cc = c More than 5% fines) SP fines. Q 50% of coarse 0.O o"' fraction is SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. U smaller than Sands No. 4 sieve with fines SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. Inorganic silts, rock flour, clayey silts with slight J o SILTS AND CLAYS ML plasticity. a�o O RI CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, (lean clay). E o a) Liquid limit is less than 50% 0— o Z•� OL Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity. Z_ U) coa Q c a�i MH Inorganic silts, elastic. 0 m SILTS AND CLAYS W E CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. Z_ ° Lc Liquid limit is greater than 50% LL 2 OH Organic clays of high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS —J Standard Penetration Density Resistance in Blows/Foot I S 2"POO OUTSIDENSAMP LER DIAMETER SPLIT ri O Very loose 0-4 I 2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER o Loose 4-10 OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER o Medium dense 10-30 z Dense 30-50 Y WATER LEVEL (DATE) < Very dense >50 Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf Standard Penetration Pp PENETROMETER READING, tsf gConsistency Resistance in Blows/Foot DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot U Very soft 0-2 LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent `o Soft 2-4 F. Medium stiff 4-8 PI PLASTIC INDEX J Very Stiff stiff 6 32 8-16 N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot Hard >32 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM eilli9, TERRA TERRA ABERDEEN APARTMENTS ASSOCIATES RENTON, WASHINGTON Geotechnlcal Consultants Proj. No. T-4479 Date NOV 1999 Figure A-1 Test Pit No. TP-1 Logged by: DKW Approximate Elev. 197 Date: 9/23/99 Depth Moisture (ft.) Soil Description (%Content nt 0 10 inches Topsoil. Roots to 18 inches. - Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist to dry. (SM) 14.7 5— Gray mottled sandy SILT to silty SAND, medium dense, moist. (ML/SM) 28.3 Test pit terminated at 8 feet. No groundwater encountered. 10 Test Pit No. TP-2 Logged by: DKW Approximate Elev. 192 Date: 9/23/99 Depth Moisture (ft.) Soil Description Contento 0 8 inches Topsoil. (/o) - Brown silty SAND with gravel,medium dense, moist to dry. (SM) 21.9 - Gray mottled sandy SILT,medium dense, moist. (ML) 5— Brown-gray silty SAND with gravel and clean sand lenses,medium dense to dense,moist. (SM) 9.0 - Test pit terminated at 8.4 feet. No groundwater encountered. 10 TEST PIT LOGS �`������ TERRA ABERDEEN APARTMENTS 6 �� ASSOCIATES RENTON, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 'T-4479 Date NOV 1999 Figure A-2 Test Pit No. TP-3 • Logged by: DKW Approximate Elev. 187 Date: 9/23/99 Depth Moisture (ft.) Soil Description Content (%0 8 inches Topsoil and roots. - Tan silty SAND with gravel,medium dense,moist to dry. (SM) _ Gray mottled sandy SILT to silty SAND,medium dense, moist. (MUSM) 5— 14.9 Tan-gray fine sandy SILT with clay,hard,moist. (ML) 22.0 - Test pit terminated at 8.5 feet. No groundwater encountered. 10 Test Pit No. TP-4 Logged by: DKW Approximate Elev. 193 Date: 9/23/99 Depth Moisture (ft.) Soil Description Content(ono) 0 8 inches Topsoil. Roots to 18 inches. Brown silty SAND with some gravel, medium dense, moist to dry. (SM) - Gray mottled sandy SILT,medium dense, moist. (ML) 5 - Tan sandy SILT to silty SAND,medium dense, moist. (MUSM) 14.2 - Test pit terminated at 7 feet. No groundwater encountered. 10 TEST PIT LOGS ,����� TERRA ABERDEEN APARTMENTS t���� ASSOCIATES RENTON, WASHINGTON Geotechnlcal Consultants Proj. No. T-4479 Date NOV 1999 Figure A-3 , 11 SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS `° SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES I NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH, US STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MM W C.T1 W � N. 0 0 0 0 O CS ' \\ \\\\ \ N -P Of O O O O O O O O O O O O N Cr' as W N N _. ?OD N 00 ? O O O O O O 01 � W N --O 01 ? W N :0 so = - 10 D—I 80 i, - - .20 C!�rTl - rrn o (-) 0 73 n 70 .30 rrI n D zzI co -1 60 40 (") o N --I -�' . _ y rn rrl 50 50 (!) _ m CO - - 40 60 CO - - - C) 30 _ 70 rTi o --i - G7 ;' 20 - 80 -Psco . zX)D 10 _90 v 0 pi a) ZM 0 I I I I I 1 I LI I I IIII III I I I I i I I I I I 100 Z NJ O O O CO O O O O O O W N CO O ? •c. n) b in A b N 0 0 O 0 0 O p D>rn GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS co 01 w N o =y D COARSE FINE COARSE 1 MEDIUM I FINE cp Z-I D COBBLES GRAVELSAND FINES m Oz-I N Test Pit Depth Moisture Key Number (ft.) USCS Description LL PL Content (%) a 1 • TP-1 2.0 SM silty SAND 0 TP-2 2.0 ML sandy SILT SEE DRAWINGS) - oomo4c) (3) 1 CA/' C'' 1--1••••' •-1, ,:.-.-7: i. ,_. . . • •,, .. • q.___ • ' . . IJ:4Y.:,''' ........................_„.........,....... ...........................„.„5„., , • - gm • ..,,,.•,•-: - ? ,i ...,,,,- ' • .,...,••-, • gn -----,, -........., '4....-A• , f•' • T •A LI . if'•::,fl- ,,i..I ,,71;,--=',.r':7:11 ' • %-:....::.:.: kl.:-.4.1.:.'-'2.4..4 l'A•-),,f. 6. is 2..1:i.i't .,...(:;,,, .. ,—.... tili':i • ,.::,,:::::.,,,.,,:,, GEOTECHNICAL REPORT In ...„,:. :,.a .., ,,.,,,:, Aberdeen Apartments logi ......,::::::: ::.: Aberdeen Avenue NE „..„.., :1•:A.:, Renton, Washington 1:i.---• ..,...::::.,.., . ,,:.:.„ ..:... r...:','Iiii -,••••..._ ::::::!•:„..v,:i •:?.,.:q „.:...:, Project No. T-4479 1.ii::;::• .:,.„ : ,:.....:,.: •, , ,.....,... .„....„:„. :.s::::-:),•:: ,:::!..::::•:!. .,.::.,„. ..,-:-.7.--.-,:r.f.'.;" Figi.F!...:.•.:::::-:;:i!!::::...:Ig:.!ii,:-...gF.:'.---:.:;:ir...::::.,.,:•:.:::..::.:;,..tuii:..:-:,..;,6v0::.:E-!:„-:-.,:::i,F.,•::Ai.:::::.:.-,...:,:.!::4:::...:-:N!i::::::;;;;.:.::::!:[E,1,::::::•::„....::::.:12i:::,.::::::.i.:,t,:!::1:::::: ::.zii!.!:::.,.:!,...,:::,....:,.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..,....,.."......,.:...:.:d.;...,,,..,if..::..-1 - •-• ••••• -•,:-........ ..... . :. . ..,.. ...... .. , _. ._,..,..„.... ..., .. .... ... ..,. . ry.m.,-.4-.„,.•••„•:,..,?.,:e.::::...4,..,. .„ 0.<4k.,4,.;:o . ..,,..:,....!.-...:„;.::: :::,..,..,,....:::.:::.i. ,;;(,,,:\s..,&,..\,•:::',:„,,-,,,;. ::....,:c..:i.P.-,....,,:%::;•.....s.,..A,0\'..\...:,',.,N,,,,,,..-"\,,.\.,,I.: Terra Associates, Inc. ...\\"Ss=\,\,.... .,:s::,•.`,Vs. :§,'-t'wk.,. : ", k,)=.,•\\-..\\\%1,:).';;,,,,,,::: ka ,,:, i, ..•,,'..'.. A. 6.,..4-.. c-•• . "... .4," ,....„, .::,':;-,..:-• ,....z..!-::, „............ • — ...;:•: : g,g1•?. • Prepared for: • •:,•::::: Cambridge Homes NW, Inc. ::....s., ..,.„..:.............. ,...,, Kirkland, Washington :.,!.:!:!;:•., •-::.y::1,....•••• ,..:-.: .,.,;!....:.-::., • :;::,.., 11., :.:: • .,...,..:. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING iz!Vi CITY°F RFItiVember 30, 1999 ::••.:", :..:,...,: ,....,....:::. 1::-....:::•:, .....„.:! :....,..„, MAR 2 1 2000 ..........• "...:.,: g.'....::.... r.:•:'.--: RECEIVED ::,,.:,:•:,,. ...,..., :••::„....::., • ::,:., • . • .... ,: • •. •....... • •••••••• "•,.".":"....... .: ".".:...,"::•:. • seas ' - TERRA ASSOCIATES, I n c • • '.r^r..P`"'" "'""` Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering,'Geology »..<_a.. and • Environmental Earth Sciences November 30, 1999 Project No. T-4479 Mr. Jeff Reiker Cambridge Homes NW,Inc. 11017— 101st Place NE Kirkland,Washington 98033 Subject: Geotechnical Report Aberdeen Apartments Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton,Washington Dear Mr. Reiker: As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical engineering study for the subject project: The attached report presents our findings and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction. Our field exploration indicates the site is generally underlain by medium dense silty sands overlying medium dense to dense sandy silts with clay and silty fine sand. In our opinion, these soil conditions will be suitable for support of the proposed development, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into project design and construction. We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please (moo r , Sincerely yours, •, ,` TERRA AS CIATE.o itiod tetf T eodore J. Scheeler, P. % �_ Principal Engineer ` �� � DKW/TJS:dvp S 6J18!C I cc: Mr. Frank Heffernan,Ferrari Design Group Architects,P.S. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 Phone (425) 821-7777 • Fax (425) 821-4334 • terra@terra-associates.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Project Description 1 2.0 Scope of Work 1 3.0 Site Conditions 2 3.1 Surface 2 3.2 Soils 2 3.3 Groundwater 3 4.0 Geologic Hazards 3 4.1 Erosion 3 4.2 Landslide 3 4.3 Seismic 4 5.0 Discussion and Recommendations 4 5.1 General 4 5.2 Site Preparation and Grading 4 5.3 Excavations 5 5.4 Slopes and Embankments 6 5.5 Foundations 6 5.6 Lower Level and Retaining Walls 7 5.7 Slab-On-Grade Construction 7 5.8 Drainage 7 5.9 Utilities 8 5.10 Pavements 8 6.0 Additional Services 8 7.0 Limitations 9 Figures Vicinity Map Figure 1 Exploration Location Plan Figure 2 Appendix Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing Appendix A (i) f. • • Geotechnical Report Aberdeen Apartments Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton, Washington 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 12 The proposed Aberdeen Apartments project consists of constructing one ten-un. building situated along the southeast property margin. We understand that the apartment building will be two stories and wood framed with the lower floor constructed at grade and used for parking. Primary access to the project will be from Aberdeen Avenue NE. Our understanding of the lot, building, and driveway configuration is based on the undated preliminary site plan provided to us by Ferrari Design Group Architects, P.S., shown on Figure 1. Details of actual building structural loads were not known at the time of our study. However, based on our previous experience with similar structures, we expect that perimeter load-bearing walls will carry between 2 and 4 kips per lineal foot and isolated spread footings will carry loads of approximately 50 to 75 kips. We expect that grading required to achieve construction elevations will be minimal. Retaining walls will be constructed along the north, south, and west margins of the project to facilitate grade changes. Passenger vehicles and occasional light commercial traffic are expected to use the lower parking floor slab. The recommendations in this report are based on our understanding of these design features. If actual features vary or changes are made, we should review them in order to modify our recommendations as required. We should review final design drawings and specifications to verify that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK On September 23, 1999, we excavated four test pits to depths between seven and eight feet below existing surface grades. Using the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, we developed preliminary geotechnical recommendations for project design and construction. Specifically, this report addresses the following: • Soil and groundwater conditions • Suitability of native soils for use as fill • Recommendations for import fill material • Site preparation and grading • Foundation support alternatives • Slab-on-grade support November 30, 1999 • Project No.T-4479 • Lateral earth pressures • Drainage • Excavations • Utilities • Pavements 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 Surface The project site is located in the 900 block of Aberdeen Avenue NE, near its intersection with Sunset Boulevard NE, in Renton, Washington. The 62- by 607-foot site is located along the west side of Aberdeen Avenue NE. There is currently no improved vehicle access to the site. The road shoulder slopes westward at the eastern property boundary with about four to six feet of relief. The approximate location of the site is shown on Figure 1. A single-family residence is located adjacent to the northeast property margin. Apartment buildings with paved parking are located immediately south of the site. The property is partially bordered by a fence that runs along the southern property margin. Currently, the site is vegetated with grasses, vines, tall brush, shrubs, and small to medium sized deciduous and fruit trees. The overall site topography slopes westward with approximately 30 feet of relief over a distance of 400 feet. The east end of the property slopes westward on the order of five to ten percent. The topography steepens along the south and west ends of the site to 40 percent or more. The west end of the property is bordered by a steep south- trending drainage ravine. Steep portions of the ravine slopes exhibit localized erosion and soil slumping. We did not observe water in the ravine bottom during our field work. 3.2 Soils In general, the project site is underlain by silty sands with varying amounts of gravel and fine sandy silt. The soils encountered in the test pits consist of approximately 8 to 16 inches of duff and topsoil overlying silty sands with varying amounts of gravel and occasional cobbles. The silty sand with gravel is generally medium dense and moist to dry in the upper 2.5 to 4.0 feet. Underlying the upper medium dense soil is medium dense sandy silt to silty sand, encountered between two and four feet. These silty soils are mottled and underlay the site to between four and seven feet below existing grade. Underlying the upper silt and sand layers are medium dense to dense silty sands and hard sandy silt with clay extending to the depths explored, 8.5 feet below existing grade. Roots were encountered in the test pits at depths ranging to about 18 inches. Appendix A provides a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits. The approximate test pit locations are shown on Figure 2. Page No. 2 November 30, 1999 • Project No.T-4479 3.3 Groundwater • We did not observe groundwater seepage or wet soils in any of the test pits. Our field work took place in late September, which coincides with the beginning of the new water year. The occurrence of surface water or subsurface seepage may not be evident on the site until later in the year. The upper medium dense sandy soils are somewhat permeable and will allow precipitation to infiltrate and become perched on the underlying silty soils, as evidenced by soil mottling. Fluctuations in groundwater seepage levels should be expected on a seasonal and annual basis. The amount of seepage will be highest during extended periods of heavy precipitation and during the wet winter months. Given the time of year our field exploration was completed, the groundwater conditions we observed likely represent seasonal low levels. Based on our study, the elevation of the mottled silt contact generally conforms to the surface gradients. Therefore, we anticipate that shallow groundwater seepage will generally flow westward across the site. Site grading involving excavations below depths of two to four feet will likely encounter groundwater seepage during the winter to mid-summer seasons. 4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 4.1 Erosion The soils encountered on-site are classified as Ragnar (RdC) fine sandy loam by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). With the existing slope gradients, these soils will have a moderate potential for erosion when exposed. Erosion protection measures, as required by the City of Renton, should be in place prior to the start of grading activity on the site. The erosion potential can be substantially reduced by completing grading activities during the drier summer months. Other management practices that should be applied to reduce the potential for erosion include covering exposed soils with straw mulch or plastic sheeting and controlling surface water runoff as required during construction grading. To contain sediment transport and prevent impacts to adjacent properties, construction stormwater should be routed through collection swales to a temporary sedimentation pond. Silt fencing should also be installed at the limits of site clearing. 4.2 Landslide During our site visit, we did not observe any evidence of past landslides or slope movement along the eastern portion of the site. The eastern site slopes appeared stable. The steeper western portion of the site has slopes at gradients between 15 and 20 percent. The slope gradient increases to over 40 percent in the drainage ravine. The slopes were steepened by runoff entering and flowing into the ravine bottom. The ravine slopes exhibited some erosion and slumping associated with the runoff incising the ravine. Page No. 3 r November 30, 1999 Project No. T-4479 • • In our opinion, provided the recommendations in this report are followed, development of the site as proposed will not increase the potential for slope instability on-site or on adjacent properties. 4.3 Seismic The Puget Sound area falls within Seismic Zone 3, as classified by the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Based on the soil conditions encountered and the local geology, a soil profile type of Sc, from Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC, should be used for design purposes. We reviewed the results of our field and laboratory testing and assessed the potential for liquefaction of the site soils during an earthquake. The medium dense silty sands and sandy silt soils encountered are not susceptible to liquefaction. 5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 General Based on our study, there are no geotechnical considerations that would preclude development as proposed. The apartment building can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on competent native soils below the upper 12 to 18 inches of surficial soils. Alternatively, if required by desired final building elevations, structural fill placed and compacted above these native soils can be used to support the building foundations. Floor slabs and pavements can be similarly supported. The native soils encountered at the site contain a significant amount of fines and will be difficult to compact as structural fill when too wet. The ability to use native soils from site excavations as structural fill will depend on the moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions at the time of construction. If grading activities will take place during the winter season, the owner should be prepared to import free-draining granular material for use as structural fill and backfill. Detailed recommendations regarding these issues and other geotechnical design considerations are provided in the following sections. These recommendations should be incorporated into the final design drawings and construction specifications. 5.2 Site Preparation and Grading To prepare the site for construction, all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious materials should be stripped and removed from the developed portion of the site. Surface stripping depths of about ten inches should be expected to remove organic topsoil. Stripped vegetation debris should be removed from the site. Organic topsoil will not be suitable for use as structural fill but may be used for limited depths in nonstructural areas. Once clearing and stripping operations are complete, cut and fill operations can be initiated to establish desired construction grades. Prior to placing fill and preparing building and pavement subgrades, all exposed surfaces should be proofrolled to determine if any isolated soft and yielding areas are present. Proofrolling should also be performed in cut areas that will provide direct support for new construction. Page No.4 ,,.•, November 30, 1999 -Project No.T-4479 If excessively yielding areas are observed and cannot by stabilized in place by compaction, the affected soils should be cut to firm bearing and filled to grade with structural fill. In pavement areas, if the depth of excavation to remove unstable soils is excessive, geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi 500X or equivalent, can be used in conjunction with structural fill. In general, experience has shown that a minimum of 18 inches of a clean granular structural fill over the geotextile fabric establishes relatively stable bearing surfaces. A representative of Terra Associates, Inc. should observe all proofrolling operations. We also recommend field evaluations at the time of construction to verify stable subgrades. Our study indicates that most native soils contain a significant percentage of fines (silt and clay size particles). These soils will be difficult to compact as structural fill if they are too wet or too dry. Accordingly, the ability to use native soils from site excavations as structural fill will depend on the moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions when site grading activities take place. If grading activities are planned during the wet winter months or if they are initiated during the summer and extend into fall and winter, the owner should be prepared to import wet weather structural fill. For this purpose, we recommend importing a granular soil that meets the following grading requirements: U.S.Sieve Size Percent Passing 6 inches 100 No.4 75 maximum No. 200 5 maximum* *Based on the 3/4-inch fraction Prior to use, Terra Associates, Inc. should examine and test all materials imported to the site for use as structural fill. Structural fill should be placed in uniform loose layers not exceeding 12 inches and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction should be within two percent of its optimum, as determined by this ASTM standard. In nonstructural areas or for backfill in utility trenches below a depth of 4 feet, the degree of compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. 5.3 Excavations All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches, must be completed in accordance with local, state, or federal requirements. Based on current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, soils observed to the exploration depths would be classified as Group C soils. Accordingly, for excavations more than 4 feet and less than 20 feet deep, the side slopes should be laid back at a minimum slope inclination of 1.5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) or flatter. If there is insufficient room to complete the excavations in this manner or if excavations greater than 20 feet deep are planned, temporary shoring should be used to support the excavations. Page No. 5 sr ; • November 30, 1999 •Project No. T-4479 • Groundwater seepage should be anticipated within excavations that extend two to three feet below existing surface grades. Based on our study, the volume of water and rate of flow into the excavation should be relatively minor and is not expected to impact the stability of the excavations when completed as described. Conventional sump pumping procedures and a system of collection trenches, if necessary, should be capable of maintaining a relatively dry excavation for construction purposes. This information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants and should not be construed to imply that Terra Associates, Inc. assumes responsibility for job site safety. Job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. 5.4 Slopes and Embankments All permanent cut and fill slopes should be graded with a finished inclination no greater than 2:1. Upon completion of grading, the slope face should be appropriately vegetated or provided with other physical means to guard against erosion. Final grades at the top of the slope must promote surface drainage away from the slope crest. Water must not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the slope face. If surface runoff must be directed towards the slope, the runoff should be controlled at the top of the slope, piped in a closed conduit installed on the slope face, and led to an appropriate point of discharge beyond the toe. All fill used for embankment construction should meet the structural fill requirements in Section 5.2 of this report. In addition, if new fills are to be placed over existing slopes of 20 percent or greater, the structural fill should be keyed and benched into competent native slope soils. 5.5 'Foundations Spread Footings The building may be supported on conventional spread foundations bearing on competent native soils or on structural fills placed above competent native soils. Foundation subgrades should be prepared as recommended in Section 5.2 of this report. Perimeter foundations exposed to the weather should be a minimum depth of 18 inches below final exterior grades. Interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth below the floor slab. Foundations can be dimensioned for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). For short-term loads, such as wind and seismic, a one-third increase in this allowable capacity can be used. With structural loading as anticipated and this bearing stress applied, estimated total settlements will be less than one- half inch. For designing foundations to resist lateral loads, a base friction coefficient of 0.4 can be used. Passive earth pressures acting on the side of the footing wall can also be considered. We recommend calculating this lateral resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). We recommend not including the upper 12 inches of soil in this computation because they can be affected by weather or disturbed by future grading activity. This value assumes the foundation will be constructed neat against competent native soil or backfilled with structural fill as described in Section 5.2 of this report. The passive value recommended includes a safety factor of 1.5. Page No. 6 an: • ♦ - November 30, 1999 •Project No. T-4479 5.6 Lower-Level and Retaining Walls The magnitude of earth pressure development on lower-level or retaining walls will partly depend on the quality of the wall backfill. We recommend placing and compacting wall backfill as structural fill. Below improved areas, such as pavements or floor slabs, the backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry unit weight, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). In unimproved areas, the relative compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. To guard against hydrostatic pressure development, wall drainage must also be installed. With wall backfill placed and compacted as recommended and drainage properly installed, we recommend designing unrestrained walls for an active earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weighing 35 pcf. For restrained walls, an additional uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf should be included. To account for traffic surcharge, the walls can be designed for an additional height of two feet. These values assume a horizontal backfill condition and that no other surcharge loading, such as sloping embankments or adjacent buildings, will act on the wall. If such conditions exist,then the imposed loading must be included in the wall design. Friction at the base of foundations and passive earth pressure will provide resistance to these lateral loads. Values for these parameters are provided in Section 5.5 of this report. 5.7 Slab-on-Grade Construction Slabs-on-grade may be supported on the subgrade prepared as recommended in Section 5.2 of this report. Immediately below the floor slab, we recommend placing a four-inch thick capillary break layer of clean free- draining sand or gravel that has less than three percent passing the No. 200 sieve. This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water through the underlying soil and subsequent wetting of the floor slab. Where moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, a durable plastic membrane should be placed on the capillary break layer. The membrane should be covered with two inches of clean moist sand to guard against damage during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. 5.8 Drainage Surface Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the building site at all times. Water must not be allowed to pond or collect adjacent to foundations or within the immediate building area. We recommend providing a minimum drainage gradient of three percent for a minimum distance of ten feet from the building perimeter, except in paved locations. In paved locations, a minimum gradient of one percent should be provided unless provisions are included for collection and disposal of surface water adjacent to the structure. Subsurface If the elevation of the first floor is below the adjacent exterior grade, or if positive drainage away from the building perimeter as described is not provided, perimeter foundation drains should be installed. The drains should consist of a four-inch diameter perforated drainpipe that is enveloped in one-half inch minus drain rock. Page No. 7 s• November 30, 1999 •Project No.T-4479 The drain rock should extend three inches below the pipe and six inches above and beyond the sides of the pipe. The pipe invert should be at the footing bottom. The foundation drains must also be tightlined to approved discharge independently of the roof drainage system. 5.9 Utilities Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilied in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA) or City of Renton specifications. As a minimum, trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural fill, as described in Section 5.2 of this report. As noted, soils excavated on-site should be suitable for use as backfill material dependent on soil moisture and prevailing weather conditions. If utility construction will take place during the winter, it may be necessary to import suitable wet weather fill for utility trench backfilling. 5.10 Pavements Pavement subgrades should be prepared as described in Section 5.2 of this report. Regardless of the degree of relative compaction achieved, the subgrade must be firm and relatively unyielding before paving. The subgrade should be proofrolled with heavy construction equipment to verify this condition. The pavement design section is dependent on the supporting capability of the subgrade soils and the traffic conditions to which it will be subjected. For traffic consisting mainly of light passenger and commercial vehicles with only occasional heavy traffic, and with a stable subgrade prepared as recommended, we suggest the following pavement sections: • Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base(CRB) • Two inches of AC over three inches of asphalt-treated base (ATB) The paving materials used should conform to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) specifications for Class B asphalt concrete,ATB, and CRB. Long-term pavement performance will depend on surface drainage. A poorly-drained pavement section will be subject to premature failure as a result of surface water infiltrating into the subgrade soils and reducing their supporting capability. For optimum pavement performance, we recommend surface drainage gradients of at least two percent. Some longitudinal and transverse cracking of the pavement surface should be expected over time. Regular maintenance should be planned to seal cracks when they occur. 6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES Terra Associates, Inc. should review the final design and specifications in order to verify that earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in project design. We should also provide geotechnical services during construction in order to observe compliance with our design concepts, specifications, and recommendations. This will allow for design changes if subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Page No. 8 • ., November 30, 1999 Project No.T-4479 • 7.0 LIMITATIONS This report is the property of Terra Associates, Inc. and was prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other warranty,expressed or implied, is made. This report is intended for specific application to the Aberdeen Apartments project and for the exclusive use of Cambridge Homes NW, Inc. and their authorized representatives. The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based upon data obtained from the test pits excavated on-site. Variations in soil conditions can occur, the nature and extent of which may not become evident until construction. If variations appear evident, Terra Associates, Inc. should be requested to re-evaluate the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with construction. Page No. 9 • • • • y••<-\ .N 8TH-—•-sf 4, ) Ni 'y —7fE ''•���.iNy ai SE 9firx 4 N S� x 27TH X£NNYLNLE 7.4221:1T:::::H7:2:,:ti.S..IT.71 E 1••E' 127T'` IA Sc 90* c5 Ae• )A4,4,1 , - i < LT LIONS ,.,`:. i7�i R . SE 99T11 �,f'n Ntc PARKr x r. 1 .P'!T1r- cs.:• F sT 1,k. Zsr w .TStIT .. F..• :. <TMi. .fk,,?. m 4 4., 100TH G4PDEN zoiti.. ' '`.ai • mu .n fiJ%. ; E [tmrnS„' I-'>.15". '.CT N Si w 1700 iiiirww • AL, y 'pi 81 ' . rife — = NE.1•4 a is=li 3 NI a tj w --..:;-, 4, '41,,f‘, '11 • Y ifa_ =a 5 HE 21ST SyTI z o ST N: 22ND ST le- 6 1 is d ,M n. S o �t�J 7gWa Q F . ..1rsT ST' P� p9 is.sT T5;':`' O 2 NE 20TH H`a STo c ^ ,o■ J� . \ . SE 4osTH '' .- i10 1700 w i 2300 NE 20 H s a` W+\ +p HONEN\CREEKI sTI �. d 5\ .. 19Tx R a = > NE pH 5T *® g +s,+5� OP& SPCE 1 1 ';='j0, w -a x ■L ism HE NORTH= \9\ .. Y Z ST ST NIGHLANOS -:I�r' �. to i ? H y W PARR �...:,< S'( NE /� ::�11. o Y ti'e� `fit a Ia z ® 1�" O -•ry RTM sT of` C�O E. �' T� NE Is S BOAT LAU CH ,• - _ W `-41 <' - 1 S Ssl:Fa' N z I o Li 2400 z w.1-. "i;"!. PLGD. < .E� '3800`d yy ,.Ii: z NE u < $v W '•' a NTH ;1•� ><W H - NE IRTN S1:r• Z cs W W x ST ,; 14TH, 3 Si a9 m HE 3TH PL ST ID%< i W / Ni N TS .GENE:LOULO Vei* ❑ w HE tL I7TN ST; _ fT 5 - 17TH ST w . �' W I -I HFf17RIA:it. '' I S �� B �o z _W `tBEq PAS: -q NE -. 12TH o ST NE 5 $ 12TH al i \ .ti.;. :�# A NE gl` 2100 82510 x ltaiET ?. a v< 3411 w o ,.VO mar: %0 �~ PL 1> RK IV ti - . P,OX yPO NI 111H < ITON Y\\i- At. ,', p E1 _. ' R ,, .: `, , 4 i g 11TH ST 900-- PORT ,� At,c,-; ,t ' \`S • =LV ` \ - rcR / Nr 10TH PL>d BOAT LAUNCH i : © NE IOTH k gawFR/44 = al = 33 1 NE Wi. z •BOEING `\ % i,/' •RICE Gy :c, NE 10TH ST \�� d ¢' Zl0 • RENTON \\ i/ �`'� z ;• 9hi •L• / I '^ NE r, OO PLANT \' 0 / i' E 9TH PL - 1' Q oc 359 s •'8 zf- / Z' v .� oo,W� x >.w o E ¢ 9TH WI x t y • ¢ o Q: 2 Ms' E BTHz _ LL L f��E - -1Wo �: CEDAR Q N :TH ST z \ < NE f _t. .E°`� �0 8TH 6I`ST z a L00 �O A : : oRIVER N Q 9 RE• SITE i NE s� g\�0o 7TH $T` a .MR 6n17 ■- i c;=a 7TH S .E ci ..x - oz.- A. P- $ :�Q,. u NTN a .oa of,..*-- HE ? 9 c IL •j= N = ._ ST .. -_. -' _.- ., fi 3 .cN4f HE b�, dli.,y N11Eo NEfiiH•Z°nc.RIVEN ." } � ❑ j Y[NDSQ:N _ i Z` 7�T13 sn' 5 PAIL ¢ = z x _ : 1 +vL x q NE 1< W `"�. i� o a■ra I �•is`_ �p�+HE w\ - :"1,-1 e �i g 9r 4�V NE a F 'COOL N H ST `' �F, z „ /„5 a Y : .fj. i 9p xE z sr.. }> >j o r ,i��.�. cr1 S:I �� �� z = ¢ ¢ .- a i1NE ¢l ._ S: ' FEPOAEE. NE TEGIN ULvr� 4TH _i ST 9 � AS� p,. =r' TH cT s < n COLLE E o 1 i }y t J MO xl■ _/}� i�1v` I/ 2500 ww l 1 \ a� �_ W a • > <1 '-s�i02 -/� m:�y = , W GREEAH000 ORENTON\ m = 3RD .1 ST$7 m ( J 5 _{ = HEHORIAL AIRPORT I• 9 74y dW(_ 1 _ �• r. • i---� AIR,ORT WY r� se l ��" ,- 3FL0 o PARK N�` S TILLICIH `Si Tn S \\Ne ",2N ST xj.�`<`1 / • NE . NE 2ND $T �I a`x TILLICW\"' -7 1100 WY -- - �� ` S fit: TOBIN -sr ST �,Pr/� VVVfffftttt N./ / ;' i�_rqh /Z4• 3�� � GIs rlcraNt 3Uo Q Poa •MO 4,e• ..ea, si epoa5 Tz� hW%}�/� 0 7W r r° CTH - sr • PAS ' , �,f /' . 17 _ i„ 18 RENTON m h r/ �� W II ■ HS H y "4 \ •.LfBEIl; .' a MOUNT LEISURE S 2ND \ °AR1C _ GLIV£T ESTATES A. -7 9n S i uN\ t/ .�L£MR g eye CEMETERY 16 HIP 1n ... a•l -- I PS W c� -- , 3 RD N ST < RPM.* .: RIVER' PARK R E N T Q N Gfd ¢i. i A ,-;- rr"y •/:tip-PA \`. a_ -7/, nn SE 5TH REFERENCE: THE THOMAS GUIDE, METROPOLITAN PUGET SOUND, PAGES 626 AND 656, 2000 EDITION. ��•-• TERRA VICINITY MAP ,-;--!`..:.•': ABERDEEN APARTMENTS ��\�����\\\ ASSOCIATES RENTON, WASHINGTON ' ■ ''otechnical Consultants Proj.No. 4479 Date NOV. 1999 Figure 1 0 . . .4. % I •,. I 0 .. . - 1 - - , • 1 . • . 1 . . - I - . . 1 • ' • 1 LOT 12 . 1 1 • • • • . , . . in 0_, ,, • • ca o ? Tr - , \ . • • - . \ 1 ‘ . ‘ ' . J • ' • . . \ • I , % I \ . . I r ‘ \I , V . \ . • " 1 I I I I 1 • 1 . • % -------------...----------4------------.---....L-.......-----------.----..-------------------•-,-•-1-..._----------•,.,-------------_r_______ ,__ 7 , . ‘ i , , , 1 _ • ' i , , 1 1 I • 1 , , , t t 1, , : I , , , 1 , ,../ .• I• 1 t 11 i i I . • • i - \ RCIMING - • V V. I 1 . . . I I I .711 I I I I - • / 1 . i i , r ' 1 / . // i, , I / . ISITP-3 / I TP-2 , t - ..... . , ' -• 51 T II I • . 1i z 7--- 111, P —, • 7 • TRASH ff 1 2 I. 3 II 4 /5 ' 8 1 7 8• 0 —11—10 ni . . , . 1 13 18' ENCLOSURE i I W • FIN. FIR. 0 204.0. / . —1-- ' 1 ria • Fl RS7 LEVEL OF I z 14 / 17 I i te. i • / e• ...• ../ . 1 .TP-4 LivINO ARF.A 18 ..., ... 15 ...." .i + V... ., "... / —3_ —IL-- ..'' ,/ .... . "*"..,....., i ,: ......... Irs- .. ........ , _ «, , t TIERED , RUA NING it i / WANING , , \ . ' W,ALL LANDSCAPE AREA WALL ' s 1 i I 1 i - - \ / • I I 1 I I • / / I I / / 1 l / i 1 \ 1 • / . I I V . 1 .... ..... e . ,,, • 1.1' N ..`? Pp a I 1 \ • - . 1 LOT 10 . . - . V• 1 \ V. . 1 t • • ' - LEGEND: . . , , air - • APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION - • - . . • . . - . . il • . . , . REFERENCE:. _ , V V V V . SITE PLAN PREPARED AND PROVIDED BY : • . . • FERRARI DESIGN GROUP, P.S., PROJECT. . _.] APPROXIMATE SCALE - 40 0 40 80 feet NUMBER 99120, SHEET Al OF 1, DATED • 16 NOVEMBER, 1999. -- • . . . • , , - . . . ' • , • . . , .....• EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN _. . i . . . S ABERDEEN APARTMENTS , ., •1..* • • '. ".....•.*......$ ‘:: .1....i A TERRAS ARENTON, WASHINGTON 7, Geotechnic Proj.No. 4479 Date NOV. 1999 1 Figure 2 . . ,..— . SalOClT Consultants E - . . . - . ma ,. • 4- _; APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Aberdeen Apartments Renton,Washington On September 23, 1999, we performed our field exploration using a rubber-tired backhoe provided by Cambridge Homes NW,Inc. We explored subsurface soil conditions at the site by excavating 4 test pits to a maximum depth of 8.5 feet below existing grade. The test pit locations are shown on Figure 2. The test pit locations were approximately determined by pacing from known landmarks such as adjacent roadways, fence lines, and topographic features. The test pit logs are presented on Figures A-2 and A-3. A geologist from our office conducted the field exploration, classified the soil conditions encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System(USCS) described on Figure A-1. Representative soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in closed containers and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content of each sample was measured and is reported on the test pit logs. Grain size analyses were performed on two of the samples, the results of which are shown on Figure A-4. Project No. T-4479 • • MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL Clean GW Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no GRAVELS Gravels fines. CO CB .J El2 (less than GP Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or O al N More than 5/o fines) no fines. u) 'v� 50% of coarse CB fraction is GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic W• () larger than No. Gravels fines. Z4 , 4 sieve with fines Q E 0 GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. N Clean SW Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. o SANDS Sands CO W c Z (less than Poorly-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no c More than 5% fines) SP fines. `� Q 0.c 50% of coarse O O fraction is SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. U smaller than Sands No. 4 sieve with fines SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. Inorganic silts, rock flour, clayey silts with slight CO =o SILTS AND CLAYS ML plasticity. wo Oas N CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, (lean clay). E o m Liquid limit is less than 50% 0 W 0 c'in OL Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity. Z in as 0 Q c m MH Inorganic silts, elastic. O - m (7) SILTS AND CLAYS W 2 E CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. Z ° w Liquid limit is greater than 50% L_� OH Organic clays of high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS w Standard Penetration Density Resistance in Blows/Foot I S 2"POO OUTNSIDESAMPLER DIAMETER SPLIT tr O Very loose 0-4 I 2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER `o Loose 4-10 OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER Medium dense 10-30 z Dense 30-50 1 WATER LEVEL (DATE) < Very dense >50 Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf Standard Penetration Pp PENETROMETER READING, tsf Consistency Resistance in Blows/Foot DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot U Very soft 0-2 LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent `o Soft 2-4 .. Medium stiff 4-8 PI PLASTIC INDEX ;74J Stii f stiff 6 32 8-16 N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot Hard >32 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM �` .� TERRA ABERDEEN APARTMENTS ASSOCIATES RENTON, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4479 Date NOV 1999 Figure A-1 :.9 • , Test Pit No. TP-1 Logged by: DKW Approximate Elev. 197 Date: 9/23/99 Depth Moisture (ft.) Soil Description Content (%0 10 inches Topsoil. Roots to 18 inches. - Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense,moist to dry. (SM) 14.7 5— Gray mottled sandy SILT to silty SAND,medium dense, moist. (MUSM) 28.3 Test pit terminated at 8 feet. No groundwater encountered. 10 Test Pit No. TP-2 Logged by: DKW Approximate Elev. 192 Date: 9/23/99 Depth Moisture (ft.) Soil Description Content(oho) 0 8 inches Topsoil. - Brown silty SAND with gravel,medium dense, moist to dry. (SM) 21.9 - Gray mottled sandy SILT,medium dense, moist. (ML) 5— _ Brown-gray silty SAND with gravel and clean sand lenses, medium dense to dense, moist. (SM) 9.0 - Test pit terminated at 8.4 feet. No groundwater encountered. 10 TEST PIT LOGS TERRA ABERDEEN APARTMENTS 66 0 ASSOCIATES RENTON, WASHINGTON Geoteclmical Consultants Proj. No. *T-4479 Date NOV 1999 Figure A-2 as q ; Test Pit No. TP-3 Logged by: DKW Approximate Elev. 187 Date: 9/23/99 Depth Moisture (ft.) Soil Description C nt)nt 0 8 inches Topsoil and roots. - Tan silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist to dry. (SM) _ Gray mottled sandy SILT to silty SAND,medium dense, moist. (MUSM) 5— 14.9 Tan-gray fine sandy SILT with clay,hard, moist. (ML) 22.0 • - Test pit terminated at 8.5 feet. No groundwater encountered. 10 Test Pit No. TP-4 Logged by: DKW Approximate Elev. 193 Date: 9/23/99 Depth Moisture (ft.) Soil Description Content ) 0 8 inches Topsoil. Roots to 18 inches. Brown silty SAND with some gravel,medium dense, moist to dry. (SM) - Gray mottled sandy SILT,medium dense, moist. (ML) 5 - Tan sandy SILT to silty SAND,medium dense,moist. (MUSM) 14.2 - Test pit terminated at 7 feet. No groundwater encountered. 10 TEST PIT LOGS TERRA ABERDEEN APARTMENTS 6o ASSOCIATES RENTON, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4479 Date NOV 1999 Figure A-3 1 it e. c SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES J NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH, US STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MM ". <S ��‹� < N -A 0) O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O 0:' NJ -P W N IV-A _. - CO Pa -00 -P O O O 0. O O O) -P. W N -.CO p) -I.. O N 100 �` 0 ti I. %`t, so ,, --\,...„.., is,.... 9x - , / 10 . O D—I 80 T. (n M 20 o (n XIID m c, O XI n 70 30 C7 .. NnD z z . C 60 40 0D y --I z0 50 50 chi) com Po m 40 60 -. Z = 30 70 m o —1 V 20 80 ca D — 701OC Z71 xi> 10 - 90 ci o ppZ o ZmN 0 i ( I i i (II [ i 1 i IIII i [-< I i iii.i 100 Z W N -• CO O) - W N co O) -P W N O m O O 00 0 O O O O O 00 01 -A W g O W 'O p 0 O 0 0 O p < N> GRAIN . SIZE IN MILLIMETERS -CO O) 2 w N o _ Z • COARSE FINE COARSE 1 MEDIUM I FINE • CO COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINES _. -1m in Z N N Test Pit Depth CD Key Number (ft.) USCS Description Moisture LL PL Content (%) a 1 • TP-1 2.0 SM silty SAND 4- 0 TP-2 2.0 ML sandy SILT t_-_ 000 -02fO 11111 PAUL R. BUEHRER COMPANY Architectural Design & Construction 4266 163nd Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA 98006 Office (425)747-0798 FAX (425)747-8896 Cell phone (425)445-1381 Friday, July 30,2004 Mr. Neil R. Watts, Director Development Services Division 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Extension of the SEPA application for the property at 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE, Renton, Washington. Dear Mr. Watts: Per our conversation this morning regarding the time remaining for the SEPA approval for the 8 Unit Townhome Project at 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE, I am requesting a two year extension for the present SEPA on this site. This request was based on the concerns your department had in identifying the exact timing for the existing approvaL However, it is not my intent to take two years for submittal of building plans. It is my intent to submit full plans for a building permit next week. Therefore, to reiterate this request, as you suggested in our conversation this morning, I am hereby requesting a two-year extension of the present SEPA Application for the above property. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely yours, Paul R. Buehrer AGREE : eS7 Ju/ 36) 20() Neil R. Watts, Director Date Development Services Division Renton, Washington Cc: Laureen Nicolay t., f 00.-0L1-0 (L-1) i:i::><::;,:ki:•:;::;::;:M:::S::isk;:;k::k:i>ii;::::::;:M:•::•:;•;>:•;>::.>:::;::::::•;:•>:;::.:.:•:•.:••>:•:•:;;;:>;:r•.::•:>::•;:•;>:•:;:•;;:::•;;:>�:.::.::.�:::::::::::::.�::::::.:�::.::::�:::::::.:. ��'• ' `:'�"`%'•<<E `�'"'``��:`•.'#'':2 ``'''>�`�??'?�':'E``•�`� r`•'':`•"`zit' ::::::f::::;::Sr.'•5::;::5::.:.:::::::::;:r;ir:::i;S::::::k:::5i::5::>:::>:::::::i s::ir;:;:'•S ......... T AL IN. TO.EMI.............:....:.:..:.:.::.::.::..:...:.:.............:....:........::... QUO\NG FILE NO. 719-007-001 *51� PREPARED BY TOUMA ENGINEERS 6632 SOUTH 191ST PLACE, SUITE E-102 KENT, WA. 98032 (425) 251-0665 i, VAS� �'%f 6 i mot, \q\t° T 1 a 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW The subject property contains an area of approximately 0.86 acres. The property is situated in the northeast end of the City. Bounded on the east by Aberdeen Avenue N.E. It is bounded on the west by Puget Sound Power and Light Company right of way. North and south of the property there exist large parcels with single family residence. The project area is fairly steep with slopes ranging from 15% to 20% for the easterly 300 to 350 feet of the property. Steeper slopes found on the westerly portion of the site with slopes exceeding 40 percent. Slope analysis map is prepared depicting the forty percent slopes and it will be designated Native Growth Protective Easement (NGPE). The surface water sheet flow across the site from east to west directing flows into natural swale situated at the northwest corner of the site. The soil type of the site is Ragnar-Indianola association (RdE) typical throughout the site. Moderately steep slope, very gravelly Everett soils up to 20 percent slopes mixed with loamy fine sand at slopes of 10 to 15 percent. The site.cover consists of tall grass and pastureland. There are no trees on the site. /.• :::• -- . Q I- ,( 13 115 1 o LJ 0.31 A i. q, jr/ \�\ Lo• w G-c� 041 Ac. o ,�iaT E� %2.43 i 90 8c /' N \ : • I III �:•• n I e / // AII lt' •.;.Cr S 1Eo • ' iv �,Mi Lt.743 I 4 alp��� p ] - ,, Z-y�s}s '. �O S��� 18 O� Q m 6.) A c h Ta YERN.��, v, I F o ,, LA P0P•1�5.OF sa/�5 --- 9p 4 CO / . / • ny 17 tz.`� ��� Gdd•/J I 51 ^ SUNSET :0 ar NES N I 55o I ;75 1029 ? `Z 144.64 r.c.T"5 6, 0.44Ac. JOHN L. o 15 o O , � ZANATTA �y N 0 c 98-3/ 60 tih -...�•:. VZ-----ft � 1.107 1.10 A, • M 13 14 0 l 0 6 % T.c.9 rn - o Q 26J.4' 07/.6,347 CO 13 f3T ^ n10 0^ 033Ac.�71.175 �� t'. - - --644.63 '�J ,h 7 Lu/86 /60 0 '- j % 96 43' o 19 4 ,..I:.��3 A 5 t+_ �.— — 6:7 3 --- -o ,•i•4• 4:1 vM-I.E 962 Y'ST5 •'y'n' I ' t- l l 240.0- •.-(.• 5.9 .24 tf) i ..a 268./8 $IS F. 3; T 9.07 O 60 t: 5 ... .. C W 10 ° 95 rr.,#;3 / E I.'13 0 -•.Q. n, Rl 64 /o US 4L.,A-d"v 5 c" 9 9 9( c Q 912 ' . ,, .. _ r.c.7rT r; 537. 2 A v 234 P.7 4. .Y "3 VI _45 _ •4 --- - Z•C 8 O1 90 5 0.90 AC. _ ■ trt Z .yn r — -- --- _ (. p 902 ®4 L L;(�( I nr ri 3 ''� 26 .R2 Z•1�• ' • O'' 2 a t r /sE.c� Aso4„. 6 '� "�r�F '' 4'. ;,L'>x l3. m 13�.6F 8 1 � 7• 15 Z O 9 tar m to di J.Jd J c7s70: 13 66 T �7^ si - .2r, t. .Co \c,, I ' ! 14:1 ' r' Z 1 99.5 „ 7:e ✓{�- 92 lr<J 'IN m Z r' th 260.�9 l:.9•; t3Q. 10 Cy , '3 101�2 �� a GI `t 12 Q 1 i �1 c, _ --- 3-- 9 23 w � Q2.,• ILI_ 47 •. 1•.. Cl 2 . . . to U 2 1 I - 4 61 I� ' �i O 4, n O R' -5c 75 6i.srio�' as b1 o lu I1. RELIMINARY CONDITIONS SUMMARY CORE REQUIREMENT #1: DISCHARGE AT NATURAL LOCATION The allowable outflow from the site will be discharged to its natural location. The lowest elevation of the site is 120 along the northwesterly portion of the site. CORE REQUIREMENTS #2: OFF-SITE ANALYSIS Refer to off-site analysis on subsequent pages. CORE REQUIREMENTS #3: RUNOFF CONTROL Preliminary calculations are provided on subsequent pages addressing peak runoff. The peak runoff was calculated for 2, 10 and 100 year-24 hour storms. The peak runoff difference for the 100-year, 24-hour storm between the pre-development and post- development is less than 0.5 cfs. A detention or retention facility is exempted. Water quality control will be provided in the form of bio-filtration swale or wet-vault facilities. CORE REQUIREMENTS #4: CONVEYANCE SYSTEM The conveyance system will be designed using the rational method as presented in the King County 1990 SWM Manual. CORE REQUIREMENTS #5: EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN The Erosion/Sedimentation control facilities will consist of filter fabric fences to be placed along the west portion of the proposed development.. • SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS—THOSE APLLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT 1. Critical Drainage Area- The drainage basin is not part of any critical drainage area. 2. Compliance with existing Master Drainage Plan—N/A 3. Conditions Requiring Master Drainage Plan — N/A 4. Adopted Basin or Community Plans—N/A 5. Special Water Quality Controls - The proposal will create 0.38 acres of impervious surfaces consisting of asphalt parking and building roof. A bio- filtration swale or wet-vault facilities will be designed to address water quality facility. • 6. Coalescing Plate Oil-Water Separators—N/A 7. Closed Depression — N/A 8. Use of Lakes, Wetlands, or Depressions for Detention —N/A 9. Delineation of 100-year Flood Plain— N/A 10. Flood Protection for Type 1 and 2 Steam — N/A 11. Geotechnical Analysis and Report—N/A, unless requested 12. Soil Analysis and Report —N/A, unless requested 13. A Wetland Mitigation Report—N/A. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS I. UPSTREAM The site is the situated within a small drainage basin consisting only of the site. Off-site area sheet flow south along the west and east sides of Aberdeen Avenue NE via shallow ditches directing flows into Sunset Blvd NE. A negligible area of Aberdeen Avenue NE may flow toward the site, however, the amount is very negligible. Therefore the site area makes up the entire basin 2. DOWNSTREAM Surface runoff from the site sheet flows west and northwesterly toward a defined drainage swale situated northwest of the site. The post-developed conveyance system will collect the surface runoff from the parking lot and building roof via underground conveyance pipes and directing the flow to a wet-vault for water treatment prior to discharging the water into its natural course. The runoff from the vault will be directed to a spreader allowing the storm runoff to sheet flow over the natural ground toward the drainage swale. The drainage swale direct the flow westerly under Interstate 405 via a culvert under the Highway; thence westerly into the flow is directed into a combination of underground crossings and open ditches along the railroad right of way; thence it flows north and crosses Lake Washington Blvd and eventually into Lake Washington, approximately a mile from the site. No downstream erosion was noted during our field trip conducted in January and February of 2000.. ` \ \ 1 BRUSH • 1 \ _ ;% 11 ,1 511 \. .1 • l� BRUSH 1 . '\ 7/ ...---x'c , I \ \�,`, •, 1,\ . \ ' , \ W j P y4e4 / . II li „ . \ , \ ' _..- , k II, • _,__ \, ( ' - 91d ( x • \ \\ \ ' , . \\ \ .\\,\ ' )\. w/ '------n, I \ \ im ' - --1 N ' \ \\V____ -�� 1 TREES% ili 1 � I O 1111, I / \ •.,/ \ ' • \ \ �- 1 i .� c?- \ - ) J Jr _J ❑ / / \\\ ., ••• --.1i'4- I n ,x; ) �/ o , , / / 7 \ .\ .,. • ‘. ... imovii . . -( ,. ,.. :II r.3 .„,_ -II,: ,r-s 12] i- 1 I . 1 i t // ( ---, t \ \\ . „, \s \ ---- ii.....--.-- .-- .-.NI - ts::.., _ k __,__x_i.E4 . 1 1 Ld ti/ - \‘ ,.. .. . ,. . ,..,_‘. ,.....- ,„... . ...... 7.--r. , fir/ . . x 38 .tr 14 T TK____________„):-:„ , •'\�yr 'ty. A i fit'' ,P ; ^1.�:i ;pt. {(111/L�71'1!1 1 1 /Q/ ❑ .,. .. . ,,,,. ,k. \ ,,, - c :Ne . .y.-400/ 111, A I I/ El • A \\, 1 . a o I \ \ \\ \ .\ \ :!0/xil\,; 1 j\ i, x 36 \\\\ 1 4 x- ) / Ty p o'.I / .g1,F < \ \, ` 1 x )l • kN1 I 7 /\ \\. \\ 1 xx-I--XL— r �/it xQ , . \\ r—il 1 I \ \\ \\ ' \.\ • NA-, ‘ --,zx---/ 1 '�' ' 1 \ \ V. '\ e- ',, x— \/Q.9, x x-- I col y \ al , �z/ X ❑ 1 I .% . .-2 ( \.• \ \ \, , . 1.1. x37 ` .\ � 1 lv- y , W F / -x- 1 \ \ \'\ \ I 11 \ d ' I I' \. \,4 �� I 4 ----) 6 -- \• ' \\ V rX 174 - _ - • \\' \)] I, 71---- \ N 211 1 391t \\ ` \ , ` \ B..US1 c /1 r 1— I \ \ .,; s111 x l X. 32.5 1 1 \ `Fi I r 1 1 \ I I. 1 1 \ I IX' I 1 z 211 x 37 11 ! \ \ • , � I \1 • • 1 r I • e I • L I IIIII,,,, .01 ---A, 1 \ l , I ,` Jos I II ,, ' t 4 `. 111141111 s, Ilkai . s,e,,e m ag I \ • %,` honi-...' -uuu '1 .y I • • t. .i ql • 1 1 - .i i .... 1 % ; I 1lit 1 —.nil ,,\, 1 • hi • . 1g as, I1 • r- N .\ A�ti1l, 1 i� i 0 ,'N t ii I ,, , . \\ A ss. •i, ., _,. .4 1 ` . ........_ • ,, '�I�1 1,�1` ,,, ,, . . 1 ......_ �.111 I • • • sss .,..,• .• i. s ., ss -ss. 1- ,- - s - - • • s _.s.. .s...\\‘.. .s. • • , ....., • .\\•„•,. . ., sss, •,. s s \\ •. .s,t* s.s. ..,,, s, \\,.. ..\,•,•s , s, „. . 1 "_... ...,• ,. .\. , ••• •\ \• ••••t ••` • • ♦ •• ` •• •\ •, •,• • •, \\ • '' S \• \\ •` • ,.. •,`. t; o• — Hgu . . n.. �„/ �7\• \ AgU it' - • ii.4.;,..., ii.oniti4r ., 1 ..:. A. .... . . , . • -....*_,. • �jp .,tar ... I �,: r',t, AgC,+;r' a� \�at -\ .• II • � 4 ''.a• L',j ��: .'.1. i.' I. •I�iC • kF:;.: . :I;C 41 AkF I lig EvC :i:•_+:0€;;. �' /''A� J 1 • 11�:�1�.r, 11 1 AkF • AE '-....-t '1j.6s Y. .* ®�fYLl�i]•• - -\ �•.t.F.lr!'^ - •'}—:. .S �� '!i •I�� I -� _ _• yi' r-- �r'Q.d'�7� ±',;, r' , ' '• / D N ••' ... S'' 'e.•"• •- ' BM4ii '+�/.. I- i �I' h j C• _� • R r. Anr� �� � .r�•y,41.•liif ',,B - \e•:C:AB •../• 2 r .. .o o •./t' l !y �p1,.' . - ..;,t`4�..,'^g�"p '/ • mLl a i •BM' •p� 1 _I�:_ ..:• .,, .�t q}�r.�•%,�h '7�t r. , EvC 2.r...-. •'!... %% " MIK',A nifit!gc •Ii% 1.-107.-=';:,--7.7-.-".- r, ‘ , 't 1 I • •. a.iy, p . .▪ IJI.. 1�1 AkF -'V.,,...) � :- � EIMA "Ml1 ,.e,t i _p� '. •aria, ,. \ .,, ' >1' : 1'41, ,7.6.4 },. • :J . I'P: ,,'I"•' I ,lt.j :..' .: . . • . . r, .ti'' 4)4,' \� ...,if , ow Fes:,'. •i i,ir1Ci)_ — fit _� . I : r 'L• _,_ E ': �• �1 i. -. *1 ~v. . h d _ AID 1 A',. ., Vtl r ni^,;. • • :"h ` b,r{i ,JJ; '%1 e — ,�. •.� 1 I�,St .,•f. '.'I1•+ Fr 1,••:. 0. '• z •"pit '� 4. •• •I I. 17 • : - i.,, . + ';r-. •�-, {[}ty ,?•i k.at� •.ii`z• ,:'J 1 . •il. l •.. '1 t • Ur ; f. 1 �• . +tiM. 1I �. •� I, • • • 1 - A ,,*1.. Li_ YBM• a 1 .,• - . : 3,;i' %► 1 — - �, lei' . , i I ••I ; d ... -; y.4� i Plant' �' • II", ' _il . . .„ tr i ��' \ ' t• 4 / `\ I r� �1! _ .` • AgC, vidE.„,,,a, T (i ,w ••:( :— . L17_, .r S n .',,• "tra. WC ......... )::::':::li\c 11° Mir .. .• Wu I ‘▪ 11185. •tF i . • • •" 7 • : :. • '' '4/674/ ii.. 1 r ....Adc=0". ...II f fa.1-1:Wi lig : :i . ,,, ' \r. .,/,65 :111111 IIN 4 e,,, ,:„,,„:„:,,„,„:,, ... .. I Ur' 4ik ighlani•_aeri,e:„•.-.•%,t 1-. Sch. L ! ' �.... % "'•�.. �.. .roreliT,,,, 1: v _.„„ :; 4131 AS \7 u '� dr.e ''...;C:!-J ::: / • 11 , � I'7 - �__• �04i r,Trilr �'•J . q EVB `+7T=! iiii p. :BM �1"� '� I[lTY T_®�I11'ark:• . it' j _ ° .B kl Athletic// �I \�f / 'vf� ° .�-it'`':: •• T 1 i • ' • 'fIp A.p �I '.k 'A mi - 14111PIP • Iva/ll 1 •, Eield 1� �, 11•� I I;' i•Greenwood.L./el : , ,. ° �I r r. r-- ••• C i $1liIIs1 P' `a�� c , `-%'!•' " C V. '•,.':. NI \7�v�L 1 \ `�Irr'" / \;• 1.�- ,` -EVC //'I.) ".\ An `•: L. • .:�j.''.- .� .. logii Carr ' `1 1: 11 '' L . `h,\�• •asebkit/ VEL `PITCal' n � "P \,' Aftik.�� Perk IGRA „\` N• d.; ..., ;` � :•. • • • �I����� / \ AkF I l IAkF' •- • \' r:,;0a' d ,,,,.� . , (1 .‘\,7.4‘:.,4, 4: li!I____IiiL;1 ' 1., • , .44. - #t --. -1„.....,A, i• Irr �i r AkF'•• I� • ;r:. F' .i:•.- : 14, -1'giiir/4 /N: Alk\bk ,-.••••:, ;.:': . -,% ;:1';-.',.e.r.,.).:\ .° t4kit.:-.... , s'''‘:.r. . ::.'-;1 'doicr-/- . . • �`'' i i + • IAi�i : . -, :AgC•:BMI37• Akp;: Rf�L�41? - Pr r Gii '+ ,r., `'f. itd i� lip AmC • ,`. -t. - iN �.\ Yla►•��:i.✓�' ` / COS 1•- \ AgC st.` '�" ••� ,,,;:;,:„.;: vic.i..z.v,<.2.7,,, a t : I' 1 ,— '• ■ V .\ . ti0 .o`asy`-11 " \\ -4 \\�\ AgD `• ?NY\ •,' .1' teIf1 - Cy i ' - Substa,AmCi N, fi�i ` \ �_ti. •"��� Iillt!O - - --` • AgC i_ I"` •./l \\ae_ 'kF---_.ray ( ' an,• '• t,i, ••,� 4 II_ e .... �C• � AgD 20 i e •• 9 21 r„ 2-,. Asa :I,,.y� s I I�I / ,'i 4551 \ 4% , I`�f- '1 ..,,•,.. n ..::..;z' ; •a• 1 t ': �;. \ ��e ARC 1\', AkF 1 a I~'. n .��q•i �\` \`( ` \� n /o \ ``it' , AgC ) \ AkF STORM DRAINAGE REPORT FOR Aberdeen Avenue Apartments TOTAL AREA 0.86 ACRES- ENTIRE PROPERTY BASIN AREA 86 ACRES - ON SITE AND OFF SITE SOIL TYPE RdE Type "B° EXISTING CONDITIONS PASTURE-HIGH GRASS 0.86 ACRES CN 78 PERVIOUS AREA 0.86 CN 78 POST CONDITIONS LANDSCAPING 0.04 ACRES CN 85 EX. COVER 0.48 ACRES CN 78 ASPHALT+ CONCRETE + BLDG 0.34 ACRES CN 98 PERVIOUS AREA 0.52 ACRES CN 78 IMPERVIOUS 0.34 ACRES CN 98 TIME OF CONCENTRATION - PRE-DEVELOPMENT- FOR 2-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM DESIGN SHEET FLOW- OFFSITE MANNING-n 0.15 OVERLAND-L 300 FEET PRECIPITATION-P 2 INCH SLOPE- S 0.125 FT/FT T1 = 14.34 MINUTES TOTAL TIME - PRE-DEVELOPMENT 14.34 TIME OF CONCENTRATION - POST DEVELOPMENT- FOR 2-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM DESIGN SHEET FLOW- OFFSITE MANNING-n 0.15 OVERLAND-L 40 FEET PRECIPITATION-P 2 INCH SLOPE - S 0.125 FT/FT T1 = 2.86 MINUTES CONCENTRATED FLOW- OFFSITE OVERLAND L 110 FEET K- VALUE 27 SLOPE- S 0.125 FT/FT VELOCITY-V 9.55 FPS T2 = 0.19 MINUTES OVERLAND L 160 FEET K- VALUE 21 SLOPE - S 0.125 FT/FT VELOCITY-V 7.42 FPS T3 = 0.36 MINUTES TOTAL TIME -POST DEVELOPMENT 3.41 Use 6.3 Minutes 2 SBUH/SCS METHOD FOR COMPUTING RUNOFF HYDROGRAPH STORM OPTIONS : 1 - S .C.S . TYPE-lA 2 - 7-DAY DESIGN STORM 3 - STORM DATA FILE SPECIFY STORM OPTION: 1 S .C. S . TYPE-lA RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION ENTER: FREQ (YEAR) , DURATION(HOUR) , PRECIP (INCHES) 2 , 24, 2 ******************** S .C. S . TYPE-lA DISTRIBUTION ******************** ********* 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 2 . 00" TOTAL PRECIP. ********* ENTER: A (PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 . 86, 78, 0, 98, 14 . 34 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC (MINUTES) A CN A CN • . 9 . 9 78 . 0 . 0 98 . 0 14 . 3 PEAK-Q (CFS) T-PEAK (HRS) VOL (CU-FT) . 05 7 . 83 1509 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename [ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: f : 2yrex-alb SPECIFY: C - CONTINUE, N - NEWSTORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP c ENTER: A(PERV) , CN (PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 2 . 52 , 78, . 34, 98, 6 .3 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC (MINUTES) A CN A CN . 9 . 5 78 . 0 . 3 98 . 0 6 . 3 PEAK-Q (CFS) T-PEAK (HRS) VOL (CU-FT) . 20 7 . 83 3104 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename [ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: f : 2yrd-alb SPECIFY: C - CONTINUE, N - NEWSTORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP a • F: \SCS>2 SBUH/SCS METHOD FOR COMPUTING RUNOFF HYDROGRAPH STORM OPTIONS : 1 - S .C.S . TYPE-lA 2 - 7-DAY DESIGN STORM 3 - STORM DATA FILE SPECIFY STORM OPTION: 1 S . C.S . TYPE-lA RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION ENTER: FREQ (YEAR) , DURATION(HOUR) , PRECIP (INCHES) 10, 24, 2 . 9 ******************** S .C. S . TYPE-lA DISTRIBUTION ******************** ********* 10-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 2 . 90" TOTAL PRECIP. ********* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 . 86, 78, 0, 98, 14 .34 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA (ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC (MINUTES) A CN A CN . 9 . 9 78 . 0 . 0 98 . 0 14 . 3 PEAK-Q (CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT) . 17 7 . 83 3294 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename [ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: f : l0yrex-alb FILE ALREADY EXIST; OVERWRITE (Y or N) ? Y SPECIFY: C - CONTINUE, N - NEWSTORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 2 . 52 , 78, . 34, 98 , 6 . 3 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC (MINUTES) A CN A CN . 9 . 5 78 . 0 . 3 98 . 0 6 . 3 PEAK-Q (CFS) T-PEAK (HRS) VOL (CU-FT) . 35 7 . 83 5290 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename [ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: f : l0urd-alb SPECIFY: C - CONTINUE, N - NEWSTORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP by 2 ' SBUH/SCS METHOD FOR COMPUTING RUNOFF HYDROGRAPH STORM OPTIONS : 1 - S .C.S . TYPE-lA 2 - 7-DAY DESIGN STORM 3 - STORM DATA FILE SPECIFY STORM OPTION: 1 S .C. S . TYPE-lA RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION ENTER: FREQ (YEAR) , DURATION(HOUR) , PRECIP (INCHES) 100, 24, 3 . 9 ******************** S .C.S . TYPE-lA DISTRIBUTION ******************** ********* 100-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 3 . 90" TOTAL PRECIP. ********* ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 . 86, 78, 0, 98, 14 .34 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC (MINUTES) A CN A CN . 9 . 9 78 . 0 . 0 98 . 0 14 . 3 PEAK-Q (CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL (CU-FT) . 32 7 . 83 5630 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename [ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: f : 100yrex-alb FILE ALREADY EXIST; OVERWRITE (Y or N) ? y SPECIFY: C - CONTINUE, N - NEWSTORM, P - PRINT, S - STOP C ENTER: A(PERV) , CN(PERV) , A(IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 2 . 52, 78, . 34, 98, 6 . 36 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC (MINUTES) A CN A CN . 9 . 5 78 . 0 . 3 . 98 . 0 6 . 3 PEAK-Q (CFS) T-PEAK (HRS) VOL (CU-FT) . 55 7 . 83 7935 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename [ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: f : 100yrd-alb FILE ALREADY EXIST; OVERWRITE (Y or N) ? 0 ENTER [d: ] [path] filename [ .ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: . . KING COUNTY, WASIIINGTO N, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL .... .__..... ....... . . ...... __._._ .._ . FIGURE 3.5.1C 2-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS .. ..._._ `..\. ' 'l...,711-- F .:)it i'. „ y.... • 1 1,5,-,,,I, . pii. fp . ',7 ? 1 . .. . . . / \. . \ •-• • .1 . ' --- r- --,....5:.••• ,'I, ,-\_ ,,,•• .. ./ 11 10 ./ •,:i :if,-,,,c_c - . ...c..- ---,,,74,\ ,-;-,, A . ...., ..\.,, ,,. ) 4=---- . /0 . • ,., f ., 0 . : k\ , A r . ) A '. )• ir /)4 ..- . .• • ...' ill**: .it . .--"•-•\ .'2; Pl111:11m1.“. ."1.'4 .R 4 I 1.. .• ..,..,\ . (•7-•(0. 18 , .1-11 ,:,--,-- \.., .,\ ,":...;. ' ), ... , — 1 —1--- - -4 1§1. / ,i.1111111 giii - ........ 1 r.-..., „- .., --e........„ ...., ....., .. 2.0 ... .. ,i •• ., : I _ ,, 5' ,.•' ^•• CO ' !1- „P;•'- -IP' ,... 2 .....- N • :, (ii rfl, '' - nei 0 „I r). ,...,, • Fil .'• :-,i' —1- tr. ,.._ i . • ., I / ....... •i t,-,."- 1 , 1 ., . . . I 4,1171.11=IIMME11111011 ..1"." I ' : \di dti•oviaimmesz I ./i...1.: ,...„. .7.:;---,:•. ... .. .,,, ,. tilkfick ........:._v1.2,--.-i it(/'' r -1. .',....k,iirottioinmpvi... 7. ,...7.00-41.1 .11?.?"iir•• ,, . ..... ,,, 0 '. ... . 1. ‘A‘ • - Ir. • ./IY) ... "' i .I ' .°S 11.7:!. ; '.- ."1/' :'I§ .. ., I I•'4 ' / ijk • :-Z 1 . • ., e ii ii f:. . -. •-•..ie-1 -.-1;111 .: ,;,,,, ..,.... _ _ ii, „,.. ..„... : .- I ---- -.`4-1 - 1-• viNt ...- •.:....,. 'N' ,. ( . \ . \ ' ' '''' . • , ,, .• - , • i ,\,- st ..-. 01 ....„ •— ._ • . , i 1 ---t- : - 1,\ ., • --1,• .• f ! „ i 1 1.:...j..1.! '!...=)-- '-'• \. -I . • ' i •--‘)I'' (-4.:,.;) 1 1 --- . • / ' ':\ '' * i . " " ' . t.:-.• i .‘f •\ma ---.- : \ t 1 '...-\71• " ' 4:,,\,..., 7.-: r':'. .7 i r_.-.I ,r 1''i.,'•. ...:...... 1..\ . . .1, IfK( `=" - t •!:.- I ... ''' % • ( t•::= .lf , ... Xfs I 'i _ :-- (11 () • 1 .-' ‘1 4r.t, :7 - • .... ''' • .,,,rg, ..... )(..., (V nr.... -f• ,, . . J1' s: ' I' : ft-.. 1 cv N. • :,4 '))• . •4), \ " -- r., •,•,_-- .-. -„... _.---',. .\-_,-, . 1,. -. .1;:• ./ w.:, \--z...-,•--,-- Ii...,. . / _ 4 1. ,, , • \ •--, k'''',\ — I.- ist .:-... 1 . ...0 0 \ ''' 3 " . • .; . ...: • - ,.,...• 1 1 2-YEAR 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION • i , .. .3.4"'"'"" ISOPLUVIALS OF 2-YEAR 24-HOUR (V9 ' 35 ,N.i -. TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES ; 11, (V‘: ''v - ..., ,-30 --- o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mlles (, ' - sie•—•= 1-- --" (V N " • .-1 .44/ . (V i:300.000 3.5.1-8 .. # ' 1/90 • • , . , . . . , . • . • KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL -------- ... . FIGURE 3.5.1E 10-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS 2.1 ...,--- - --." ..:,..)-. t.'-';•,i., - --,., r-._ • ,-;,i ;16 • i nil--..r=r --A -•-•- - - -' - -----'---7 7‘.1-\--•-....•:••- - 22 '\ r----„,.. • , -.. •'• .1 .' , . ' 24 I ...7..1011 ( r• . /... \ 25 , j( r,.. 4.• •I. ;. .,,,, • / . .,.1.1. N,,,, •,.\\ ' 1.1 26 / , .-.7.-. ' .ik ----- ,77 I iv l41 -E-; ,;:.. • !Mardi ', ,., - ' il , .0.: . .....1.. '''''' - 11. •..jil ,r\.. , e.:\.111/)...1s,, ::;;?'i.. • ---••••• mu,.:......:.)lisoll....,....p: i ..... -- -.!;..\. \ •N 4 ill....(iTte r 01;ijr,01.7\k'::•i: !\.11,..ip''.11. , pip" , 1'''., . ' 0.,.. . i--r-7-'''I- ..i( 29 •\ ,. . , ..,,,1 i . •,,./ __,;„, qt:;.-- 3-0 . •--- ,",.../, • , . ) 1 . (..... .„ . 1 , / •,..: im 3 i , lic ''. . , - ::.1 .Jr. 1. \ 3.2 .•;Cs ..` .tr.i.\\\ . ._•.,‘,,,,,.,....\. .i 4 ., ,.\ . • , .. 1 , ,i - , ( ) ,• ...... / -4._ 9 'I .. 41.1.111110,e1 ..,--. . • "• ,:".' ..,- W1 :,:k ...,..,, „.... „, ,.....„.• ... -.' -7'. . k:71' • . •'. '—'''/ :.V.':1-• . 33 \ z i t ...... ' \ '-'" ••••• ' . - ..-, ' . • • ' i . 1• 1 '• / • i . .,• : ..•. ; Vitt. ), / . l'-.) .4 . . :C (, , ••• . • . ••-•• ...it :.,• , . \--- :I\ i•/: 1(...::: ,kx.•7--- :... — ]:.:...1 '-3.1-it. i .1 1 :' _AO ic I --'-',:-..- ,.... , --- '.• / k.1 , j., i-- .::: '. .\ ) : -- - •1:`,4,_ ) ;•:;\-----7.; i. ) . • ... • . .., , , , ( . , -1 .. . .--- 1 ..„.2:, t. '. • ...„ • i , -) - - \.!.-:.(4 -...._ -k,e,..----. 'N ' , - - -. - i : .- -. _. .. , . .,. , -,:\ . ..... . •1 1, / . . :I. • - .,\ .. . ...„,...) 1.-•' ..., -. ' T( 5' ‘‘ , . :,._:12. •' ' . --. r1:"° - ?.:--- .,.,.:: .' •-:p• ( ......„), .......:. ... . ,\. .V. <;,,. ..... .......1 ....e I.:--1 ) . 2.." 1. I ('‘.\-4 •• L. , •1-;,.. .. . ---1 - , _ ..,. :•:;1.•i .:::. ,i. . ..7. ,?i';',4 \r)_ , - . t . t:..... \ . -- ' ' s..\z.'• - lir—'1 — : A .. " . .... /k:..-141‘ •t/ ''( •-- . .. .... - l'zPC - '-';'. • ': f • Y4-9:-- I; -•- • ••••• i ( .• -- - 11 ' • ;1-.• .... 14 . 7. 4. . 1 ../ ,i i • t....,,„\„:„---- , . . ,. . n - 4r' / '• 1 7:- - "I '4.' \ it,N . ,i . ,. .:„..., / .. I ki'''. ..:'.. • t\,.- ':. c•-- \ c, I ) .• 10-YEAR 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION , . ''‘,). . • . . - t',`"." _ n9) . . .. ..-4t -v I ., .,, ,_.. ..... ,, : .:!' 0. 3.4°' ISOPLUVIALS OF 10-YEAR 24-HOUR ;". TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES 0 ‘,. 5. • . .... t- l'- ,,- ,4( _________.________..__..._.._ ••-o 1 2 3 '. .•-., ' . ,4 4 5 6 7 6 Mlles _. 5. 0, .5. • ,,, 4.0 3.5.I-I() `53 ip)() 1: 301).000 KING (' O lI N 'I' Y, WASHINGTON, SLIRIACI: W A 'I' I R DESIGN MANUAL • TABLE 3.5.211 SCS WESTERN WASHINGTON RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS SCS WESTERN WASHINGTON RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS (Published by SCS in 1982) Runoff curve numbers for selected agricultural, suburban and urban land use for Type 1A rainfall distribution, 24•hour storm duration. CURVE NUMBERS BY HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP • LAND USE DESCRIPTION AB CD Cultivated land(1): winter condition 86 91 94 95 Mountain open areas: low growing brush and grasslands 74 82 89 92 Meadow or pasture: 65 78 85 89 plc Wood or forest land: undisturbed or older second growth 42 64 76 81 Wood or forest land: young second growth or brush 55 72 81 86 Orchard: with cover crop 81 88 92 94 Open spaces, lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, landscaping. good condition: grass cover on 75% or more of the area 68 80 86 90 fair condition: grass cover on 50% to 75% of the area 77 85 90 92 Gravel roads and parking lots 76 85 89 91 Dirt roads and parking lots 72 82 87 89 Impervious surfaces, pavement, roofs, etc. 98 98 98 98 Open water bodies: lakes, wetlands, ponds, etc. 100 100 100 100 Single Family Residential (2) Dwelling Unit/Gross Acre % Impervious (3) 1.0 DU/GA 15 Separate curve number 1.5 DU/GA 20 shall he selected • 2.0 DU/GA 25 for pervious and 2.5 DU/GA • 30 impervious portion 3.0 DU/GA 34 of the site or basin 3.5 DU/GA 38 4.0 DU/GA 42 4.5 DU/GA 46 5.0 DU/GA 48 5.5 DU/GA 50 6.0 DU/GA 52 6.5 DU/GA 54 7.0 DU/GA - 56 Planned unit developments, % impervious condominiums, apartments, must be computed commercial business and industrial areas. (1) For a more detailed description of agricultural land use curve numbers refer to National Engineering Handbook, Section 4, Hydrology, Chapter 9, August 1972. (2) Assumes roof and driveway runoff is directed into street/storm system. (3) The remaining pervious areas (lawn) are considered to be in good condition for these curve numbers. (A>. 3.5.2 3 1 1/92 i . KING COUNTY, W A S II I N G T O N, .S U R I: A C I. W A T I, 12 I) I, S 1 G •N MANUAL (2) CN values can be area weighted when they apply to pervious areas of similar CN's (within 20 CN points). I lowever, high CN areas should not be combined with low CN areas (unless the low CN areas are less than 15% of the subbasin). In this case, 'separate hydrographs should be generated and summed to form one hydrograph. 1 FIGURE 3.5.2A IIYUROLOGlC SOIL GROUT'OF THE SOILS IN KING COUNTY HYDROLOGIC I IYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP GROUP• SOIL GROUP GROUP' Alderwood C Orcas Peat ' D Arents, Alderwood Material C Oridia D Arents, Everett Material B Ovall C Beausite C Pilchuck C Bellingham D Puget D Briscot D Puyallup B Buckley D Ragnar B Coastal Beaches Variable Renton D Earlmont Silt t_oarn D Riverwash Variable Edgewick C Salal C Everett A/B `Sarnmarnish D Indianola ' A Seattle D Kitsap C Shacar D Klaus C Si Silt C Mixed Alluvial Land Variable Snohomish D Neilton A Sultan C Newberg B Tukwila D Nooksack C Urban • Variable Normal Sandy Loam D Woodinville j D HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP CLASSIFICATIONS ' i A. (Low runoff potential). Soils having high Infiltration rates, even when thoroughly wetted, and consisting chiefly of deep, well-to-excessively drained sands or gravels. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. B. (Moderately low runoff potential). Soils having moderate Infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted, and consisting chiefly of moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. C. (Moderately high runoff potential). Soils having slow Infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted, and consisting chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water, or soils with moderately line to fine textures. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. D. (High runoff potential). Soils having very slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential, soils with a permanent highiwaler table, soils with a hardpan or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly Impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. • • From SCS, TR-55, Second Edition, June 1986, Exhibit A-1. Revisions made from SCS, Soil Interpretation Record, Form #5, September 1908. «) 3.5.2-2 1 1/92 • • • B1O-FILTRATION SWALE DESIGN The bio-filtration swale will be designed to handle 2-year, 24-hour flow and checked against the 100-year, 24-hour storm to establish free board height. The bottom width of the swale is designed to handle the 2-year, 24-hour pre-developed peak flow condition. The following calculation sheets indicate that the 100-year, 24-hour peak flow will produce 0.39 feet depth through a 4-foot grass lined bottom, with slope of 2.0 percent. Adding 0.5-foot freeboard, the minimum height of the swale walls will be at 0.89 feet. Trapezoidal Channel Analysis & Design Open Channel - Uniform flow Worksheet Name : Aberdeen Apartments Comment : Bio-Swale configuration Solve For Depth Given Input Data: Bottom Width 4 . 00 ft Left Side Slope 3 . 00 : 1 (H:V) Right Side Slope 3 . 00 : 1 (H:V) Manning' s n 0 . 350 Channel Slope 0 . 0200 ft/ft Discharge 0 . 55 cfs tO D Computed Results : Depth 0 . 39 ft e OA_ C>i 1-14 1 c% rrl Velocity 0 . 28 fps Flow Area 2 . 00 sf Flow Top Width 6 . 32 ft Wetted Perimeter 6 .45 ft Critical Depth 0 . 08 ft Critical Slope 4 .2228 ft/ft Froude Number 0 . 09 (flow is Subcritical) Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3 . 4 (c) 1991 Haestad Methods, Inc . * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 0 it , Trapezoidal Channel Analysis & Design Open Channel - Uniform flow Worksheet Name: Aberdeen Apartments Comment : Bio-Swale configuration Solve For Depth Given Input Data: Bottom Width 2 . 00 ft Left Side Slope 3 . 00 : 1 (H:V) Right Side Slope 3 . 00 : 1 (H:V) Manning' s n 0 . 350 Channel Slope 0 . 0200 ft/ft 1 Discharge 0 . 20 cfs - .1.. !I t J Computed Results : Depth 0 . 31 ft Velocity 0 . 22 fps Flow Area 0 . 89 sf Flow Top Width 3 . 84 ft Wetted Perimeter 3 . 94 ft Critical Depth 0 . 07 ft Critical Slope 4 . 6147 ft/ft Froude Number 0 . 08 (flow is Subcritical) • Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3 .4 (c) 1991 Haestad Methods, Inc . * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 0 • y T,?. r A Trapezoidal Channel Analysis & Design Open Channel - Uniform flow Worksheet Name : Aberdeen Apartments Comment : Bio-Swale configuration Solve For Depth Given Input Data:. Bottom Width 4 . 00 ft Left Side Slope 3 . 00 : 1 (H:V) Right Side Slope 3 . 00 : 1 (H:V) Manning' s n 0 .350 Channel Slope 0 . 0200 ft/ t Discharge 0 . 20 cfs 2 - yr) Computed Results : Depth 0 . 22 ft Velocity 0 . 20 fps Flow Area 1 . 01 sf Flow Top Width 5 .31 ft Wetted Perimeter 5 . 38 ft Critical Depth 0 . 04 ft Critical Slope 5 . 2047 ft/ft Froude Number 0 . 08 (flow is Subcritical) l v o L I c-'( 4to t I rf .L ��a.( _� . Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3 .4 (c) 1991 Haestad Methods, Inc . * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 • .... ..• : . -•. ti ',1:', SEC 8 TWN 23 N, 5 E., W.N . I ,, 1 i . ,. .:::: = GRAPHIC SCALE A A m m ILIII' lllm" (.0.00/ :1.2....3 2. • INSTRUMENT:NIKON TOTAL STATION DIM-ATOLG METHOD USED15F77,1%araTACTUAL FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANGLES WAC 332-130-070 DATE OF SURVEY: JANUARY,2000 CENTER LINE OF ABENRDolT9IXEN,r NE 0 BENCHMARK: CITY OF RENTON MON#71, TOP 2 1/2"BRASS DISK Z..,EL1'213.69 INV EL...207.64 SET IN CONCRETE MONLMENT I T.B'S AND S•E OF INTERSECTION OF 4 • ABERDEEN AVENUE NE AND NE 12TH SIRF-E7: i ELEVATION=284.6.3.(86.76M) i LOT 12 _1- e IMRE 6 ALDER * I ' ilir DEPT ACCESS • 6• APPLE ArklACEN1 Nan. / S S , 0 I s. , ,, ,, ., ,, , LLI ,1----1‘‘ I \ 36 I „.- .,.. ;k...3.„.).„...-s -- : , . .....C,. ; ReaLIP,F '1. { L \ 1 pil ....m...,....... ....:..;:_ ,..-,......, ..-...:„...,-,...-..-....)_._ , . . . :9'51'00'W i 6 07.6r‘ )... WALL ..../-,---.'-- -:-. -r"= ,. ... --.- •.. ,.. .. .=W-,.. .' I .; ILL) I i II : #4. 77.41 : 74';',. :::::::,::: ::::•:-:::..:::::':.::::-:',.::',I;.::::::::::•::::;::;i:414,'.'.• :::If:::::::-::':':5i:;n7:s.:,2:^...-:::::::::::::g::::,:-:-:.:::zE:::;;:.:.„, 11,,,..,:;:ff*:; ...4.2./..2.,z...: ;„ i il , • __, --_ -, f. _ - __ ._........... I 7 ,.fr A.; liv ..1,. .8 III iciaiz• - , r ' • - - • -:_..:k.• , , Nit ..,,, .11111111111Mai ..._,.., , ,;::::fr f.:•::.!.....a.." , . illi ..- 1 -' , 1 . .. . ',--r .. . \ . — jpriNgiEf- ,M11151, MEI PINIPROI "MI,__. 11, . , • S 440_ 0.ty) ---, li ... lc:, . rc Ill ,-- I•Mr me - ' LL1, I, -------v..,.5; •.tir 30. 1 —.-----.---°1• -;. .. ""..f . IfArc0.11'34V--,,...-------+A.'- .1-=`—°-1 : a 0 I 0 I 1 11 -, -• , , - i. • : !, , , e 'Fr itilf. . = ADIACINI U.= I rt: a LOT 1 0 I , 31- : • - --- ,: 1r ,,17711. •:E."-1'' I irili LEGAL DESCRIPTION r . ;rr.r.1;-.. :.711.!...4 ED TRACT 11 Cf HARRIES GARDEN HOLE TRAMS.AGGORDPIG TO THE FLAT'THEREOF, illi RECORD IN Vtl0.111E 34 OF PLATS PACE 38.IN KING MONTI%WASHINGTON: i FtErr2212.15 i „ .• INS ELA202.10 1 EXCEPT THE NORTH 37.5 FEET THEREOF. , •. -- .,..-•.-: I - .g ,- „ .. .. ., ........ • . .........................J 01/11/2001 14:05 2066440463 'K IA CO FACE 02 • Y .... . . ., • . .... ... e : ':.:"—' :,g-'.r.• , r,7. •:,,- ,,-...: % Lincoln Center Business Park ( 2-,' : ,V, ;',.-.V. fle),;,ammeves, . via 555 116th Ave.NE, Suite 150 ;:' , , :..., Bellevue, WA 96004 Phone 425,644-6400 KIA CO _ r4: ...„„„t., L., „.. ABERDEEN AVE. APARTMENTS SITE RETAINING WALLS - RENTON, WASHINGTON STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS JANUARY 10,2001 JOS NO: 1004102 .4:0),GHA1/45,tss, ... , fie • - 7 Z *.. ' • ' ;:117.40i t, A 21455 , .- /ra3/StElk5Q ,, Gc•c ''' ' • IONALST‘ ....• I EON RES i 1 '." 7".'1°.) I . . —.....—...... . ...........• . . ..—.... . ..... 01!11/1001 14:0b 10bb440463 Kik CU Fu(it nd L d t or ,,,A,,, `a ey �N'GO 4, 1 .07,eV i . l' ",.e"r v✓ X ► _-- Pis, ✓.� 4 4. --\\ $ G.Fj1S l.✓ 1'd fG6 I I Gd�G. �.9G I.-t.. 2rGL,r.1,G t k f' i - _, , , t\ .1 04-,i 00,, . z...:0"4,44..; »I ,),f''w)1 by #S a ) • P. , )-,,,o!-- ,4L I, 4 ! fa,L L-1-z;( # 1�q.ro Jv 2=94 A-oe. �xrn' M re ,✓oror; )) --f-v l G ..a.,GG zePz©.ter, yrI C, f v,�0, ,✓,,, /7.5,) 0 -'t;:.z Pwgacvsubtect ,, /�1 y }y G� /1 / /� .yam j, V '" . '�i!/ /�' " !' !�7 / / 8V d6 SnevtNo. �./ 4 x ( l� f N^/.!0 L i',,,f Data ob No. tg,„ x= Etk< kl 1--o4 )o_r oJo rl'11/ZPJnl 14;00 Znb044154b.5 KIP; l,U rHVc Q 4 7/.., • fo/,L l�o� f.,.�1 ) ✓.g 7.e6lf-,0 . 0.®� f'G ,,rZ/.O i,./G. G•11"6``, o• g'e' Gd''/G' 4G - ,e-,3'. Pi fr/.€ G r,,.e4 - 2 1 ‘,/,✓i,- w!T (,` J+.i 4 ;r )) pC, 3 ,,•,.,-/. sG J,P).✓G f,4tiL‘7o,,e of Y09f1,5' =A.--(-- Q Proloci!$Ublec By hoot No va d = 1�r / J Dote / Job Ne. f l�r .��� 1✓��+! )r J. - O/ )pa,-P In l71/lit CUM! 14.na L�7OO44t74bJ K1H LU rHl7G u� '-s-: Height from base, feet H = 5.5 Width of footing, feet B = 4.25 - Length of toe, feet T = . 25 \\1///111///\11 Thickness of wall, inches S = 8 Thickness of footing, in F = 12 Active equiv. fluid pr, pcf = 40 Surcharge above top, ft = 2 Unit weight of soil, pcf = 110 Ultimate sliding coeff = ,4 H Ultimate passive pr, pcf = 200 Depth of passive resist, ft = 1,5 Unit wght of concrete, pcf = 150 Vert load 0 t.o. wall, kips = 0 F * OVERTURNING, safety factor = 3.35 * SLIDING, safety factor = 1.54 111i//\1\///\11/// * RESULTANT, eccentricity a = .55 ft * FOOTING TOE PRESSURE, q = 1454 pa ` <--T->> * FOOTING HEEL PRESSURE, q = 178 psf <- 8 > Print, Continue, or Revise (P/C/R)? F-S-: DIST from FACTORED REQ'D AREA TOP of MOMENT REINF STEEL WALL (ft) (k-ft) (sq-in/ft) \\\///\11/f/\11 f'c = 2500 psi 0.45 0.01 0. 14 fy m 40 ksi; 0.90 0.06 0.14 USD Load factor = 1.7 1.35 0.15 0. 14 il 1.80 0.29 0.14 COVER FROM CENTER OF BARS; 2.25 0.47 0. 14 H Cover at back face = 2 in 2.70 0.72 0.14 Cover at top footg = 2 in 3.15 1.03 0.14 Cover at bot footg = 3 in 3.60 1.41 0.14 i 4.05 1.87 0.14 1 ' 4.50 2.41 0.14 - w , 1 1 1 F TOE at OUTSIDE FACE OF WALL .-.. ....i- Mu = 0.47 k-ft 1///\\\///1\\/// - •.1 1 <--T->; HEEL at FILL FACE of WALL < B > Mu = 3.33 k-f t ?rint or Revise (P/R)? . - Pr ioisubod By Shoot No. H` _. f/ l� `7 Y`-_i I f Date Job No. l/11/�bbl 14:bb Lbbb4410ubi K1H cu rri.ac uu 1-5-: Height from base, feet H = 3. 5 Width of footing, feet B = 2. 75 Length of toe, feet T = .25 \\\///\\\///1\1 Thickness of wall, inches S = 8 Thickness of footing, in F = 0 Active equiv fluid pr, pcf = 40 Surcharge above top, ft = 2 Unit weight of soil, pcf = 110 H Ultimate sliding coeff = .4 Ultimate passive pr, pcf = 200 Depth of passive resist, ft = 1.5 Unit wght of concrete, pcf = 150 Vert load @ t.o. wall, kips = 0 F * OVERTURNING, safety factor = 2.88 V `/ /\\\/j/\„/// * SLIDING, safety factor = 1.54 RESULTANT, eccentricity e = .37 ft * FOOTING TOE PRESSURE, q = 962 paf <--T->; * FOOTING HEEL PRESSURE, q = 98 psi < B > Print, Continue, or Revise (P/C/R)? :-5-; DIST from FACTORED REQ'D AREA 1 , TOP of MOMENT REINF STEEL J WALL (ft) (k-ft) (sq-in/ft) f'c = 2500 psi 0.35 0.01 0.14 fy = 40 ksi; 0.70 0.04 0.14 USD Load factor = 1.7 1 .05 0.09 0. 14 1 1 1.40 0.16 0.14 COVER FROM CENTER OF BARS: 1.75 0.27 0. 14 H Cover at back face = 2 in 2.10 0.40 0. 14 Cover at top footg = 2 in 2.45 0, 57 0.14 Cover at bot footg = 3 in 2.80 0. 78 0.14 ' 3.15 1.03 0.14 1 , I 3. 50 1. 32 0.14 F1 TOE at OUTSIDE FACE OF WALL \ .\///\\\\///\\\/// Mu = 0.05 k-ft 1 1 1 1 i<.6-T->; HEEL at FILL FACE of WALL i< B > Mu = 0.90 k-ft Pint or Revise (P/R)? • d,;.2,; •L Y;t• ( ProHCUSuGIecJ 8Y 1 / Sh.N NU. _/J -' r-6. s-' elfki date ) Nc. 01/11/2001 14:05 2066440463 K1A GU rt,u ur GA IZ ( X9 " 1 `, 4 c , Pam) . ,,.,;,-//� t O.T. ,-X � s..3.03 iz ).1. < 0-1 �) .)'— u,. 0 <_ , a'ujw:usuegacr NY �. ,ne,n r , '_ 0We Joo No. T`- ff,� 00.7; \,,,li,L.iJ ) - )! 4:0 )ao , )o :, —CITY OF RENTON � ;,_ t_ - �3.. F .I Hearing Examiner ¢ v , ;i 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 14.1 CO CC IX �pi " ' OR P BiiETEii ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 7213156 U.S. POSTAGE *, PRSRT FIRST -CLASS SEA WA ' 81 ' 11 f 17 i a1 P)C\ Gerald&Soung Hee Reiker Cambridge es NW 12228 NE • lace#A1 Kirkland,WA 98033 TO file's . ' TEi:'-6` AGE _Z tr C/-lr — ADDr , . 3 S E F. m .;�`'a m «; � � "t.• �� i� vdf i i! i ! I i' - i:`. f 'I Si It ! } i i'•i--l:; ii j, _ - 1 .J!` Ki.,,,•.. .91�i - -;i'. ; 'q F: . % ,A ? .-Cr +. IiiiiiEirtil}iifilifSiliis:e:i?!diihillffilii?lillti:Iiiiiiii . ................van.....Clio/ . . . ..„:, 'Ir....' . 0777) CITY OF RENTON ....‘2,-. ci-A"en Al CO te 6 A S. !4-1Nrtitavetlartar.--LZ.' i 211 Li-7. , Hearing Examiner I-- *4.3 go . 0 . , ..,r i vo 1 re , 4 — 0 d * 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 al 2 * got PB Milli * ' ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 7213196 u.s. POSTAGE : •- . — ,J -13,- Hal&Erin Pugmire .,_-_-.4-4z.1 ul,-,,, • 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt.D314 ' Renton,WA 98056 ...._ - --,,---,,--7,-, • .-. ;RN ----.. ,-."-_-_.y—•. rR.)VITIER ,-, '.' qc. •, i i • i „ _ ESSEF N /76 liflif l!ill i iinli11io1!1a 1 ii,.1•t'-1.11-iii Elin fill ..-4,.. ,., Ka ..... . , _...... . , „......., _ .. • r November 16,2001 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: Helen D.Burch Gay Kiesling File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE I i SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeal of Administrative Site Plan approval of 9-unit townhouse project. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's writtenrequest for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the October 9,2001 hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,October 9,2001 at 10:03 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal,the Exhibit No.2: Yellow Underlying Landuse File Examiner's letter setting the hearing date and other documentation pertinent to the appeal. Exhibit No.3: Architect Sketch of Site Exhibit No.4: Original Elevation Plan Exhibit No.5: Plan showing three buildings Exhibit No.6: Sketch of turning radii-Higgins Exhibit No. 7: Drawing of Facade Exhibit No.8: Original Plan Exhibit No. 9: Memo from Ms.Higgins regarding a Exhibit No. 10: Cross section of last building condominium project to the architect(April 26,2000). Exhibit No. 11: Sketch of original and revised grading-Higgins Parties present: Appellants: Helen D.Burch 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE Renton,WA 98056 A Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 2 Gay Kiesling Sunset Gardens Owners Association 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE#E318 Renton, WA 98056 Representing City of Renton: Russell Wilson, City Attorney Elizabeth Higgins,Development Services The Examiner explained that the purpose of the meeting was to hold a public hearing on the applications pursuant to Ordinance 3071. This hearing constitutes the hearing of the City Council and is the only public hearing which will be held on the matter unless the matter is continued.Reconsideration or an appeal to the City Council will only consider the evidence submitted in today's hearing, or if the hearing is continued evidence submitted at that time. He stated that the appellant had the burden of demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous,and would have to show clear and convincing evidence that the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so. Ms.Kiesling stated that Sunset Garden's first concern is the fact that there are only three visitor parking stalls. There is no on street parking adjacent to the buildings and they are concerned that vehicles would be parking half way on lawns or blocking the street. Currently,there are only 18 spaces provided by the garages and three visitor parking stalls. Ms.Kiesling read through the letter she sent to the Hearing Examiners Office requesting the appeal. On the administrative site plan review it states that the building will be situated on the eastern half of the site,which is more gently sloping then the western half. She stated that actually 24 percent of the property,most of which is in the eastern half, is shown by the site survey to have a slope of 16 to 39 percent. She felt that was a contradictory statement as it concerned the need for a retaining wall. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC)made a determination of non-significance in July 2000. She stated that staff is upholding the original ERC decision. She feels this is erroneous since the project is now extending into the environmentally sensitive area where it previously did not. They feel the determination of non-significance should not be upheld for the revised plan. She does not feel the required setbacks are met in the Aberdeen Avenue Apartment development and there is no sidewalk along the driveway. In regard to the character of the surrounding residences,there are no multi-family residences facing Aberdeen Avenue NE. The only multi-family residences that have access to Aberdeen Avenue NE are Renton Ridge and Sunset Garden. The entire length of Aberdeen Avenue NE has only two multi-family projects that face it. If 33 percent of the property is not fit to support buildings is the intent of policy LU-64 truly met? The policy reads, "development densities should generally be in the range of 10 to 20 dwelling units per acre." The proposed project has a density of 14.29 units per net acre. The June 2000 survey shows that.57 acres is buildable not.63 acres as stated in the revised plan and quoted by the City in their review. Considering only the buildable portion of.57 acres the density would allow only five to 11 residential units. Taking into account the narrow configuration of the property and the fact of the adjacent single family home, a more appropriate sized development would seem to be smaller such as six units in two buildings. Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16, 2001 Page 3 Aberdeen Apartments as revised is still not compatible in bulk,scale and height with the single-family home to the north. Buffers do not exist and setbacks do not meet regulations only City interpretation of those regulations. The building exceeds height regulations. The revised plan extends the paved driveway and the dumpster area into a portion of the property that is sloped approximately 48 percent. The project now stands at least 180 feet further to the west and some of the project does extend to protected slopes. This seems to place the west end of the third building on land that is greater then a 40 percent slope. The driveway,the dumpster, the drive aisle are shown to be built on ground with greater then a 40 percent slope. The driveway still does not have a five-foot setback from the north property line. Sunset Gardens has asked a question that has yet to be addressed by the City or the Examiner. That question was who is responsible for paying for any drainage problems experienced by Sunset Garden as a result of the development of the 62-foot strip of forest,the City or the Developer. From 1999 through March 2001 approximately$225,000 was spent by Sunset Garden Homeowners to correct drainage problems and the building damage caused by these problems. They are concerned that they have not seen a submitted drawing for the storm drainage system. In the minutes from the previous hearing it states that such a drawing was submitted. Aberdeen Avenue Apartments will not be required to have fence along the south border. They are concerned that they will need to move their fence to the property line. The residents of Sunset Gardens see the proposed site as a forest rather then an area overrun with vegetation. They have seen birds, squirrels and deer. Development of this property would lower their property values, possibly cause drainage problems and would not increase their property values. In conclusion, Sunset Garden is asking that this revised plan not be approved. The impact of the project would be greatly reduced if the plan had two buildings sited away from the 40 percent critical slope; if the buildings were less wide so that setbacks,driveway and sidewalk could all fit on the lot; if there were more parking stalls; and if there were a storm drainage plan and a retaining wall plan. Ms.Burch stated that she feels that the recommendations made by the Examiner at the previous hearing for this property have not been addressed to the fullest extent. She is skeptical as to what is going to be built on this property now that it is up for sale. It is being advertised as a nine to 12 unit townhome property. Ms.Burch stated that the first failure of the City Staff concerns the driveway issue. The standards state that the driveway shall not be closer then five feet to any property line. The explanation for the deviation and approval of the driveway being on the property line is an interpretation on the City's part. She does not feel that this is the way the Codes were written or meant to be interpreted. In regard to the driveway,there are no accommodations along the property line for landscaping. The only accommodation she can find in the changes the City says were made by the applicant is that they will now have a fence to be determined in size and scope by the City. It appears in the site plan that there is no pedestrian sidewalk separating itself from the driveway itself. The City in its approval states that they should revisit the driveway separation. In respect to overall height of the project,the City states that the project will now be 46 feet which is one foot higher then the previous project. With grading the project has only lost about three feet in height. This will not allow any kind of relief for her single family home to the north. Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 4 She had questions regarding the garage and grading as well as the plan that depicts the garage level with a utility room and bonus room. She believes that is considered living space and would like to know why it is being referred to as just a garage. The height of buildings will block the sunlight to her home and property and the noise level will definitely be increased with the driveway located right along the property line. The overall length of the project has been increased and changed considerably. The applicant has gone far beyond the original plan that was submitted. An above ground tightline system presents problems of its own. Given that it is going through a treed area on a critical slope,how is it to be maintained,how is it going to be secured on the hillside and at the end of the project how will the fill that will be required and the retaining wall being required be stabilized on a slope that is slipping away into a ravine. In regard to the lighting,to accommodate the lack of light to her property the applicant has proposed a 20 foot wide break between the buildings to provide a light corridor to her home. The light corridor goes beyond her home and only reflects three to four feet of light onto an existing greenhouse,which is attached to her home. The first building totally blocks any sunlight from her home. In conclusion,there is a portion of the City's Code called the review criteria for site plans. She feels that the narrow configuration of the critical slope limits the size of any project proposed on the site. The current plan will substantially blight and impair the enjoyment of her property now and in the future. She does feel that the applicant could have reduced the overall width of the proposed buildings to satisfy the setbacks. She is asking that the request for appeal be upheld and that the site plan review criteria be applied in this case to reduce and offset the impacts to the surrounding properties. She asked that the City reevaluate the design and scale of proposed structures to this site. Norm Mode, 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE#C310,Renton,WA 98056 stated that he lives in a position where he gets a very good view of the proposed site. From a practical standpoint it looks impossible to put that much structure on that small property. Sunset Garden has five storm drains located on the center of their driveway and when there is a real downpour there is a considerable amount of water that flows down through the center of their driveway. His concern is who is going to make sure that the drains are fully functional. If a drain becomes plugged the water overflow could wipe out the entire hillside or make the entire area unstable. Between the Sunset Garden buildings and the proposed site the ground is saturated as it is. It never dries out, even in the summer. Mr. Wilson called Ms.Higgins to go over some of the changes from the first proposed site plan for this site to the current proposed site plan. Ms.Higgins gave a brief overview of the revised plan that was submitted following the Examiner's decision. The applicant retained a different architect and staff felt it was a substantially changed plan. The decision that plan did not need to go back to the environmental review committee was based on several factors. There was an overall reduction in the number of units. The proposal is for nine townhomes and the previous plan was for 12 apartments. The code requires a review if there is an increase in the number of units. Some of the facts that the appellant gave may be incorrect because the scale on the site plan is incorrect. The previous plan extended into the property 300 feet and the revised plan extends into the property 359 feet. The additional extension into the property is due to having three separate buildings instead of one large one. The second major change has to do Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 5 with elevation. The proposed plan is at grade with the neighboring property to the north. One of the problems with the original plan is that it was going to sit up higher because it was going to be on several feet of fill. Ms. Higgins read from the Code concerning environmental regulations and critical slopes. It states that development is prohibited on protected slopes. This restriction is not intended to prevent the subdivision or development of property that includes 40 percent or greater slopes on a portion of the site provided that there is enough developable area elsewhere to accommodate building pads. The applicant is not proposing to do any building on the 40 percent slope area. In regard to the sidewalk,Ms.Higgins stated that she was not intending there to be a sidewalk the full length of the development just from the end where the driveway is on the east side near the street access. The City is not requiring a sidewalk the length of the development. There is no Code requirement that would require a sidewalk the length of the development: The Examiner brought up the concern regarding the setback of the driveway. Ms.Higgins responded by stating in the Property Development Standards,Chapter Four under driveway design, it states that driveways shall not be closer then five feet to any property line except in the case of joint use driveways. After the last hearing,they traced the ordinance back to understand how this was originally was written in the Code. The intent of this standard has to do with curb cuts and turning radii and avoiding easements onto others property. In response to questioning from Mr. Wilson,Ms. Higgins stated Code requires two parking spaces per unit. Each unit has a two-car garage so the three guest spaces are in excess of the required parking. This project is a decrease in environmental impact because the entire site is not being raised several feet. The current plan does not propose this. The change to three smaller building from one large building does break up the mass and allow light to come through. The stormwater plan is the same as it was approved earlier and the surface runoff and runoff from the roofs would be collected on site and tightlined in a pipe that is constructed across the property. The applicant is taking advantage of a 10-foot bonus height allowed for architectural articulation of the units. This is discretionary decision made by the department if there is an attempt to create a more interesting façade. The height of the peak from.gradeis 36 feet. The Code for this zone allows 2.5-living stories: The additional 10 feet would allow for additional living space beyond the 2.5 floors. The attic would not be allowed if they did not have the 10-foot bonus. Fifty percent of the lower level is considered to be below grade. Ms. Higgins,responding to questioning from the Examiner, stated that the density of the project is 14.29 units per acre. The minimum allowed is 10 units per acre and the maximum allowed is 20 units per acre. In response to questioning from Mr.Wilson,Ms.Higgins stated that the previous plan did not take advantage of the height bonus so it was taller. Because it was a foot taller then allowed it was required to have an additional foot setback on the southside. On the northside the building is setback 20 feet from the property boundary. This new revised plan takes advantage of the height bonus so the additional foot is not required for the southside setback. A fence is being required on the north property line to screen the vehicle traffic on the driveway to the north property boundary. Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 6 Kayren Kittrick,Development Services, 1055 S.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,in response to questioning on inspections of stormwater drain systems, stated that the City reviews the plans for construction and inspects storm drainage systems to make sure they are in compliance with the King County Design Manual. Her group does not inspect the footing drains. If it is a private system the City does not have access to it. The City has been known to go in a do something if there is imminent flooding but all costs are supposed to be billed back to the ownership. In response to questioning from Ms.Keisling,Ms.Kittrick stated that all utilities are inspected at the time they are built because they must comply with certain standards. The fact that it is not being attached to a City system just means the City has no maintenance of it. In regard to over ground installation,there is nothing that keeps a tree from falling on it but at the same time it is considered the least intrusive form of construction. Ms.Keisling stated that she is unsure of how all the piping is going to be put in. Her understanding is that there is to be no tree cutting and disturbing of any vegetation on a 40 percent slope. Ms.Kittrick stated that they would go around the trees. Ms.Keisling stated that the project now goes 150 feet further west then the previous proposal. She voiced concerns about building pads being on the critical slope. Ms.Higgins replied that the original plan extends into the property 310 feet. The new plan extends into the property 359 feet and 7 inches. The dumpster is at the very end of the developed area and extends further into the property. Responding to questioning from Ms.Keisling,Ms.Higgins stated that in regard to handicap parking, it is not a public project so only one ADA space is required for a project this size. Ms.Burch further inquired about driveway setbacks. Ms.Higgins went over the driveway setback standards. In response to questioning regarding the definition of a story based on the Uniform Building Code(UBC),Ms. Higgins stated that this is reviewed at the building permit stage. If they have a plan for a building that exceeds the UBC code limitations they will not be able to get a building permit for that building. They could have gone up another story and they have not,so they do have some leeway. The south side of all three buildings will be below the existing grade level. They are going to construct the building into the slope that comes down from the Sunset Gardens property. The lower level will be a maximum of six feet below grade at the rear. In response to questioning from Ms.Burch,Ms.Higgins stated that the developer will probably need to do some excavation on the site and that fill could be used. Even if it was flat,the height is still within the allowable limit. They cannot use the existing retaining wall because it is on Sunset Garden property. In closing,Ms.Burch stated that she feels the proposed development is too large for the width of the property and the slope. In closing,Ms.Keisling stated she would like the Examiner to look closely at staffs decision that the Environmental Review Committee determination from the original project would stand even though the change in the plan does effect the critical slope. The building and the setbacks and the driveway still do not fit on the 1 Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 7 lot. She would like the Examiner to give some consideration to the 60 people in the apartments across the way even though they do live in multifamily homes they should not be discounted they are still property tax payers. In closing,Mr. Wilson stated that the proposed project is not elevating the grade. The project meets code requirements for height. The developer will actually be doing some excavation. On the south property line the retaining wall will be the building itself The exhibit provided by Ms.Burch shows that the City is consistent. The interpretation that was outlined in the letter is the very same interpretation that they are allowing in this case. There is a five-foot landscaping buffer that is being waived back to the property line. The five-foot cutout is being maintained to allow for the proper driveline and site. This is how it is being done all over the City. The interpretation has not changed and staff has been consistent. In regard to critical slopes,the site has a flat portion that meets the requirements for building. A portion of this becomes critical slopes. It is important to look at the language to interpret the-Code. It says that if you can build a site plan that maintains on the level portion,then 15 feet into the critical slopes is not regulated. After much debate on where and how a slope is defined,Mr. Wilson stated that there is nothing that indicates that the drainage is not going to meet Code requirements. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 1:30 p.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellants,Helen D.Burch and The Sunset Gardens Home Owners Association,represented by Gay Kiesling,filed appeals of a Site Plan approval for a proposed apartment complex that would be located on property located between the appellants'respective properties. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. 2. These appellants had filed appeals of earlier SEPA Determinations of Non-Significance-Mitigated as well as for an earlier plan for a one-building,two-story twelve(12)unit apartment building. The SEPA appeal was denied but the appeal of the Administrative Site plan was granted and the site plan matter was remanded back to the administrative staff. 3. The remand included the following language: a. The grades of the subject site shall not be altered in such as fashion as to allow the proposed apartment complex to sit up higher on the site. The applicant may grade the site downward to "hide" or accommodate an additional story but shall not be permitted to raise the site in any fashion that allows a de facto three-story building to be judged two stories under the definitions in the Zoning Code or Building Code. b. More details on the nature of the retaining walls both along the north and south property lines and the location of any driveway are needed in order for these neighbors to understand the ultimate impacts. The impacts may not be profound in a SEPA sense but still will be critical to those immediately affected. That information should be developed prior to approval of the site plan Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 8 c. The definition of driveway separation from abutting property shall be revisited and accommodation made to reduce the impacts in this case. 4. The applicant revised the original plans when it was resubmitted in light of the remand determination. The applicant reduced the proposed number of units from 12 to nine(9)and divided the building into three(3) smaller buildings. Staff noted that the proposal was substantially different with more articulations as well as the separate buildings thereby lessening the overall mass of the subject.proposal. 5. The City reissued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the.project. The Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M)was conditioned by the City. 6. The ERC imposed five conditions. One limited the months for construction to April through October(the dry months). The second condition required following the recommendations of the geotechnical report. The final three conditions imposed transportation,fire and parks mitigation fees. The conditions remained unchanged from the original proposal. 7. The subject site is a vacant lot located at 917 Aberdeen Avenue Northeast. The subject site is zoned RM-I (Residential,Multiple Family-Infill). 8. The subject site is a long,narrow rectangular parcel approximately 62.5 feet wide(north to south- Aberdeen frontage)by approximately 600 feet deep. 9. The subject site is approximately 37,585 square feet in area. 10. The subject site slopes downward from Aberdeen at first moderately and then very steeply. The eastern, approximately one-half to two-thirds of the subject site slopes between 5 percent and 10 percent. The western half has slopes in excess of 40 percent and those steep slopes are regulated. 11. The appellant homeowner's association represents residents of a multiple-building condominium complex located immediately south of the subject site at 949 Aberdeen NE. Ms.Burch,the individual appellant, owns the parcel immediately north of the subject site and resides in a single family home located on that adjacent northerly site. She or her family has lived in that home since approximately 1950. 12. The homeowner's association appeal questions the adequacy of on-site parking(3 stalls),that the project extends into an environmentally sensitive area(the beginning of the steep westerly slope- see below),the character of the area is mischaracterized as multiple family whereas it is mainly still single family,the density is based on an incorrect assessment of the site's constrained areas and therefore buildable density should be considered .57 acres for a buildout of approximately 6 units,the complex is not compatible in scale with the adjacent single family home,the project extends further into the steeper areas,the report contains contradictions regarding the need for retaining walls or structures,where will filling occur,the project only has a seven foot sideyard whereas it was suggested previously that an eight foot sideyard for a two-story building was required, and the driveway does not maintain a five foot setback from the north property line interior to the street. They also noted that the applicant could take advantage of a 10 foot height bonus with certain amenities,that detailed plans were not submitted and storm water was not accounted for,the location and maintenance of a fence between the subject site and the existing complex, and the extension of the complex to the west and its visual impact on the existing complex. 13. The individual appellant living in the single home north of the subject site raised a number of objections, Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16, 2001 Page 9 which in part are: a. The driveway swerves closer than five(5)feet toward the north property line and creates noise and air quality impacts b. The new plan encroaches into 40 percent sloped areas and no variance was applied for or approved for such encroachment. c. The structure is over-scaled compared to the single family home and blocks solar access during a large portion of the year,reduces privacy, increases noise and unhealthy carbon monoxide. 14. Section 4-4-080(I)contains the following provision: Driveways shall not be closer than five feet(5')to any property line(except as allowed under subsection 17 of this Section,Joint Use Driveways). 15. The subject site is located northeast of downtown Renton. I-405 and a Puget Powerline corridor are located west of the subject site and steeply downhill from the site. 16. The subject site was an old orchard and is overgrown with trees, shrubs and brush as it has not been maintained for many years. The applicant did deposit fill material at the eastern end of the subject site near Aberdeen Avenue NE. 17. The new proposal would not raise the grade of the site. There would be at-grade parking under two stories of living space. The buildings would top out at 36 feet. The design features including articulation, modulations and peaked roofs permitted staff to allow the building to be one foot above permitted height. The buildings would step down the hillside. 18. The buildings would be wood-framed structures. 19. The proposed buildings would have a footprint that covers approximately 18.8 percent of the lot area, whereas 35 percent coverage is permitted. 20. Staff concluded that the 62.5-foot lot would normally require seven(7)foot sideyard setbacks,which will be provided. • 21. Staff required that a proposed fence along the north property line be included as a condition of approval. 22. There will be two buildings,which are 82 feet long; a third building would be 87 feet long. There would be 25 foot and 40 foot separations between the buildings. 23. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject site as Residential Multi-Family-Infill. The designation is intended to encourage infill existing multi-family districts with compatible projects. 24. The Comprehensive Plan calls for new multifamily uses to be compatible with existing similar complexes but also compatible and possibly scaled downward to be compatible with the existing development patterns. (Policy LU-65;Policy LU-66;Policy LU-67) 25. It appears that development is proposed for an area of the site that has slopes in excess of 40 percent. Staff Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 10 appears to have decided that if the proposal would develop only a limited area(less than 15 feet)but with a 40 percent slope,that development would not be subject to the Critical Areas regulations. In other words even if the slope meets the critical areas ordinance but the segment proposed for development would have less than 15 feet of the vertical rise on the subject site, it would be exempt. 26. The RM-I Zone permits a density between a minimum of 10 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 20 units per acre. The property is 37,451 square feet in size. Approximately 10,097.83 square feet of that are protected slopes. The net acreage is 0.63 acre. The proposed project has a density of 19.11 dwelling units per net acre for 12 units. 27. The area contains a mix of uses that has been trending, although slowly,toward multifamily from it single family roots. Along with the Burch single family home,there are two other single-family homes north of the subject site. A 168 unit complex is located north of those homes and additional multiple family,the complex represented by the one of the appellants is south of the subject site. Single-family uses are located east of the site across Aberdeen Avenue. 28. Staff noted that the current proposal broke the former single building into three separate buildings,which diminishes the impact of bulk on the adjacent single-family use. They also noted that there would be open space between the units,which will allow more light and air to reach the northern property and also diminish the visual bulk. 29. Staff recommended that a fence be constructed at full permitted height to screen the single-family home. 30. Code requires landscaping in setback areas but the applicant proposes a driveway along the north property line. The appellant noted that according to Code, driveways need to be five(5)feet from the property line. Staff noted that they interpret this to be limited to the immediate frontage and not for the interior portions of the driveway. 31. Staff has recommended that a sidewalk separated from the driving surface be created. 32. Staff approved the proposal subject to the following conditions: a. A site lighting plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Department and approved prior to building permit approval. b. A solid wood fence,design and materials to be approved by the Development Services Division, at the maximum height allowed, shall be installed along the north property line. Such installation shall be completed prior to occupancy of the building. c. A site plan revision shall be submitted prior to building permit,that demonstrates that a walkway will be provided that connects to the public sidewalk and that is physically separated from the project driveway by either a curb or raised curb and sidewalk. Such revision to the site plan shall be made by the applicant and approved by the Development Services Department prior to building permit issuance. d. A Native Growth Protection Area(NGPA)easement shall be established for the area of the property having slopes at 40 percent or greater(approximately the western half of the property). The NGPA easement shall be recorded prior to obtaining an occupancy permit. Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16, 2001 Page 11 33. Staff also included the original remand conditions above in finding 3. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the administrative decision was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions,or was arbitrary and capricious- CODE SECTION CHANGE(Section 4-3011(B)(1)(b). The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the action should be modified or reversed. The decision is affirmed. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision,when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious(Northern Pacific Transport Co.v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn.2d 472,478(1966). 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn.2d 255,259(1969). 4. The appellants have in part demonstrated that part of the decision below must fail but in the main,the decision below must be affirmed. The part of the decision allowing development on the steep slopes must be reversed. The fact that this applicant would only be developing, say,the first 15 vertical feet of a slope that would.otherwise be protected does not undo the protections encompassed in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. That ordinance protects any slope of 40 percent or greater where those slopes extend for more than 15 feet of vertical rise. This 40 percent slope continues beyond the 15 or so feet that the applicant proposes developing. The entire slope including the 15 feet the applicant proposes developing is protected. A variance may be appropriate but that has to be separately determined. The part of the decision,which would allow development in the protected area,must be reversed. 5. If this means that the development has to be moved east or contracted in scope or reduced by one residential unit then the site plan may be so altered. 6. Any time development occurs next door to existing developed property there will be impacts. The impacts can be merely irritating or they can be profound and dramatic. In this case both the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan telegraphed for years that multiple family uses are not only permitted but also encouraged in this area. These proposed changes were not unanticipated. The Planning Commission, followed by the City Council adopted a series of polices and goals for the area in which the subject site is located. Those policies call for multiple family development of the subject site. That does not mean,as the first appeal decision found,that any development is permitted. If the impacts are too profound they must be moderated in order to help the transition. This area has already been changed. The west side of Aberdeen Avenue NE, including other areas with sloping terrain,has been developed. The development of the subject site will not bring unanticipated change to the area. One of the appellants represents an apartment complex consisting of multiple buildings located immediately south of the subject site. A single-family home is developed fairly close to the north property line. If the applicant were to develop a single family home, it could be placed anywhere on the subject site and create almost as much impact on its northerly neighbor with shading. Its sideyard could potentially be smaller than required by the apartment complex. As indicated in the first decision a single family home could clear as much vegetation and loom just as large as the proposed apartment building. Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16, 2001 Page 12 7. The appellants are correct. This project will have impacts. They will definitely change the character of the site and of the properties on each side of the proposal. As was noted at the hearing,the subject site is private property. The subject site is zoned RM-I. The subject is designated for multiple family uses in the Comprehensive Plan. In other words,the subject site is entitled to be developed at a greater density than the neighboring single family use as long as it makes reasonable accommodation to its surroundings. As discussed above,the development cannot be allowed to encroach on the steep western slopes that are protected even if this proposal would intrude just a little. A variance would be needed and until one is approved,those slopes are sacrosanct. That though is not the heart of this matter. The redesigned plan for three(3)detached buildings with open space between them is a reasonable, if not perfect compromise. It meets the density requirements of the zone and Comprehensive Plan yet is scaled better than the original proposal's one long building. The applicant will not be raising the site by the importation of fill materials. The applicant will be utilizing the native slope and site elevation. 8. The separate buildings will provide more visual definition to the development. The buildings meet the height limits of the zone and will be set at an elevation nearly equal to the single family home. The site will not be built up artificially. This office cannot find appropriate support for overturning the major part of the decision since it is neither clearly erroneous nor arbitrary and capricious. 9. It appears that staff has given its usual interpretation of where a driveway may be located when code requires it be five(5)feet from the property line. Code though is not clear how far back into a site the driveway has to maintain that five feet. In any event,the distance requirement when coupled with Site Plan criteria and Comprehensive Plan policies and goals should provide staff with the ability to provide additional separation. In this case staff recommended that a sidewalk be provided that is separate from the driveway. That sidewalk should be located along the north side of the driveway,which would move some of the noise of the apartment's vehicles further away from the single family home. If it were provided along the north edge, it would provide some additional separation between the home to the north and the driveway and its traffic. 10. The concerns about parking and drainage should be satisfied by Code requirements. The proposal will be providing its complement of parking. All development will have to meet storm drainage requirements. 11. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. In the main,the site plan is.appropriate but again not perfect. There probably cannot be a perfect use of the subject site that meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan,the requirement of the Zoning Code and the objectives and objections of its neighbors. The slope constraints of code shall be met and the staff conditions of a pathway or sidewalk can be altered to provide some additional separation. 12. The appealing party has a burden of demonstrating clear error. The error in slope criteria was clearly demonstrated. The site plan conditions can be altered to provide additional separation for the driveway by locating the path on the north side. The rest of the decision must be affirmed. DECISION: The appeal is granted in part and denied in part. 1. There shall be no development of any slope that meets the Critical Areas definition. Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16, 2001 Page 13 2. The applicant shall provide a pathway or sidewalk between the driveway and the fence located along the north property line. 3. The other staff conditions shall continue to apply. ORDERED THIS 16`h day of November,2001. FRED J.KAUF� . HEARING E INER TRANSMITTED THIS 16th day of November,2001 to the parties of record: Elizabeth Higgins Helen Burch Norm Mode 1055 S. Grady Way 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE 949 Aberdeen Avenue C310 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Russell Wilson Gay Keisling 1055 S. Grady Way 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE E318 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98056 Kayren Kittrick 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 This report was mailed to other Parties of Record. A complete list of the Parties of Record is available in the Hearing Examiner's office. TRANSMITTED THIS 16`h day of November,2001 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Neil Watts,Development Services Director Larry Rude, Fire Marshal Lawrence J.Warren,City Attorney Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson,Econ. Dev.Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Director South County Journal Larry Meckling,Building Official Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,November 30,2001. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact,error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 14 An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department,first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. .„.:,... ....,,,r_i_eiv ,......, 4v---77-1 CITY OF RENTON...„‘;_...)— . ., Hearing Examiner J— ov i 60 1 CC --I •c3 IfrAV 4 • * ' :Ma '.-.. 0 5 52 7 u) I- gtartza OW MO * 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington .98055 ti.! co * PB fl ET ER * 7213196 u.s. POSTAGE :. _ . ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED , . • - . _ ,...,' Albert&Sandra Jarvela ,ins,,:_i4 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE,Apt E117 ' ' - --,''..lci .,- -• - .? k)-- RentoniWA 98056 ,,-,-,.• -- -_, — - RFTU RN -----=-----. --- ----- ,...‘4., TO WRITER(..-:,.:_ 1 i A. c.. IADDRESSEF i'v ; 1 li II 11 II III ' II III tin. Pflea71 17:t•2::::f,":1 iiiiiiluiilltsi 1 i.flu i i: piliiit •',',I= I -I -I . - 65 II IL November 16,2001 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: Helen D.Burch Gay Kiesling File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD LOCATION: 917 Aberdeen Avenue NE SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeal of Administrative Site Plan approval of 9-unit townhouse project. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the October 9,2001 hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, October 9,2001 at 10:03 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. V The following exhibits were entered into the record: V Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal,the Exhibit No.2: Yellow Underlying Landuse File Examiner's letter setting the hearing date and other documentation pertinent to the appeal. Exhibit No.3: Architect Sketch of Site Exhibit No:4: Original Elevation Plan Exhibit No. 5: Plan showing three buildings Exhibit No.6: . Sketch of turning radii-Higgins Exhibit No. 7: Drawing of Facade Exhibit No.8: Original Plan . Exhibit No.9: Memo from Ms.Higgins regarding a Exhibit No. 10: Cross section of last building condominium project to the architect(April 26,2000). Exhibit No. 11: Sketch of original and revised grading-Higgins Parties present: Appellants: Helen D.Burch 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE ' Renton, WA 98056 Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 2 Gay Kiesling Sunset Gardens Owners Association 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE#E318 Renton,WA 98056 Representing City of Renton: Russell Wilson, City Attorney Elizabeth Higgins,Development Services The Examiner explained that the purpose of the meeting was to hold a public hearing on the applications pursuant to Ordinance 3071. This hearing constitutes the hearing of the City Council and is the only public • hearing which will be held on the matter unless the matter is continued.Reconsideration or an appeal to the City Council will only consider the evidence submitted in today's hearing, or if the hearing is continued evidence submitted at that time. He stated that the appellant had the burden of demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous,and would have to show clear and convincing evidence that the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so. Ms.Kiesling stated that Sunset Garden's first concern is the fact that there are only three visitor parking stalls. There is no on street parking adjacent to the buildings and they are concerned that vehicles would be parking half way on lawns or blocking the street. Currently,there are only 18 spaces provided by the garages and three visitor parking stalls. Ms.Kiesling read through the letter she sent to the Hearing Examiners Office requesting the appeal. On the administrative site plan review it states that the building will be situated on the eastern half of the site,which is more gently sloping then the western half. She stated that actually 24 percent of the property,most of which is in the eastern half, is shown by the site survey to have a slope of 16 to 39 percent..She felt that was a contradictory statement as it concerned the need for a retaining wall. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC)made a determination of non-significance in July 2000. She stated that staff is upholding the original ERC decision. She feels this is erroneous since the project is now extending into the environmentally sensitive area where it previously did not. They feel the determination of non-significance should not be upheld for the revised plan. She does not feel the required setbacks are met in the Aberdeen Avenue Apartment development and there is no sidewalk along the driveway. . In regard to the character of the surrounding residences,there are no multi-family residences facing Aberdeen Avenue NE. The only multi-family residences that have access to Aberdeen Avenue NE are Renton Ridge and Sunset Garden. The entire length of Aberdeen Avenue NE has only two multi-family projects that face it. If 33 percent of the property is not fit to support buildings is the intent of policy LU-64 truly met? The policy reads,"development densities should generally be in the range of 10 to 20 dwelling units per acre." The proposed project has a density of 14.29 units per net acre. The June 2000 survey shows that.57 acres is buildable not .63 acres as stated in the revised plan and quoted by the City in their review. Considering only the buildable portion of.57 acres the density would allow only five to 11 residential units. Taking into account the narrow configuration of the property and the fact of the adjacent single family home, a more appropriate sized development would seem to be smaller such as six units in two buildings. ✓ Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 3 Aberdeen Apartments as revised is still not compatible in bulk,scale and height with the single-family home to the north. Buffers do not exist and setbacks do not meet regulations only City interpretation of those regulations. The building exceeds height regulations. The revised plan extends the paved driveway and the dumpster area into a portion of the property that is sloped approximately 48 percent. The project now stands at least 180 feet further to the west and some of the project does extend to protected slopes. This seems to place the west end of the third building on land that is greater then a 40 percent slope. The driveway,the dumpster, the drive aisle are shown to be built on ground with greater then a 40 percent slope. The driveway still does not have a five-foot setback from the north property line. Sunset Gardens has asked a question that has yet to be addressed by the City or the Examiner. That question was who is responsible for paying for any drainage problems experienced by Sunset Garden as a result of the• development of the 62-foot strip of forest,the City or the Developer. From 1999 through March 2001 approximately$225,000 was spent by Sunset Garden Homeowners to correct drainage problems and the building damage caused by these problems. They are concerned that they have not seen a submitted;drawing for the storm drainage system. In the minutes from the previous hearing it states that such a drawing was submitted. Aberdeen Avenue Apartments will not be required to have fence along the south border. They are concerned that they will need to move their fence to the property line. The residents of Sunset Gardens see the proposed site as a forest rather then an area overrun with vegetation. They have seen birds, squirrels and deer. Development of this property would lower their property values, possibly cause drainage problems and would not increase their property values. In conclusion, Sunset Garden is asking that this revised plan not be approved. The impact of the project would be greatly reduced if the plan had two buildings sited away from the 40 percent critical slope; if the buildings were less wide so that setbacks,driveway and sidewalk could all fit on the lot; if there were more parking stalls; and if there were a storm drainage plan and a retaining wall plan. Ms.Burch stated that she feels that the recommendations made by the Examiner at the previous hearing for this property have not been addressed to the fullest extent. She is skeptical as to what is going to be built on this property now that it is up for sale. It is being advertised as a nine to 12 unit townhome property. Ms.Burch stated that the first failure of the City Staff concerns the driveway issue. The standards state that the driveway shall not be closer then five feet to any property line. The explanation for the deviation and approval of the driveway being on the property line is an interpretation on the City's part. She does not feel that this is the way the Codes were written or meant to be interpreted. In regard to the driveway,there are no accommodations along the propertyline for landscaping. The only accommodation she can find in the changes the City says were made by the applicant is that they will now have a fence to be determined in size and scope by the City. It appears in the site plan that there is no pedestrian sidewalk separating itself from the driveway itself. The City in its approval states that they should revisit the driveway separation. In respect to overall height of the project,the City states that the project will now be 46 feet which is one foot higher then the previous project. With grading the project has only lost about three feet in height. This will not allow any kind of relief for her single family home to the north. Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16, 2001 Page 4 She had questions regarding the garage and grading as well as the plan that depicts the garage level with a utility room and bonus room. She believes that is considered living space and would like to know why it is being referred to as just a garage. The height of buildings will block the sunlight to her home and property and the noise level will definitely be increased with the driveway located right along the property line. The overall length of the project has been increased and changed considerably. The applicant has gone far beyond the original plan that was submitted. An above ground tightline system presents problems of its own. Given that it is going through a treed area on a critical slope,how is it to be maintained,how is it going to be secured on the hillside and at the end of the project how will the fill that will be required and the retaining wall being required be stabilized on a slope that is slipping away into a ravine. In regard to the lighting,to accommodate the lack of light to her property the applicant has proposed a 20 foot wide break between the buildings to provide a light corridor to her home. The light corridor goes beyond her home and only reflects three to four feet of light onto an existing greenhouse,which is attached to her home. The first building totally blocks any sunlight from her home. In conclusion,there is a portion of the City's Code called the review criteria for site plans. She feels that the narrow configuration of the critical slope limits the size of any project proposed on the site. The current plan will substantially blight and impair the enjoyment of her property now and in the future. She does feel that the applicant could have reduced the overall width of the proposed buildings to satisfy the setbacks. She is asking that the request for appeal be upheld and that the site plan review criteria be applied in this case to reduce and offset the impacts to the surrounding properties. She asked that the City reevaluate the design and scale of proposed structures to this site. Norm Mode, 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE#C310,Renton,WA 98056 stated that he lives in a position where he gets a very good view of the proposed site. From a practical standpoint it looks impossible to put that much structure on that small property. Sunset Garden has five storm drains located on the center of their driveway and when there is a real downpour there is a considerable amount of water that flows down through the center of their driveway. His concern is who is going to make sure that the drains are fully functional. If a drain becomes plugged the water overflow could wipe out the entire hillside or make the entire area unstable. Between the Sunset Garden buildings and the proposed site the ground is saturated as it is. It never dries out, even in the summer. Mr.Wilson called Ms.Higgins to go over some of the changes from the first proposed site plan for this site to the current proposed site plan. Ms.Higgins gave a brief overview of the revised plan that was submitted following the Examiner's decision. The applicant retained a different architect and staff felt it was a substantially changed plan. The decision that plan did not need to go back to the environmental review committee was based on several factors. There was an overall reduction in the number of units. The proposal is for nine townhomes and the previous plan was for 12 apartments. The code requires a review if there is an increase in the number of units. Some of the facts that the appellant gave may be incorrect because the scale on the site plan is incorrect. The previous plan extended into the property 300 feet and the revised plan extends into the property 359 feet. The additional extension into the property is due to having three separate buildings instead of one large one. The second major change has to do Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 5 with elevation. The proposed plan is at grade with the neighboring property to the north. One of the problems with the original plan is that it was going to sit up higher because it was going to be on several feet of fill. Ms. Higgins read from the Code concerning environmental regulations and critical slopes. It states that development is prohibited on protected slopes. This restriction is not intended to prevent the subdivision or development of property that includes 40 percent or greater slopes on a portion of the site provided that there is enough developable area elsewhere to accommodate building pads. The applicant is not proposing to do any building on the 40 percent slope area. In regard to the sidewalk,Ms.Higgins stated that she was not intending there to be a sidewalk the full length of the development just from the end where the driveway is on the east side near the street access. The City is not requiring a sidewalk the length of the development. There is no Code requirement that would require a sidewalk thelength of the development: The Examiner brought up the concern regarding the setback of the driveway. Ms.Higgins responded by stating in the Property Development Standards,Chapter Four under driveway design, it states that driveways shall not be closer then five feet to any property line except in the case of joint use driveways. After the last hearing,they traced the ordinance back to understand how this was originally was written in the Code. The intent of this standard has to do with curb cuts and turning radii and avoiding easements onto others property. In response to questioning from Mr. Wilson,Ms. Higgins stated Code requires two parking spaces per unit. Each unit has a two-car garage so the three guest spaces are in excess of the required parking. This project is a decrease in environmental impact because the entire site is not being raised several feet. The current plan does not propose this. The change to three smaller building from one large building does break up the mass and allow light to come through. The stormwater plan is the same as it was approved earlier and the surface runoff and runoff from the roofs would be collected on site and tightlined in a pipe that is constructed across the property. The applicant is taking advantage of a 10-foot bonus height allowed for architectural articulation of the units. This is discretionary decision made by the department if there is an attempt to create a more interesting façade. The height of the peak from grade is 36 feet. The Code for this zone allows 2.5 living stories. The additional 10 feet would allow for additional living space beyond the 2.5 floors. The attic would not be allowed if they did not have the 10-foot bonus. Fifty percent of the lower level is considered to be below grade. Ms.Higgins,responding to questioning from the Examiner, stated that the density of the project is 14.29 units per acre. The minimum allowed is 10 units per acre and the maximum allowed is 20 units per acre. In response to questioning from Mr.Wilson,Ms.Higgins stated that the previous plan did not take advantage of the height bonus so it was taller. Because it was a foot taller then allowed it was required to have an additional foot setback on the southside. On the northside the building is setback 20 feet from the property boundary. This new revised plan takes advantage of the height bonus so the additional foot is not required for the southside setback. A fence is being required on the north property line to screen the vehicle traffic on the driveway to the north property boundary. Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16, 2001 Page 6 Kayren Kittrick,Development Services, 1055 S. Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055, in response to questioning on inspections of stormwater drain systems,stated that the City reviews the plans for construction and inspects storm drainage systems to make sure they are in compliance with the King County Design Manual. Her group does not inspect the footing drains. If it is a private system the City does not have access to it. The City has been known to go in a do something if there is imminent flooding but all costs are supposed to be billed back to the ownership. In response to questioning from Ms.Keisling,Ms.Kittrick stated that all utilities are inspected at the time they are built because they must comply with certain standards. The fact that it is not being attached to a City system just means the City has no maintenance of it. In regard to over ground installation,there is nothing that keeps a tree from falling on it but at the same time it is considered the least intrusive form of construction. Ms.Keisling stated that she is unsure of how all the piping is going to be put in: Her understanding is that there is to be no tree cutting and disturbing of any vegetation on a 40 percent slope. Ms.Kittrick stated that they would go around the trees. Ms.Keisling stated that the project now goes 150 feet further west then the previous proposal. She voiced concerns about building pads being on the critical slope. Ms.Higgins replied that the original plan extends into the property 310 feet. The new plan extends into the property 359 feet and 7 inches. The dumpster is at the very end of the developed area and extends further into the property. Responding to questioning from Ms.Keisling,Ms. Higgins stated that in regard to handicap parking, it is not a public project so only one ADA space is required for a project this size. Ms.Burch further inquired about driveway setbacks. Ms.Higgins went over the driveway setback standards. In response to questioning regarding the definition of a story based on the Uniform Building Code(UBC),Ms. Higgins stated that this is reviewed at the building permit stage. If they have a plan for a building that exceeds the UBC code limitations they will not be able to get a building permit for that building. They could have gone up another story and they have not, so they do have some leeway. The south side of all three buildings will be below the existing grade level. They are going to construct the building into the slope that comes down from the Sunset Gardens property. The lower level will be a maximum of six feet below grade at the rear. In response to questioning from Ms.Burch,Ms.Higgins stated that the developer will probably need to do some excavation on the site and that fill could be used. Even if it was flat,the height is still within the allowable limit. They cannot use the existing retaining wall because it is on Sunset Garden property. In closing,Ms.Burch stated that she feels the proposed development is too large for the width of the property and the slope. In closing,Ms. Keisling stated she would like the Examiner to look closely at staffs decision that the Environmental Review Committee determination from the original project would stand even though the change in the plan does effect the critical slope. The building and the setbacks and the driveway still do not fit on the Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16, 2001 Page 7 lot. She would like the Examiner to give some consideration to the 60 people in the apartments across the way even though they do live in multifamily homes they should not be discounted they are still property tax payers. In closing,Mr. Wilson stated that the proposed project is not elevating the grade. The project meets code requirements for height. The developer will actually be doing some excavation. On the south property line the retaining wall will be the building itself. The exhibit provided by Ms.Burch shows that the City is consistent. The interpretation that was outlined in the letter is the very same interpretation that they are allowing in this case. There is a five-foot landscaping buffer that is being waived back to the property line. The five-foot cutout is being maintained to allow for the proper driveline and site. This is how it is being done all over the City. The interpretation has not changed and staff has been consistent. In regard to critical slopes,the site has a flat portion that meets the requirements for building. A portion of this becomes critical slopes., It is important to Took-at the language.to interpret the Code. It says that if you can build a site plan that maintains on the level portion,then 15 feet into the critical slopes is not regulated. After much debate on where and how a slope is defined,Mr. Wilson stated that there is nothing that.indicates that the drainage is not going to meet Code requirements. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 1:30 p.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellants,Helen D.Burch and The Sunset Gardens Home Owners Association,represented by Gay Kiesling,filed appeals of a Site Plan approval for a proposed apartment complex that would be located on property located between the appellants' respective properties. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. 'f 2. These appellants had filed appeals of earlier SEPA Determinations of Non-Significance-Mitigated as well as for an earlier plan for a one-building,two-story twelve(12)unit apartment building. The SEPA appeal was denied but the appeal of the Administrative Site plan was granted and the site plan matter was remanded back to the administrative staff. 3. The remand included the following language: a. The grades of the subject site shall not be altered in such as fashion as to allow the proposed apartment complex to sit up higher on the site. The applicant may grade the site. downward to "hide" or accommodate an additional story but shall not be permitted to raise the site in any fashion that allows a de facto three-story building to be judged two stories under the definitions in the Zoning Code or Building Code. b. More details on the nature of the retaining walls both along the north and south property lines and the location of any driveway are needed in order for these neighbors to understand the ultimate impacts. The impacts may not be profound,in a SEPA sense but still will be critical to those immediately affected. That information should be developed prior to approval of the site plan Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 8 c. The definition of driveway separation from abutting property shall be revisited and accommodation made to reduce the impacts in this case. 4. The applicant revised the original plans when it was resubmitted in light of the remand determination. The applicant reduced the proposed number of units from 12 to nine(9)and divided the building into three(3) smaller buildings. Staff noted that the proposal was substantially different with more articulations as well as the separate buildings thereby lessening the overall mass of the subject proposal. 5. . The City reissued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the project. The Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M)was conditioned by the City. 6. The ERC imposed five conditions. One limited the months for construction to April through October(the dry months). The second condition required following the recommendations of the geotechnical report. The final three conditions imposed transportation, fire and parks mitigation fees. The conditions remained unchanged from the original proposal. 7. The subject site is a vacant lot located at 917 Aberdeen Avenue Northeast. The subject site is zoned RM-I (Residential, Multiple Family-Infill). 8. The subject site is a long, narrow rectangular parcel approximately 62.5 feet wide(north to south- Aberdeen frontage)by approximately 600 feet deep. 9. The subject site is approximately 37,585 square feet in area. 10. The subject site slopes downward from Aberdeen at first moderately and then very steeply. The eastern, approximately one-half to two-thirds of the subject site slopes between 5 percent and 10 percent. The western half has slopes in excess of 40 percent and those steep slopes are regulated. 11. The appellant homeowner's association represents residents of a multiple-building condominium complex located immediately south of the subject site at 949 Aberdeen NE. Ms.Burch,the individual appellant, owns the parcel immediately north of the subject site and resides in a single family home located on that adjacent northerly site. She or her family has lived in that home since approximately 1950. 12. The homeowner's association appeal questions the adequacy of on-site parking(3 stalls), that the project extends into an environmentally sensitive area(the beginning of the steep westerly slope- see below),the character of the area is mischaracterized as multiple family whereas it is mainly still single family,the density is based on an incorrect assessment of the site's constrained areas and therefore buildable density should be considered .57 acres for a buildout of approximately 6 units,the complex is not compatible in scale with the adjacent single family home,the project extends further into the steeper areas,the report contains contradictions regarding the need for retaining walls or structures,where will filling occur,the project only has a seven foot sideyard whereas it was suggested previously that an eight foot sideyard for a two-story building was required, and the driveway does not maintain a five foot setback from the north property line interior to the street. They also noted that the applicant could take advantage of a 10 foot height bonus with certain amenities, that detailed plans were not submitted and storm water was not accounted for,the location and maintenance of a fence between the subject site and the existing complex, and the extension of the complex to the west and its visual impact on the existing complex. 13. The individual appellant living in the single home north of the subject site raised a number of objections, Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16, 2001 Page 9 which in part are: - a. The driveway swerves closer than five(5)feet toward the north property line and creates noise and air quality impacts b. The new plan encroaches into 40 percent sloped areas and no variance was applied for or approved for such encroachment. c. The structure is over-scaled compared to the single family home and blocks solar access during a large portion of the year,reduces privacy, increases noise and unhealthy carbon monoxide. 14. Section 4-4-080(I)contains the following provision: Driveways shall not be closer than five feet(5')to any property line(except as allowed under subsection 17 of this Section, Joint Use Driveways). 15. The subject site is located northeast of downtown Renton. 1-405 and a Puget Powerline corridor are located west of the subject site and steeply downhill from the site. 16. The subject site was an old orchard and is overgrown with trees, shrubs and brush as it has not been maintained for many years. The applicant did deposit fill material at the eastern end of the subject site near- - Aberdeen Avenue NE. 17. The new proposal would not raise the grade of the site. There would beat-grade parking under two stories of living space. The buildings would top out at 36 feet. The design features including articulation, modulations and peaked roofs permitted staff to allow the building to be one foot above permitted height. The buildings would step down the hillside. 18. The buildings would be wood-framed structures. 19. The proposed buildings would have a footprint that covers approximately 18.8 percent of the lot area, whereas 35 percent coverage is permitted. 20. Staff concluded that the 62.5-foot lot would normally require seven(7)foot sideyard setbacks,which will be provided. 21. Staff required that a proposed fence along the north property line be included as a condition of approval. 22. There will be two buildings,which are 82 feet long; a third building would be 87 feet long. There would be 25 foot and 40 foot separations between the buildings. 23. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject site as Residential Multi-Family-Infill. The designation is intended to encourage infill existing multi-family districts with compatible projects. 24. The Comprehensive Plan calls for new multifamily uses to be compatible with existing similar complexes but also compatible and possibly scaled downward to be compatible with the existing development patterns. (Policy LU-65;Policy LU-66;Policy LU-67) 25. It appears that development is proposed for an area of the site that has slopes in excess of 40 percent. Staff Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 10 appears to have decided that if the proposal would develop only a limited area(less than 15 feet)but with a 40 percent slope,that development would not be subject to the Critical Areas regulations. In other words even if the slope meets the critical areas ordinance but the segment proposed for development would have less than 15 feet of the vertical rise on the subject site, it would be exempt. 26. The RM-I Zone permits a density between a minimum of 10 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 20 units per acre. The property is 37,451 square feet in size. Approximately 10,097.83 square feet of that are protected slopes. The net acreage is 0.63 acre. The proposed project has a density of 19.11 dwelling units per net acre for 12 units. 27. The area contains a mix of uses that has been trending, although slowly,toward multifamily from it single family roots. Along with the Burch single family home,there are two other single-family homes north of the subject site. A'168 unit complex is located north of those homes and additional multiple family,the complex represented by the one of the appellants is south of the subject site. Single-family uses are located east of the site across Aberdeen Avenue. 28. Staff noted that the current proposal broke the former single building into three separate buildings,which diminishes the impact of bulk on the adjacent single-family use. They also noted that there would be open space between the units,which will allow more light and air to reach the northern property and also diminish the visual bulk. 29. Staff recommended that a fence be constructed at full permitted height to screen the single-family home. 30. Code requires landscaping in setback areas but the applicant proposes a driveway along the north property line. The appellant noted that according to Code,driveways need to be five(5)feet from the property line. Staff noted that they interpret this to be limited to the immediate frontage and not for the interior portions of the driveway. 31. Staff has recommended that a sidewalk separated from the.driving surface be created. 32. Staff approved the proposal subject to the following conditions: a. A site lighting plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Department and approved prior to building permit approval. • b. A solid wood fence,design and materials to be approved by the Development Services Division,at the maximum height allowed, shall be installed along the north property line. Such installation shall be completed prior to occupancy of the building. c. A site plan revision shall be submitted prior to building permit,that demonstrates that a walkway will be provided that connects to the public sidewalk and that is physically separated from the project driveway by either a curb or raised curb and sidewalk. Such revision to the site plan shall be made by the applicant and approved by the Development Services Department prior to building permit issuance. d. A Native Growth Protection Area(NGPA)easement shall be established for the area of the property having slopes at 40 percent or greater(approximately the western half of the property)..The NGPA easement shall be recorded prior to obtaining an occupancy permit. Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 11 33. Staff also included the original remand conditions above in finding 3. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the administrative decision was either in error,or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious-CODE SECTION CHANGE(Section 4-3011(B)(1)(b). The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the action should be modified or reversed. The decision is affirmed. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts $ and circumstances.. A decision,when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious(Northern Pacific Transport Co.v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472,478(1966). 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn.2d 255,259(1969). 4. The appellants have in part demonstrated that part of the decision below must fail but in the main,the decision below must be affirmed. The part of the decision allowing development on the steep slopes must , be reversed. The fact that this applicant would only be developing, say,the first 15 vertical feet of a slope that would otherwise be protected does not undo the protections encompassed in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. That ordinance protects any slope of 40 percent or greater where those slopes extend for more than 15 feet of vertical rise. This 40 percent slope continues beyond the 15 or so feet that the applicant proposes developing. The entire slope including the 15 feet the applicant proposes developing is protected. A variance may be appropriate but that has to be separately determined. The part of the decision,which would allow development in the protected area,must be reversed. 5. If this means that the development has to be moved east or contracted in scope or reduced by one residential unit then the site plan may be so altered. 6. Any time development occurs next door to existing developed property there will be impacts. The impacts can be merely irritating or they can be profound and dramatic. In this case both the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan telegraphed for years that multiple family uses are not only permitted but also encouraged in this area. These proposed changes were not unanticipated. The Planning Commission, followed by the City Council adopted a series of polices and goals for the area in which the subject site is located. Those policies call for multiple family development of the subject site. That does not mean,-as the first appeal decision found,that any development is permitted. If the impacts are too profound they must be moderated in order to help the transition. This area has already been changed. The west side of Aberdeen Avenue NE, including other areas with sloping terrain,has been developed. The development of the subject site will not bring unanticipated change to the area. One of the appellants represents an apartment complex consisting of multiple buildings located immediately south of the subject site. A single-family home is developed fairly close to the north property line. If the applicant were to develop a single family home,it could be placed anywhere on the subject site and create almost as much.impact on its northerly neighbor with shading. Its sideyard could potentially be smaller than required by the apartment complex. As indicated in the first decision a single family home could clear as much vegetation and loom just as large as the proposed apartment building. Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 12 7. The appellants are correct. This project will have impacts. They will definitely change the character of the site and of the properties on each side of the proposal. As was noted at the hearing,the subject site is private property. The subject site is zoned RM-I. The subject is designated for multiple family uses in the Comprehensive Plan. In other words,the subject site is entitled to be developed at a greater density than the neighboring single family use as long as it makes reasonable accommodation to its surroundings. As discussed above,the development cannot be allowed to encroach on the steep western slopes that are protected even if this proposal would intrude just a little. A variance would be needed and until one is approved,those slopes are sacrosanct. That though is not the heart of this matter. The redesigned plan for three(3)detached buildings with open space between them is a reasonable, if not perfect compromise. It meets the density requirements of the zone and Comprehensive Plan yet is scaled better than the original proposal's one long building. The applicant will not be raising the site by the importation of fill materials. The applicant will be utilizing the native slope and site elevation. 8. The separate buildings will provide more visual definition to the development. The buildings meet the height limits of the zone and will be set at an elevation nearly equal to the single family home. The site will not be built up artificially. This office cannot find appropriate support for overturning the major part of the decision since it is neither clearly erroneous nor arbitrary and capricious. 9. It appears that staff has given its usual interpretation of where a driveway may be located when code requires it be five(5)feet from the property line. Code though is not clear how far back into a site the driveway has to maintain that five feet. In any event,the distance requirement when coupled with Site Plan criteria and Comprehensive Plan policies and goals should provide staff with the ability to provide additional separation. In this case staff recommended that a sidewalk be provided that is separate from the driveway. That sidewalk should be located along the north side of the driveway,which would move some of the noise of the apartment's vehicles further away from the single family home. If it were provided along the north edge, it would provide some additional separation between the home to the north and the driveway and its traffic. 10. The concerns about parking and drainage should be satisfied by Code requirements. The proposal will be providing its complement of parking. All development will have to meet storm drainage requirements. 11. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. In the main,the site plan is appropriate but again not perfect. There probably cannot be a perfect use of the subject site that meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan,the requirement of the Zoning Code and the objectives and objections of its neighbors. The slope constraints of code shall be met and the staff conditions of a pathway or sidewalk can be altered to provide some additional separation. 12. The appealing party has a burden of demonstrating clear error. The error in slope criteria was clearly demonstrated. The site plan conditions can be altered to provide additional separation for the driveway by locating the path on the north side. The rest of the decision must be affirmed. DECISION: The appeal is granted in part and denied in part. 1. There shall be no development of any slope that meets the Critical Areas definition. Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16,2001 Page 13 2. The applicant shall provide a pathway or sidewalk between the driveway and the fence located along g the north property line. 3. The other staff conditions shall continue to apply. ORDERED THIS 16th day of November,2001. FRED J. KAUF HEARING E R TRANSMITTED THIS 16`h day of November,2001 to the parties of record: Elizabeth Higgins Helen Burch Norm Mode 1055 S. Grady Way 957 Aberdeen Avenue NE 949 Aberdeen Avenue C310 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Russell Wilson Gay Keisling 1055 S. Grady Way 949 Aberdeen Avenue NE E318 Renton, WA 98055 Renton,WA 98056 Kayren Kittrick 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 This report was mailed to other Parties of Record. A complete list of the Parties of Record is available in the Hearing Examiner's office. TRANSMITTED THIS 16th day of November,2001 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Neil Watts,Development Services Director Larry Rude,Fire Marshal Lawrence J.Warren,City Attorney Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson,Econ. Dev.Administrator Alex Pietsch,Economic Development Director South County Journal Larry Meckling,Building Official Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,November 30,2001. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. Aberdeen Avenue Townhouses Appeal Hearing File No.: LUA00-040,SA-A,ECF,AAD November 16, 2001 Page 14 An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department,first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. l 74 4 - ill. M'OV •2 t"O 1 lk -- Q .8 D M •MITER * 7213196 U.S. POSTAGE 1 ii\i ° . ......(...,..-- ' CITY OF RENTON ,A ��� Planning/Building/Public Works es ® 1 ou t�ra ay { .4 ~ Renton WA 98055-2 9 �� �'NT� GERALD RI EKER CAMBRIDG S NW ''�,- •� RIEK228 980333018 1600 04 12/01/01 FORWA!0EPXE RTN TO SEND KIRKLAND WA 98033-4473 RETURN TO SENDER • i10f2ro1 /'y� • 0 MITER 7213196 U.9. POSTAGE . 1 • 1 of(\. U k C� CITY OF RENTON ," ".. U\ 0 Planning/Building/Public Works 11 _ "on 1 ra.• , ay ,. 4. ,� © 1 1� ..0 � Renton WA 98055-2 :9 i c,::. GERALD RIEKER _ O!'�' ��'�� CAMBRIDG -: ' S NW A FORWARD8 TIME0EXP01R8 TN6TO0 SEN2/01/01 ., RIEKER ,M.,---- ,�-- 11017 101ST PL NE -".---- KIRKLAND WA 98033-4473 RETURN TO SENDER 9 / -P a_. / / 1 _ - R �. L Is 0 1 \ Q //' <•s s� � _ Pr34�99 ��/ --'¢� s / m ° � P 2� • �/ t 5 g� �\ / �.2 yp9 • d/� 6 /' g/-... o $'.8 SG'�E. 6>Y g ,� J� ge166 v Z p 1 \ / y `�ap �p{P �`� // R . 0\i ,� I ...ND90o.v�✓W:� Q • d� \ao' �j'^ Y // N ya° oap° 5b �5Itt \�020S /38 ��Nz60 ,r1 .�(d,0• \/'1 / f, ..*64'61(11i) d p 4 p� .)Pl W G� f<!es .1 p �a' 7 / c cs4>T3 N // a N6 b .✓ ./. p° ( N ag N1Y f.. ,, /.. . •.•:.•. K Y1 a ») W i y� p°• t !'\ le\'V°' .vee o>-osc .eq. eA•s92.)o ,v ee-s/-ooe r9s.s° 5.3b t1 \ p6f oW ,`N ` 39 tV4 \ rL�\O � 1�/ sa.>e �Iatr.-1774 �, t5 eflV" 0, JOBqp0 µvte =r.> Zo`� F. ,� ",`7 6°° p ° ) ) a°° Roop�' ,IB,��soapou 5 ay P 1 �7. a a°O ti y' ,,55 y, �Z �� W�. \ / �C.j I. 6°I ¢'a6 \ �8,.'e�� °y.�J ca°�� d� / 6o za3 )�w ppj0 i a i \ z �// g �� 6°y�y ® • se4'i:` des .A".00,),02 r° 00°,✓7-fr!1/ ✓ereaos `gi %sse u-/>c� . 198 i5 87 Z G 4 _1� 2P1"3 N 1 \ p0P N ®D�\� � Z1® o Z°��Ts, -_..'�--15- L �' g2 \ g35 C0�t02 U 8 yt7a/mow_<_*+__n. N E 10 TH _ PL \c,\g'oc ' 20 5F0. / �\OGo:\pog92�33 W P /94.66 9e8 a�z Iefoil, s 5 0 R/�6/25 • 6/26 '!•98 a5o / ` _ ®�coNO N0.JOL u ya v?° 2 $� 9!' =W 6.g� ��� �� 'Z�` .-�-.-I !� i o �to : / ,q.". )5� P ° 03•© \�T y� g'..W' ' W 04�I P'4 0 ti m a m ro /as - �- r ,g� �/ W ., A �` 47 '}' H"' t a.,Z ar DOt A Y T°°f!��7�IPo vS�'. s6�� .� , .�, b 4699 II ,Idfl I� - , 8 / �p+ N 3 W 00 �P r of C F g 9 T ° ae sC e X. 6®� ® I 16/.26 I 14. 6 \ _ i R W /3 y 0 @ c�p e�y b • $I ,,./ ✓ •/s / N IO TH Pl. In a - ( 9 'W N o 263. 3 7706 88 a I/a.. per,/ 0 T H r -7-- . -_-- /CB.eS ..-ve /d7.52- IT�4 /c/ 90 io9.61 /a9.96 79 I -94; per,/ 99.28 N� /eN / / 2 2 B ody Leo s lag 6g 1 re'0 0 1 0 2 oti o 0 4 ppy 4A 24PO N • 1 r o �a°°° I a I� la� $ ly l�p� ® a f��p6 , 6, •S I�� , 1I• �7� I /A°4A teaI /ea J r ' / - /6/ O 9b /09.94 /a9.96 73 �#94 349q • ses-s,-o° osn zo /eo "' CC64463 a< ^ p aG R !le.64 - N E 10TH i ST 922590 .C >y798 w�`�' 2� A J Z ° 2 ro.9 7 C to T// AVE. / 3 r Q - 0 \�(dg g �' A/99-45.30 E •C/°TN AVE�/) CSC r/°'TN ST) / ` 4 1 / S 'U 03u0 `r r.pp l-'( l 40 Y� ..oc /0 0.% R g 1 63.36 b 23 .p5 Z/ / 0 ��\ ``O 0\®/yaPo G 73J °�a° 3p°m L��ti C� VO�•�' nt 18 C__ •-� r+o61 Oa \'�, ,� ;� 0 �'p°26 m Y H m 1� y y� W e 858 70 • Z < s,T.T4 3e b o N zoo. = 6 Tr. 8 9 a. 10 >n II 12 ''_ 13 n 14 b 16 16 17 n r cc R �1 Al ® ro `}� / a * o �O lo\ 3 I I 4 $ o" 6 c ec?° a°\ ce o g1p` i rlm Bm d 22 era 19 c 1. o. �� ,>,�,(5 y Z�° o, m V o M• + ro e.I, 10 ra Ip�sd wao'!b p�yS Iomo�° i d po'" cad Q i+ /E- O (� s9a.9s �'r/' el.D268 : ,Y1D y' 4894 a.. _ .. .. 6D.D6 dad-9S spa.o ..-s,-oe.., s+o.po- /79.07 e se >! pa 54 4x! yr12 55 sa 57 ode. d6 62.D8 65 P. O• Q� N ry O AS N, 11 � T/s 8d. 9/. IOm. Il0 2 ,,g13fl_ 14gg°. l o. 1�800$ 'I7�° 18 I ° ` '� pp pw r W g65 EN (��NO 3 ° 6 ceo�o ao'�0 Ap�y ABaE! gpgo °� biq° g�6 dB�d° bp'a Ilberc0 olio m >� p �°'° K.J(✓0 5r ?¢ '14 86 Sr 66 0� °� 0rT 4p0 �i MI ® ..-.'s / ' yo- ' 77 ° 812 CARD logl�9" 0 9 ° a1' EIOPME�of gE O 0/ `�0 m ui 'o °4 gVNSE�coN�o' von 59>p ° I µa` dq m Jo, or- NE 9TM PL �� /19�p �- Ci�� ) y6 ,; s- Z h' 20 o°°O ti� j /Z laze sq rar 63 57 m /e se are !sa \ '\ B� o 2000 3dB, ' O r Z s s '-S/•83; .. v F /N en.� I 11) ` Ig.B 6� AQ 2 1 STA /°4 ;- t<t esay.x ss>.zs itc a i ^l I jb r e� p o 9/43 0' 20 i4 Fyn Vi 1` rt' i� B°sFT x 1. N ae.r o 3 p•Q 4o v 5°R 6° 7o N Bo t ,�p,9v�°t IOp 666 J ,4 9 of 1 Ep Y ., g° /40'' 1{ a ° d V 2 i V° #E0 w 101? 6 600' 4, Taffy elf - o - a 216,o,:1'2,1 IREC1`1 _ y1 a\ as go low�� O^ °wofi%�''° N 4�'°dl°� ea. �ce se. sBa9 `•,soo3v /se 5603 6'2A3 'YSB� 9 °IDSCv p0 r r �0 ° = 3 x „..6: �) , 4.54a I' 2 .7,00 56.°D - 5603 B8.43 58 9ar8u c 11� Cawa.9eax ac9 �W " 24°;6Pt ��� 1 �.sn °', $ °9�edvam n y i' Ne7 a,-se o/sa40 o021�b 4 y2o4$ z , e�' •d i1 o D 181p m6We ' qU1VJt1- vrr_ I,�,-IVrvIV cviaov. a s b22� 2.1yD 200 19 s/sr°° `° VOL. _ 1 a e26 of b 23 4 t 6r to 6d 6°}�' 0�� � 16r�oo ZR23/m o'G $ Q voL.losn9-21 813790 bF IA 2 nA�A� g o o o e :::4 '. 12. tya1r� 42.% 91• \'Q f l 93 - °„ 16 „ eoD farasdo�eA° 6 w A ��, ; of y.a;tea 0 r !/ Sr9 I o. N E 9TH \\ 722T50 :et: .73A"A, beeeim 9 ° ` Q Blo °s°° V reoe .`o -' v �' r (9T/A✓E.n/) 1 V 1 op, 8 n: 0 1h .1 0 �5s9 59 58. dr 67 46 $ I0 ' 7 0 M���� 13200 P� 4s e7 �-°DPD Ma 8e.rr Z t� 1 \` 4F 7,I Q8 a !°�d , �. ... ql 9l 10 T e 8m', 9a`. 100. ILm. 12°. a 4' da a� s4./e s 1 0 �,,,,e .,4.,,`.74, ,; y �6 , �� `e dpr p'. Ag3ar s• e°°,ro dq d •o s° ,�'`• ?� 51 C i i ? 2 °R R .1 �.rb P sL'• srlo s� r r - -:� .ari s u -•- a' Endo esr n1 tag• \\.' 1 1 c? �� B 4/i•Q.s.• 0, 7 i ° SAS - 1 W q,°° e i° 0- 0fczf ac9s'1 ��' //a P. ^°/83ea 9i> W 9ss $ P'w tl ` \ ej - 0 24 23 22° �2,,1pp0' 20m� �19g0. 18� 17 ° b o 24 3 Q 3° ` °29 6 l00�°0 h m"( l�'/oa W6,61 yl�,e6 1R Z yea i or . ddP3 Ipd° p°Sp rlp� " A^"B°�o fi 5a�: .°ems ope O/ . 2 \�l ��g jA s� 6e �n �f m o bcr • \ ?J 9 81 �' J • pax o'°r+ Nc`'`a .c RIB m o 1 \ ,._ �O Q a5s6 \ ' aB / N E 8TH PL �e6 4� W 28�e1, 1 eo° pe4 eT°/vc.N ✓�oea ae70 N 12.�P^'f N V- 4/0 10 61 N N / W • m F / 1L6 '� 61°`,d W OII!! I a/i° �4�27 �\ . • I rr I i�g9°oA6 Y °^ 2 $ 6 °Zso a �� bro6 Z�6 '. 6s 4 nj°14r. = a+peed Z ON D4.9 g C,-, \ \ 3 areoPg p P eh �• • 63ellep0 p yy,� - Ax9e r r„ „'4 eil� .. Nays,e iq ,�' 9 9 F r0 0 6 00 p * \ \ z0.ss C �/11y 1 % �i \®�a°orb° w :.ee �` r, 6r 3 61p > fn .21 a m 6'd��• C e26 1 „3.,° `o a 67ao p B °n m ��'.�i`�'(/ 7 Q b F a > eBes�.4 �n :,. r/,� 1.g611 Ov7 m $ bde96 N h 9r le k u\O�� -----0. � IP Ile 4'ff'd� °6I 4. §!1!' i� -ei•fe.•u 1g90 0.�. ( l70406 Ore `�' d 27 / 60 ! df F Q �° 0,• ' �"�s,rise •r '4,°°,•�X ro \®/ d h $ 7 d m e jey6 O 84� 13 dd N 20 t 1 m. 25d A 1.,.69.5,E • 6°.// ! l.;. 4 m 12 W p , , i /?� r'I r8 pellet .2 Q��_. r u s u 11 �' ° �' e° �pg9d 0 pe E � - v n dIB a 66 eo B m. 10 Eto p fir' iv $�4 Ls°4 w a -�� 83 i to, 6^0 �°o e ' $ Icr dr°° F N e9. go L �BOa 00 °° /647g ta44 84.oe 6�0 70.97 8r .VF✓ N E 6p vox, �I yl• U F 19 6` B� a b 24�15 0 5.0 \ q,1 A2,37E e9-ca a/Y./ °b < wo V. e/ ss ;("41. 8 T -. v 9"e % 0; �Faaeg° Q - .4 3° .14 4�. W 6!.°6' m q,,� 925 ', 1 / 2 . :p 46d se H F rIR°% ti atl�19/ o �M Cr Do `t ;d �21� C � ,� '� 1 2 v 3 m 5 6 30 301° r a3'!'d 3/�' 4m ? S / A6°(<P ac ST V 6,: �I 23 0�4 y ° fff ¢"gyp y$ rg p°p5 o�vjy °�.� ,,,s°$ �6"' as.0e �.. °•f,N`� q�oby ,0200 eo eyxA°� 9 �w�1630 R4,4 00 ; /zsme - se7-ea-/9e E85.e(ue.j r \ 1A.1 /re/ u °00 o+' , oo., '1 $ _ ,��- - 26582 ` 1324.48 ` _ ,�-- 4 N89-30 37W 21 1 �` 1�� I324.-8 10Nal 7 10 �.. 22 rye_ A -00 -0 2\0 they' IX wooY O 5 e(� � 10PI�1fi ii p Pt / 51 rizikii"--q- a ifiAAIr 0. `� CeQ R t e. — / " ^ 1 o0'14 �1euNcR11/4,5µ $ �� 5 . (ti' -�-A-I,�, C3 ,(o" O OS8951'00"W 6061" �.>'- q` ao t€ oo/ iy.3‘ ,y T3_ _it,' 5 ` c 0.01 4� 12"D1DN ��• �• I N — —�' ^• — • 2-8"M :Nc) N N oJf I. W '- ,12'ALD - t %kl�t �2. /7 ' 41. 21 � _all _ XM lb i 14 —■ 13 I 12 II 10 9 I 8 �I '1 6 O 5 4 2 _ I 4 M © II �xl 51. �pta I. r._ • 1 19 2_ o ' 1� I_O I�' 18 I I----• —_______ii . 0 0 \O I 11 — �- Puy —' S89'S1'00"W 590.83' �- I , _� nbo cyw VICINITY OF CONSTRUCTIC THIS AREA if/ �I , � y ' o, --0 I a� � NOTE: ALL TREES IN THE VICINITY OF TREE LEGEND CONSTRUCTION TO BE REMOVED. a MAPLE ALDER -- EVERGREEN IO -"� APPLE .iiiiimililli : Lv i _ _ LEGAL DESCRIPTION . 'r& o ru l s sto,LJ of Tie6ES iT� PLA i✓• A L5° -re, Lx'sT//a�J NO R GAS AND ST wT�/�� pp pEfeTIES. �CTu-��5 �� '�'� or T� PR -ry �,c� 'fp° S�opf Po/z�'o� Mo 7- -rwe PsfPROD i 8XTWiDs BEY ig -me NoTEs To APPldenikiT A c REQu[2E� To B� -ri /r/ "ff-t- �E.p E S y s TEM is ¢IZI 'NEa nr -�A (4) eN of PRoP , 0 ^� c rRkV D T w o64- CNo sr DigPE25�D VIA A sp 4- � y t. ■ tide 6tazLad • .51s,, 00 - olio G G�'cY• o CITX DF RENTON lrS • PlanningBuilding/PublicWorks Department �� O� Kathy Keolker,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator NT • IV IGR FI June 6, 2006 �M� _ • Helen Burch PO Box 1122 Renton, WA 98057-1122 Re: Returned Letter/Aberdeen Apartments (File LUA-00-040,SA-A) Dear Ms. Burch: Enclosed is a letter this office attempted to send you via U.S. mail on May 30, 2006. Apparently, we did not have a current mailing address for you and the forwarding time to your previous address has expired. Consequently, the letter was returned to our office. The original envelope is opened, as our office mail handler did not know which staff member to advise of its return. We regret the delay; your new mailing address will be updated on our Parties of Record list. Sincerely, el-44/ta/7h,V1/ ' Clarice Martin . Development Services Division enclosure cc: Neil Watts,Development Services Director Jennifer Henning,Principal Planner File Copy,LUA-00-040,SA-A 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE 4' This oaoer contains 50%recycled material.3G7i,cost consumer o- y • a :. .. ,off . . • • CITY .OF-.. NTON." •4. - P1anningBuildingfPublicWorks Department• . Kathy Keolker,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator, -Bev A:Proctor. 6402 129 Place SE • f{L� C� 66� �,�����l . Bellevue,WA 98006 ice,�,.'. ' SUBJECT: PROPOSED REVISIONS To APPROVED SITE PLAN FORABERDEEN . APARTMENTS(FILE LIEA-00=040;'SA-A) • .- • . : ...Dear Ms. Proctor, - . , • I arid:in receipt of your letter and drawings(Landscape Plan by Linda Sires,-dated May_8,2006;•• • - :and deck plans)'in which you request a revision to,the approved site plan.for-the;Aberdeeri ' • :. . Avenue Apartments:•;•The request'is summarized'below.' Request 1 Eliminate the,sidew,alk on the north.`side pf;the drive. ; • '2. •Add.second-story.-decks off of the sliding'doors on the south side of thefour - 7 - :buildings;,instead;:of tb groundlevel patios.. • : , . .. " $ •a)Modify"the land capepians to=increase thetiiitnber of trees alofi�..�;tl c:so.uth • . . h . . boundarys.and ei ijivate:shrubs,and.groundoovez:in the same:;area .:::)".• lb)Revise the:; lantiu 'Ian`flan tlieentrance.dr-ive and°at.the:individual . Unit entrances . : - :,Site Nadi Modification Criteria - • - . `,.Renton Municipal Code,:Sectfon.4-9.-200I,•allows;minor.:s.djustments:to an approved'site plan;. : . ' provided: . 1,. The adjustment does:not involvemore than a:ten percent(10%)'increase in area or scale . :of the development,in'the approved, ite:plan,�-or: „ 2 The adjustment doer of hitve.a.significantly.greater impact on the,inint'Qnmental and. - ; ' facilities'than the approved plan,or ' - - 3:,:The adjustment does:not change the boundaries.of the originally:approved plan_ . • Analysis of Re west - . .. ; The site plan modification-requested-hi;your letter is also depicted;on the Landscape revisions ,dated April"18,2005.: • Request 1. .Eliminate:the sidewalk onthe.north;.side,of the:drive::.: :- -_'..- _ ",The Hearing Examr iner egeired.a pathway orsi-dewafk-between the driveway id:the'•- .- • , : fence;located;along tl eknorth'property line.•The applicant has requested that this •• :- ' - . . ..,.• condition be'eliminated :This:condition of'approval'was not appeal•ed during.the appeal.. ;'; :_. .:. . , ,1055;South GradyWay:.: :ei ton,.Washington 98055 1�1 g 1�] % '' eri--if.that followed the issuance of: the decision Eby the Hearing Examiner. This:. .:' P `c ......- ...:� object ••to' .... •..._ ondition: s riots 'inodifcatiojn '': tl ecom•rim•endation'.-Deny the request to eliminate the sidewalk requirement:' • Re west 2s Add'second-sto : decks off of the Sliding doors on.the south;side`of the, ` ,... ' • four•buildin instead of the roue level atios:: '` The a `licant-'Has requested that the 'be;allowed�to 1", :Struct•seeonstOrydecks in.lieu ' . of the ound.floor-'patios previously shown.on the plan: The:decks are':shown on, ': ' `-•`- • ,the Landscape:P.lan.as bei•ng 45'square'feet•each,(4,,x 10. 6„):::There is'a'required Z •. ,foot sideyard setback for:the.proposed buildings: Per'Renton,Municipal Code 4-2- ' 1=.10H:8 pro'ections•are-allowed:into the,setback,'rovided;th'at they e:.1'immnted.to two •(2) - .er fa.ade•.and=ma not be wider<than ten feet j1-0': Tl e:decks:.cou.d not:be . P , e . . ,. Y (. ).. ,1 . • cede'•: ,,,,,..•., ,:..._.:,• .:... :.,.:;:, constructed.at''tlie size indtcated:orl`t1e.T,aidsca e'Plan 'and would<neefl to�lie redo , ...,..-.;,::-.,c,..:;:::.,•:..,.;....::,,,,..,:,.i.„.;.:..,..•..... -,,•i. iri size'to.:meet<tl�e'limi'tat[dns of tlie�'� nizi' code . .. not'hve;a' `.: of a The.additian-;of't`e:°dec :iiisesiiitYnvolv�morethan: .°1 .1o'. tiaii"e.' does - J : :.`" •significantlyrea er.Im act o the env' onm•-nt•• 'di'aci_l'itie'hail the�a��'roved:site' • • :,-. lani nor;does!'it chart a the l ouad ...1 ,.,`e a roved.'1 ;a::.' p ,. :� ,,, �, lip .1�. =��:-"�:.. • • _. r= it °.u: ,:f "t lU foot ,. r - • • • R commendati ii,�A `-"r �vedec fog' �u ,w h �xo'2 - - .�..to .T .�Y�t4 .,.3,°., y.,._:' • - - :.:: encroachments:into the.sideyarilrse}p%a. area3.',.oils:tent-iNith. un�tati:::.of.the zoiiit a - 'd ot� `liel'co a as:n ed o • p�: . 2 a), The decks:for`Umts,:I and'2:ar -,:imi ed to 2U-.s, care feet i t ateasNN=2 :1(? ,and'ma . ._-; a croach.on y 2."'fee`in o: "e r •qutrcd 7- O t'se back: '•The:4'dth - the.declk:is:.limited. - n IY �.... t eq. oo t . C �� o� h , :,_ ; to 10 feet',:and:::the'encroachment into the.setback is'limited to 2':` et:. A"minimum 5�- ''`'°: foot set ack n ust be. mta m ed.-from the ed e f thedeck7to�; e:south.pro e . line: f. b. • . rria� �., � p. ,�., p P �'Y r: .;x:.. - ; . :, b . 'i"he:decks�for°Itnits'3•and:�4`ina' iiaroacli�tvvo,feet'into�he:re' trireil.7-�foot:setb_ack: The width:of the-deck is limited td;.•1e00Mfeet,and•the.encraachrneitt into:the setback' et: .A minimum S�foot` eftio iriust: e-maintain.@d,frorii the:edge ofahe,;' ' . . .limited toy 2 fe deck to the south:pope line. • �?...P rh' • • c The d c S'•for:Uini .5 and.6 ma eacro ch.u 'to• ' W o•feet into;the:,re'uired _ - :::< ) e,k �: yY a` p lam' q_ ..7=:fook; _ . :, ; ,- ,' = setback:' .The-width of the'deek is l i ited to la feet, and'the,.encroachment-,into the ; f -' ' •setback limited o feet A inmimum 5.-foot setba• ck must be•matntatned._from.the,ed Se:' 'of the deck-to.the south ro pe ;lines, • •- P P .It3' ;�' d) The decks=for 7 and 8 `ay-e croach Up to two feet into the:re ired 7 fo: t setback. 'the.width;o• t h e•deck isc�li -"to . 0.10•feet, ''tlhe' ncr-oachinent into the � f h �, d.t _ and � _ - e s �•e�ma'na '��d -o �t -e d 'setback lirriiteci to��feet:• .A'miiitiitii�;:5':foot`setb k mu t'b ue .fr . h e..ffi- •''f of the deck to the'south�`ro��e Ali e.. - o p .p- rty u. • < < { • fps ro • , . . • . • : .: ':Re•.'q'u:e_s3a).' Modifythe lands ca a' a s:toiric' ea$eteiumber oftree ;aloag::tl',shrubs and roundcover inthe same•are :. -'. --south:bounda and eliminatehe• • • The;addition of flowerin. the•' trees al on ,the.south •"'ro e:• .line does"not' noive::. ':' .more�:than'a::10%change,does not have.:a•significantlY.greater:impact.on the .::::. ':.`•" : ::= °;: , ,, - ' ,' , • • •.. environ Bent and facilities than the approved:site:plan, nor does`i`t change.the ': - :•• boundaries:•af•tlie.ap•proved plan: Hawever,..the applicant's:=plan;substanti'ally reds ces`'•: '' ::- ' the:amount'of shrubs •and groundeover •proposed between the•• south facade•anti the so th. property boundary. `:._: ::;' Recomiriendation: A rove the addition:of floweriii ,the r- trees•alor ` the so Atli side:'::.``: .':. pP i m'- g . of:the:tinits:•_Deny'the elimination.of slii�iitis:and'groan cover, between.the buildings •:and:the south:property line. .. - • . • Re u�` s .. r l - �i s e t!'3 Revise�he Ian i t.>l‘fn;•� aiitkiia ;:gee'ntrance drive •arid_at:tle: -vidu l: it.• .ances` n tin entr ,e:, Se. ; •ro d;revison rty -the:'antin 1 ri. • 'Th o i s a ah's�ibstittte-re�e_ :;blobs and tiu drove'-"� ..P: Pl g:p �• ec 's • -he a•' in s ze T eh n e.to€lies 'la'ti tan;does:�iot illy :v' A'oi'e t an a:.l.fl/6•chap'.e�<:�.:'� p - g. ,, P, gP .. .b. • g d08 :O v H' #: ea s ��'c tl:• rea s.`n ha. t fi i} #er`iriii` ot�'ElieenvrciiiYnerit"ailii•:faclti�s'.•xiian`-tle'� a ro' d_rs. . . e ite . 'sii�,'�'or,d'es rt�cli`N. .<te..t' -liiou,<4 a :oft,e a rov`d . . PP pl . ,it b ate. Vie. n„ des 1 pp a plan • Recoi ii. endation A "rove'the'revis o s b la' 1 i7a the e 4n � pp, i n •to`the.p... ritr an. riTcin ri —,,....T.e cri. an�' "a t lie: •t deck.entr" 'ce �to<tlie unf '.fir'`• ...1 ecisio • T-h :Rr.'P'iisedm' ification-to 1hesite ln`.nis•'0' roved=iu41"art.and•� nied:_in!Pa. r : . Re uest pro: t f e eliinination�-of a sidewalk i erred q - . 1, h. 1 s ,:. e • Request.'I o.22;10 allow:s•ecouo•story.decks:oil the::soiith 'O. ade::of the.units s`-a rove' `x .suibject.to.:the;fellow irig conditions:. The decks+must.not;.encroach`more than'.2feet into tli,e,;- - setback,'must�notbe widerthan,To-feet:in width,and;a:mti nluni:.5 footsetback'is re`'`.0 red..:' :':,•'. • horn the edge.of the deckto; he sideyard property line C. uest lo: -. o add:trees:aloe -th.e south onion o:f .t •esite is.a p . roved...' h"e:eliini iu'o. .'.:..::•.'.: ., •' o' sIn ubs-.and ground'e"v f. g u o eri•iin this.a>4'ea.is denied . R u stlYoi 3b'to- vise:the lantiii lan:flankfri"• e:en railce dr1.ve and`at the entranc : .:; theb:ui din' s:.is;a:. irer l o Tiii s de ' :;. s na' h•vi11 be'final n Unless a written.- p i., iv :dete' •hallo..'' ' < -t�i�n tt4 t u l appeat:of tliis�:adcri strat e. rm n, . accorri reed " - •p b there aired$75-.00 •liii tfee i,`filed.wvitiiC e;C. •--. :Hearin ,$ airiiiilet=.. vi,.;wki. :.�':;:`': ' ' 14 a :of the`date.of'ttis: c s `o n St ot•••'''^oit:l a a an questions rega•rding:th s'det't riination ort'e re q uiremei is discussed . •::',.' -letter.'„-1c, a contactSe niferrieririin .P'rinci`ai:Planner,at' 425 43Q=72-$6:`:_... :.::: `°''' : •;;'' 4ls • Smcez'l -; e(i ai u. it 'Die c'toY iVe : �tts ire D•evelo`" 'ent Se vices Division cc Parties ofReotri: • ' ;•-Lk` .,:,- : tier 'y r } Fes` . . .. .... � Ri '"t • ry; .. viz' r.{, •.jr..`., .ice,.'. V'...r Yt" •'M1 (CY Pe CITY DF RENTON ♦ Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Kathy Keolker,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator ZWO Bev A. Proctor 'f1'1 . 6402 129th Place SE ` t' Bellevue, WA 98006 VIED SUBJECT: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR ABERDEEN APARTMENTS (FILE LUA-00-040,SA-A) Dear Ms. Proctor, I am in receipt of your letter and drawings(Landscape Plan by Linda Sires,dated May 8, 2006; and deck plans) in which you request a revision to the approved site plan for the Aberdeen Avenue Apartments. The request is summarized below. Request 1. Eliminate the sidewalk on the north side of the drive. 2. Add second-story decks off of the sliding doors on the south side of the four buildings, instead of the ground level patios. 3. a) Modify the landscape plans to increase the number of trees along the south boundary,and eliminate shrubs and groundcover in the same area. b)Revise the planting plan flanking the entrance drive, and at the individual unit entrances. Site Plan Modification Criteria Renton Municipal Code, Section 4-9-200I, allows minor adjustments to an approved site plan, provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent(10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan;or 2. The adjustment does not have a significantly greater impact on the environmental and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. Analysis of Request The site plan modification requested in your letter is also depicted on the Landscape Revisions dated April 18,2005. Request 1. Eliminate the sidewalk on the north side of the drive. The Hearing Examiner required a pathway or sidewalk between the driveway and the fence located along the north property line. The applicant has requested that this condition be eliminated. This condition of approval was not appealed during the appeal 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 RENTON �rL,_ AHEAD OF THE CURVE period that followed the issuance of the decision by the Hearing Examiner. This condition is not subject to modification. Recommendation: Deny the request to eliminate the sidewalk requirement. Request 2: Add second-story decks off of the sliding doors on the south side of the four buildings,instead of the ground level patios. The applicant has requested that they be allowed to construct second-story decks in lieu of the ground floor patios previously shown on the site plan. The decks are shown on the Landscape Plan as being 45 square feet each(4'x 10'-6"). There is a required 7- foot sideyard setback for the proposed buildings. Per Renton Municipal Code 4-2- 110H:8 projections are allowed into the setback provided that they are limited to two (2)per façade,and may not be wider than ten feet(10'). The decks could not be constructed at the size indicated on the Landscape Plan,and would need to be reduced in size to meet the limitations of the zoning code. The addition of the decks does not involve more than a 10%change; does not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved site plan;nor does it change the boundaries of the approved plan. Recommendation: Approve decks for the 8 units with up to 2 foot by 10 foot encroachments into the side yard setback area, consistent with limitations of the zoning code as noted below. a) The decks for Units 1 and 2 are limited to 20 square feet in area(2' x 10')and may encroach only 2 feet into the required 7-foot setback. The width of the deck is limited to 10 feet,and the encroachment into the setback is limited to 2 feet. A minimum 5- foot setback must be maintained from the edge of the deck to the south property line. b) The decks for Units 3 and 4 may encroach two,feet into the required 7-foot setback. The width of the deck is limited to 10 feet, and the encroachment into the setback limited to 2 feet. A minimum 5-foot setback must be maintained from the edge of the deck to the south property line. c) The decks for Units 5 and 6 may encroach up to two feet into the required 7-foot setback. The width of the deck is limited to 10 feet,and the encroachment into the setback limited to 2 feet. A minimum 5-foot setback must be maintained from the edge of the deck to the south property line. d) The decks for Units 7 and 8 may encroach up to two feet into the required 7-foot setback. The width of the deck is limited to 10 feet, and the encroachment into the setback limited to 2 feet, A minimum 5-foot setback must be maintained from the edge of the deck to the south property line. _ Reques"t;.3a)::Modify:the landscape plans to.increase''the number;of irees along the ,• ".•... d' r undcover.in, same;area..south boundai .and eliminate the shrubs an g o , The:;addition:of flowering cherry trees along the south:property line does not involve more than-a 10%o change; does not have a significantly.greater impact on the - : ,environment and facilities than the approved site plan;nor'does:i't°.change.the boundaries'of the approved plan:However,.the,applicant's;plan;substantially reduces the:amount of shrug bs and groundcover proposed'between the south facade and the south propertyboundary - Recommendation: Approve the addition of flowering,cherry.trees along the'south side :.;. " :,. `:, ' of`• the.units Deny elimination of shrubs and,groundcover;.between the buildings and thesouth:property line. Requesf3b)'. Revise the planting plan flanking•,the efltrance drive,and at the . individual:unit':entrances.. . ' The roposed:revisions=to•the: lanting plan substitute-trees shrubs and'-='oundcover species: The change.to the planting.plan..does'not involve more'than,a 10 A,change; • does not have:a:significantly greater:impact.on the environment and facilities:than.the approved'site plan;.nor,does it change the boundaries of the approved plan „ Recom endation `Approve the revisions to:;tl epantin plan:flanking:the entrydrive and atthe deck;entrances to the units;. Decision The proposed'modification to the site plan is approved in„part.and:,deniedinpart: Request No.1,the elimination of the sidewalk is denied. • • Request No.,2'to,:allow:second story decks on'the south façade of the:;initsis approved .;' , • - subiect to the followinu;,conditions: The decks must not encroach more than 2 feet into;the setback, must not be wider.than 10 feet in width,_and a';minimum5.foot setback is required:.: from the edge.of the:deck to the side yard property line _ , Request No:3a:.to add trees along=the south portion;of the site=is"approved., The elimination .• of shrubs and.groundcover in this area..is denied., Request the wanting p lan'.flankin .the entrance:drive';and`at the entrance to'-.:- q .• , _.. P, gP g the buildingsis.`approved. This determination will'be final unless a:written:a peal:of this-administrative:determination-'' accompanied'by.the'.required$75.00 filing fee=is filed with the.City's.Hearing,Examiner within;':..',,_` :; 14 days of the date of this decision. • Should,:'ou'have>an questions regarding this determination or the re uiremen is discussed in:this letter,please contact-Jennifer Henning,Principal Planner,at'(.425)430=7286. :_ Sincere 1y,:' • Neil Watts;:Director • Development Services Division • cc: Parties of%Record: • t.