The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA-07-006_Report 1Darren Ludwigsen Denali Properties PO Box 1845 Bellevue, WA 98009 tel: (425) 424-1266 PARTIES OF RECORD MAPLETON DRIVEWAY VARIANCE LUA07-006, V-A Vickie Eslick 665 Blaine Court NE Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) James Hurnen 659 Blaine Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) eml: darren@denaliproperties.com (owner / applicant / contact) Thomas Nelson 2103 NE 6th Court Renton, WA 98056-2867 tel: (425)271-9403 (party of record) Updated: 07/22/08 Cloud 2128 NE 6th Court Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 985-7541 (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) -lees -180 -17$ -16S -~80 ~~fL C~/'fr JAN I F/i!~NG "I !I {S. I ~. \- . ~~ IEXIin1tJ~ r~ -Ie~ lI~cs 02001 711~D II! 2 01 ~ ~ a lV~--<' ~t ~ ~ Qf) b .... Q:JJJ FINI~ffe.D ~f. l-r-rP.') A.~I· /' ftoFlt....E. A-A ._, ~VE-J4A II GrAtA(iJ(~ I 01- -I " ~r c: I -y--- L.o"-6 I_Lbf i .. I .. L-O"f' (p fRoFf LE B-I? I~ -ltSo I -1115 uJ 3 I"::: to I If l~ \11:;:5' V I~ Denali Properties, L.L.C. Request for Driveway Slope Administrative Variance 652 Blaine Court NE Driveway Profile 0 () 0 0 0 0 () () Q 0 Q 0 '" «i .. () .. " /> ,-,-!:: rll !:: '" " 8 () 0 '" " !:: '" 00 16'~8 1/2' 20'-0" />c:, /> '9:, o °O/Y" I I)-,'YOO \ Jt' (I)' , /. * ~ "-I // ""V~ ~ ~ ~. \SCi %~\ / ~~ -$ ~ Ii' ~ OVIINER DENALI PROPERTIE5 LLC, P.O. SOX 11>45 BELLEVUE, V<A ql>OOq PH. (425) 424-1266 FX. (425) 424-12"1; /0" "- ~/..., is ~ !!J " , ~ is 0" I "f " ""'" \ til 9,,\ I "-.J /:rf ~ !,;,6 16~ .. \ 0:.'0 po IJ)'{/)' , ,'PiY I -~ ~ I ,," ~"-I "l'~~'\ LE&AL DESGRIPTION LOT 6 MAPLETON SHORT PLAT A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST GUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST GVARTER OF SEC,TION ~. TOY'lN5HIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, Y'I.M. LOT GOVERA&E LOT AREA HOU5E/(';ARA(,;E/PORC,H DRI VEV<AY IV<ALK TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA 6,4105.F. 1,952 5.F. 43"15.F. 1,"1l>q 5.F. =2"1.Q% , \ \ / \ / .B.L ',LOT 6 \ -~ 1 2'6f·B,L~ \ I?RIVE I~ I 11) I' ~ \ III \ , \ , in \ \ w, • I" I;! (\) \110 Q Z '54_CC • 180.00 ~ N ~IB20a m .~. y '. "'U 11-I', , \:1\1""1\ I~ " ,- '0 '" Denali Properties, L.L.C. , 'Bacs r- I .\ [BOOO I ~, -6, -8.00 ---i --r. "76.00 Request for Driveway Slope Administrative Variance 652 Blaine Court NE Generalized Utility Plan SCALE: I" " 20'-0" o '0 40 eo g S:ll~ ~~~ ;: ... w .~I:: ~-5 =~a: ~-..; §d ;: gg 80>~ .... "t"t w!Q~ t::~l)I :J -"' UJtQ:g w:!.,.!. zliiu.i wow ~u:e: o~j ~ ~ :b iii V> I- I-v> UL.U L.U$ I-I - II- U~ ~O «z 8 ~ a () a () () () () ........ Cl Cl () <i " !'l !'l \ , \ \ \ \ \ \ "'\ .... ~ ,\. .':\':. "'~ : .. , ', .... ':' ~ ", " ' ""." • .. 20' 'a.l.' L ,I' __ ,'.,. = , .J J, \-1 • :::-1 () () () Cl Cl oj ~ ~ , . \ \ \ \ \ \- 1 'A :1 1 \ :1 \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 ----\ ---, , 1 \ 1-4 I , I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 () () " ~ :. ~ 1c:r4.OO jj, '''!," "\ rv -'1IIlI <lD ) 111) (II) 'I~: I • 1....--_I,Q2.00 \!!' ' "I , '1Il VE' " .\.', I '/' III '; .. " at -' , 1 \ (;.~{I)Yr , ,,;;--t! ~"" ''''d '%~ fA / '''I;>~' ffrU ~ \ ~ ~<S 'x) -.it '~I'~ -/)r/.' " , , !l'l Jl 16.f llf)' ":'" IffY I ' I ",It ' \ \ \ , , \ 1 1 1 I 1 13.~' , l \ \ , , , , , , \ , \ LOT 6 \ , \ , \ 1 ':'''', , I U\ .,,: " I·', • , 1 ill " , \ " " " " , , , , , , , , , , , , , , l I ,I:) !O , N "\ \ \ \ j ~ , C " . -, 9 I ~ '1: 1-~ IQO.OO lee.oo , , '-., " , , , '<t -1 '86,00 IL-- ,\11/ ',III 1!20'65J>L ", !II J \r \ ,~I , 'I I II " r , I' , , , , "I~ , , \ ~ II b -' <l L.OT j '" N , \ \ '" 'I I"~ , , I I \1 .1 _I \ ~ ..... , .... __ .__ "<, I 1 l ) , ! ~,~ ----184.00 \ \ \ 102.06' N&:!°2e'6e"YII \ - --;0.;0, Ne",~~e;'Se"YII- L 5,l-o II:l"\ \ \ 040'-0" \ 5'-0" ~'-o o4O'-o l,'", ~'-Ot -, c-18200 , ' LEGAL. DESC,RIPTION ~:..> ~/ '''. " LOT 6 ~ ~. ~ -- 1. '" <:> MAPLETON !iHOfl'l' P1.A'I' '1:. '1:. '9-'9. '9, A POR'I'ION OF THE NORTHEAS'I' GUMTeJII. OF THE SOUTHEAST Gil.lARTeR OF sec. nON b. 'I'O_IP :2!1 NORTH, RAN6E !I EAS'I', ""-"". L.OT C,OVERAGE L..O'I' AREA HOVSE/6AAA6etPOF<C.H DRIVEI'IA'I' /l'IALK '1'0'1' AI-IIotPI:RVIOUS AREA 6,410 S.F. 1.!I5:2 S.F, 4!11 SF. 1,1eq SF. .:21."lI; OYIINER DENALI F'ROPER'I'IES ~LG ,P.O. eox 1&45 I!IE:LL.eWE. I'IA "&000 PH; (4:25) 4:24-1:266 FX. (4:25) 4:24-1:211 Denali Properties, L.L.C" Request for Driveway Slope AdministWir~yariance 652 Blaine Court NE 0!Ty~~:;'~/' Site Plan I Grading Plan JA.N SGAI..E • I-• :20'..0-o 'C'EIVED &0 i ~ ~d jil Sd sl!! -.., ~ ~ iil~~ !l! --wW <!!! If a: ILIL oO~ i Fo J; Ii Vll- I-Vl ULU LU$ ~I II- U~ ~O <CZ ~ ~ Map Output ® King County 1221501314 !221fJfJ13t5 lZ216t11325 m150133$ 1227501320 1121S01330 3119fKJ0210 mutH340 n2150135/J 12215/J.33Il m7501346 12215/J1313 311N00211 1221501312 12275DTRC r 722150.3111 122150,311) nU5fJ13J, 12215tU366 1221b01369 1221:501368 1231:l1l<l,3!> aa230S9,44 12313/J1lO1l1l 0823059040 0/l230$9!/2J 1l3131l1J13<) 123,_ ~oo 0/l2305fl224 0823059154 123130/>126 12313I:.l0066 !l! !1e'z3!J59H2 1 ~,' ~~ ! I: m1JtKnaJ t23130tJ060 1231:m"S TZ31)OOO25 nl13OOtM'5 1231J00036 723'300110 7231-300!J05 12'31300030 12,,_ ",,""'CT 1231:l1l<l100 \ 1231_ ~ 7231300086 'l 1~31_ 123!3!J002fJ 12313OO1Jt6 !U 18100131 Y.f/6200015 90416"00126 ..,76100130 941B200640 94181001'20 map no representations or warranties. express be liable for any general. special, indirect, inciidenltal, or misuse of the infonnation contained on this map. Source: King County iMAP -Property Information (http:ftwww.metrokc.gov/GISIiMAP) Page 1 of 1 \ \ 1221502<36 122151J2<40 1l216D2445 /'22Ui02450 1227502501 http://www5.metrokc.gov/servleticom.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=overview&ClientVersio...1/912007 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: September 13, 2013 City Clerk's Office Stacy M Tucker Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and Indexing by the City aerk's Office . Project Name: Mapleton Driveway Variance LUA (file) Number: LUA-07-006, V-A Cross-References: AKA's: Project Manager: Jill Ding/Jennifer Henning Acceptance D_: February 7, 2007 Applicant: Denali Properties LLC Owner: Same as applicant Contact: Darren Ludwigsen PID Number: 0823059225 ERC Decision Date: ERC Appeal Data: Administrative Denial: Appeal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: , Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Data Appealed to Council: BVWhom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: Voided due to inactivity location: 652 Blaine Court NE Comments: Department of Community & Economic Development -.'--"1 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057-3232 ' ~ f /l/c§{U c, ,.--~--7 -• ._-f u"", ',' " i1JvwA-- U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL" RECEIPT (Domestic Mall Only; No Insurance Coverage ProvIded) Postage $ f--:r'----j CertHled Fee ::r o Return Receipt Fee D o (Endorsement Required) f-------\ Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) D 1--------1 ~ ~"~~~',P~~;:ge~&~F.~.~S~$::~::;:~::~-------, ~ ~o~~,,~~~·~~~;·~~~~~~· .. ···-················--····1 D ~ f~~~i;~·iD:7'······ .. ························ .. ······ .. ·· ............. --................ j item • Print your name and reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different from Item 11 If YES, enter delivery address below: CJ No 3. Service Type t:l¢ertifJed Mall o Registered o Insured Mall o Express Mall CJ Retum Receipt for Merchandise C.O.D. 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7008 1830 0004 8759 1627 PS Form 3811. February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE SEATTL£ INA 9'(i<il' • Sender: Please print your name, adclres;s: ~,,"""'[ AllNV ..... -r~ 11,\"1,,1,11,,,,1,1,1 ",1"11",1.1"11",1,1,1,1,,1,1,,,, 11/ Denis Law Mayor ;s r l --=----""..". ... r r (, August 6, 2012 Darren Ludwigsen Denali Properties PO Box 1845 Bellevue, WA 98009 SUBJECT: "Final" Notice ~~~, ... ~.~~~r .. ~J Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chi p"Vincent, Adm i n istrator Mapleton Driveway Variance I LUA 07-006, V-A Dear Mr. Ludwigsen: The Planning Division of the City of Renton has determined that the above subject application is expired. According to RMC 4-8-100C.4 -Expiration of Complete Land Use Applications, the application submitted on 01/10/2007 has been inactive forninety (90) days or more and an administrative decision has not been made and/or has not been reviewed by the Hearing Examiner in a public hearing. According to our records, an "On-Hold" notification (enclosed) was mailed on February 22,2007, stating additional information was necessary in order to continue processing the submitted application. As of the date of this letter, the requested information has notbeen received. Therefore, this is your final notice, if the City of Renton Planning Division does not receive a written request to continue processing the application and the requested information within six (6) months of the date of this letter the app.lication shall be null and void. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7286. Sincerely, Jennifer Henning Current Planning Manager Enclosed: "On-Hold1l Letter:-dated: February 22, 2007 cc: Vickie Eslick, James Hurnel'!. Thomas Nelson, Cloud J Party{ies),of Record . Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, W.shington 98057 • rentonw •. gov City _. Renton Department of Planning / Building / I Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ~=e,,-_____ +Co.:O:.::M:::M:.:.:E=:.N:..:T.::S-=D:.::U-=E:...: ..:..F.=E:.=B;::R..:.U=.A:....::..R:..:Yc..2=.1-",L.:2=.;O:..:O:..:7'--___ _ APPLICATION NO: LUA07-006, V-A DATE CIRCULATED: FeDD ' APPLICANT: Denali Properties PROJECT MANAt3ER: Jill Ding PROJECT TITLE: Mapleton Drivewav Variance PLAN REVI EW: Kayren Kittrick \J SITE AREA: 6,410 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 652 Blaine Court NE I WORK ORDER NO: 77713 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Administrative Variance approval for driveways with slopes in excess of 15 percent. A shared driveway serving Lots 6 and 7 of the Mapleton Subdivision has been constructed with a slope of 18 percent and a privale driveway serving Lot 6 has a maximum slope of 21 percent. The project site was elevated during the construction of the single family residences, resulUng in driveways with grades that exceed the maximum grade permitted of 15 percent. The project site is located within the Residential - 8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zoning designation. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable M",. Element of the Probable Probable Mor. Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth HousinQ Air Aesthetics Water Liaht/Glare Plants Recreation LandlShoreline Use Utifities Animals Transporlation Environmental Health Public Services Energy! Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or QE;~ ~j,2entative 3:)-01 Date Kathy Keolker, Mayor February 28, 2007 Darren Ludwigsen Denali Properties PO Box 1845 Bellevue, W A 98009 CIT OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P,E" Administrator RE: Mapleton Driveway Variance (File No. LUA 07-006, V-A) Dear Mr. Ludwigsen: Per a phone conversation and voicemail message with Cheryl Girard on February 27th and 28th , it has come to my attention that the shared driveway serving Lots 6 and 7 and the private driveway serving Lot 6 of the Mapleton Short Plat do not comply with the City of Seattle's standards for sag and crest. Therefore, in order for the City to support the requested variance for driveways with grades in excess of 15 percent alterations to the driveways will be required such that the sag and crest of the driveways complies with the City of Seattle's standards. Please submit 3 copies of the City of Seattle's standards for sag and crest curve and 3 copies of plans which would propose alterations to the driveways in order to bring them into compliance with the City of Seattle's standards for sag and crest. Until this information is received, review of your project will remain on hold. Once the requested information is received review of your project will continue. Feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7219 if you have any questions. Sincerely, /7. '--// ~7 LjJJ 11, eV--<-7J t/Jill K. Ding Senior Planner cc: Parties of Record -------------IO-S-S-s-ou-t-h-G-rn-dy--w-a-y---R-en-to-n-,-w-a-Sh-in-g-ro-n-9-8-0S-7--------------~ ~ This Il",npr <,,,,,I,,;,,,, "lV/'. rpr:vr:l....-I m::.if'!MI ~n% r)l'"oOd-r,nn"" 1m .... AHEAD OF THE CURVE February 26,2007 Thomas Nelson 2103 NE 6th Court Renton, W A 98056 CIT~F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator RE: Mapleton Driveway Variance (File No. LUA07-006) Dear Mr. Nelson: Thank you for your comments regarding the Mapleton Driveway Variance. In your letter you express concerns regarding the safety of the existing driveways serving Lots 6 and 7 of the Mapleton Short Plat and note that the slopes of the driveways have resulted in a parking problem in the development. Your concerns have been included in the official file and you have been added as a party of record for this project. In response to concerns received from you and your neighbors, the City has requested that the applicant provide a study demonstrating that the driveways are navigable based on sag and curve standards that have been adopted by the City of Seattle. lfthe applicant cannot demonstrate that the driveways are navigable based on these standards, then alterations to the driveways may be required. Until such a study is received, review of this project has been placed on hold. Feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7219 with any further questions. Sincerely, . j' !/-/ Jill K. Ding Senior Planner '!EL~Yl \_j -------------]O-S-S-S-OU-fu--G-rn-d-y-w-.-y-.-R-en-('-'n-,-w-a-Sh-in-g-ID-n-9-8-0-S7--------------~ t*) This·papercontains 50o'u recvcled material, 30% DOSt consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE February 26, 2007 Vickie Eslick 665 Blaine Court NE Renton, W A 98056 RE: Mapleton Driveway Variance Dear Ms. Eslick: CIT' OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Thank you for your comments regarding the Mapleton Driveway Variance. In your letter you express concerns regarding the safety of the existing driveways serving Lots 6 and 7 of the Mapleton Short Plat and note that the slopes ofthe driveways have resulted in a parking problem in the development. Your concerns have been included in the official file and you have been added as a party of record for this project. In response to concerns received from you and your neighbors, the City has requested that the applicant provide a study demonstrating that the driveways are navigable based on sag and curve standards that have been adopted by the City of Seattle. If the applicant cannot demonstrate that the driveways are navigable based on these standards, then alterations to the driveways may be required. Until such a study is received, review of this project has been placed on hold. Feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7219 with any further questions. Sincerely, /j. 4 1 --V L .cj 7l 4.:K.Ding , Senior Planner T' 6/-1J'r,o" U -------------IO-S-S-s-ou-t-h-G-m-d-Y-W-a-y-.-R-cn-to-n-,-w-a-sh-in-g-W-n-9-g-0-S7--------------~ (i) This paper containS 5Qo;, recycled material, 30% postconsUmef AHEAD OF THE CURVE February 22, 2007 Darren Ludwigsen Denali Properties PO Box 1845 Bellevue, W A 98009 CIT"\: :>F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E~ Administrator RE: Mapleton Driveway Variance (File No. LUA 07-006, V-A) Dear Mr. Ludwigsen: This letter is to inform you that additional information is required to complete the review ofthe Mapleton Driveway Variance. To ensure that the proposed driveway grades are adequate for vehicles to maneuver on please submit 3 copies ofthe City of Seattle's standards for sag and crest curve and a study showing that the proposed driveways would comply with the Seattle's sag and crest curve standards. Until this information is received, review of your project has been placed on hold. Once the requested information is received review of your project will continue. Feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7219 if you have any questions. Sincerely, £::-:K Jill K. Ding Senior Planner cc Parties of Record -------------------------~ 1055 South Gra~ Way -Renton, Washington 98057 W This paper contains 50% recycled material, 300/0 post consumer AHEAD Of' THE CURVE February 9,2007 Jill Ding, Senior Planner City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 RE: Mapleton Driveway Variance/LUIA07-006 V-A Dear Ms. Ding: I want to oppose the request to allow the Administrative Variance Approval for Darren Ludwigsen, Denali Properties and strongly recommend that the City of Renton deny approval ofthe variance. I am a homeowner and reside at 665 Blaine CT NE, Renton, Washington, 98056, which is Lot 2, of the Mapleton Short Platt. I was the first owner to purchase property in the development. In my opinion, Denali Properties should remedy the parking issues of every property owner in the development before being granted any type of variance. Due to the fact that Darren Ludwigen chose to save money by not hauling off dirt during the construction phase, should not mean the residents of the development should endure the parking problems he has created. I, myself, have numerous driveway access issues and feel if the variance is approved will only further inhibit the access to my garage and road area. The only type of vehicle that can access the driveway to Lots 6 & 7 is a four-wheel drive and even those have trouble ifthey have a trailer hitch of any type, which scrape and dig into the cement/asphalt, leaving road damage. I might add that the residents of the development are financially responsible for maintaining the good standings of road conditions. I have witnessed in excess of seventy-five vehicles getting high centered while entering or exiting the driveway from Lot 6 & 7 to Blaine CT NE, since the time the Lots were either for rent or for sale. That is a small number in comparison to the potential disgnmtled vehicle owners who dared to attempt the driveway, in my absence while working long hours away from home. Notably, you can only imagine the vehicles that have blocked my garage access due to the fact that Lots 6 and 7 were vacant for so long. Due to the fact that cars cannot negotiate the driveway leading to Lot 6 & 7, I have had to endure a tremendous amount of realtors, potential buyers, renters, visitors and contractors who impede my driveway access while visiting the properties. The top of the hammerhead adjacent to my property is level and evidently more desirable than parking along the hillside road easement, which never appears to be an option. Since the properties have been purchased, I have also encountered the occupants parking behind my garage access because they were unable to gain access to their property, more notably during inclement weather. Unlike every lot in the development, I do not have off street parking except in my garage. I did acquire a variance from the City of Renton to modify my driveway access following the closing of my property and a verbal agreement with Denali Properties to resolve my garage access and parking situation. Darren Ludwigen decided not to honor an agreement after closing and after exhausting every possible loan extension imaginable. I want to emphasize that this work is still no completed and I PAGE 2 Denali PropertiesN ariance fear if Denali is granted a variance it will further inhibit my need to acquire the necessary off street parking that I do not have at this time. In checking with the City of Renton's Planning Department when I purchased the property, I was informed there was no parking on the hammerhead and that parking signs were posted. Denali Properties and its representatives removed the signs during construction and have refused to replace them. I am surprised the two properties sold at all, but more amazed how the word filtered among realtors and potential buyers not to attempt the driveway at all. Interesting enough, after a while, potential homebuyers bypassed the access to the Lots 6 & 7 and drove directly to the top ofthe hammerhead adjacent to my property. The same goes to visitors now that the properties have sold. I might add that Denali Properties and its representative have chosen to ruin my reputation before I even had the opportunity to meet my new neighbors. The respect I had hoped to gain is no longer possible with the environment Denali has created in regards to driveway access. Not to mention, how disgruntled the owner of Lot 1 is because he does not have access to his property from the hammerhead. Somehow, every owner in the development feels they have parking privileges in the easement adjacent to my property. Allowing visitor parking in the easement at the top ofthe hammerhead is not an option for neighbors or their visitors due to the fact that they cannot park in their driveways. Not to mention my bedroom is within ten feet ofthe private road and am often awoken or kept from sleeping with all the vehicle traffic. I am attaching copies of correspondence to the City of Renton where I previously disclosed parking problems that are still unresolved. If you have further questions, I can be reached at home at (425) 917-0102. ;r~~ Vickie Eslick 665 Blaine CT NE Renton, W A 98056 -- -----r--- ----! ---,- I .. 1 ! , I f I I , I --\ - I ·1 I I I I -I I -- I . I I . j , . I I- I ---j I , ---1· ---~--.. -_ ..... ---- Cil, __ Renton Department of Planning / Building /, ~_-'c Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 21, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-006, V-A DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 7,2007 APPLICANT: Denali ProDerties PROJECT MANAGER: Jill DinQ PROJECT TITLE: MaDleton Drivewav Variance PLAN REVIEW: Kavren Kittrick SITE AREA: 6,410 square feet BUILDING AREA (oross): N/A LOCATION: 652 Blaine Court NE I WORK ORDER NO: 77713 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Administrative Variance approval for driveways with slopes in excess of 15 percent. A shared driveway serving Lots 6 and 7 of the Mapleton Subdivision has been constructed with a slope of 18 percent and a private driveway serving Lot 6 has a maximum slope of 21 percent. The project site was elevated during the construction of the single family residences, resulting in driveways with grades that exceed the maximum grade permitted of 15 percent. The project site is located within the Residential-8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zoning designation_ A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earlh Housing Air Aesthetics Water UghtiGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transoortatlon Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cufturaf Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet -"-" B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS ~CULL /7A.J.~pa-ch fa ~jLJ- C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have revfBwed thIS application with parilcular attention to those areas in which we have expertIse and have Identified areas of probable impact or areas where addillonal information IS ded to properly assess thIS proposal ), J q 10 7 ~Da~te~Ir-~I~~---------- Cit, _. Renton Department of Planning / Building / I __ .Ie Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Pion 12veV"I(.~ COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 21,2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-006, V-A DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 7, 2007 APPLICANT: Denali Properties PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Dina CIIY01-Ht::NIUN PROJECT TITLE: Mapleton Driveway Variance PLAN REVIEW: Kayren Kittrick REI,;l:IVI:LI SITE AREA: 6,410 sauare feet BUILDING AREA (aross): N/A I=fB 08 ?nn? LOCATION: 652 Blaine Court NE WORK ORDER NO: 77713 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Administrative Variance approval for driveways with slopes in excess of 15 percent. A shared driveway serving Lots 6 and 7 of the Mapleton Subdivision has been constructed with a slope of 18 percent and a private driveway serving Lot 6 has a maximum slope of 21 percent. The project site was elevated during the construction of the single family residences, resulting in driveways with grades that exceed the maximum grade penmitted of 15 percent. The project site is located within the Residential - 8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zoning designation. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth lousing Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals • Environmental Health Energy! Natural Resources c:~g~:~ B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this appUcalion with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where frana, i alion is needed 10 properly assess this proposa'. ') f: eJ; () J Signature of Director 0 Authorized Repr ntative Date 7 Cit, ~. Renton Department of Planning / Building / I .. Ie Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: "\r; COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 21, 2007 , APPLICATION NO: LUA07-006. V-A DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 7. 200~ APPLICANT: Denali Properties PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Dina RECEIVED PROJECT TITLE: Mapleton Driveway Variance PLAN REVIEW: Kavren Kittrick SITE AREA: 6,410 square feet BUILDING AREA (arossl: N/A LOCATION: 652 Blaine Court NE [ WORK ORDER NO: 77713 .~"vG DIVISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Administrative Variance approval for driveways with slopes in excess of 15 percent A shared driveway serving Lots 6 and 7 of the Mapleton Subdivision has been constructed with a slope of 18 percent and a private driveway serving Lot 6 has a maximum slope of 21 percent. The project site was elevated during the construction of the single family residences. resulting in driveways with grades that exceed the maximum grade permitted of 15 percent The project site is located within the Residential-8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zoning designation. 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 lou,;no Air Water Plants Land/Shore/ine Use Animals • Environmental Health Publie SeMees Energy/ Natural Resources A:f:~~:i' B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application wi h particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where ditional info tio i needed to properly assess this proposal. Date Cit Renton Department of Planning / Building /. __ ';c Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ('.1 COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 21, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-006, V-A DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 7, 2007 APPLICANT: Denali Properties PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Di"li PROJECT TITLE: Mapleton Drivewav Variance PLAN REVIEW: Kavren Kittrick SITE AREA: 6,410 SQuare feet BUILDING AREA (aross): N/A LOCATION: 652 Blaine Court NE I WORK ORDER NO: 77713 r t.t! u ( lUlU SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Administrative Variance approval for driveways ,jjjil/~ IAI\jm~of 15 percent. A shared driveway serving Lots 6 and 7 of the Mapleton Subdivision has been constructed with a slope of 18 percent and a private driveway serving Lot 6 has a maximum slope of 21 percent. The project site was elevated during the construction of the single family residences, resulting in driveways with grades that exceed the maximum grade permitted of 15 percent. The project site is located within the Residential - 8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zoning deSignation. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable M",. Element of the Probable Probable M",. Environment Minor Major Information Envtronment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water LightIGlare Plants Recreation LandlShoreline Use Utilities Animals Trans atlOn Environmental HeaUh Public Services Energy! HistoricICuitural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED 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 w re additional informali is neede to properly assess this proposal. CIty lenton Department of Planning / Building / I c Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 21, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-006, V-A DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 7, 2007 APPLICANT: Denali Pro erties PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Din PROJECT TITLE: Ma leton Drivewa Variance SITE AREA: 6,410 s uare feet BUILDING AREA ross: NIA LOCATION: 652 Blaine Court NE I WORK ORDER NO: 77713 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Administrative Variance approval for driveways with si\jiffi,l~~~ 15 percent. A shared driveway serving Lots 6 and 7 of the Mapleton Subdivision has been constructed with a slope of 18 percent and a private driveway serving Lot 6 has a maximum slope of 21 percent. The project site was elevated during the construction of the single family residences, resulting in driveways with grades that exceed the maximum grade penmitted of 15 percent. The project site is located within the Residential - 8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zoning designation. 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 Necessal}' Earth Air Water r.~ Plants LandlShoreline Use Animals ~ Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources ~services :~:~~~:~ B. POLlCY·RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE·RELA TED COMM ' .• ~ attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or perly assess this proposal. Date City _. Renton Department of Planning / Building /. __ .ic Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: t="; (e~ APPLICATION NO: LUA07 -006. V-A APPLICANT: Denali Properties PROJECT TITLE: Mapleton Driveway Variance COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 21, 2007 DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUAR{i.200i- PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Din!,! PLAN REVIEW: Kayren Kittrick r l SITE AREA: 6,410 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A reo -I ZUUI LOCATION: 652 Blaine Court NE WORK ORDER NO: 77713 I SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Administrative Variance approval for drive·J ys "'itb sI6pes.m:.e)(<;.~§s~f 15 i percent. A shared driveway serving Lots 6 and 7 of the Mapleton Subdivision has been constructed with a slope of 18 percent ancra'-- private driveway serving Lot 6 has a maximum slope of 21 percent. The project site was elevated during the construction of the single family residences, resulting in driveways with grades that exceed the maximum grade permitted of 15 percent. The project site is located within the Residential - 8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zoning designation. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable M"", Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housi Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation LandlShorefine Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health PubliC Services Energy! HistoricJCuftural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS f ~, c;~ bef 1 Cc iU/~et1 ~ with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or n is needed to properly assess this proposal. . / Ie. epr:sentative Oate ~p J NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Master Application ha. b"n filed and accepted with the Davelopment Service. Oivlslon of the City of Renton. Tha followlnll brilllfly describe. the application and the neceuary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAMEINUMBER: M.;m'elon D,,"eway Variance I LUA07-00S, V-A PROJECT DESCRIPTION; The applicant IS requesting Admlnistrabve Variance approval lor driveways w~h slopes In eJ(<;eSS of 15 percent A sha-e:l driveway serving Lois 5 and 7 01 ttle Mapleton SubdIVision has Ileen constructed with a slope of 18 percar_! and a prIOate (,lIVeway sarving Lot 6 has a maximum slope of 21 poreen!. The project site was elevated dUring the constr"Clior 01 tha »ngle !amily residences, resuttlng In dnveways with g~des tr.at exceed the maximum grade permitted 0115 percent T~e project s,te is Iocaled wrthln the Residential· 8 (R-S) dwelling umt per acre zomng designaIJon PROJECT LOCATION: 13~2 GI~lne Court NE PUBLIC APPROVALS: APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON Darren LLJdwigsan, Deo$li PropertiEls, Tel (425) 424-1266. Eml da"an@denalip;opertiescom Comments on the .bo .... application must be submitted In writing to Jill Ding, S.nlor PI.nn.r, Ouvelopm.nt Service. Dlvl.'on, 1055 South Grady W.y. Renton, WA SS055, by 5:00 PM Qn F.bru.ry 21, 2007. If you have questions about thiS proposal, or Wish to tJe mad~ ~ party 01 record and rece"'e additIOnal notification by mall. contact tile Project Manager at (425; 430-7219 Anyone wro submits wriHen comments Will automatically become a party 01 record lind will be notified of any deciSion on thiS project PLEASE INCL.UDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALL.ING FOR PROPER FilE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: January 10, 2007 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: February 7, 2007 If you WoUld I,ke to be made a party of record to receive further information on tMis proposed project, oornplete this form and return 10: City of Renton, Developmem Planno~g le55 South Grady Way. Renton, WA 98055 File Name I No Mapleton Drive""ay Variance! LUACl-006. V·A NAME _~~~~======================================================== MAILING_ADDRESS ________ _ TELEPHONE NO CERTIFICATION I, .:5i::nt GelS:-p , hereby certify that ::> copies of the above document were posted by me in ~ conspicuous places or nearby the described on DATE: ~~ • on the I CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 7th day of February, 2007, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter & NOA documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Darren Ludwigsen Owner/Applicant/Contact Surrounding Property Owners See Attached J.2L /1 (Signature of Sender~ .dII'7!f ~{(l/{( i/ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/herltheir free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. "'''~"II'' ~ ... ", \.. .. ,,-~ ,., ""l L~q4~~:J7::~Jj~~~~::...,...4:r ,'''. \; ~ or the State~ . ~~~. ~ .; ;~0 ;;00: ;;~--.-~:: Notary (P rint) :-,-8-,-,y",-, ~-,-,I",-)~::.·l...C_-""L ..,1<-;1,-,-) .... o->-J,I-.[",,(-,-) -"W""--"I'Y'Q-"-"'''-'-c->-----;~':r~:;;~'<'l~'..---',-:.~b,.,iK~(. ... • ----;f:.L ... _=_~ My appointment expires: () -lty-to ~,,"'X~·1t_,'OACYIF '1~~~"e7 "III 111'11 ,~ III' Dated: OJ-' ~O J ,er~JJa.:~!W";~ Mapleton Driveway Variance 723130006007 AITONEAN IOAN+MARIA 663 BLAINE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 723130007500 BUI HONG HA T ET AL 620 BLAINE CT NE RENTON WA 98056 723130005009 DOAN PH IN T 655 BLAINE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 723130002006 GEISSLER R 619 BLAINE CT NE RENTON WA 98056 082305922302 LE DUOC+ TUYET HONG DANG 668 BLAINE CT NE RENTON WA 98056 723130007005 OCHOA KEVIN F 671 BLAINE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 723130001008 PUHICH ROBERT W MR+MRS 2105 NE 6TH CRT RENTON WA 98056 082305909101 SOKOLSKY LEONID+STASYA 666 SUNSET BLVD NE RENTON WA 98056 723130008003 TRINH CONG NHU PH AM OANH THUC 2133 NE 6TH COURT RENTON WA 98056 082305922609 ZHANG LUCY W+HAN 656 BLAINE CT NE RENTON WA 98056 082305922401 AITONEAN MARIA+IOAN 660 BLAINE CT NE RENTON WA 98056 723130002501 CLOUD DARRELL A 2128 NE 6TH CT RENTON WA 98056 082305914408 ESLICK VICKIE S 665 BLAINE CT NE RENTON WA 98056 723130005504 HURNER JAMES E 659 BLAINE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 723130000505 NELSON THOMAS W 2103 NE 6TH CT RENTON WA 98056 723130004507 PHENGKHANYA RICKY N 651 BLAINE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 723130003004 SLAGHT ROBERT A+GRACE 2132 NE 6TH CT RENTON WA 98056 082305915405 SUNSET VIEW APARTMENTS LLC 16825 160TH CT SE RENTON WA 98052 723130001503 WENTWORTH WAYNE PO BOX 53361 BELLEVUE WA 98015 723130004002 BECKWITH JR JAMES C 2208 NE 6TH CT RENTON WA 98056 082305922500 DENALI PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 1845 BELLEVUE WA 98009 723130006502 EVANS FRANK 667 BLAINE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 723130003509 LARIZA LARRY G 2204 NE 6TH CT RENTON WA 98056 723130008508 NGUYEN TUAN HUU 464 VISTA SAN LUCAS SAN DIEGO CA 92154 082305905307 PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC PROPERTY TAX DEPT PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE WA 98009 082305914200 SMITH ROBERT B 657 BLAINE CT NE RENTON WA 98056 082305904003 TOMOIAGA CRISTIAN 664 SUNSET BLVD NE RENTON WA 98056 722750136805 WHITE TREVOR L 2125 NE 6TH CIRCLE RENTON WA 98056 NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Master Application has bean filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: Mapleton Driveway Variance f LUA07-006, V-A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Administrative Variance approval for driveways with slopes in excess of 15 percent. A shared driveway serving Lots 6 and 7 of the Mapleton Subdivision has been constructed with a slope of 18 percent and a private driveway serving Lot 6 has a maximum slope of 21 percent. The project site was elevated during the construction of the single family residences, resulting in driveways with grades that exceed the maximum grade permitted of 15 percent. The project site is located within the Residential - 8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zoning designation. PROJECT LOCATION: 652 Blaine Court NE PUBLIC APPROVALS: Administrative Variance approval APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON Darren Ludwigsen, Denali Properties; Tel; (425) 424-1266; Eml: darren@denaliproperties.com Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jill Ding, Senior Planner, Development Service. Olvlslon, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on February 21, 2007, If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager at (425) 430-7219. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: January 10, 2007 February 7, 2007 February 7,2007 If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning. 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File Name' No.: Mapleton Driveway Variance / LUA07 -006, V-A NAME: ______________________________________________________________ ___ MAILING ADDRESS __________________________________________________________ _ TELEPHONE NO,: __________________________ _ February 7,2007 Darren Ludwigsen Denali Properties PO Box 1845 Bellevue, WA 98009 Subject: Mapleton Driveway Variance LUA07-006, V-A Dear Mr. Ludwigsen: CI1 T OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. You will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me at (425) 430-7219 if you have any questions. Sincerely, LjdJ 1{;;2' Senior Planner U ~~ill_K~ o.ing -------------lO-5-5-S-0u-t-h-G-rn-d-Y-W-a-Y---R-en-to-n-,-w-~-h-in-g-W-n-9-8-0-57--------------~ ~ Th;" ""''''''' rnnl",i",,-"nOlo r.-rvr.lPrl m..tPri .. 1 ::InDln nn .. t r.nn .. , Im"'r A H E ADO F THE CURVE • City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: C£.lJ~L'\ ~oPE-~G> lLC- ADDRESS: ~e ~X \&A5"' PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: l-l\ t\ftB'~ DI\-e.w% UQflaVl{1 v PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: CITY tg.u:~ ZIP: ~~<Y>1 lD<:;1. ~\~ C-r ~E TELEPHONE NUMBER: 41$ ~ 42A. \2G:!o KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): APPLICANT (if other than owner) ~2..~~ -cY22.~ NAME: S~\J'E EXISTING LAND USE(S): ~Bl~AL COMPANY (if applicable): PROPOS~D LAND USE(S): NF\ ADDRESS: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: CITY: ZIP: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): ~~ TELEPHONE NUMBER EXISTING ZONING: ~~ CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): t11l\ NAME: l>~~ llliJ'G~ SITE AREA (in square feet): fo L\ \6 COMPANY (if applicable): ()e~U ~r;s. ADDRESS: ~~ ~)c \~S' CITY:etuC~ ZIP:~~ TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: SQUARE FOOTAGEiJl~ PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: IJ '" SQUARE FOOTAG~l~F PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: I PROPOSED RESIDEN~\~ DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): IJ , NUMBER OF PR~.~SED LOTS (if applicable): A1-~~~·1""" .• ,.a>. <.b.,... l>p. .... lW-'C>~lNl NUMBER OF NEW DW~~NG UNITS (if applicable): Q:web/pw/devserv/forms/planningfmasterapp.doc 10/02106 ROJECT INFORMATION (c inued) NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): j. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PR~fOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): N 1'1 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 2..14A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRO:~SED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): fJ SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON~l:SIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): ... NET FLOOR AREA~"EF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): f,) A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO ~lJEMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): r-> 11 PROJECT VALUE: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): o AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE o AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO o FLOOD HAZARD AREA o GEOLOGIC HAZARD o HABITAT CONSERVATION o SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES o WETLANDS ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE SE QUARTER OF SECTION 6a-, TOWNSHIP2?hl RANGEt>~ IN THE CITY ---OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1.~V~~ 3. w~JI 4. 2. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) D , declare that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property involved in this application or the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statement and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. (Signature of OwnerlRepresentative) Q:wcb/pw/devscrv/forms/planninglmastcrapp.doc I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that tl4yw LvDH-I(6W signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be hislherltheir free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. CHERYL LEE GIRARD 1 "",,=-'-1-"--".'<' ~;.o.;~~~~~=t---.J!IAI£..!:lE..''/'iASHINGTON : and for the State of Wash ngton NOTARY -.. -PUBLIC I I M'\ COMMISStON EXPIRES 11-{)!.n~ , 1-....... _ ,I Notary (print~ 1M GtlM e..o My appointment expires:_LI.LI_-....!<IlI....L---"Z:..O"""'O=-1---'-_ 2 10/02106 I I =MET ISCAN PROPERT King (WA) PROFILE= **************************************~~*~~******~***************~********************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * O'i-TNERSHIF INFORMAT=ON Parcel Number Building Id # Parcel Type Owner/Taxpayer CoOwner : 082305 9225 : 1 OC Q:SE S:08 :Unplatted :Denali Propert~es ~lc Site Address Mail Address Telephone :652 Blaine Ct N~ ?ertor 98056 :PO Box 1845 Be~levue Wa 98009 :Owner: SAVS A:(C :DilN INFORMATION Recording Date :06/08/2004 Auditors Fee # :3316 Multi-parcel Loan Amount Lender Sale Price :$810,000 Loan Type Interest Rate Vesting Type Deed Type :Warranty % Owned Taxable Land Taxable Structure Taxable Total Appr'd Land Appr'd Structure Appr'd Total Census Map Grid Neighborhd Cd Zoning Code Land Use Legal Sub/Plat Recording Num Short Plat Building Name Volume Jurisdctn ASSESSeE', r ,'\NJ TAX INFORMATION :$109,000 :$109,000 :$109,000 :$109,000 % Improved 2006 Taxes Exempt Code Excise Tax # Levy Code ,'kOP~"TY DESCRI PTI ON :Tract:254.C:-) :656 El :032003 :R-8 Block:3 :002 Res,Sir:gle Fanily Residence :STR 082305 ~AXLOT 225 LOT 6 OF : RENTON SHOR ~ PLO.T "LOA-O 1-15 8 REC :#200404269C082~ S:J SP LOCATED IN Page: : RENTON T:23N :$1,313,51 :2045468 : 2100 Profile-Page ~ of 2 R:05E * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ***********************************~**~**~********************************************** Information compiledjrQnt \',mOIiS SUllrce~', Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the aCCllr(/()' 0)" completeness ~r information contained in this report. =ME OSCAN PROPERTY King (WA) ROFILE= ***********~*************************k-~~**~**~************w***************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Parcel #:082305 9225 Bedrooms : 4 Bath Full : 2 Bath 3/4 Bath 1/2 : 1 Fireplace : 1 Deck Porch Stories : 2 Units : 1 Elevator Mobile Home No Nuisance Easements Design Type LAND INFORMATION Lot Acres Lot SqFt Lot Shape Tde/Uplnd TopoProbs Sprinkler Wtr Front WtrFrntSF Golf Adj : .15 :6,410 :No Bldg Id #:1 ?ROPE~TY CHARACTERISTICS 1st Floo:'" SF 2nd F'=" 0 0:::-SI:' 3+ FloOT SqFt_ Half Floor SF AboveGrou:1dSF Finished SqFt Fin BSI:T1L SE' UnfinBsmLt SF BsmntTc'C;1J SF Bsrnnt Park SF Buildirlg Sq:Yt Deck Sqrt At tacheoC~~gS F' : 940 : 1, 220 :2,160 : 2,160 : 2,160 :400 Year Built Eff Year :2006 GarageType :Attached Bsmnt Type BsmntGrade 3ldg Matl Bldg Cond :Avg Bldg Grade :Good %Brick/Stone: HeatSource :Gas Hea t Type : Fred A.ir Wtr Source :Water District Sewer Type :Public STREET INFORMATION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Viehl : Yes St Surface St Access : Paved * :Public * View S2a~t e Skyline Vie'i..J :::"'a kc /:<. i ver Vie",' -1k San.rr.arnish Viec\1 t':jciu':1La.in Vie"".' P\;ge:: Sound Vie'w tvJ:: Rai:-lier View 01 yI1'.pics Vie',,' Cascades View Lake Washington Vic::',,' OT.r.cor Profile-Page 2 of 2 * * * * * * * * * * ************************************x**~**~********************************************* Information compiledfrom mriom souru:s. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as {o {he accuracy or completeness qf information contained in this report. .. darren@denaliproperties.com From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: "Laureen Nicolay" <Lnicolay@ci.rentonwa.us> <darren@denaliproperties.com> Thursday, September 28, 20064:01 PM masterapp.doc; variance. doc Variance application package--Mapleton Short Plat Since you are not going to undergo our preapplication process, please bring a copy of this email in with your application for prescreening. The foHowing items would not be required for your particular roadway/driveway variances and can be waived: Density Worksheet Floor Plans Wetland Assessment Standard Stream or Lake Study Habitat Data Flood Hazard Data Colored Display Maps Laureen Nicolay City of Renton Development Services 1055 South Grady Way Renton W A 98055 Phone: (425) 430-7294 Fax: (425) 430-7231 Inico lay@ci,rentoll.wa.uJ; 10/2/2006 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVI I WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQuIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section PROJECT NAME: ---L1ht?~ .. '411t1l..;-;'iZ{,.L"Jr-:..:...----"t#~'__.:V~ DATE: ---+~1-1-'='8+/--"'O'-..l.7---- Q:lWEBIPWlDEVSERVlFormslPlanninglwaiverofsubmittalreqs _ 9-06.xls 09106 'ELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER vr SUBMITIAL REQUIRE"n:NTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 of Existing Sites Lease Agreement, Draft Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2 AND 3 Photosimulations 2 AND 3 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 Q:IWEBIPWlDEVSERVlFormslPlanninglwaiverofsubmlltalreqs_9-06.xls 09106 • Denali Properties, L.L.C. Request for Driveway Slope Administrative Variance 652 Blaine Court NE Project Narrative Project Name: Plat of Mapleton, Lot 6 -Driveway Slope Variance DEv§.OP CfTY~~ING JAN, 0 2007 RECEIVED Variance Request: We are seeking approval of a City of Renton Administrative Variance from Chapter 4, item 6.a and 7 for a shared driveway with 18% slope (shared Lots 6 and 7» and a single use driveway sloped at 21 % (lot 6 only). Project Size: Project Location: Permits Required: Zoning: Current Site Use: 6,410 SF Lot 6 652 Blaine Court NE, Renton WA Lot 6, Mapleton Short Plat City of Renton Driveway Slope Variance R-8 Single Family Residential with I new 2,200 SF home Special Site Features: No Sensitive Areas on site Soil Type: Silty Sands and Gravels, Poorly graded to a depth of 14 feet Some fiJI material of similar type noted near east side oflot Drainage: Silty sands have moderate capacity to drain. Lot slopes from east to west. And has an existing constructed drainage system consisting of curb/gutter, catchbasins, pipe and rooftop drainage is for the most part tightIined to the constructed drainage system. Proposed Site Use: Single Family Residential Access: The subject site is accessed from Sunset Boulevard NE (public) to NE 6th Court (public) to Blaine Court NE (private) which connects to a private shared driveway providing access to the subject Lot 6 driveway. Offsite Improvements:There are no offsite improvements proposed as part of this driveway slope variance. There is no construction value associated with this variance request. There are no trees to be removed as part of this variance request. There are no job shacks, trailers or model homes associated with this variance request. Denali Properties, L.L.C. Request for Driveway Slope Administrative Variance 652 Blaine Court NE I Project Photographs Denali Properties, L.L.C. Request for Driveway Slope Administrative Variance 652 Blaine Court NE Justification for the Administrative Variance Request The existing topography of the site sloped at approximately 20% from east to west. The original proposed grading called for a driveway slope of 15% which would have required a significant amount of earthwork and a series of 4 to 6 foot rockeries to terrace the project site and individual building pads. The builder evaluated the site during construction and modified the finished floor elevations to better transition the site with the adjacent properties. In modifying the finished floor elevations of the single family residential structures on both lot 6 and 7, the resulting shared driveway slope was increased to approximately 18%. The resulting private driveway connecting the home on Lot 6 to the shared driveway has an as-constructed slope that varies from 10% at east side and approximately 21 % at the steepest west side. Both the shared and private driveways are constructed of cement concrete with deep groves for traction during inclement weather. The shared driveway has been in service for several months and has posed no difficulty that Denali Properties, L.L.C. is aware of. Both private and commercial vehicles have been utilizing the subject Lot 6 private driveway for construction access which has not posed any problems that Denali Properties, L.L.C. has been made aware of. Attached to this Justification for Administrative Variance Request is a copy of a statement made by the prospective buyer ofthe new home on the subject Lot 6 acknowledging the steeply sloped driveway and his willingness to proceed with the purchase. We ask that the City of Renton approve this Administrative Variance Request for the fo llowing reasons: 1. The applicant would suffer undue hardship if the driveway slope variance is not approved and they were made to modify (tear down and reconstruct home and driveway) the subject driveway. The 18% and 21 % driveway slopes are required to overcome the existing topographic challenges of the existing site and to better transition with existing adjacent properties. 2. Granting of the driveway slope variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare as this is a private driveway nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity as there are similarly steeply sloped driveways in the neighborhood. The driveway is negotiable by most vehicles. 3. Approval of the driveway slope variance will not grant special privilege to the applicant/lot owner and is consistent with other steeply sloped driveways in the surrounding neighborhoods. 4. The prospective buyer acknowledges and accepts the steeply sloped driveway. IClil,;k hl,;rC and type return address] December 12, 2006 Attn: Denali Properties: As the buyer of the house located at 652 Blaine Ct. in Renton, W A J am aware of the steep grade of the driveway. I would like to proceed on the closing of this home. Sincerely. Christopher Neal • 6 4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • [Click here and type slogan! 4 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY MAPLETON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 664 SUNSET BOULEVARD NORTHEAST RENTON. WASHINGTON E-10116 May 2. 2002 PREPARED FOR MR. MICHAEL PRITTIE tV2MI PI11~4~ MitcheU G. McGinnis Project Raymond A. Coglas. P.E. Project Manager Earth Consultants. Inc. 1805 -136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue. Washington 98005 (425) 643-3780 Toll Free 1 888-739-6670 REcGe"tvED AUG 23 2005 i3 U1J.DINGDIVISIOr: IMPORTANT INFOru TION ABOUT YOUR GEOTEGlNiCAL ENGINEERING REPORT More construction problems are caused by site subsur- face conditions than any other factor As troublesome as subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent have been lessened considerably in recent years. due in large measure to programs and publications of ASFE/ The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences. The following suggestions and observations are offered to help you reduce the geotechnical-related delays. cost-overruns and other costly headaches that can occur during a construction project. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur- face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique set of project-specific factors. These typically include' the general nature of the structure involved. its size and configuration; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; physical concomitants such as access roads. parking lots. and underground utilities. and the level of additional risk which the dient assumed by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory program. To help avoid costly problems, consult the geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors which change subsequent to the date of the report may affect its recommendations. Unless your conSUlting geotechnical engineer indicates otherwise, your geotechnical engineering report should not be used; • When the nature of the proposed structure is changed. for example. if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage. or if a refriger- ated warehouse will be built instead of an unre- frigerated one; • when the size or configuration of the proposed structure is altered; • when the location or orientation of the proposed structure is modified; • when there is a change of ownership, or • for application to an adjacent site. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibili/9 for problems which may develop if they are not consulted after factors consid- ered in their report's devefopment have changed. MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. when they are taken. Data derived through sampling and sub- sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo- technical engineers who then render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions.-their likely reaction to proposed construction activity. and appropriate founda- tion design. Even under optimal circumstances actual conditions may differ from those inferred to exist, because no geotechnical engineer. no matter how qualified, and no subsurface exploration program. no matter how comprehensive. can reveal what is hidden by earth. rock and time. The actual interface between mate- rials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated. but sters can be taken to help minimiu their impact. For this reason, most experienced oWners retain their geotechnical consultants through the construction stage, to iden- tify variances, conduct additional tests which may be needed, and to recommend solutions to problems encountered on site. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly- changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi- neering report is based on conditions which existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be based on a geotedlnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with the geo- technical consultant to learn if additional tests are advisable before construction starts. Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods. earthquakes or ground- water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and. thus. the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept apprised of any such events. and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary. GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND PERSONS Geotechnical engineers' reports are prepared to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report pre- pared for a consulting civil engineer may not be ade- quate for a construction contractor, or even some other consulting civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, this report was prepared expressly for the dient involved and expressly for purposes indicated by the dien!. Use by any other persons for any purpose, or by the dient for a different purpose, may result in problems. No i"di- vidual other tha" the client should apply this report for its inte"ded purpose without first co"ferring with the geotechnical engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose other than that original/ycontemplated without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer May 2, 2002 Mr. Michael Prittie 8910 -8'" Avenue Northeast Seattle, Washington 98115 Dear Mr. Prittie: E-10116 We are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Mapleton Residential Development, 664 Sunset Boulevard Northeast, Renton, Washington." This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering analyses. The purpose and scope of our study were outlined in our March 29,2002 proposal. Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion the site can be developed generally as ,planned. Support for the proposed single-family residences can be provided using conventional spread and continuous footing foundation systems bearing on competent native soils or on structural fill used to modify site grades. The competent native soils suitable for support of foundations were observed at depths of approximately two to 1hree feet below existing grade. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Respectfully submitted, MGMIRACr,... 1805 -136th Place N,E" Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Bellevue (425) 643-3780 FAX (425) 746-0860 Toll Free (888) 739-6670 TABLE OF CONTENTS E-10116 PAGE INTRODUCTION........................................ ..................................................... 1 General. ................. ....... ... . . .. . .. . .. . ....................... ............ . ........ ......... ... . ..... 1 Project Description...................................................................................... 1 SITE CONDITIONS.......................................................................................... 2 Surface........................................................................................... ........... 2 Subsurface.................. ...... . .. .. . .. . .. ...................... ....................... ................ 3 Groundwater ............................................................................................. 4 laboratory Testing................................ ...................................................... 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................ 5 GeneraL..... ............ ....... ........ . .. . .................. .. ... ............. . . .... ...................... 5 Site Preparation and General Earthwork.......................................................... 6 Fill Slope Placement.................................................................................... 8 Foundations.......................................... ..................................................... 8 Retaining WaDs....................................... .................................... .............. 10 Rockery Recommendations.......................................................................... 11 Water Quarlty Bioswale liner....................................................................... 11 Slab-on-Grade Floors.................................................................................. 1 2 Seismic Design Considerations..................................................................... 1 2 Excavations and Slopes.............................................................................. 1 3 Site Drainage............................................................................................ 14 Interceptor Drain ....................................................................................... 1 5 Uti6ty Support and Backfill.......................................................................... 1 6 Pavement Areas........................................................................................ 1 6 LIMITATIONS..................... ....... . ... ..... ..... ................ ................. .... ............. .... 17 Additional Services .................................................................................... 1 7 Earth Consultants, Ina. ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 PlateS Plate 6 APPENDICES Appendix A Plate A1 Plates A2 through A9 Appendix B Plates B 1 and B2 TABLE OF CONTENTS, Continued E-10116 Vicinity Map Test Pit Location Plan Slope FiU Placement Typical Footing Subdrain Detail Typical Interceptor Drain Detail Utility Trench BackfiU Field Exploration Legend Test Pit Logs Laboratory Test Results Grain Size Analyses Earth Consultants, Inc. • General GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY MAPLETON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 664 SUNSET BOULEVARD NORTHEAST RENTON, WASHINGTON E-10116 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study completed by Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) for the proposed Mapleton Residential Development at 664 Sunset Boulevard Northeast in Renton, Washington. The general location of the $ite is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The purpose of our study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site, and develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. Our services included a test pit exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and preparation of this report with geotechnical recommendations. Project Description We understand it is planned to develop a portion of the approximately one-acre site with a new residential development. Based on preliminary design information provided by the client, the development will consist of up to seven single-family residential lots, a water Quality bioswale tract, and an asphalt-paved access road extending in a north-south direction out to Northeast 6'" Court on the south side of the site. At the time our study was performed, the site, lot configurations, existing structures, and our exploration locations were approximately as shown on the Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2. Based on our experience with similar projects, we anticipate the single-family residences . will be two stories in height and will be of relatively lightly-loaded, wood-frame construction with a combination of wood joist and slab-on-grade floors. We anticipate wall loads will be on the order of one to two kips per lineal foot, with column loads of ten (10) to twenty (20) kips, and slab-on-grade floor loads of one hundred fifty (150) pounds per square foot (pst). Earth Consultants, Ino. • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Mr. Michael Prittie May 2,2002 E-10116 Page 2 We estimate cuts on the order of eight feet will be required to reach construction subgrade elevations in the eastern half of the site. Fill depths will range from approximately three to five feet. with the deepest fills located in the northwestern corner of the site. Where feasible, soils generated from the site excavations will be used on-site as structural fill. If the above design criteria are incorrect or change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design. SITE CONDlllONS Surface The subject site consists of an approximately one-acre, rectangular shaped site located approximately one hundred (100) feet northeast of the intersection of Sunset Boulevard Northeast and Northeast 6'" Court (see Plate 1, Vicinity Map). The subject site is bounded to the north by an existing single-family residence and undeveloped property, to the south and east by existing single-family residences, and to the west by a single-story apartment complex. Existing structures consist of a single-family residence, a garage, a kennel, and several rockeries. It is our understanding the existing residence is to remain and will be incorporated into the proposed development. The current access for the residence will be abandoned and converted to one of the lots. The site is situated within a west-facing slope that descends at gradients of approximately twenty percent or less. The maximum elevation change within the limits of the site is approximately forty-two (42) feet along a horizontal distance of about three hundred and ten (310) feet as measured from the northeastern to southwestern corners of the site. Earth Consultants. Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Mr. Michael Prittie May 2,2002 E-10116 Page 3 The west side of the site is bounded by an approximately ten foot high, west-facing rockery that extends along the entire length of the site. The rockery is located along the east side an asphalt-paved drive area for the existing apartment complex at the toe of slope within the property to the west. At the time of our subsurface exploration, the rockery appeared to be in good condition with no apparent signs of offset. Based on existing grades in the vicinity of the western property line, the rockery is likely constructed primarily against a cut slope. However, portions of the site on the upslope side of the rockery were previously graded to provide a level yard for the existing residence and appurtenant structures. As such, localized areas of fill are likely present behind the wall. No seepage was observed flowing from the rockery at the time of field work. The site is vegetated primarily with grass and localized areas containing small to large diameter trees and decorative shrubs and plants. Subsurface Subsurface conditions were evaluated by excavating eight test pits at the approximate locations shown on the Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2). The test pits were excavated to a maximum depth of fourteen (14) feet below existing grade. Our test pit logs are included as Plates A2 through A9. Please refer to the test pit logs for a detailed description of the subsurface conditions encountered at each test pit location. A description of the field exploration methods is included in Appendix A. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. At our test pit locations, we encountered a surficial layer of sod over topsoil. The topsoil and vegetation layer was typically eight (8) to twelve (12) inches thick. The topsoil was characterized by its dark brown to black color, loose consistency, and the presence of abundant roots and organic debris. The topsoil is not suitable for use as structural fill, nor should it be mixed with material to be used as structural fill. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Mr. Michael Prittie May 2,2002 E-10116 Page 4 Underlying the topsoil and sod in Test Pit TP-8 in the immediate southwestern corner of the site we encountered five feet of loose to medium dense fill. The fill was comprised of a twelve (12) inch thick layer of loose poorly graded sand with silt (Unified Soil Classification, SP-SM) over two feet of medium dense silty fine sand (SM) and two feet of medium dense silt (ML). The fill was similar to the underlying native soil but was characterized as fill due to the presence of a twelve (1 2) inch thick layer of dark brown silty sand encountered at five to six feet below grade. The dark brown silty sand layer was very loose to loose and contained abundant small to medium diameter roots. This layer was interpreted to be a buried topsoil layer that likely reflects the original grade in the area of Test Pit TP-8. The underlying native soil consists primarily of silty sand (SM) with varying amounts of gravel and localized interbeds of sandy silt (ML), poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM), poorly graded gravel with silt (GP-GMI. and poorly graded gravel (GP) to the maximum exploration depth of fourteen (14) feet below existing grade. The silt was encountered in the northeastern corner of the site from two (2) to ten and one half (10.5) feet below existing grade. The poorly graded gravel was encountered in the southwestern corner of the site from two and one half to ten feet below existing grade. The native soils were generally loose to approximately two to three feet below grade, becoming medium dense to the maximum exploration depth. Dense soils were encountered in Test Pits TP-2 and TP-6 at eight to nine and one half feet below existing grade. Groundwater Light to moderate groundwater seepage was encountered at Test Pits TP-2, TP-3, TP-4, TP-6, and TP-8 at depths ranging from one to nine and one half feet below grade. In addition, mottled soils and increased soil moisture were encountered to widely varying depths throughout the site. The observed seepage, mottling, and increased soil moisture within the site soils appear to be indicative of a seasonal perched groundwater condition. The seepage that may be encountered throughout the site during the spring and winter season is likely occurring along a contact with interbeds of low permeability soils and in relatively permeable interbeds of granular material within the lower permeability soils. Groundwater levels are not static, and there can be fluctuations in groundwater levels and seepage rates, depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Genera"y, the water level is higher and seepage rates are greater in the wetter winter months (typically October through May). Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Mr. Michael Prittie May 2, 2002 Laboratory Testing E-10116 Page 5 Laboratory tests were conducted on representative soil samples to verify or modify the field soil classifications and to evaluate the general physical properties and engineering characteristics of the soils encountered. Visual field classifications were supplemented by grain size analyses on representative soil samples. Moisture content tests were performed on all samples. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided either at the appropriate sample depth on the individual test pit logs or on a separate data sheet contained in Appendix B. It is important to note that these test results may not accurately represent the overall in-situ soil conditions. Our geotechnical recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results and their use in guiding our engineering judgment. ECI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. In accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions, the soil samples for this project will be discarded after a period of fifteen (15) days following completion of this report unless we are otherwise directed in writing. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion the site can be developed generally as planned. Building support can be provided using conventional spread and continuous footing foundation systems bearing on competent native soils or on structural fill used to modify site grades. Slab-on-grade floors may be similarly supported. Zones of very loose to loose and saturated soil were encountered within several feet of the surface at five of our eight test pit locations. These soils are unsuitable for direct support of foundations, structural fill, and pavements. Where encountered, these soils should either be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill, or the footings extended through the unsuitable soil to the underlying medium dense soil. Earth Consultants, Inc. I I I I I I I f , t [ [ I , I l GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Mr. Michael Prittie May 2.2002 E-10116 Page 6 In our opinion. due to the presence of the existing rockery located immediately to the west of the site. the proposed building foundations should maintain a minimum horizontal setback of ten (10) feet from the backside of the rockery. The proposed water quality bioswale planned near the existing rockery should be adequately sealed with a geomembrane or soil liner to help prevent seepage through the face of the existing rockery. Additionally. the stability of the existing rockery should be further assessed by Eel once the location and finish grades throughout the bioswale have been finalized. To minimize surcharge loading of the rockery. placement of fill and raising of site grades should not be performed within ten feet of the backside of the existing rockery. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of Mr. Michael Prittie and his representatives. No warranty. expressed or implied. is made. This report. in its entirety. should be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Site Preparation and General Earthwork Building. pavement. and. areas to receive structural fill should be stripped and cleared of existing foundations. pavements, surface vegetation, organic matter. and other deleterious material. Based on the thickness of the topsoil and vegetative layers observed at the site. we estimate a stripping depth of four (4) to twelve (12) inches for the majority of the site. and may extend to fourteen (14) inches in localized areas. Stripped materials should not be mixed with soils to be used as structural fill. The stripped materials may be wasted on-site in landscaping or yard areas. The strippings may also be stockpiled and used as topsoil around building areas after the site is mass graded. Ifstrippings are placed on the lots after mass grading. it will be necessary to extend the foundations through the strippings and to remove the strippings from slab areas. Earth Consultants, Inc. f I f r I ( ( l [ [ l GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Mr. Michael Prittie May 2, 2002 E-10116 Page 7 Following the stripping operation and excavations necessary to achieve construction subgrade elevations, the ground surface where structural fill, foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be placed should be observed by a representative of Eel. Proofrolling may be necessary to identify soft or unstable areas. Proofrolling should be performed under the observation of a representative of Eel. Soil in loose or soft areas, if recompacted and still yielding, should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base beneath the general structural fill. The optional use of a geotextile fabric placed directly on the overexcavated surface may help to bridge unstable areas. Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under buildings, roadways, slabs, pavements, or other load-bearing areas. Structural fill under floor slabs and footings should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation 0-1557-91 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near their optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density except for the top twelve (12) inches, which should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density. During dry weather, most granular soils that are compactible and non-organic can be used· as structural fill. Based on the results of our laboratory tests, some of the on-site soils at the time of our exploration were above their optimum moisture content and may not be suitable for use as structural fill if they cannot be dried back to optimum levels. In addition, laboratory testing indicates the site soils have from 3 to 43 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. The northeastern portion of the site also contains silt soil with greater than 50 percent fines. Soil with fines in excess of approximately 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve will degrade if exposed to excessive moisture, and compaction and grading will be difficult if the soil moisture increases significantly above its optimum condition. Earth Conaultants. Inc. [ ( I I I f [ [ [ I I [ [ [ [ GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Mr. Michael Prittie May 2,2002 E-10116 Page 8 If the site soils cannot be dried back to optimum moisture levels or if they are exposed to moisture and cannot be adequately compacted then it may be necessary to import a soil that can be compacted. During dry weather, most non-organic, compactible granular soils with a maximum grain size of four inches can be used. Fill for use during wet weather should consist of a fairly well graded granular material having a maximum grain size of four inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction. A contingency in the earthwork budget should be included for this possibility. Slope Fill Placement In our opinion, the placement of fill on a sloping grade is acceptable, however, where the slope gradient exceeds approximately 25 percent, the fill must be adequately keyed and benched into the slope. As previously mentioned, fill should not be placed above the existing rockery on the west side of the site. Fill placement on a slope consists of excavating a keyway at the toe of the planned fill. The keyway should have a width of about six to eight feet and a depth of at least two feet into medium dense to dense native soil. The slope above the keyway should then be cut into a series of horizontal to slightly inward sloping benches. Typically, the benches are excavated with a small bulldozer as the fill is brought up. The width of the bench varies with the gradient of the slope, usually the gentler the slope, the wider the bench. Plate 3, Slope Fill Placement shows a schematic diagram of the keyway and benches. Foundations Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion the future single-family residences can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footing foundations bearing on competent native soil, or on structural fill used to modify site grades. Very loose to loose and wet to saturated soils were encountered within several feet of the surface in Test Pits TP-1, TP-2, TP-3, TP-4, and TP-6. These soils are unsuitable for direct support of foundations, pavements, or structural fill. If encountered at construction subgrade elevations the very loose to loose or saturated soil should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill. Competent soils were typically encountered at two to four feet below existing grade. Earth Consultants, Inc. r [ I [ r ( I l [ L l l l l GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Mr. Michael Prittie May 2,2002 E-10116 Page 9 For frost protection, exterior foundation elements should be placed at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches below final exterior grades. Interior spread foundations can be placed at a minimum depth of twelve (12) inches below the top of slab, except in unheated areas, where interior foundation elements should be founded at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of sixteen (16) and twenty-four (24) inches, respectively. With foundation support obtained as described, for design, an allowable soil bearing capacity of two thousand five hundred (2,500) psf for the competent native soils or structural fill can be used. Loading of this magnitude would be provided with a theoretical factor-of-safety in excess of three against shear failure. For short-term dynamic loading conditions, a one-third increase in the above allowable bearing capacity can be used. As previously mentioned, the foundations should maintain a minimum horizontal setback of ten feet from the backside ot the existing rockery located along the western property line. With structural loading as expected, total settlement of less than one inch is anticipated with differential movement of less than one-half inch. Most of the anticipated settlement should occur during construction as dead loads are applied. Horizontal loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the supporting soil and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried rtion of the foundation. For the latter, the foundation must be poured "neat" ag· competent native soils or backfilled with structural fill. For frictional capacity, a c efficient of 0.35 can be used. For passive earth pressure, the available resistance can be computed using an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of three hundred tifty (350) pounds per cubic foot (pct). These lateral resistance values are allowable values, and a factor-ot-safety ot 1.5 has been included. As movement of the foundation element is required to mobilize full passive resistance, the passive resistance should be neglected it such movement is not acceptable. Footing excavations should be observed by a representative of ECI, prior to placing forms or rebar, to verify that conditions are as anticipated in this report. Density testing of compacted structural fill should be performed by ECI, as necessary. Earth Consultants, Inc. f r r [ f [ [ [ I I GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEmNG STUDY Mr. Michael Prittie May 2, 2002 Retaining Wans E-10116 Page 10 Due to the west sloping gradient of much of the planned development area, we anticipate a number of the residences will be benched into the slopes with portions of the foundation walls constructed against a cut slope. Walls constructed against cut or fill slopes should be designed as retaining walls to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the retained soils. The retaining wall recommendations pertain to foundation walls and free-standing retaining walls used to support cut and fill slopes. Walls that are designed to yield, such as cantilever retaining walls, can be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five (35) pcf. For foundation walls that will be restrained at the top from free movement the equivalent fluid weight should be increased to fifty (50) pcf. These values are based on horizontal backfill conditions. Surcharges due to backfill slopes, hydrostatic pressures, traffic, structural loads or other surcharge loads are assumed to not act on the wall. If such surcharges are to apply, they should be added to the above design lateral earth pressure. ECI can provide recommendations for surcharge loading as needed, based on the final design. The passive pressure, allowable bearing capacity, and friction coefficient previously provided in the Foundations section of this report are applicable to the retaining wall design. To reduce the potential for hydrostatic pressures building up behind the walls, the foundation walls and free-standing retaining walls should be backfilled with a free-draining material extending at least eighteen (1 8) inches behind the wall, and extending along the entire height of the wall. The remainder of the backfill should consist of structural fill. The free-draining backfill should consist of free draining granular material comprised of either pea gravel or washed rock. A filter fabric should be used to separate the free draining gravel from the remainder of the wall backfill. A rigid, schedule 40, perforated PVC drainpipe should be placed at the base of the wall and should be surrounded by a minimum of one cubic foot per lineal foot with three-eighths inch pea gravel. The pipe should be placed with the perforations in the down pOSition. Earth Consultants, Inc. ~ ( . i; GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY r; I~ [ [ I [ [ l [ ( L I I [ ( Mr. Michael Prittie May 2,2002 Rockery Recommendations E-10116 Page 11 Review of the preliminary grading plan indicates the planned development will include construction of a rockery along the east side of the site. The proposed rockery as depicted on the site plan will extend approximately two hundred (200) feet in a north- south direction along the backside of the eastern lots. The rockery will be up to ten feet in height and will be constructed against a cut slope. Due to the close proximity of the proposed rockery to the east property line, Eel should review the final rockery design and proposed cut depths. Based on the soil conditions observed at the test pit locations, face stability of the rockery cuts may be a problem for cuts in excess of four feet. Terracing the rockery is one approach that can be considered for minimizing the depth of the rockery cuts. Water Quality Bioswale Liner To help reduce seepage from occurring through the existing rockery along the west side of the property in the vicinity of the proposed bios wale, in our opinion, the bioswale should be lined with a low-permeability soil liner. The liner should consist of at least eighteen (18) inches of a low-permeability soil meeting the following gradational recommendations: Soil Liner Gradational Recommendations Sieve Size Percent Passing 3 inch 100 #4 70 -100 #200 30 -100 The native silt (ML) encountered at TP-2, TP-3, and TP-4 and some of the native silty sand (SM) should generally meet these gradational recommendations. The soils that are to be used as liner material should be observed and tested to assess the suitability of the material. Earth Consultants, Inc. I,; [ [ [ [ [ (' [ , ( [ I I [ ( 1 l GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Mr. Michael Prittie May 2,2002 E-10116 Page 12 The liner should be placed in six inch loose lifts, moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density per ASTM 0-1557. Use of a geomembrane liner can also be considered. ECI can provide geomembrane recommendations if requested. Slab-on-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors may be supported on competent native soil subgrade or on structural fill used to modify site grades. Subgrade soils disturbed during construction should either be compacted in-place to the requirements of structural fill or overexcavated and replaced with structural fill. The slab should be underlain by a capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free-draining sand or gravel. In addition, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane should be placed beneath the slab. Two inches of damp sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing the concrete. Seismic Design Considerations The Puget Lowland is classified as a Seismic Zone 3 in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with regularity, however, the majority of these events are of such low magnitude they are not felt without instruments. Large earthquakes do occur, as indicated by the 1949, 7.2 magnitude earthquake in the Olympia area, the 1965, 6.5 magnitude earthquake in the Midway area, and the February, 2001, 6.8 magnitude Nisqually earthquake. There are three potential geologic hazards associated with a strong motion seismic event at this site: ground rupture, liquefaction, and ground motion response. Ground Rupture: The strongest earthquakes in the Puget Lowland are widespread, subcrustal events, ranging in depth from thirty (30) to fifty-five (55) miles. Surface faulting from these deep events has not been documented to date. Therefore, it is our opinion, that the risk of ground rupture at this site during a strong motion seismic event is negligible. Earth Consultants, Inc. [ r i I I ( I l l GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Mr. Michael Prittie May 2,2002 E-10116 Page 13 liquefaction: Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time during an earthquake. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain to grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid. To have a potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain size distribution of a specified range (generally sand and silt); it must be loose; it must be below the groundwater table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of groundshaking. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential settlement for structures founded in the liquefying soils. In our opinion, the potential for liquefaction induced settlement of the soils encountered at this site should be negligible. Ground Motion Response: The 1997 UBC seismic design section provides a series of soil types that are used as a basis for seismic design of structures. Based on the encountered soil conditions, it is our opinion that soil type So, Stiff Soil Profile from Table 16-J should be used for design. Excavations and Slopes The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state (WISHA), and Federal (OSHA) safety regulations. Based on the information obtained from the subsurface exploration, the site soils encountered at our test pit locations would be classified as Type C by OSHA/WISHA. Temporary cuts greater than four feet in height in TypeC soils should be sloped at an inclination of 1.5H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). The underlying dense soils encountered at several of our test pit locations would be classified as Type B by OSHA/WISHA. Temporary cuts greater than four feet in height in Type B soils should be sloped at an inclination of 1H:1V. Temporary slopes in slopes that are wet to saturated should be treated as Type C soils and cut accordingly. ECI should observe temporary excavations to verify the OSHA soil type. Earth Consultants, Inc. I f I I ( f ( [ [ [ ( I [ 1 I l I 1 l GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Mr. Michael Prittie May 2,2002 E-10116 Page 14 Shoring will help protect against slope or excavation collapse, and will provide protection to workers in the excavation. If temporary shoring is required, we will be available to provide shoring design criteria. Permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2H:1V. Cut slopes should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve stability, including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. Site Drainage Light to moderate groundwater seepage was encountered at one to nine and one half feet below grade at five of our eight test pit locations. In addition, zones of mottling and increased soil moisture were encountered at widely varying depths throughout the site. The shallow seepage appears to be indicative of a perched groundwater condition with water moving along the contact with low permeability soils that underlie portions of the site. The deeper seepage zones and increased soil moisture appears to be occurring in relatively permeable interbeds or pockets within surrounding low-permeability soils. Depending on the season and depth of the anticipated cuts, light to moderate groundwater seepage may be encountered in site excavations. If seepage is encountered in foundation or utility excavations during construction, the bottom of the excavation should be sloped to one or more shallow sump pits. The col/ected water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive and permanent discharge, such as a nearby storm drain. Depending on the magnitude of such seepage, it may also be necessary to interconnect the sump pits by a system of connector trenches. The appropriate locations of subsurface drains, if needed, should be established during grading operations by ECl's representative at which time the seepage areas, if present, may be more clearly defined. Earth Consultants, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I [ I I I [ I GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Mr. Michael Prittie May 2,2002 E-10116 Page 15 During construction, the site must be graded such that surface water is directed off the site away from building areas and areas to receive fill. Water must not be allowed to stand in areas where buildings, slabs, pavements, or fill slopes are to be constructed. Loose surfaces should be sealed by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades must allow for drainage away from the building foundations. The ground should be sloped at a gradient of 3 percent for a distance of at least ten (10) feet away from the proposed residences, except in paved areas, which can be sloped at a gradient of 2 percent. Footing drains should be installed around the perimeter of the residences, at or just below the invert of the footing, with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. A typical detail is provided on Plate 4. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain system. Roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge. Cleanouts should be installed at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems. Interceptor Drain Based on information provided by the client, we understand localized areas within the limits of the site are wet to saturated at certain times of the year. At the time of our field exploration, we observed localized wet spots in the lawn areas, and zones of light to moderate perched groundwater seepage within several feet of the surface. Based on the observed site conditions, the saturation is likely a result of shallow, perched groundwater accumulating along interbeds of low permeability soils located within several feet of the surface throughout the site. While much of the shallow seepage could be collected by footing or foundation/retaining wall drains, in our opinion, it may be prudent to install an interceptor drain or a series of interceptor drains on the east side of the site or along the east side of the proposed residential lots to collect and divert shallow groundwater from the proposed building and lawn areas. If interceptor drains are installed, the locations can be determined in the field during grading as groundwater conditions within each of the lots is further assessed. Earth Consultants. Inc. I I GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY I I I I I [ I I I ( l I I I I 1 I Mr. Michael Prittie E-10116 May 2, 2002 Page 16 Please refer to Plate 5 for a schematic drawing of a typical interceptor drain. Utility Support and Backfill Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, the soils expected to be exposed by utility excavations should provide adequate support for utilities. Utility trench backfill is a primary concern in reducing the potential for settlement along utility alignments, particularly in pavement areas. It is important that each section of utility line be adequately supported in the bedding material. The material should be hand tamped to ensure support is provided around the pipe haunches. Fill should be carefully placed and hand tamped to about twelve (12) inches above the crown of the pipe before heavy compaction equipment is brought into use. The remainder of the trench backfill should be placed in lifts having a loose thickness of less than twelve (12) inches and compacted. A typical trench backfill section and compaction requirements for load supporting and non-load supporting areas is presented on Plate 6. Pavement Areas The adequacy of site pavements is related in part to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To provide a properly prepared subgrade for pavements, the subgrade should be treated and prepared as described in the Site Preparation and General Earthwork section of this report. Fill in public right-ot-way areas should be compacted to 95 percent ot the maximum dry density (per ASTM 0-1557-91). It is possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may still exist after this process. Therefore, a greater thickness of structural fill or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. The following pavement section for lightly-loaded areas can be used: • Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB) material, or • Two inches of AC over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB) material. Earth Consultants, Inc. I f I I I I I I ( I I I I l l GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Mr. Michael Prittie May 2,2002 E-10116 Page 17 We will be pleased to assist in developing appropriate pavement sections for heavy traffic zones, if needed. Pavement materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. The use of a Class B asphalt mix is suggested. LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the observed site materials, selective laboratory testing, engineering analyses, the design information provided us, and our experience and engineering judgment. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test pits. Soil and groundwater conditions between test pits may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. Additional Services As the geotechnical engineer of record, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design and specifications to verify the earthwork, foundation and infiltration recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications. ECI should also be retained to provide geotechnical engineering services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations, and to facilitate design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility for the performance of the foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construction observation and testing services. Earth Consultants. Inc. I I I I I I I I I I ( I I I I I LAKE Reference: Puget Sound Area King County 1 Map 626 By Thomas Brothers Maps Dated 2002 iXJLOON POlflfr NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. Eel cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. '" ~~E~Q"£!2~ .. ~~l.t~v~~:'I~r:£ Vicinity Map Mapleton Residential Development Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date April 2002 Proj. No. 10116 Checked MGM Date 4/30102 Plate 1 ·1 '1 I I I I I'. " [ [ I I I I I I 1 1 I o Approximate Scale 25 50 100ft. Proposed Bioswale N.E. 6th COURT LEGEND Tp·1 -1-Approximate Location of Eel Test Pit, Proj. No. E-10116, April 2002 D Subject Site D Existing Building NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate, Test Pit Location Plan Mapleton Residential Development Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date May 2002 ProJ. No. 10116 Checked MGM Date 511/02 Plate 2 I I r I I I I I [ I. I. 1 I I I I Proj. No. 10116 GRADE 'LEGEND NOTES: SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING FINAL SLOPE GRADIENT WIDTH "KEY" Free draining, organic free. granular material with a maximum size of 3 inches, containing no more than 5 percent fines Isilt and clay size particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve I or other material approved by geotechnica I engineer. Key way fill is same as structural fill described above. Key way should be minimum 2 feet deep and 6 feet wide, extending the full length of the slope face. Approximate original ground line. • Slope should be stripped of topsoi' and unsuitable materials prior to excavating key way or benches. • Benches will typically be equal to a dozer blade wklth, approximately 8 feet, but a minimum of 4 feet. • Final slope gradient should be I Horizontal: Vertical!. • Final slope face should be densified by over building with compacted fill and trimming back to shape or ~Y compaction with dozer Of roller. • Planting or hydroseeding slope face with a rapid growth deep rooted vegetative mat will reduce erosion potential of slope area. • Use of pegged in place jute matting or geotechnical fabric will help maintain the seed and mulch in place until the root system has an opportunity to germinate. • Structural fill should be Placed in thin loose lifts not exceeding 10 inches in thickness. Each lift should be compacted to no less than the degree specified in the site preparation and earth work section of this report. No additional lift should be placed until compaction is achieved. SLOPE FILL PLACEMENT Mapleton Residential Development Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS DateMay 2002 Checked MGM Dated 5/1/02 Plate 3 1---- I I I I I [ ." I I I I I I I • 18 Inch min. 4 Inch min. Diameter Perforated Pipe Wrapped In Drainage Fabric -," 2 Inch min. 2 Inch min. / 4 inch max. ~12Inch~ GI]"'.::>. .. ~ ...... . '. . o LEGEND min. SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Surface seal; native soU or other low perrneabUIty material. Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9-03.1 (2) of the WSDOT Specifications . Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid wtth perforations or slots facing down; tight jointed; wtth a positive gradient. Do not use ftexlble corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie buDding downspout drains Into footing lines. Wrap wtth Mlrali 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent. (~----~------~--------------~ '" TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL ~I!~~.!!!~E!.~' Mapleton Residential Development Renton, Washington L ~----~~-----'-------+------~~------~----1 [ Pro" No. 10116 DateMay 2002 Checked MGM Date 5/1/02 Plate 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o LEGEND Depth Varies Native SoU Backfill I .. Free-Draining Backfill composed of Washed Gravel, Pea Gravel, etc. Minimum 4 inch Perforated Rigid Schedule 40 POVC Pipe wrapped with Mlrafi 140N Riter Fabric or equivalent placed at a positive gradient to a suitable permanent discharge facility. NOTE' The depth and lateral extent of the Interceptor trench should be established by a field representative from this office during construction. 12" min. width Geotextile Fabric Mirafl140N Subsurface Seepage Subsurface Seepage SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING '" ~1~~"£~~~t~~~!!2.S~ TYPICAL INTERCEPTOR DRAIN DETAIL Mapleton Residential Development Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date May 2002 Pro~ No. 10116 Checked MGM Date 512102 Plate 5 I I I I I I I I [ Non-Load Supporting Roor Slab or Areas Roadway Areas Varies 1 Foot Minimum Backfill Varies Bedding Varies Proj. NO.I01l6 Drwn. GLS LEGEND: Asphalt or Concrete Pavement or Concrete Roor Slab Base Material or Base Rock Backfill; Compacted On-Sne Soil or Imported Select Fill Material as Described in the Sne Preparation of the General Earthwork Section of the Attached Report Text. 'I Minimum Percentage of Maximum Laboratory Dry Densny as , Determined by ASTM Test Method 01557-91 (Mod Hied Proctor). : Unless Otherwise Specified in the Attached Report Text. , Bedding Material; Material Type Depends on Type of Pipe and laying Condkions. Bedding ShOUld Conform to the Manufacturers Recommendations for the Type of Pipe Selected. TYPICAL UTILITY TRENCH FILL Mapleton Residential Development Renton, Washington Date May 2002 Checked MGM Date 5/1/02 Plate 6 I r I I [ I ( ( I r ( [ I l ( I I I I APPENDIX A FIELD EXPlORAllON E-10116 Our field exploration was performed on April 4, 2002. The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by excavating eight test pits to a maximum depth of fourteen (14) feet below existing grade. The test pits were excavated by Northwest Excavating, subcontracted to ECI, using a rubber-tired backhoe. The approximate test pit locations and elevations were determined by pacing from site features depicted on a preliminary site plan provided by the client. The locations and elevations of the test pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on the Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geologist from our firm, who classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative samples and observed pertinent site features. All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate A 1, Legend. Logs of the test pits are presented on Plates A2 through A9. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory tests on field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. Representative soil samples were collected and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Earth Consultants. Inc. ·1 ·r I I I I I I [ l l MAJOR DIVISIONS Coarse Grained Solis More Than 50% Materiel larger Than No. 200 Sieve Size Fine Gramed Soils More Than 50% Material Smaller T .... an No. 200 Sipw Size Gravel And Gravelly Soil8 Mor. Than 50% Coarse ):raclion Retained On No.4 Sieve Sand And Sandy Soils More Than SO" Coarse Fraction Passing Sieve Sill'J Nid Clays Silts And Clays No.4 Clean Gravels (little or no fines) Gravels With Fines ( appreciable amount 01 fines I Clean Sand (little or no fines) Sands With Fines (appreciable amount of fines) Liquid Limit Less Than 50 liquid Limn Greater Than Highly Organic Soil!. Topsoil Fill , GRAPH SYMBOL -J, ..J,- ..J,-..J,-~ LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Well-Graded Gravels I Gravel-Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines Poorly -Graded Gravels, Gravel- Sand Mixtures. LiHie Or No Rnes Silty Gravels. Gravel-Sand- Silt Mixtures Clayey Gravels, Gravel-Sand- Clay Mixtures Well-Graded Sands, Gravblly Sands, LIttle Or No Fines Poorly -Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, LIttle Or No Fines Silty Sands, Sand -Silt Mixtures Inorganic Clays Of low To Medium Grav~IIY Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Organic Silts And Organic Silty Clays Of low Plas.ticity Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils With High Organic Contents Humus And Duff layer Hf!Jl1y Variable Constituents Diatomaceous Fir>e The discussion In tho texl of this report Is necessary for a proper uncletStancllng of tho nature of the material presented In the attached logo. c qu W P • pel LL PI DUAL SYMBOLS ... used 10 Indlcalo borderline 0011 _. TORI/ANE READING, taf PENETROMETER READING, taf MOISTURE, 'I(, dry weight SAMPlER PUSHED SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED DRY DENSITY, lbo. per cubic II. UOUID UMIT, 'I(, PLASTIC INDEX I Z' O.D. SPUT SPOON SAMPLER II 24" I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPlER I WATER OBSERVATION WELL SZ DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER DURING EXCAVATION l! SUBSEQUENT GlQJNrMlAlER LEVEL WI O'TE LEGEND Proj. No. 10116 Date May 2002 Plate Ai I Test Pit Log I.' " I I I I I I I [ ( [ I I I I I Noles: General Noles W (%) 11,8 1.3 Own, GLS Dale: 4/4102 Tes1 Pit No,: Sheet 1 Elevalion: Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4" Reddish brown silty SAND, Brown poorly medium ""'''''' -5% fines Gray silty SAND with gravel, medium dense to ael15e, moist Test pit terminated below encountered during e>a::aVlrnon. NOTE: grade. No of 1 to wet wet Test pit e>a::aVlillions estimated based on topography and data shown on Prelim inary Site Plan. times and locations, We cannor Test Pit Log Mapleton Residential De1lelopment Renton, Washington MGM Dale 511102 I Test Pit Log r I f I I r I I I I I [ I [ l i NW Noles: General - 25.7 6.9 Proj. No. 10116 Sheet a 1 1 Test Pit No.: ~: SUrface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod a" -12" TOPSOIL and SOD Mottled brown silty 2 3r-IIIM~L~r-~~dbb~rown~~S~ICLTf.,11~~ekW~mmeeddii~ummcd~ennse~,nm~0~~rtl------------~ 4 -becomes brown, medium dense 5 -light seepage in pocket of poorly graded sand 6 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, wei 7 8~4-~~~~--~~~~----~~----------------------~ SM silty SAND, oeIl5e, moist wet, Test pit terminated at 10.5 feet below e~ grade. Light groundwater seepage encountered at 4.5 feet during ex:avation. 2002 Test Pit Log Maplewn Residential Development Renwn, Washingron Checked MGM Date 511/02 byolhersa I Test Pit Log f I I I I I I I I I I ( [ i ~Name: .: Residential Job No. I logged by: 10116 MGM NW Notes: .2:8 General W a E Notes (%) 156i" '" 26.0 23.4 ~-'I ---C I-- 1 f- 2 f- 3f- I-- 41-- t-- 51-- I-- 6 I-- 71--- 8 I--- I--- 9- I--- 10 - I S7' of 1 I 0:'4/02 Test Pit No.: TP-3 Ground SUrface Elevation: 195' "':8 Surface Condnions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 12" o E "'» ::>", TPSL I~ ~~,~&SOD SM Brown silty ~"'IJ, loose to medium ~ wet, light seepage at 2' ML Mottled brown and gray SILT with sand, medium dense, moist ML moist ; to I brown and gray SILT with sand, I dense, ML Gray SILT, I dense to dense,riiOiSt -.5" thick beds -contains polished surfaces and angular silt fragments in silt matrix Test pit terminated at,1~t~':':.~ Il.!~e. Groundwater seepage encountered ;.;;;" Illy 'II. I I I I I ! : '" ~~2~1~a;:!~,!;~. Test Pit Log Mapleton Residential Development Renton, Washington Proj. No. 10116 OWn. GLS I Dale May 2002 Checked MGM I Date 511102 I Plate A4 -I=.:e~~ thio w. lour.' .~..",o .and 'hoIe·~by,'us8or I tes1s,o:tr" ~ 01 , and .- -I Test Pit Log I I I· . I f ( I I I I I I I ( I Noles: °0 ... w :;: -" 'Ii .... (%) ~E.r;:E <!J~o m 17.6 2 3 5 6 7 9 11.2 10 Proj. No. 10116 OWn. GLS "':8 <.J E "',., ::>11) TPSL Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 14" 14" TOPSOIL and SOD -light seepage at 1 g' brown SIL sand, medium moist pit seepage encountered at Test Pit Log Sheet d 1 1 Mapleton Residential Development Renton, Washington MGM cannot ac:cepI ,I Test Pit Log I I I I I I I I I ( 1 t I ( I Job No, 10116 Notes: General Noles .11-w ~B (%) ~ ~ 17.3 Proj, No. 10116 OWn, '" J! 11.,,,-., u: E o cl!l 3 4 5 6 GLS Surface Conditioos: Sheet of Teat Pit No.: Ground SUrface EIeYaIlon: 170' Depth of Topsoil & Duff 12" gravel, very loose, moist 1 1 -abundant cobbles -43% fines -becomes medium dense, moist Test Pit Log Mapleton Residential Dewllopment Renton, Washington Checked MGM byolhersof I Test Pit Log I I I f ( ( I I Noles: General Notes W (%) 20.2 20.5 11.7 4 6 7 8 "':8 o E "'", ::>", SM Sheet of 1 1 Test Pit No.: Surface Concf/tions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2"-3" Brown silty ~NU. wet -moderate seepage at l' Gray silty SAND, dense, moist. contains gravel, becomes blue gray Groundwater Test Pit Log Mapleton Residential Development Renton, Washington I I l Proj. No. DNn. GLS Dale Checked MGM I neoessari~'IaIi'" of other byolhersof I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 l Test Pit Log Residential Job No. Logged by: 10116 MGM Notes: General Noles No. 10116 w ~:8 "-E (%) I!!,.. CI<Il 4.5 5.3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Date: 414102 S_ fA Ground Surface Elevation: 170' 1 1 Surface Cooditioos: Depth ofT opsoil & Sod 12" with medium dense, -3% fines -becomes wet 1°r-l-----r-TT~esStt~p~nt.re"nmmirin~ared~~~~10o..oofiree~tbbe~IOWowe~;·~·QgQg~~~~.Nijo~~~~~_j encountered during e>eavation. Test Pit Log Mapleton Residential Development Renton, Washington -I I I I ( ( I I I [ [ Test Pit Log Notes: General Notes 17.0 20.8 23.6 2 4 Date: 414/02 Test Pit No.: "':8 <> E "'", ;j", Surface Condnioos: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2" SP-SM Brown poorly graded Sheet of 1 1 61-+-=S:-:-M-=--I--=B:-rown--s7.ilty;-::S;-:;;AN7,;:D:-with-:-:;;-9-ravel-7,7100se:-::::=to:-Cm=ed:;;iu:-::m~d;:::e~nse:::-, :::wet~-----i 7 8 9 -becomes wet to saturated 10 -moderate to heavy seepage at 9.5' 11 12 13 -contains pockets of poorly graded sand and sandy silt 14r-i---r-~~~lrm~I~~atit4.0h*ib~we~~gr.~0Grou~~~--~ see,pa!~e encountered at 9.5 feet during eJ«::Sviition. Test Pit Log Mapleton Residential Development Renton, Washington Date 511/02 I -r I I I I I I: I I [ , ( I I I I I I APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS E-10116 Earth Consultants. Ina. 1----- PERI._ .• T COARSER BY WEIGHT I I I I , I 10' u:: w Z u: -' w f-~ It W" l2 g £H44++~HH44++~HH~++~HHHHittTHHHHittt~HHi908 -- .~++++++++++++++++++ttrtttttrttt++rtrtttttttrt++ttti°OI 9H++H+HH+~+H+tH++H+HH+~+H+tHf+H~H+H ooz ~ '" '" o o '-- . ...J I ... I is t ii: o '" III C > III ><! § o ... '" '" N I o N I Po< H I I I <l ~ CJl :>, '"' rl .... !II o PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT (~------------~--------------~ _ GRAIN SIZE ANALYSES l Earth Consultants Inc Mapleton Residential Development . : Goo'echnlcaJ EnS1~". G<ok>g~ts ... ".~","men,,' Scim,;", Ren ton, Washington ~-------r------~~------~------~--------~------~ lL-p_r_~~,_N_O_._IO_1_1_6-l_D_nN __ n_. __ GL_S ____ ~_D_a_t_e_M_a_Y_2 __ 00-l2'_C_h_e_Ck_e_d __ M_GM ___ ~ID_a_t_e_5_/_1_/_0_2 __ ~lp_1_a~ ___ B_l ____ ~ 1....----- I t- 1- I I I I PERC_ .. r COARSER BY WEIGHT [ : ~H+H+H+~~+H+H+H+H+H~~~H+H+H+~u, (, ~:iWmm=tWm=ttt:l~ffi:j+wm~~+ttIoz [ f I~ .," Ot uv 09 w Z u: ..J W r-~ a: w" ~ 8 .... ... .... .... is t a: o '" ... o > ... ~ I o o . a> o - co I ~ I I I (J I~ ____________ P_E_R_C_E_N_T_F_I_N_ER __ B_Y __ W_E_IG_H_T~ ________________________________ ~ .. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSES I Earth Consultants Inc Mapleton Residential Development . . ':"""""'nlcal Engl~. Geolog",.& Envtron"",,"l'd'n<~" Ren ton, Washington I Pro], No. 10116 I Drwn. GLS I Date May 2002 Checked MGM Date 4/1/02 I Plate B2 ,. f I I [ r ( I [ I . [ I I I I I I [ I ....!... Copies DISTRIBUTION E·10116 Mr. Michael Prittie 8910 -8u. Avenue Northeast Seattle, Washington 98115 Earth Consultants, Inc. Order No.: NW -20141723 DEVaOPMENT PLAh .. "..G 0fTY OF RENTON landAmerica Transnation JAN 102007 RECEIVED THIRD COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A 14450 N.E. 29 th Pl., #200 Bellevue, WA 98007 Phone: 425-451-7301 800-441-7701 Fax: 425-646-0541 1. Effective Date: November 22, 2005 at 8:00 a.m. Commitment No.: NW -20141723 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Owners Policy 10-17-92 Builder Rate Proposed Insured: Christopher Neal, a single man Amount: Premium: Tax: Total: $399,950.00 $ 311.00 $ 27.37 $ 338.37 ALTA Loan Policy -1992 -Simultaneous Issue Proposed Insured: Argent Mortgage Company, LLC Amount: Premium: Tax: Total: $319,960.00 $ 577.00 $ 50.78 $ 627.78 3. Title to the fee simple estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: Denali Properties, LLC, a Washington limited liability company 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Transnation Title Insurance Company By ~ 'u.. £. fl 0 ) AL;thorized slfltUre Preliminary Commitment Page 1 of 6 Order No. NW -20141723 EXHIBIT "A" LOT 6 OF CITY OF RENTON SHORT PLAT NO. LUA-01-1S8, AS RECORDED APRIL 26, 2004 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20040426900021, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY AUDITOR; TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTIUTIES AS DEUNEATED ON THE FACE OF SAID SHORT PLAT; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Order No. NW -20141723 SCHEDULE B REQUIREMENTS: Instruments necessary to create the estate or interest to be properly executed, delivered and duly filed for record. EXCEPTIONS: Schedule B of the Policy or Policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. A. Standard exceptions set forth on the Commitment Cover. B. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed Insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 1. REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF RCW CHAPTER 82.45 AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS THERETO. AS OF THE DATE HEREIN, THE TAX RATE FOR SAID PROPERTY IS 1.78% FOR ALL TRANSACTIONS RECORDED ON OR AFTER JULY 1, 2005: • A FEE OF $10.00 WILL BE CHARGED ON ALL EXEMPT TRANSACTIONS; • A FEE OF $5.00 WILL BE CHARGED ON ALL TAXABLE TRANSACTIONS IN ADDITION TO THE EXCISE TAX DUE; 2. GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES AND SERVICE CHARGES, AS FOLLOWS, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, PENALTY AND STATUTORY FORECLOSURE COSTS, IF ANY, AFTER DELINQUENCY: (lST HALF DELINQUENT ON MAY 1; 2ND HALF DELINQUENT ON NOVEMBER 1) TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 0823059225 YEAR BILLED PAID BALANCE 2006 $1,313.51 $656.76 $656.75 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE, NOT INCLUDING INTEREST AND PENALTY: $656.75. LEVY CODE: ASSESSED VALUE LAND: ASSESSED VALUE IMPROVEMENTS: 2100 $109,000.00 $0.00 3. LIABILITY FOR SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES FOR IMPROVEMENTS WHICH HAVE RECENTLY BEEN CONSTRUCTED ON THE LAND. LAND IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT PRESENTLY ASSESSED, BUT MAY APPEAR ON FUTURE ROLLS. 4. RESERVATIONS OF ALL COAL AND MINERALS. RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: MAY 15, 2023 1737713 5. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CITY OF RENTON ORDINANCE NO. 4612 IMPOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED ON JUNE 21, 1996, UNDER RECORDING NO. 9606210966. Page 3 of 6 Order No. NW -20141723 SCHEDULE B -continued 6. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC UTILITIES A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES APRIL 26, 2004 2004042600210S 7. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC UTILITIES A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES APRIL 26, 2004 20040426002106 8. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED ON APRIL 26, 2004, UNDER RECORDING NO. 20040426002107, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LIABILITY FOR ASSESSMENTS LEVIED BY THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE THAT THE LAND DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A IS BENEFITED BY EASEMENTS, COVENANTS OR OTHER APPURTENANCES SET FORTH IN SAID INSTRUMENT TO BENEFIT OR BURDEN REAL PROPERTY OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF SAID LAND. 9. ALL COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, EASEMENTS OR OTHER SERVITUDES, IF ANY, DISCLOSED BY THE SHORT PLAT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 20040426900021. THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE THAT THE LAND DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A IS BENEFITED BY EASEMENTS, COVENANTS OR OTHER APPURTENANCES SHOWN ON THE PLAT OR SURVEY TO BENEFIT OR BURDEN REAL PROPERTY OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF SAID LAND. 10. DEED OF TRUST AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: TRUSTEE: BENEFICIARY: ADDRESS: LOAN NO.: ORIGINAL AMOUNT: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: DENALI PROPERTIES, LLC A WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE EXECUTIVE HOUSE, INC. 7517 GREENWOOD AVENUE NORTH, SEATTLE, WA 98103 59128 $302,000.00 MAY 06, 2004 JUNE 08, 2004 20040608003321 11. OUR INSPECTION MADE ON MAY 14, 2005, DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: A) LAND IMPROVED BY SURVEYING. POSSIBLE OUTSTANDING UNRECORDED LIEN RIGHTS ARISING THEREFROM. B) NO ENCROACHMENTS. Page 4 of 6 Order No. NW -20141723 SCHEDULE B -continued NOTE 1: WE ARE INFORMED THAT DENALI PROPERTIES, LLC, IS A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC). A COPY OF THE DUPLICATE ORIGINAL OF THE FILED LLC CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION, THE LLC AGREEMENT, AND ALL SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATIONS OR AMENDMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE COMPANY FOR REVIEW. NOTE 2: ANY CONVEYANCE OR MORTGAGE BY DENALI PROPERTIES, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC), MUST BE EXECUTED BY ALL THE MEMBERS, OR EVIDENCE SUBMITTED THAT CERTAIN DESIGNATED MEMBERS OR MANAGERS HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED TO ACT FOR THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. NOTE 3: THE COMPANY HAS BEEN ASKED TO ISSUE A LENDER'S POLICY WITHOUT DISCLOSURE OF THE LIABILITY AMOUNT. THIS COMMITMENT SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY WHEN THE AMOUNT OF THE POLICY COMMITTED FOR HAS BEEN INSERTED IN SCHEDULE A HEREOF. THE COMPANY MAY HAVE FURTHER REQUIREMENTS IF THE UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT TO BE INSURED EXCEEDS THE CURRENT ASSESSED VALUATION. NOTE 4: ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION FOR TITLE INSURANCE, THE PROPOSED INSURED IS CHRISTOPHER NEAL, A SINGLE MAN, WHO WILL ACQUIRE TITLE PRESUMPTIVELY SUBJECT TO THE COMMUNITY INTEREST OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, IF MARRIED. WE FIND THE FOLLOWING MATTERS OF RECORD AGAINST THE NAME OF SAID PARTY: LIEN CLAIMED BY UNITED STATES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE NOTICE OF LIEN FOR FINE AND/OR RESTITUTION IMPOSED PURSUANT TO THE ANTI-TERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996. AGAINST: AMOUNT: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: CHRISTOPHER NEAL $3,100.00 NOVEMBER 29, 2001 20011129000364 IDENTITY STATEMENT FOR THE BUYER IS REQUIRED. THE COMPANY HAS BEEN UNABLE TO SEARCH FOR AND DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST MATTERS, IF ANY, RELATING TO THE SPOUSE, WHICH MATTERS MAY ENCUMBER THE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY TO BE ACQUIRED. NOTE 5: BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY, ON THE DATE OF THIS COMMITMENT IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS LOCATED ON THE LAND: AN UNIMPROVED LOT KNOWN AS: 652 BLAINE COURT NE RENTON, WA 98056 NOTE 6: IF YOU WOULD LIKE THE COMPANY TO ACT AS TRUSTEE IN THE PROPOSED DEED OF TRUST, PLEASE NOTE THAT "TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY" MAY ACT AS TRUSTEE OF A DEED OF TRUST UNDER RCW 61.24.010(1). Page 5 of 6 Order No. NW -20141723 SCHEDULE B -continued NOTE 7: THE COMPANY REQUIRES THE PROPOSED INSURED TO VERIFY THAT THE LAND COVERED BY THIS COMMITMENT IS THE LAND INTENDED TO BE CONVEYED IN THIS TRANSACTION. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND MAY BE INCORRECT, IF THE APPLICATION FOR TITLE INSURANCE CONTAINED INCOMPLETE OR INACCURATE INFORMATION. NOTIFY THE COMPANY WELL BEFORE CLOSING IF CHANGES ARE NECESSARY. CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS MUST INDICATE THAT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY ALL PARTIES. NOTE 8: THE FOLLOWING MAY BE USED AS AN ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON THE DOCUMENTS TO BE RECORDED, PER AMENDED RCW 65.04. SAID ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WITHIN THE BODY OF THE DOCUMENT. LOT 6 CITY OF RENTON SP #LUA-01-158 REC NO. 20040426900021 NOTE 9: WHEN SENDING DOCUMENTS FOR RECORDING, PLEASE SEND VIA TDS (TITLE DELIVERY SERVICE) IN THE YELLOW RECORDING ENVELOPES WHENEVER POSSIBLE. IF THEY MUST RECORD THE SAME DAY, PLEASE CONTACT THE TITLE UNIT FOR SPECIAL DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS. IF THEY MAY BE RELEASED WITHIN 48 HOURS, THEY SHOULD BE SENT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 1501 -4TH AVENUE, SUITE 308 SEATTLE, WA 98101 ATTN: RECORDING DEPT. NOTE 10: IN THE PAST 24 MONTHS, THERE HAVE BEEN NO CONVEYANCES OF RECORD FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A HEREIN. TITLE WAS ACQUIRED BY DENALI PROPERTIES, LLC, A WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY BY DEED RECORDED ON JUNE 8, 2004, UNDER RECORDING NO. 20040608003316. (END OF EXCEPTIONS) Investigation should be made to determine if there are any sewer treatment capacity charges or if there are any service, installation, maintenance, or construction charges for sewer, water or electricity. In the event this transaction fails to close, a cancellation fee will be charged for services rendered in accordance with our rate schedule. Unless otherwise requested or specified herein, the forms of policy to be issued in connection with this Commitment will be the ALTA 2003 Homeowner's Policy, the ALTA 1992 Lender's Policy, or, in the case of standard lender's coverage, the CLTA Standard Coverage Policy -1990. The Policy committed for or requested may be examined by Inquiry at the office that issued the Commitment. A specimen copy of the Policy form(s) referred to in this Commitment will be furnished promptly upon request. BSK/msn 3,d Enclosures: Sketch Vesting Deed Paragraphs 4-10 Page 6 of 6 200404%800218'.881 Return Address: City Clerk's Office City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton WA 98055 1'1 .... pr;.' or Iyp.l.rorm.t, •• WASHINGTON STATE RECORDER'S Cover Sheet (RCW 6S (4) Document TitJe(s) (or trans.c ons cont.med therem)' (aU areas applicable to yourdocumentl!!!!!!~ filled In) 1 .ho~#"""h ... -i'JVV1 d /1,." "'-" ,,~-t>?(1mvli'~ A.~~ 3 ' 4. Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: Add,llonal reference II's on page __ of document Grantor(s) ~~' fll"S! name, IIllllals) ~~ t.Ld,.. , , Addluona! names on page __ oCdoeument. G~antee(s)J;-:::r\.!?"'" f~t~ 1 ttktA#~ ~ 0"Yl'tQ A42oz' ~ 2 t , Add,llonal names on page __ of document. lj~ der2J?~on (:bt7a~~~~la~.tett':t.t,&"Jf~ ~,efC"1: 0'1' NL1l . ~»" L K~{I~,oh~ .,.)1, f/ D '(/ AddJltonal legal IS on page __ of document Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number 01/;J:30 5'<t {g;.. o Assessor Tax II not yet assigned The AudJtorlRecorder WIll rely on the mformatlOn provided on the form The staffWlU not read the document to venfv the accuracy or completeness of the mdexmg mfomuuon provIded herein. . , I am requestmg an emergency nonstandard recordmg for an additional fee as proVided m RCW 36,18.010 I understand that the recording processmg reqUirements may cover up or otherwise obscure some part ofthe text of the onginal document I ____________________ --'Signature of Requesting Party CERTlFlCAlE WJiEN RECOR!)!;D RETURN 10: I, .the v~(:Tsigned,. ~'I Clerk of the City of f(enton, Wa:ilirngton, certify that tills Is a true Office of thil!' d ty d .:·r'k RantQn Munid;~1 t)ullding 200 ~\'enut: South _ A9~~ '" t\_ :--.: and correct copy v~.,.."""",Q.jI"-:-.:z;Jjrp:~ __ _ Subscriled and Seali~~~~rlt o ~ <'? ~ . -. : ':. ,L.: c, l· • - Lw ':..:. lu c.e: In ..... 2 = -~ ., -. ~:: CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 4612 AN OIDiRAHCE OF 'FBB CITY OF RENTOIi, WASILUPdUli, BSTABLISHIRG All ASSESSHBN'l' DIS~ICT POR SAIIIl"l'ARY SEIfER SERVl:CB IX A POJlT.[OlIl OF THE SOUTH HIcmLlU'lDS I JlBATHKI/. DODTS, AliD JlAPLBWOOD SUB-BASINS AllIl BSTABL:tSllDIG 'I'Im AIWONT or THE CBAJlGB UPON CONNECTION '1'0 '1'HB J'ACILITnlS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS, SECTION t. There is hereby created a Sanitary Sewer Service Special Assessment District for the area served by. the East Renton Sanitary Sewer Interceptor in the northeast quadrant of the City of Renton and a portion at its urban growth area within unincorporated King County, which area is more particularly described in Exhibit ~AH attached hereto. A map of the service area is attached as Exhibit ~B.H The recording of this document is to provide notification of potential connection and interest charges. While this connection charge may be paid at any time, the • City does not require payment until such time as the parcel is connected to and thus benefiting from the sewer facilities. The property may be sold or in any other way change hands without triggering the requirement, by the City, of payment of the charges associated with this district. SIC'HOH II. Persons connecting to the sanitary sewer facilities in this Special Assessment District and which properties ,.. i'!' -, Return Address City Clerk's Office City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Title: UTILITIES EASEMENT Project File # Property Till[ Parcel Number: 0823059142 Street Intersecbon or PIOJect Name ~LETONSHORTPLAT 20040428002 I OS.OO I Reference Numbet(s) ofDocumc:nls assIgned or released AddrtwnaI reference numbers are on page __ Grantor(s): Grantee(s): 1 Mapleton, LLC I City of Renton, a Mumcipal Corporation 2 The Grantor, as named above, for, or and in consideration of mutual benefits, hereby grants, bargains, sells and dehvers to the above named Grantee, the following described personal property now located at Additional legal is on page l.of document (AbbTeVlated legal description MUST go here) LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that certain real property Situate in the City of Renton, King County, State of Waslnngton, being a portion of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8, Townslup 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, more particularly descnbed as follows See Exlnblt "N' Page 1 Return Address City Clerk's Office City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Title: U1TI.lTIES EASEMENT Project Fue # Property Tax Parcel Number: 0823059142 Street Intersecbon or ProjeCt Name MAPLETON SHORT PLAT 20040426002105.001 Re:furenoe NumbeJ{s) of Documents 8SSIgned or released AddrtIonal reference numbers are on page __ Grantor(s): Grantee(s): 1 Mapleton, LLC 1 City of Renton, a MuniCipal Corporation 2 The Grantor, as named above, for, or and In constderation of mutual benefits, hereby grants, bargatns, sells and deltvers to the above named Grantee, the following descnbed personal property now located at Addtuonallegalls on page 4-5 of document (Abbreviated legal description MUST go here) LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that certain real property situate in the City of Renton, King County, State of Washington, being a portion of the Northeast Quarter of the Sontheast Quarter of Section 8, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, WtlIamette Meridian, more particularly described as follows See Exhibit "A" (..,-----' Page 1 ~ ~ -.:s;: -'C:> RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE ., ............... " .. ""." .. nlad ror (e<:;>!d this .2/,.':<''3. day 01 1hIo1.2Q04 ot l:~. i" boo)( . .l1.~ .. 01 .NtWV;u. ... at PG&e .u:::ii <;It h. . cequeosl of ..... :,.~O:'!.J:-, ... l;ll'.«:;;:\;r..Q.~ ..................................... . Mgr. ... ~~~~ 8"' ...... ~ cm4 CIJlf1"'01/_d. IhV _ Apl2..IL .ro~ J\AeA4 A'III/IV.lilfP'-Ad,,"n"'~7 GRAPH]C SCALE i q ~ T ( 1~ rtE'T J Il<>o>h_301L SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE Th11 In", corractl)' reprel!lanb " flU'''''' modlll by me or under my direction In confocmdneo "n~ Ih" ~eqJ"'t- ~~.~~ .. ~k,~;.\~'tr~.~~.~.r.m~n ~~L:.~.~. r,fI~eo! or £"1EE£~>0:f.>. Certh/co1.. No. .,,, .... 2.W.a ................. . "t-O<> ~~ ~ ... .. .aL I LLA-O'-156 LND-20-0307 ·f NE1/4, SE1/4. Sec.B, Twp.23N, ~.5E., W.M. LaM..vcr.l:Su",~ $28-10 A"I • ..wort'h Aoad CMh4l(S, JrA. 98532 (350) '148-1214 ~,~, 0.1-4 o.C"8s Lot 7 :=i,896 sq"t 0.14 o.I:re5 CHtt1rt:D B~ I~ I~ I J =t I", . '. "," ~I~ ~~ i \~ ~\'J.. ~\-:: '\Sl\", ""1'" I \ I I ,-.--- I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ ~ " , 17·,6 pt, No,6t2 N 181145.6431 E 1306098.065 4" ~4· Con.Mon. }f~WneCoK1~l Fnd. 9/2003 Printed: 01-10-2007 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA07 -006 01/10/200703:25 PM Receipt Number: R0700123 Total Payment: 100.00 Payee: DENALI PROPERTIES LLC Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 100.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 1711 100.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use or Fence Review 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) 5954 604.237.00.00.0000 Special Deposits 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00