HomeMy WebLinkAboutMISC-2 of 4® King County State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA) Checklist
Department of Development and Environmental Services
Land Use Services Division
900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest
Renton, \Vashington 98055-1219
206-296-6600 TTY 206-296-7217
Purpose of the checklist
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPAl, RCW Chapter 43.21 C, requires all
governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making
decisions. An environmental impact statement (ElS) must be prepared for alJ proposals with
probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment.
The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify
impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done 1
and to help the agency decide whether an E1S is required.
Instructions for the applicants
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal.
Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your
proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS.
Answer the questions briefly with the most precise information known, or give the best
description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully to the best of your
knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own
observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the
answer or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply".
Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations such as zoning, shoreline and landmark
designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental
agencies can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal even if you plan to do them over a
period of time or on different parcels ofland. Attach any additional information that will help
describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this
checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably
related to determining if there may be significant adverse impacts.
L05POOO;S
A. BACKGROUND.
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Jessie Glen Prehi77liJary Plat
2. Name of Applicant:
The Herbrand Company
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Ownerl Applicant: 31539" Ave. Sw, Suite 8
Puyallup, WA 98373-3690
(2S3) 848-7700
Attn: Mr. Ty Pendergraft
Agent: ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC.
720 South 348" Street
Federal Way, WA 98003
(253) 838-6113
Contact: Mr. Eric LaBrie
4. Date checklist prepared:
March 7th, 2005
5. Agency requesting checklist:
King County Department of Development and Environmental Services, Land Use Service
Division
6. Proposed project timing or schedule (include phasing, if applicable):
Upon application being deemed complete:
Checklist Review: 3 months
Land Use Review/Hearing: 3-6 months
Engineering Review/Permitting: 4 months
Plat Construction: 5 months
Home construction is expected to begin in September 2006
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to
or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
Not at this time.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will
be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
Traffic Impact AnalYSis by TP & E 1/17/2005
Wetland Determination by B-12 Wetland Consulting 12/14/2004
9. Do you know of pending applications for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
None are known.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposals, if
known.
-SEPA Review
-Preliminary/Final Plat Review
-Engineering Review
-Right-of-way Use Permits
-Water and Sewer Plan Approval/Permits
-NPDES Permit
-Forest Practice Permit
11. Give a complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the
size of the project and site. There are several questions later in the checklist which
ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat
those answers on this page.
T77is project is proposing to develop S parcels into 49 single family detached lots. The site
is approximately 7.7 acres and is zoned R-6. The proposed lot sizes will range between
45'-50' x 100' and will typically be 4500 square feet. There are several existing houses on
site, including one mobile-home which will be relocated to accommodate the proposed
development. The proposal is somewhat unique in that there wi/I be two separate
developed areas connected by a 30' Wide parcel of land that is proposed to be park space.
12. Location of the proposal. Please give sufficient information for a person to
understand the precise location of your project, including street address, if any. If a
proposal would occur over a range of area, please provide the range or boundaries
of the site(s). Please provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map and
topographic map, if possible. While you should submit any plans required by the
agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any
permit applications related to the checklist. (Indicate if maps or plans have been
submitted as part of a permit application).
The proposed subdiviSion is located in unincorporated King County on the East Hill of Kent.
The project is more specifically located between 11 (jh Avenue SE and 12dh Avenue SE, just
north of 5E192nd Street. The project is within a portion of the Southwest % of Section 33,
Township 23 North, Range 5 East, of the W/llamette Meridian.
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS.
1. Earth.
a. General description of the site (underline one): Flat, rolling,
hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other ______ _
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent of
slope):
The steepest slope on the property is approximately 15 percent.
c. What general types of soil are found on the site (for example,
clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification
of agricultural soils, please specify and note any prime
farmland.
The soils onsite consist of well drained gravelly soils. According to
B-12 Wetland Consulting, the 50115 are l'c4" of loam over gravelly
loam. According to the King County Soil Survey, this area is
primarily Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgB).
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the
immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
There are no surface indications of unstable soils on, or in the
vicinity of the proposed site location.
e. Describe the purposes, type, and approximate quantities of any
filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Grading will be limited to the construction of the proposed roads,
lots, water, sewer, other utilities, and the proposed detention facility.
There will be approximately 25,000 cubic yards of fil!, and 25,000
cubic yard of cut within this project. By balancing the amount of cut
and fil!, no additional import or export of materia! should be
necessary.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or
use? If so, generally describe.
Some erosion could occur during clearing and grading operations
associated with this project. To minimize the impacts of the project.
appropriate erosion control measures will be reviewed and approved
by the County prior to construction activity associated with this
project.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious
surfaces after construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
The preliminary plat shows approximately 62,500 square feet of new
roads associated with this project. Assuming an additional 2,500
square feet per lot (residence, driveway, etc.), an additional 122,500
square feet of impervious surface will be created upon completion of
the project. Therefore, a total of 185,000 square feet of impervious
surface, or 55 percent of the site is proposed.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control eroSIOn, or other
impacts to the earth, if any:
During construction, various measures are expected to be used to
control erosion. These methods include construction during the dry
season, the use of silt fences and hay bails, and revegetation of
disturbed areas. Specific temporary erosion and sediment control
measures will be reviewed and approved by the County prior to
construction.
2. AIR.
a. What types of emlSSlOns to the air would result from the
proposal (i.e. dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke)
during construction, and when the project is completed? If
any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if
known.
During construction, short-term emissions may occur, including dust
and vehicle emissions from construction related equipment. After
construction, emissions from this project would primarily result from
automobl7e usage as is typical With reSidential development
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor which may
affect your proposal? If so, generally describe.
None to our knowledge.
c. What are the proposed measures to reduce or control emissions
or other impacts, if any:
Dust emissions will be controlled during site construction by the use
of best management practices, including periodic watering of
disturbed areas. The project will not rely upon wood burning
fireplaces as the primary source of heat for the new homes. All new
homes will use natural gas and/or electricity to provide heat,
reducing emissions caused by wood burning fires.
3_ WATER.
a. Surface:
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
I) Is there any surface water on or in the immediate vicinity of
the site (including year-round and seasonal streams,
saltwater, lakes, ponds, associated wetland)? If yes, describe
type, provide names, and, if known, state what stream or
river it flows into.
No.
2) Will the project require any work over or adjacent to (within
200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and
attach available plans.
Not applicable.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be
placed in or removed from the surface water or wetlands and
indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate
source of fill materials.
Not applicable.
4) Will surface water withdrawals or diversions be required by
the proposal? Give general description, purpose, and
approximate quantities, if known.
No.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? Note
location on the site plan, if any.
No.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials
to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and
anticipated volume of discharge.
No.
h. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn or recharged? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if knOWTI.
No.
2) Describe waste water material that will be discharged into the
ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for
example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the
general size of the system, the number of such systems, the
number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number
of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
None.
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff and storm water and method of
collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known).
Where will this water flow? Will the water flow into other
waters? If so, please describe.
The proposed project will provide approximately 1700 linear feet of
new roads, 46 new rooftops and other impervious surfaces which
will generate new storm water runoff. The increased runoff from
these surfaces will be collected via catch basins and routed in
underground pipes to a new stormwater detention facility. The
new homes will either connect their downspouts to the storm
drainage system in the street, or provide an onsite infiltration area
for this runoff. (Please see Drainage Report and Conceptual
Grading and Utility Plan prepared by ESM Consulting Engineers,
LLC).
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so,
generally describe.
Waste materials are generally limited to petroleum products from
the road surfaces. The water quality portion of the storm water
facilities is specifically designed to prohibit these materials from
entering the downstream system.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and
runoff water impacts, if any:
All development and engineering requirements imposed by the
County to control the impacts to the hydrology of the area will be
performed by the proponent. These include design of the
stormwater faCilities pursuant to the 1998 KCSWDM and recent
amendments adapted by King County.
4. PLANTS.
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
xx deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
~ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: hemlock
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
BY APPLICANT
shrubs: sword fern, blackberry
grass
pasture
crop or gram
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk
cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
(Note: Please see Wetland Report prepared 8-12 Associates for
additional plant information)
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or
altered?
The majority of the existing vegetation will be removed for the
grading and construction of the project. The project will attempt to
retain as many significant trees as reasonably possible in areas near
the rear of future lots, within the proposed park area and around the
perimeter of the site. This project will meet the appropriate County
requirements with respect to tree retention and/or mitigation.
c. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on near
the site.
None, to our knowledge.
d. List proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other
measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
The proposed park site and detention facility will incorporate existing
trees into their final design where possible, and the trees located in
the rear of proposed lots will be retained If appropriate. The exact
number of trees retained is unknown at this time and Will depend on
the final grading plan approved for this project.
5. ANIMALS.
a. Circle (underline) any birds and animals which have been
observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the
site:
Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ____ _
Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: rodents
Fish: bass, salmon, trout, shellfish, other: ____ _
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or
near the site.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
None, to our knowledge.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Not to our knowledge.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
None are proposed at this time; however, rodents and small animals
will undoubtedly inhabit the stormwater facility and use the open
space within this project.
6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES.
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove,
solar) will be used to meet the completed project's needs?
Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing,
etc.
Electricity and/or natural gas will be used to meet the project's
energy needs for light and heat.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by
adjacent properties? If so, describe.
No.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the
plans of this proposal?
Construction of the new homes will meet or exceed the necessary
energy requirements of the Northwest Energy Code and those
adopted by the County.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH.
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, exposure to toxic
chemicals, including risk of fire and explosion, spill, or
hazardous waste, that occur as a result of this proposal? If so,
describe.
No.
1. Describe Special Emergency services that might be required.
Not applicable.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
2. What are the proposed measures to reduce or control
environmental health hazards, if any:
None are proposed at this time.
b. Noise.
1. What type of noise exists in the area which may affect your
project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
None, to our knowledge.
2. What types of levels of noise would be created by or
associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term
basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)?
Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Construction noises will likely occur on a short-term basis due to
the use of heavy equipment, nailing guns and saws. This noise
would be limited to typical construction hours and the County's
noise ordinance. On a long-term basis, noise would be limited to
typical residential uses, including cars and children.
3. What are the proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any:
Increased noise levels due to construction wI'll be restricted to the
abovementioned hours to reduce any impacts to the neighboring
residents.
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE.
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The site is currently used as lOW-density residential properties,
including some vacant lots. The uses of adjacent properties include
a new single-family plat, existing low density residential, and
undeveloped land.
b. Has the site been used for agricultural purposes? If so,
describe.
Not to our knowledge.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
There are homes on three of the five parcels associated wIth this
project. Each home has associated garages and other out buildings.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
One of the three homes is a mobJ1e home that wIll be relocated to a
new lot and preserved.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Yes, two of the existing homes and all of the associated out
buildings will be demolished to make way for the new development.
However, one of the existing structures is proposed to be relocated
onsite to Lot 32. (See Preliminary Plat plan).
e. What is the current zoning of the site?
The current zoning is single family resIdential, R-6 (6 units per acre).
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
The current comprehensive plan designation is urban residential,
medium (Single FamIly, 4-12 units per acre).
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program
environment designation of the site~
Not applicable.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally
sensitive" area? If so, specify.
No.
1. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the
completed project~
Based on a household occupancy rate of 2.5 people per single-family
residence, we expect that approximately 123 people will reside in the
finished project.
J. Approximately how many people would the completed project
displace?
Assuming 2.5 people per single-family reSidence, 5 people will be
displaced by the completed project.
k. What are proposed measures to avoid displacement or other
impacts, if any?
None are proposed at this time.
1. What are the proposed measures to ensure the proposal is
compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if
any:
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
The proposed 49-lot subdivision is consistent with recent
development in the area, current zoning, and comprehensive plan
designations and will be compliant with the County Code.
9. HOUSING.
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any?
Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
It is expected that the project will provide up to 47 new single-family
residential units in the middle income level.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated?
Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
There are three existing residences currently on-site, all within the
low to medium income levels. Two of these homes will be
eliminated to accommodate the new development. One of the
existing homes will be saved and relocated to a different location
onsite.
c. What are the proposed measures to reduce or control housing
impacts, if any:
None are proposed at this time.
10. AESTHETICS.
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s) not
including antennas; what is the principal exterior building
material(s) proposed?
The County's zoning code restricts the building heights of single-
family residential structures to 35: Exterior materials will typically
consist of wood siding with brick, rock, or shingle accents. 5pecific
materials will be determined by the home builder at the time of
bUffeting permit and will comply with applicable County regulations.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or
obstructed?
None.
c. What are the proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any?
None are proposed at this time.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
11. LIGHT AND GLARE.
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What
time of day would it mainly occur?
Light would occur during evening and night time hours and would be
limlled to street lights, house lights, and minimal security lighting
within the park space.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard
or interfere with views?
No.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your
project?
None.
d. What are the proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any:
None are proposed at this time.
13. RECREATION.
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in
the immediate vicinity?
There are three schools in the immediate vicinity (Benson HilI
Elementary, Glenridge Elementary, and Meeker Junior High), each
provide recreation space such as sports fields and basketball courts.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational
uses? If so, describe.
No.
c. What are the proposed measures to reduce or control impacts
on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided
by the project or applicant, if any:
The project is proposing to construct an on-site park to serve the
new residents. Approximately 20,020 square feet (6 percent) of the
sIte is designated for on-site usable open space as prescribed by the
County.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION.
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for,
national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or
next to the site? If so, generally describe.
Not to our knowledge.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,
archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be
on the site.
There are none, to our know/edge.
c. What are the proposed measures to reduce or control impacts,
if any:
None are proposed at this time.
14. TRANSPORTATION.
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and
describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show
on site plans, if any:
The proposed subdivision will be accessed from IJ(jh Avenue SE and
12d" Avenue SE Additional access will be provided from the south
(SE 19Z'd Street) through the short plat of Sharmila Rathinam.
(Please see Preliminary Plat for proposed access points).
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the
approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
Pub/ic buses currently serve the general area of this project with the
nearest bus stop being located approximately % mile away on 10dh
Avenue SE (bus route 169).
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have?
How many would the project eliminate?
Assuming a minimum of 4 parking spaces per household (2-car
garage and a 2-car driveway), there will be at least 196 parking
spaces provided upon completion of this development,
approximately 8 parking spaces will be eliminated by this proposa~
equaling a total of 188 new parking spaces.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or street, or
improvements to any existing roads or streets, not including
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public
or private).
Approximately 1700 linear feet of new roads will be required to serve
the completed project. In addition, there will be one Joint Use Drive,
which will provide access to two lots, and one Private Aa:ess Tract
that will provide access to four lots. With the exception of the JUD
and PA T all proposed roads within the project will be public roads.
The street frontages along 11B" Avenue SE and 12dh Avenue SE will
be brought up into conformance with the appropriate improvements
as required by the 1993 King County Road Standards.
e. Will the project use or occur in the immediate vicinity of water,
rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe.
No.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the
completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes
would occur.
Aa:ording to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual, B" Edition,
there will be an average of 9.57 vehicular trips per day, per
household. For the entire project of 46 new lots, that would amount
to approximately 440 total new trips per day. Peak volumes would
most likely occur during typical rush hour times of 7:00 -9:00 AM
and 4:00 -6:00 PM.
(Note: please see the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TP & E for
more information.)
g. What are proposed measures to reduce or control transportation
impacts, if any:
The applicant will be responsible for any appropriate traffic
mitigation fees, which will offset some of the impacts of the
subdivision. Other mitigation includes the construction of frontage
improvements and new roads to serve the project.
16. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a. Would the project result in an increase need for public services
(for example: fire protection, police protection, health care,
schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
Yes. There would be an increased need for fire and police protection
due to an additional 46 lots in the area. Also, there will be an impact
on the present school system.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
b. What are proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any:
Property taxes, but/ding permits and school impact mitigation fees
generated from these residences are expected to mitigate impacts
incurred from this development.
17. UTILITIES.
a. Circle (underline) utilities currently available at the site:
electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone,
sanitarY sewer, septic system, other: cable television.
b. Describe the utilities which are proposed for the project, the
utility providing the service, and the general construction
activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might
be needed.
Electricity:
Gas:
Water:
Refuse:
Telephone:
Sewer:
Cable:
Puget Sound Energy
Puget Sound Energy
Soos Creek Water District
Rabanco
Qwest Communications
Soos Creek Sewer District
Comcast
Connection(s) to the above mentioned utilities will be negotiated
with the individual purveyor during the building permit and
construction phases of this project. There may also be a need for a
right-of-way permit(s) to gain access to the property at construction.
C. SIGNATURE.
The above answers are true to the best of my knowledge. I
understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its
decision.
Agent for the Applicant: g A d~
Date Submitted: .....",3""",-,11--,' o",S"""--___ _
Job No. 1123-002-004
3/812005
\ \esm8\engr\esm -j 0 bs\ 1123 \Q02\004\do cument\SEP A. doc
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
LEGAL DESCRIPTION -Jessie Glen
Legal descriptions taken from First American Title Insurance Company, File Number 4261-473774,
1111/2004
APN: 619840-0080-04 (parcel "A")
APN: 619840-0100-00 (Parcel "B")
APN: 619840-0120-06 (Parcel "C")
APN: 619840-0140-02 (parcel "D")
APN: 619840-0320-04 (parcel "E")
Parcel "A":
Lot 4 in Block 1 of the Northwestern Garden Tracts Diy. No.4, according to play recorded August 24,
1950 in volume 47 of plats at Page(s) 74, in King County, Washington.
Parcel "BOO:
Lot 5 in Block 1 of Northwestern Garden Tracts Div. No.4, according to plat recorded August 24, 1950 in
Volume 47 of plats at Page(s) 74, in King County, Washington.
Parcel "C":
The East 30 feet of Lot 6 in Block I of Northwestern Garden Tracts Div. No.4, according to plat recorded
August 24, 1950 in Volume 47 of plats at Page(s) 74, in King County, Washington.
Parcel "D":
Lot 7 in Block I of Northwestern Garden Tracts Div. No.4, according to plat recorded August 24,1950 in
Volume 47 of plats at Page(s) 74, in King County, Washington;
Except the North 70 feet of the West 225 feet thereof;
And Except the West 300 feet of the remainder of said Lot 7.
Parcel "D-I";
A non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress created by instrument recorded December 27, 1993 under
Recording Nos. 9312272113 and 9312272116.
Parcel "E":
Lot 7 in Block 2 of Northwestern Garden Tracts Div. No.4, according to plat recorded August 24, 1950 in
Volume 47 of plats at Page(s) 74, in King County, Washington;
VICINITY MAP -Jessie Glen
1
cP'
0°
PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF
JESSIE GLEN
A PORTION OF THE S.W. 1/4 OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M.
#"
<Y
n
-0-
# ,.
" ~
<1"
0°
,$
"
# ,.
" .' p~
.2.
D~
"
-
0/0
o~ ui ,p Wr ,0 w$ 4' ::J~ z~ (f) w~
>1" JJ(f) «~ 0
:;:,Z ~I~ 00 "'~ )..~ ~ UJ~
:.:0 0 <to
...J
l
OJ
LLm 8
O-Jt
f-(!) 0
::sf-O
(/)...J
QUJ:J
3:jj
I
I
~o
00
#0
" !
CO fo
[X15nNG 5rnUCTURES'P «'
TO BE REMOVED q,'O
0';
0° .r .,1' , ,,'
"
SCALE: 1 R "" 60'
._~~~!l~J," L II, "", ,,' '" ~ 1!189'48'53"w 62943' .:1 0 " " , ~--~-: 60~ ~. '20'
:SF s,i;s;-. b
. 1!!1 21 8
.(.(l1o 45>' ~ ::"Ol"> 0= 11 ~W6 g-I fi~2sr
~i""w-r*,,-.."'~. r--".---l, \:
\'
"V (
"" o~ o ,}' ,.
"
SIGHT DISTANCE
116TH AVE. Sf / ROAD B (MINOR ARTERIAL'
DESIGN SPEED: 45 IAPH
ENTERlNG SIGHT DIST,t.J\IC[:
REQUIRED: 620'
PROVIDED: >620'
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE'
REQUIRED: 400'
PROVIDED: >400' .~~~,.£,' If' 12' 13
12QTH AVE. Sf / ROAD A (NEIGHBORHOQD CO! I ECTOR)
3O;g S 4D5O Sf"
'°1 "-:~~~~;c.~~~o~~~::~ ~~ ~ . ~I c:( l_J9~'
--(SUBACCESS) j ,
123 28' 29;' 30 31 i ~. _._._._.
i=-L L _'''-
L EXISTlNC STR~...J 'J"" ....... "".. 599.88'
L'2' RjW TO ~". r.runvrn '
DEDICATlDN ~~
0'
0'
$ ~'
'KA~B REt:R!A 51'Aa' &.=
I.
I' ~
~o p~
.,1'
~'
0/0
DESIGN S?ELU. ~" m."
ENTERING SIGHT DISTANCE'
REQU1RED; ~90'
PROVIDED; >490'
~u .0<P<f' ." .'
STOPPING S1GHT DISTANCE:
REOU1RED: 250'
PROVIDED: >250'
--
~ '<-A -I.~06..." 0_:;;'<1' ,
.' p'
.#'
V,.,) ,,.,.,,. F
I'j.. ROAD A
r;:. ... fIo. SUB!'-CCESS -H LF TR
~ ~ 4D'4D'.w'4(]'~Q ~
.'
,,,0
, = =~=~ACTD
.... t>< '" "'~.. rloC1JTY
oP -Sf' ~7Q2 '!F' 0 "" . .' " •
.~
0' o
",$
0/0
fg~r,¥~1 P' }j trf:'= /-~
EX1S1lNG STRUCTURES
TO BE REMOVED ~ ~
" "
.' or;:. ... .r J <
#' ~
0" '" <:; -<
.0
C'
0'
.of ,
4D' 4(]' 4D' 4(]
960.57'
.0
0' ,0 •• .' 0/0
PROPERTY OWNERS:
1.I1CHA(l J. 5NtLl{;Rovt.
18924 116TH AIlE SE:
RENTON, WA 980511
"'""" n<OMSON 19022 116TH All( SE
RENTON, WA 98058
DEVELOPER:
KtVlN J. TORlAI
1 9006 11 em; AVE SE
RENTON, WA 96058
ROBERT J. KOKESH
1 9035 1 2011-1 AVE SE
RENTON, WA 98058
v
cJ"
0°
$ .'
~ /\,
.0 C' 0'
$' .'
ENGINEER/SURVEYOR:
ES ... CONSULllNG ENG1NEERS, LLC
720 S. 348TH STREET
FEDEAAL WAY, WA 980CIJ
CONTACT: ERIC LaBR1E
(253) 838-6113
TRAFFIC ENGINEER:
T.P "" E
I ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ... ~~ 8
2223 112 A\lENUE NE, SUITE 101
BEU£\lUE, WA 98004-2952
CONTACT: VIC B1SHOP
(U5) 455--5320 1 8.E. 192ND STREET
_ (PRINICIPAL ARTERIAL)
~
r I
I I I I
PU'(AlLUP, WA 98373-3690
CONTACT: TY POliDERGAAfT
(253) 848-7700
WETLAND BIOLOGIST:
8-12 ASSOCIATES
110:5 wtST ... EEKER STREET
KENT, WA 98032-5751
CONTACT: ED S .. WE.LL
(253) 859-0515
'--
J~
W
~);
z" ~I: «!
~ o
N
~
1
,0
0'
<l' ,<P
"
.0
c'
# ,<P
"
=1---
Iii
~ r.-r .'-~ ~ ~
.,-""'-'"
"'-ISITE
!!''''
VICINITY MAP ...-..
~
SITE DATA
A!i~'E.S'SORS PARCEL NUMBER:
TOTAL SITE AREA:
61 S8W-C080, 619840-0100,
619840-0120, 619t!40-0140,
ANO 619840-0:520,
7.7 AC.
C'01.IPR(HENSlVE PlAN DESIGNATION: URBAN RESIDENTlAL
M[DlU~ (4-12 DUA)
ZONING:
PROPOSED USE:
EX15nNC STRUCTlJRES:
SEWER PR(MOER:
WATER PRCMDER:
SCHOOL 0IS1R1CT:
flRE DlSTFilCT:
TREPHONE:
POWER:
o.os,
'-0
49 LOT, S1NGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ALL BU1LD1NGS TO BE REI.AOI/ED,
1 MOBILE H01.lE TO BE RELOCATED
SOOS CRE[K SEWER D1STR1CT
SOOS CREEK WATER DISTRICT
KENT SCHOOL D1STR1CT (40J)
""'" OWEST C0I.4 ... UN1CAllDNS
PUGET SOUND ENERGY
Pl)GET SOllND ENERGY
SOURCE Of BUlJNOAKr ANO 10P0: £Sill FlELD SURVEY, JANUARY, 2005
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (R-6):
BASE DtNSUY:
MAX. OENSITY:
MIN. LOT WIDTH:
6 DU/AC.
9 DU/AC. "'.
BUIlD1NG SETBACKS'
FRONT: 10'
1NfER10R: 5'
S1DE STRUT: 10'
GARAGE: 20'
MAX. BU1LD1NG HElGKT: 35'
w-.x. 1 ... PERVIOOS SURfACE: 70';
DENSITY CALCULATIONS:
SITE AM!:.A:
BASE OENSITY:
MAXIMUU DENS1TY:
ALlOWABLE ~G UNITS:
MIN1MUlool DENS1TY:
WJ(1MUM DENSITY:
";';:>,412 Sf -7.7 AC
6 aU/ACRE
9 OO/ACRE
46 UNITS
34 UNITS
69 UNrTS
NOTE: 1HlS PROJECT" IS PROPOSING TO USE "TDR'S TO ACH1E'1'( 49 Lars
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
rI'VM "'LL "r..I""VI'I: FlRST A1dER1CAN 1l11.f 1NSURANCE COMPANY
FILE ':4261-41:51/4, 11/1/2004
eABW....<
LOT <4-1N BLOCK 1 OF NOFmiWES1ERN GARDEN TRACTS DlV. NO, 4,
ACCORDING TO PLAY RECORDED AUGUST 24, 1950 1N VOLUME 47
or PLATS AT PAGE(S) 74, 1N K1NG COUNTY, WAS~NGTON.
""""--' lOT;; 1N BlOCK 1 OF NORl1-1WESTI:RN GARDEN TRAClS ON. NO, 4,
ACCORD1NG TO PLAT RECORDED AUGUST 24, 1950 1N VOLUt.!E 47
OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 74, 1N KING COUNTY, WASHINGTO"-I.
""""--' THE EAST 30 FEET or LOT 6 1N BlOCK 1 Of NORTHWESTERN
GARDEN TRACTS DIV. NO.4, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED AUGUST
24, 1950 IN VOUNE 47 or PLATS AT PAGE(S) 74, IN KING
COUlllTY, WASHlNGTON.
"-"'"EUl
LOT 7 1N BLOCK 1 or NORTHWESTERN GARDEN TRACTS DlY. NO.4,
ACCORD1NG TO PlAT RECORDED AUGUST 24, 1 gSO iN VOLU1.IE 47
Of PLATS AT PAGE(S) 74, IN KING COUflTY, WASH11>1GTON; EXCEPT
THE NORTH 70 FEET OF THE WfST 225 fEET THEREOf; AND EXCEPT
THE WfST 300 rrrr OF THE REWJNOER OF SAID LOT 7.
~
A t-K>N-EXCLUSI\IE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS CREATED
BY 1NSTRU1oo1ENT RECORDED D£CE1.IBER 27, 1993 UNDER RECORD1NG
NOS, 9:51227.211:5 AND 9J12272116.
""""'--' LOT 7 1N BLOCK 2. OF NORTHWESTrRN GARDEN TRACTS OlY, NO.4,
ACCOROING TO PLAT RECORDED AUGlJST 24, 1950 1N VOLUt.oI!: 47
or PLATS ,1.1 PAGE(S) 74, IN K1NG COUNTY, WASH1NGTON.
A. ~!§
'iii' 'll _ Ilia J @ill
-I
* II~
.,
~t "I
§
i~
~~
"" .. ~.
•
>-Z
<l:
0. :;;;
0
()
0 z
<l: a:
CD a:
W
I
W
I
I-
I.JOB HO ••
!IWC ........ ~.
1,
,
~i
E U o ••
l! ".!. 3 ~~
]
o
~ . . " ~ !i r~ "0 ';:~
U"
z
i
~
Z
W ~ .-J
C!J 11.
&
W -« z
'" (J) ::J w (J) Ill:
11.
W ....,
1= z
~
0
0
0
;0
~
~-,
OC!>IGNED !!Y-. =
ORo\._ B'I': -C~r=rn ......
~~ 02/01/=
~~ , I PRlo;T·
1 or 4 SHIITS
I-
" 0" <V"" a'l-I
'1V'?-" o,"-:,pa ,,-,0, 00
-i' -0 V
.J;-0V
I
'I'll
1 IJ r
I III,
,~ Inll
NI
ill
ROADD
(~UBACCESS)
A PORTION OF THE S_W_ 1/4 OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W_M_
• 20' JOINT-USE OOIYf;NAY •
,., ~j I "\ ;' "[,, I t ~~£
JOINT·USE DRIVEWAY
NOT TO SCALE
I 28' PRIVATE STREEI <
3' I 20' PAVDJENT I J~
10' ~ 10'
J: I SlOPE I 2.0:11: 2.0::': I 3: J Slop!::
PRIVATE STREET TRACT
NOT TO SCALf
'I"
• '" '/w ~
E)(, 12' R/W " I '1"0£"=
o
0
1
--
O~ ,,0 f
•
[-----
•
30' >WJ' 'n;CD n
20' PAV[~ENT I ~. S!W
!t 12' " "
-;'-' .. "-,,,,-, I I [ -I -3:'~SCOP{-C:X: _ __ 2.0:>; • I ~
ROAD A . SUBACCESS 112 STREET
NOT TO SCALE
<
I J' I ". ",", • '" "'" I ' ,-,
3'1 S! I ~ 2.0':1: 2.m; I I -...... vt't
-iIQii ~
• '" ,"""",-" 41 24' PAVEMENT
''10 2'
['
ROADS B, C & D . SUBACCESS
".." '" SCN.£
a,
" 'I" R~ 60' EX. R/W I
0< a:~
'!'-
9 I /
"f-., ~ "'.", II" I '~t, I 2,,. ~ ---------,~-------------
! 30 I 30' :
I 7' APPROX. I
NEW P'Vt.I'T.
, '"' I .. , ..... ~="-----:..-!I.......:,.-',------.-------.----, -"
29 30 31
'" '/w 1 !
DEDICATION I
1 i
I :r
'-'
116Tl-1 AVENUE S.E. -MINOR ARTERIAL
NOT TO SCAI..£
120TH AVENUE S.E. -NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR
,,-,i:
_.((;" Q. '0°"'1
_ --.0°0,",0 +0'<'~()\><
~
I..-,~ x. ~.
'z ~9 ';:g
?2,5
. ""u
n
----0-
""1::1 w$ :J~ zl" UJ~
>1< ,,~
",0 I-I~ "'~
~I
~)~t~~lD;:~rW
J
'. ~
~ ~
ROAD A ~~ \jAC~~O ~~;}~~w~,~] I
.3 1-:-_
6/ p;, {Li ~ f Ie --V'\~HACT~-'~~i~
39 I 1T 1 (-0..142 43 44 ~ ~ 47 r @ , ~' ' , Ii: I
(SUBACCE~ -HALF STREET) "
SCALE: 1" == 60'
"--3D" &0' l:;!O'
37 38
w ~ C'G
/
cH:5 1/ r I ~.~ '"I~ ..... 'i~) :
I ~v/~ 1..-----' ------~/\ , ii'
i' .~ _0 ~ w~ , w~
I -t\ DETENTION POND ~ g
§ ~ 00 CONSERVATlON FlOW CONTROL wig ~<?-\ :v Ci (LEVEL 2) AND BASIC WATER QLLWlY > oJ" 00 REQUIRED. SOOS CREEl( BASIN «I~
,f % 5'~ O£ITNn<m ",,""E I ~
[----____ -,,;~""~ RECUIRED: ~ 82.600 cr blm '-______ ' ____ -,-_____ -1 X''( PROV1DED: '"' 90,500 CF C'II ~
.-0 DEAC STORAGE VOLUME ..-iii
REQUIRED: ~ 26,000 CF Z
PROVIOCO: -35,500 CF
LEGEND
_____ SANITARY SEWER UAlN
g 1 W .... TER MAIN
' ...... u
" STOOl/! DRAIN UNE ~~
'z WATER VALVE
~~ ® F1RE H'Y'DRANf
;...~ a CATCH BASIN, nl'E 1 ~~ :;; • SANITARY SEWER r..IANHOU
~ CONCRETE SIDEWALK
__ '00 __ -EXISTING COmoURS
___ 500 ___ PROPOSED CONTOURS
/c
------~,;~iN~~I~~CARTERIAL)~ gr 1-
~--~I~--~----~--~-
1 I
f! ~
3D' I .30'
-~-
I
REVISIONS
~ ........ '0-\
0' /!) , ~~~ rnA
jt . ,
!~ .::.::
, ,
~[
E ~g o _,
~ ~f
'5 ~o:
U
E
I :' .
• c ~ ~.
3: .H
~,
". 'j~ o.
z
~
~
~
>-z :s z 0-« w c.. Z ~ ~ UJ z
0 ..J ~ 0 (!J Cl
0 C
Z z
W <t « -Cl II: (J) C'i aJ (J) '" II: >-UJ W ~ :c -,
UJ '" :c ::J w
f--'" Il.
~
~ 0 u
0 ~
JO,," NO., ,,~-<JO+
OWO ........ '" ~~
D~CNro !!V"
DRAWN 81, -""E~O B'I',
~= <n!<></=
DJ.TE OF
PRIm,
2 ~4~
~~ tX1STING TREES TO BE PRE.SERVED
~ :::::.: •• :.: .••• :-.•. :., PICNIC TABLES
GRASS LAVIN
STRUCTURE (AGES 5-12)
~ kJ s' WIDE ASPHALT PATH
PARK DETAIL
SCALE: 1" = 40'
, - - -I 40' 20' 0 40' &0'
MATER I AL5-T'!'P I CAL.
SHEET
A PORTION OF THE S.W. 1/4 OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M.
27 28 29
NOTE:
SIGNF1CAKT TAEEES SHOWN HAVE NOT BEEN
REVEW8) BY AN AABOAISTS TO DETERMINE Tl£
I£Al. TH OF Tl£ TAEE Tl£ NlMlER OF
SIGNFICANT TREES MAYBe REDUCED 0E!'ENlING
ON Tl£ FN»IGS OF A CERlFED AflBO!'I'ST.
36
PLANT LEGEND
== eoTAN1c.AJ J CCf'I"!ON NAtE
® 1J.WA ~ICATA 11lES~ I<l'D CEOAI':
0 P'I"l'W CALl.£RT" ANA au.NTICLEER I Fl~ F'EAR
@ Tll..IA COI<OATA ILtTTl..£l..EAf LN:>EN
0 YIBi.RU1 THJ$ ~~' I L~&
""" to' 1-11'. H1N.
"CAL
" CAl..
,""-
ON-SITE RECREATION SPACE (KCC 21A.14.18OA1)
REQUIRED (49 X 390 S .•. ) 19,110 S,f,
TOTAL DN--SIT£ R[CREATION PROIIIDED 20.020 s .• _
NOTE:
CONC8'1UAL RECREA noN SPACES
ONLY. AClUAL OESIGN, SlRlJCTlRO
SPECFlCATlCN, AM) I..MDSCAPE
MATERIALS TO BE DES!GNED AT FINAL
PLAT PER KC 21A.14.18O.E.4.
-"""'1Ill: ,
'"
"
SYMBOL LEGEND-
EXISTING TREES TO BE RETAINED
SIGNIFICANT TREE
COMMON /IIIIM£ SIG. li<>t<.nicai "" .....
DECIDUOUS TREE 0 12 INCHES
OR MORE
N',,", ... ""= MllER @ AJ.nI.IS !flrd~_SJtl
CHESTNUT i CastaItMtl salim
LOCUST
l/uhi1>Ut.
BLACK COTTONWOOD e PojYUlW/ tricl!o=rya
~~ FIR meruUri' • B INCHES
OR MORE
WESTERN HEMLOCK 0
'-""""'-WESTERN RED CEDAR [ 0
~Wi/J
NOTE:
SmEET TREE LOCA1lONS ARE
Ai'PROxtMTE AM) MAY Be
ADJUSTED PER AClUAL un.rrv AM)
DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS.
=<»<Il>
~,Be
~.oe.
~.et8
LEGEND-EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED
If 0 DECPOLIOlIS TfiEE WIIK SIZE 2Cf * COTIClMI'OOO = wnH SIn
"II oIPPL!: lR(L WITH =: os. FIll ~ wnH SIZE
L'l"@ oWlOl 1llEE WITH = '0 HEl.ll..ro< l1I££ \\'ffij SIZE
,eEl CM£5JtjUT lRr£ WITH SIZE 13"~ t;EI)NI TREE WITH SIZE; ,if.
UJCUST TREE wrTH SIZE
SIGNIFICANT TREE CALCULATIONS
TOTAL &ITE ~ FOO'rP6E • 1.1 ACRES • 3350,41:1 5.f.
2e1 fF;£ES FER ACRE • &4 TREE& TO BE: RET AINEO
!<!ETAINED SIGNIFICANT Tl'!£E5 • ~
N..II'1BER OF F'l-ANtEO flICi.' .. IFICANT TREES I'1'EQUI~ • <a4
N.I"16ER OF FLAN'1'='-D SIGNlFIG,l.NT TREE5 FI'lOVIDED • S4 o PLANTED 51G<N1FlCANT TREE
SCALE: 1" -50'
,.....-_ i
50' 2:5' 0 511' 100'
w
oj
W
" Z
W
~
I
~
SIGNIFICANT TREE REQUIREMENTS
~ TO KN:;, ccu./TT I'"U'<ICIPAO. COCE :nA4IoI>.r.o;.'1 .4ND 50_77"-
n
A 'S1aHFICANT f1iIIEI<' IS DE'F~ ~.4I EXI&T"':;' f.EAl.l).I"( 1'F<EE fI,!.,1T I~
HOT A HAZ~"TIia:' (IE A TREE T~T DOE$NOT ~YE A l4i(014l"'1'!OF'~rrr
Cf' ....... t.tNTLT I'ALLII'b CUE TO A DE6ILITATl-IGo DI!!-EAeE. OR &~
DEl'£CTJJ\ND "lJ.lAT, tLI-EN ~ ~ AND ~ I-W.FFEET AelOoo'E
GRADe.. f.IA5 A 11t-11t'U"1 DIAI'ElER a=,
l ". ~ IO~ TREE&. OR>
1. 12' FOIO. DEClDJOU& TREao.
&lGI'IFICMoIT Tl'lEE!!..OCATCO IN TJ.I'; INtERIOR a: 1l£ DEYEl-Qf>l"I£N1"
~. INCU.C>tt:lo &a461T1~ ~ ANP 1l£~~, 6+IALL I!!E
~AIN!!O'" TI-E !IE:&IPENTIAI.. !U5D1~ AT llE RAn;: a: 'II' ~ PER
.o.c:!OiE Cf! TEN ~ CII' !5UC<lll'i!:E5,UJ.II~1'I j!; ~1ER
A !!!1GN1F1CAN"t TI'EE HA'1' fIf ClliEDI"1"ED ~"lII.t:> TlilEE5 ~ If l'1EET5 ONE
ClIO! 1101<£ OF TIE ~ CI4A~Rl5T~
L ll£ T1Il££ 15 ~ ~ CIt ~Tl'F!i:" DIA/'1!Tt.lItt
IL 1l£ TREE I&!..OCATED IN A c.ROJplN::i a: AT LEAST ~ ~ u.m.!
~ f1.IAT Tc;o..o.I OR 0V8'L!.F't
III T\oE ~ PfOIOvIDE5 B>lEF<OT e.A~ ~ IIlNT£"Iit lUND
~ICN OR.!olH1ER OI-IADN:ro Aa A RE5ILT ao IT5 UXATICIN ~T~
TOallLD~
Iv. T\oE TREE ~ TO A IIoIIGlE 0lIl; LNJi!oUAL 6f'ECIE5..
I"LAIII HOP"ICA~ AND 1'F<EE ~ AI'lE FEJI;!"1~ ~
""'-~
•• ANT 81G1'<1f'1CA'{f ~ IN llE INTERIOR MAY ~ REF'I..ACED I5T ~
6l6HIf'~ TIiIEE IN fl.E INTERIOR
b. F lJ.IE I'EGlJII'1ErI r-u-teE/I. 0= ~NlFICA'{f ~ll CA'NOl ee M:TAN2D.
f1.EN NCN-61GNR"1CANT" SlZED"TI"!EEfI MAT ~ RETAINED OR HEW Tl'lEE5 MAT BE f'l..AHTEO TO I1EET n4E &~k::ANT TI'iEE ~~e; _ ~
PROVIDEO T\.IAT"J1.E ~ FOIl=: TIlE ~ OF 'T\.I1ei eue6ECT1ClN,. TJ.E
51GNR"\CANT TRI:£ TO e.E ~D ~T TIoIE ~ OR EXISTIi'f::! REP1.ACE1"1ENT
~ 15~ ADI~O= 12 tbes,
l IlI-IEN US...:;, IO£f'\..ACS'1EN 11"!EE& t'E~ T~ foICI.E5 t-I
DI~1'1: OR6REATER (Mt'EA5I.F!ED err CAL~,a.E-f1ALF INC).!
DI~1'1: OF REF'1.ACEI"e'IT Tl'<EE 5IMl..L =e F!'!OV!DED FOR EYEl'!"f ONE
ItCI-I DIAt'E"l"a'i: CF !!!IGNFICN>IT TREE TO BE ~1"I.ACI"iD> AND
II. IlN1EN U&1ti REF\.ACEt'EW ~ ~ LE&. TI-IAN rnF<E'E
IICI-e!!! t-I DIAJ"El"ER. CINE N:::o< DIAMETER a 1i!EPL~ 11<EE 5I-<AI...L ~
~D FOR EY£I'1:T ONE tQl DI..at'ElER a 51a,NlF1CANT TREE TO ~
FiEf'I-~·
.. .:v,sIONS
~/""'TE
~
~",~.~
I~~
<:EIO"f'ICI.1'E Mo. 7<3
~ ,,! ,
~H z * ill .i
i £f • r! I-n "
ro i~ ! t;;~ ~g.
t: E f~ ,>
~~ 0 ·0 " ]i •• '5: ~j . ., ,. E •
m
• " j~ • • " ;~ u.
z
§
I
z
:'i a.
>-LoJ
Z LoJ
'" « t-
o.. Z 0
::;;;: z W < 0 ....I LoJ
() C) ~
0 a.
OJ
Z W z « 0 a: (/) ~ en a: (/) '" 0 w W LoJ
I '" ""') -' w < :::> I t-
f-a. w
0 z
0
0
~ z
~
8
0 ~
JOe NO.' ,,~
OW"_ ..... w£. ~
OC:S'C:"EtI BV, = ow._ IN:
GJ.j~]{rn In':
""TE, 00/0'/0000
o.o.TE OF
",,'NT,
3 OF 4 SftErl'S
--------
e ~ e
Cl
Z w
::i (!l w 3i ...J
r: W
W (J) a: « I-l!J (!l "' W Z
(!l i=
z (J)
« X a: w
:i
I-a:
0 z
C'l
OJ
a.
J:
(J)
Z ;:
0
l-
to
C'l
Z
0
F
() w
(J)
II.
0
~
~
3i en
l!J
J:
l-
II.
0
Z
0
F a:
0 a.
«
~
'" "' .,
• ~
w
..J «
0
'" ,
.,
I>jJW ... "il'l"d
~uj.Jnul~u3 IlhlO
WOO'I!A!Ol1J8&'MMM
£ooEl6 '11M '!.'IM J'I.I8pe.:l 1.4'l1*11IIi1 , .... ~ ..... o<L
511 sQ33HieN3 ONilinaNoo ~
NOWNIHSVM A3A!Jns 33~1 ON" SNOI1IONO:J ~NI1SIX3
N3l831SS3r
ANVdVII08 ONV1::I81::13H 3H.L
I o. O.
"'Ob '0. •• 0 • . '. " . ' .
&. '. &. "'& '0. .(0
0 '0 o. '0. @. "". 4,. '.
(1'V1l:l3.L~V ~ONIV\I)
[
G=
I
--1-
December 14, 2004
Ty Pendergraft
The Herbrand Company
315 39th Ave SW Ste 6
Puyallup, W A 98373
B-12 Wetland
1103 W. Meeker St
Kert, WAf1!f12Q-'5T51
RE: Wetland Determination -"Jessie Glen", King County, W A.
B-12 Job#A4-366
Dear Ty,
Inc.
(v~15
(~ 2SM52-4732
This letter describes my fmdings regarding jurisdictional wetlands, streams and buffers
on the proposed "Jessie Glen" subdivi sion located off I 16 th A venue SW in
unincorporated King County, Washington (the "site"). Specifically, the 7.7 acre site is an
irre gular shaped combination of five (5) parcels (parcels #619840-0080, #619840-0100,
#6 19 840-0120, #619840-0140, and #619840-0320) located between 116th Avenue SE and
120th Avenue SW in the SW Y. of Section 33, Township 23 North, Range 5 East of the
Willarnette Meridian. The site is generally located within a suburban area surrounded
by residential development.
A Sewall Wetland Consulting. Inc. Company
The Herbrand Co. -Jessie Glen/#A4-366
B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc.
December 14, 2004
Page 2
The site includes several existing single family homes with associated landscaping, lawns
gravel driveways, and scattered outbuildings. Portions of the site have immature (20-
45yrs old) deciduous forest covering them.
No wetlands, streams or associated wetland or stream buffers were found on the site.
The proposed project is the construction of a 49 lot subdivision with associated road, and
stormwater facilities.
METHODS
On December 7, 2004, I inspected the site for jurisdictional wetlands and streams using
methodology described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification Manual
(W ADOE, March 1997). This is the methodology currently recognized by King County
and the State of Washington for wetland determinations and delineations.
The Washington State Wetlands Identification Manual as well as the 1987 Federal
Manual requires the use of the three-parameter approach in identifying and delineating
wetlands. A wetland should support a predominance ofhydrophytic vegetation, have
hydric soils and display wetland hydrology. To be considered hydrophytic vegetation,
over 50% of the dominant species in an area must have an indicator status offacultative
(PAC), facultative wetland (pACW), or obligate wetland (OBL), according to the
National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9) (Reed,
1988). A hydric soil is "a soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during
the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part." Anaerobic
conditions are indicated in the field by soils with low chromas (2 or less), as determined
by using the Munsell Soil Color Charts; iron oxide mottles; hydrogen sulfide odor and
other indicators. Generally, wetland hydrology is defined by inundation or saturation to
the surface for a consecutive period of 12.5% or greater ofthe growing season. Areas
that contain indicators of wetland hydrology between 5%-12.5% of the growing season
mayor may not be wetlands depending upon other indicators. Field indicators include
visual observation of soil inundation, saturation, oxidized rhizospheres, water marks on
trees or other fixed objects, drift lines, etc. Under normal circumstances, indicators of all
three parameters will be present in wetland areas.
OBSERVATIONS
Prior to visiting the site a review of existing inventories that included the area of the site
was completed. The inventories reviewed included the Soil Survey of King County,
Washington, the National Wetlands Inventory Map (NWI), and the King County Wetland
Inventory and iMap website. There are no wetlands, streams or hydric soils mapped for
the site.
Field Observations
Lo1"S 01-~p
J
!2.USH !<ND
ON "S>tI2'-":S ~.'
PIhUEL. wr
Mt)J1'IOl\KO IN
/l.ePO/tf.
The Herbrand Co. -Jessie Glen/#A4-366
B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc.
December 14, 2004
Page 3
The portions of the site that are not already developed with single family homes and
associated lawn, landscaping and driveways consists primarily of deciduous forest on the
east, and on the north, an area of mixed forest and shrubs and small saplings on the
north. The eastern forested area is a mix of alder, big leaf maple, scattered hemlock,
salmonberry, Indian plum, sword fern and Himalayan blackberry.
Soil pits excavated within the site revealed a well drained gravelly soil with a 1"-4" A-
horizon of 10YR 3/2 loam over a B-horizon of 10YR 3/4-3/6 gravelly loam. No hydric
soil indicators were noted, and excavated test pits on the site that were 6' deep were dry
to the bottom. No indication of wetland hydrology is present on the site,
The two northern parcels include a forested area on the extreme north, and a shrub area
just south of that parcel.
The forested area includes a mixed third growth forested area with a mix of Douglas fir,
big leaf maple, red alder, sword fern, Indian plum, hazelnut and salmonberry. Soils are
dry with high chroma soils colors and hydric soil indicators.
The shrub area contains large thickets of Himalayan blackberry as'well as scattered
cherry, alder, and Indian plum, Several small (I OOsf -400sf) depressions are located
within some tire rutted areas where vehicles and debris have been driven and stored.
Some scattered patches of buttercup were found in these areas but no evidence of wetland
soils or hydrology. Soils were similar to other areas of the site previously described.
Off-site Areas
I inspected the area of off-site forest to the north of proposed Lot 32 (see "Jessie Glen
Conceptual Site Plan -ESM Consulting Engineers, Inc. 11/5/04) for wetlands with the
landowner's pennission. This area has several large cottonwoods as well as some red-
osier dogwood which looked like a potential wetland area. However, soil pits excavated
within this area revealed only moist, non-hydric soils not meeting wetland criteria.
I also inspected the area to the south of the site in just south of proposed lots 33, 36, &
37-41. This area has a subdivision proposed on it (KCLU L04S0003). Some very small
depressions within old fill were noted with wetland flags on this site. Only one, just
south of Lot 39 appeared to have any evidence of wetland hydrology or soils. This area
is a small (approximately 500sf) area of scrub-shrub wetland. Since this wetland is
<2,500sf in size it would not be regulated by the County within the urban area.
Conclusion
There are no jurisdictional wetlands, streams or buffers on the Jessie Glen site.
The Herbrand Co. -Jessie Glen/#A4-366
B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc.
December 14, 2004
Page 4
If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at
(253) 859-0515 or at ed@b12assoc.com
Sincerely,
B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc.
Ed Sewall
Senior Wetland Ecologist (PWS#212)
King County Preferred Consultant
JESSIE GLEN PLAT
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
KING COUNTY
Prepared for
THE HERBRAND COMPANY
315 39th Ave. S.W. Suite #6
Puyallup, WA 98373
January 17,2005
Transportation
Planning & Engineering, Inc.
2223 -112th Avenue N.E., Suite 101
Bellevue, Washington 98004-2952
Telephone: (425) 455-5320
Facsimile: (425) 453-5759
JESSIE GLEN PLAT
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
KING COUNTY
Prepared for
THE HERBRAND COMPANY
315 39 th Ave. S.W. Suite #6
Puyallup, WA 98373
Prepared by
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC.
2223-11zth Ave. N.E., Suite 101
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Telephone: (425) 455-5320
Fax: (425) 453-5759
http:\\www.tranplaneng.com
January 17, 2005
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC.
VICTOR H. SlSHOP, P.E. PreSIdent
DAVIO H. ENGER. P.E. V'<;:e P'''5idenl
Mr. Ty Pendergraft
THE HERBRAND COMPANY
315 39 th Ave. S.w. Suite #6
Puyallup, WA 98373
Re: Jessie Glen Plat -King County
Traffic Impact Analysis
Dear Mr. Pendergraft:
2223 - 1 12'" AVENUE N.E., SUITE 101 -BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 9B004-2952
TELEPHONE (425) 455-5320
FACSIMILE (425) 453-5759
January 17, 2005
We are pleased to submit this Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed 49-lot
Jessie Glen project located 18924 116'0 Ave. S. E. in unincorporated King County. This project
has received a Certificate of Concurrency, #01628, from King County. A copy of which is
attached.
This study was prepared based on the King County Intersection Standards requirements
as implemented by Ordinance # 11617, which req uires analysis of intersections that carry 30 or
more site generated trips and at least 20% of the site generated traffic. No intersections meet
these criteria.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the project site and the surrounding
street network. The site is located on two connecting parcels between 116 1h Ave. S.E. and 120lh
Ave. Southeast.
Figure 2 shows a preliminary site plan provided by ESM. The plan consists of
constructing 49 single-family lots on the two connecting parcels. However, the internal
roadways of the two parcels would not be connected and each parcel would have its own
access onto the County road system. The west parcel, comprising of 31 lots would have access
onto 116'h Ave. S.E. and the east parcel, comprising of 18 lots, would have access onto 120'h
Ave. Southeast
The site presently has three single-family houses, two of which will be removed as part
of the project. The third would be relocated within the site. Therefore, there would be 46 net
new single-family homes constructed. Full development and occupancy of Jessie Glen is
expected to occur by 2008. This is the horizon year used for this analysis.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Roadway Facilities
Figure 3 shows existing traffic control, number of roadway lanes, number of approach
lanes at intersections, and other pertinent information. The primary roads within the study area
C;\WORK OOCUMENTS\-PROJECTS\Kmg Counly\K04330Q5 Jes.sie Glen TIA,doc
Mr. Ty Pendergraft
THE HERBRAND COMPANY
January 17, 2005
Page 2
and their classification per the Arterial Functional Classification Map, December 1998 are as
follows:
SR 515 (108 1h Ave. S.E.)
192no SI. S.E.
116 1h Ave. S.E.
120lh Ave. S.E.
Sight Distances
State Highway/Principal Arterial
Principal Arterial
Collector Arterial
Local Access
We conducted a sight distance review on 116 1h Ave. S.E. at the proposed west site
access. 1161h Ave. S.E. is a straight and relatively level Collector Arterial. Results of the
available for which stopping sight distance (SSD) and entering sight distances (ESD) at the
proposed west site access are shown in the following table:
SIGHT DISTANCE SUMMARY
Proposed West Site Access To/From the To/From the King County
North South Design Criteria
Stopping Sight Distance (ft.) Over 500 Approx. 750 (to
S.E. 192 nO St.) 400
Entering Sight Distance (ft.) Over 700 Approx. 750 (to 620 S. E. 192nd St.)
I
This table also shows the County's SSD and ESD criteria per Table 2.1 in the King
County Road Standards -1993 (KCRS). The KCRS recommended sight distances are for a
design speed of 45 MPH (posted speed limit on 116'" Ave. S.E. of 35 MPH plus 10 MPH per the
County policy).
Our field review shows that the County's SSD criteria of 400 feet is met both to the north
and south. The County's ESD criteria of 620 feet is also met to the north and south. Therefore,
we believe that there would not be a sight distance deficiency at the proposed west site access.
A sight distance review was also conducted at the east site access, which would
enter onto 120th Ave. S.E., a local access road. For local access roads, the KCRC SSO
requirement is 150 ft. and would be mel. There is no KCRC ESO criteria for local access roads.
We believe that there would not be a sight distance deficiency at the proposed east site access
either.
Accident Data
The King County staff provided accident report data for the roads surrounding the project
site for the time period January 1,2000 to December 31,2003. This data indicate that during
this four year period there appear to have been 11 reported accident a t the S.E. 1 920 0 St.!1161h
C:\WORK DOCUMENTS\-PRDJECT$\Klng County'.KO~33005 Jessie Glen TIA.doc
Mr. Ty Pendergraft
THE HERBRAND COMPANY
January 17, 2005
Page 3
Ave. S.E. intersection, one accident on 116'h Ave. S.E. 200 feet from S.E. 189'h PI. and one
traffic accident at the 120'h Ave. S.E.l188'h St. intersection. The County staff did not indicate
that any of the surrounding roadways or nearby intersections are high accident locations.
Based on this data, the relatively low number of accidents, and our field review no apparent
accident problem exists at the surrounding intersections. A copy of the accident data is
attached.
TRIP GENERA TlON AND DISTRIBUTION
The site presently has three single-family houses, two of which will be removed as part
of the project. The third would be relocated within the site. The project proposes to construct
49 single-family lots. Thus, there would be 46 net new single-family homes, which are expected
to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak
hours as shown below:
Time Period Average Trip Trips Trips Total Trips Rate Entering Exiting
Average Weekday T = 9.57 (X) 220 (50%) 220 (50%) 440
AM Peak Hour T = 0.75 (X) 9 (25%) 26 (75%) 35
PM Peak Hour T=101(X} 29 (63%) 17 (37%) 46
A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the
origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated
using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation,
Seventh Edition, for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 21 D). These trip
generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including
resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips.
Figure 4 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated site-generated traffic
volumes. The distribution is based on the characteristics of the road network, existing traffic
volume patterns, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping,
school, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies.
ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Review of the King County's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), found on the internet
at www.metrokc.gov/kcdoUroads/cip/default.aspx, identifies that there is one road improvement
project in the vicinity of the project site. This project, #401595 is an ongoing improvement
project of S.E. 192nd St., from 1 08 1h Ave. S.E. to 140'h Ave. Southeast. Phase V of the project
would make improvements to the 116'h Ave. S.E. intersection. However, this portion of the
project is currently unfunded. More data on this project is attached.
C:IWORK DOCUMENTSI-PROJECTS\King CovntylK0433005 Jessie Glen TlA_do~
Mr. Ty Pendergraft
THE HERBRAND COMPANY
January 17, 2005
Page 4
TRAFFIC IMPACT MlTlGATlON REQUIREMENTS
King County's Mitigation Payment System (MPS) is utilized to provide funding for
transportation improvements. The County is divided into 453 zones for which a residential fee
has been pre-calculated. This project is located in MPS zone #342, which has a fee of $3,730
per single-family unit. The current MPS fee for the 46 net new single-family units of the Jessie
Glen Plat is calculated to be $171,580.
Per King County standards, the developer would likely be required to construct frontage
improvements on 116'h Ave. S.E. and on 120'h Ave. S.E. adjacent to the project site. These
frontage improvements would likely consist of curb, g utter and a six and a half foot wide
sidewalk on 116'h Ave. S.E. and curb, gutter and a five foot wide sidewalk on 120'hAve.
Southeast.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA TlONS
Per King County criteria, no intersections would carry 30 or more site generated trips
and at least 20% of the site generated traffic. The proposed project would not have more than
30 site-generated trips at either of the site access intersections, which are expected to operate
at a satisfactorily with the proposed Jessie Glen project.
We recommend that the Jessie Glen project be constructed with the following traffic
impact mitigation measures:
1. Provide a King County MPS fee contribution for zone #342 in the likely amount of
$171,580.
2. Construct frontage improvements adjacent to the project site, which would likely
consist of curb, gutter and a six and a half foot wide sidewalk on 116'h Ave. S.E. and
curb, gutter and a five foot wide sidewalk on 120'hAve . Southeast.
3. Construct the proposed on-site roads per King County Road Standards.
No further mitigation is expected. If you have any questions, please call Mikhail (Mike)
Ekshtut, E.I.T. or myself at (425) 455-5320 or e-mail usatsgteks@tranplaneng.com.
ME:me
Very truly yours,
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
6Y;:R~( __ :::>
Victor H. Bishop, P.E.
President
C:\WORK DOCUMENTSI-PROJECTS\King Counly\K0433005 Jessie Glen TIA.doc
ll>
" -~
'<
"" " -<'< c
~
A\
~.
'" ~
" " ii;
c
~
--W Sf 92 d
'" '" ~
'<
T\.:: '" 'G "-C C
~ ~ Sf 19Mh sr
ll> lu
'" '" '" • ~ ,
'< "<-
'" ~
<0
~
S 200lh SI ~
l
i
Oml
.. , ~ ~ D • 0 , ~_0'!J"[:'J";ff
Streets Plus
VICINITY MAP
JESSIE GLEN PLAT -KING COUNTY
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
ll>
'"
"-
"" " " N
~
0.2
'"
'" ,.
'" ...
N
i
0.4
ll>
OJ
0 ~
" .".
"" > " ~ .. '"' ~
m
SE 20,
i
0.6
FIGURE
1
I
-Cz -
I
.. ,
• 3SNII.IOJtVlIIon ,
•
! , ,
" ,
~
, , , ± ,
!
~ ~ ,
-.-,
J ~ j ,
. "'~'~f'~~~!
;
k ~ , , , , ;
--d • r,-;--1 --,
L . ~. --, <l(l. , ~ ,
F " ,
" ~ ,
{ '. ~ ;; •
" • " " , '-., l'-.: ! ~ ~ , • ~ , • . . ,
~ ; " 0 , ~ ~ . ~
~ " ;, • • ~ I • I " '" ~ CI)I',tJ,Z ,
I • ,
t
-~ • · . _ . • " -" '., ,
• • , , -
J
,
r----< anr .11: " -~ , • , " -• • " • ~ I ~
CI"'~KffiI"l ,
3S .... u .... y tmH~ "
SITE PLAN
JESSIE GLEN PLAT -KING COUNTY
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
•
l
'"
~
•
FIGURE
2
515
W
tn
:r:
(l) Cl.. -,> ::;: -' N<1: N lJ)
L N ....,
0
N
S. E. 186th St. ~
+ ~+ + ~+ -----+ + +~ +
:r: Project
0.. [;/#/~ Site ::;:
lJ) v7/ ////// n
S.E. 192nd St. + + 2L + ...}-....
+ +40 MPH+I+
I
w w
(/) (/)
:r: a.i a.i 0.. > ...J > ::;:
<1: N«
lJ)
L L ...., ...., N
0Cl to
0 ---
LEGEND
o Traffic Control Signal
~ Stop Sign
XX mph Posted Speed Limit
__ Approach Lane & Direction
XL Number of Roadway Lanes
EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS
JESSIE GLEN PLAT -KING COUNTY
TRAFFIC Ilv1PACT ANALYSIS
I
,
N
not to sc ale
S.E. 188th St.
w
tn
(l) >
<1:
L ....,
"<t
N -
FIGURE
3
515
S.E. 186th St.
S.E. 188th
t-e o n ton
w
if)
(l)
> «
L
~ o
N
St. ! ~ '-2 ------t-:-t ----:3::-_--+-:-~--
n
f-r777771 Pro je ct
N
f-L-~'-VI Si t e
S.E. 192nd st. 30%
40%
w "<tn '-6 w nN
Vl )~ Vl ) ~ '-3 -3 -6 ui 7-ui > > 4-« 4-« 3-
.c L ~ .....
oJ to 0 ~
~
NET NEW
PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION:
WEST EAST PORTION
ENTER: 19 (63%) 10
EXIT: 10 (37%) 7 LEGEND
29 17 xx% Trip Distribution Percentage
N
not to scale
n
)
w
Vl
ui > «
L
~
"<!-
N
@ X---PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
JESSIE GLEN PLAT -KING COUNTY
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
FIGURE
4
.------I.~) -King County
Road Services Division
Depo:rtment oiTranBportBtion
201 Soutb Jac.kson Street
Seattle. WA 98104-3856
TYPE OF CERTIFICATE
['g) ORIGINAL
D CONDITIONAL
October 22, 2004
Certificate # 01628
File Number: 04-10-15-02
Expires: October 22, 2005
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY
o Specific conditions are described on the reverse side of this certificate.
Pursuant to King County Code, Chapter 14.70 as amended, this certificate confirms that the level of service
standard used in the Transportation Concurrency Management program has been satisfied and sufficient road
capacity is reserved for the development project described below. IMPORTANT: This certificate does not
guarantee a development permit. Other transportation improvements and mitigation will be required to comply with
Intersection Standards, Mitigation Payment System, King County road standards, and/or safety needs.
1. Applicant Name and Address: Ty Pendergraft, The Herbrand Company
1870 Lois Lane, Enumclaw, WA 98022
2. Property Location:
a. Property Address:18924116th Avenue SE
b. Development Name: Jessie Glen
c. Parce! Nlnnber: 6198400080,100,120,140,320
3. Type of Developmenl Permil To Be Requested: Formal Plat
4. Proposed Land Use: Single Family Residential
5. Zone Location and Reserved Units:
a. Concurrency Zone: 799 Community Planning Area: SODS Creek
i. Commercial Project -Total Square Fcct: 0
ii. Multi-family -Number of Units: 0
iii. Single family. Number of Units: 49
6. TIlis Certificate is subject to the following general conditions:
a. This Certificate of Concurrency runs with the land and is transferable only to subsequent owners of the
same property for the stated development., subject 10 the teons, condhions and expiration date listed herein.
TIlis Certificate of Concurrency is not tr.:msfernble to nny other property and has no commercial value.
This Certificate Expires: October 22,2005
unless you apply for the development permit described above, prior to that date. If this requirement is not met"
the King County Department of Transportation reserves the option Lo cancel your certificate and capacity
reservation.
When you apply for a development permit with King Counly's Deparhnent of Development and Environmental Sen'ices
(DDES), bring Ibis Certificate of Transportalion Concurrency ItS part of the development application packsge. If you
have Hny questions, please call (206) 263-4722.
, ~~ 1 ~L'r-\ ;0,r-/---n---
Linda Dougherty, Director, Road Services ~. ./
Department of Transportation
King County, Washington
Page 1 of 1
Mikhail Ekshtut
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
Mike,
"Scanlon, Jodi" <Jodi.Scanlon@METROKC.GOV>
<sgteks@tranplaneng.com>
Tuesday, January 11,20052:22 PM
Collisions on SE 192nd Street
Here is the collision information that you requested. A couple of questions you may be asking: 00 means opposite direction,
SO means same direction. The one accident with footage is measured to the south of the intersection. Please let me know if
you have other questions.
Thanks,
Jodi
J\cciUl!nlli~ljng
()1/01/2000.1'l/31/zmn
116lh Ave SI! H~I)O.IJUO to lnO.QUO
Sorwd by <DATt:::.TIl\IE;ACC#>
QUt\l)]u\NT CASl:: ID DATE TJJ\IE ACe SEVERIT'/ PE.G AGE \XIEAT!IER UC;rlTING ROAD COUJSJON "Il:-PG DIST AN STREET 1
STREET 2
00-68B 191 04/29/1000 17:40 lnj uf)' Ace: {) Daylight Dry OJ) one It turn Dill! straight 0 lt6TliAVESE SE 192ND ST
00-161627 OIl/2l /20110 1(,:25 Injury Ace () ClCOlr/brlly Clou Daylight Dry OJ) one It tllrn olle straight " JIGT!I,\VESE SE 192ND ST
00-9931OBOB/28/2[lOO B:lO Injury ,lice 0 Ckar/Partly Clou D~)'lighL Dry SD bOLh straight One SlOr llE " 116TJJAV~SE SE 192ND S'f
(I1·993!l96 02/28/2()Ol13:50 Injury Ace U Ch,,::u/P.:Irtiy Clou D~ylight Dry OD one It turn one Hraigh! 0 116T!J AVE SE SE 192ND ST
< (---. 02-37135909/25/20028:03 Property D~mage 0 ~n
Ck.:Ir/l'anly Cloll D~ylight Dry Right angl(.! () lHiT[1 I\VE SE SI! 192ND ST
4 02-3715·H 11/16/2(11)2 22JO Injury Ace () ()\'l:rc~~r D~rk ~lrl'l:t light Dry OJ) UIl('! It turn ()Ill: su'li,L:ht () 116T!I/\V[~S[~ SEt92NDST
02.150191111/}0(20lJ21S:2B Property Dlm;tgcO Fog/Smog/Smoke D~y[ight Dr)'OD("!nelt[lImom~tr;tight (I l1GTfJ,\VESE SE 192ND ST
4 ()}·6}5886 to/03/20(13 10:57 Properry Damage 0 Cbr/Partl}' Clou D:I),light Dry SI) uoth w:light both mO\'ing SS 0 116T[1 AVE SE SE tnND ST
03-69617410/11/20033;28 Injury Ace 0 Ck::lr/P:lrtiy Clou D:lrk Slr(.!ct light Dry Yell stril.:l"S fi:-':Lxl obj () 116'J'JIAVESl:: .SE1Y2NDST
03·770}29 I! / IU/2ll(13 104:D2 Prup(.!rry Damagl: (J \'{/(!t Hight :Ingle II 1 ](iT!! AV E Sl~ SE 192ND ST
4 03-7703-3[) 11/19/2()(13 17 :2() Properry Damage () lbining Dark no ~trel.:t Ii \'(/l:t SI) both straight onc stop RE 200 1161'1 J AVE SE SE189TI ! l.AN!~
/;\ V O}·700430 12!10/20(J3 17 .~5 Pro?(.!rt)' Dam:lg(.! 0 lb.illing D:lrknl)s!rt!l.:tIi \l!,.'l:\ S])bOlhstr.llght("!Ill:~wpRH () 11G'I'IJ,\YI2SU Sr~l92NDST
03·39S-l2() 04!2J:1/2()(]3 22:51) I'wpt.:rr)' D:lnl:lg(.! () Cll.:ar/Parll), Clou ])~rk Wl:ct light Dr)' Right :mgk () 121JT! ! t\ V)·: SE SE llltrl'll ST
1111/05
SE 192nd Street -King County Road Services Division Page 1 of2
® King County
Online Directory
Services provided
Bridges
Citizen requests
Closures & delays
Commuter information
Construction
Contact us
DOing business
Engineering
Environment
Maps
Planning
Safety
Signs
Traffic
Your Roads Division
About us
Links for ...
Businesses
Communities
Commuters
Job seekers
Teachers & kids
Other links
Regional
_ Home W.=.)' '.[th. rt. fI\.!l. eo. I. ~\rtlU~ New~1
You are in: Transportation, Road Services' Capital Improvement Program'
SE 192nd Street
Capital Improvement Program
SE 192nd Street
Project No.: 401595
Project limits: Benson Road to 140th Avenue
SE
Current phase: Intermediate Design
Project type: Capacity
Thomas Bros. map No.: 686d2
Project description
The SE 192nd Street CIP includes phases 1 to 5
along SE 192nd Street. Phase I was constructed
in 1997/1998 and included a pathway from 124th
Ave SE to 134th Ave SE and a pedestrian signal
at Meeker Jr High. Phase II is at 124th Ave SE
and will be a separate project. Phase III was
constructed in 2001 and added turn lanes and a
sidewalk at 140th Ave SE. Phase IV is located at
1 08th Ave SE and includes a sidewalk and new
right turn lanes. Phase V is located at 116th Ave
SE but is currently unfunded.
Why is King County doing this project?
S.E. 192nd St is a principal arterial in the Soos
Creek area. The road also provides access to
area schools.
Status as of January 7, 2005
The project is in the design phase.
Environmental Information
The overall air quality within the project vicinity
may improve slightly after the completion of this
project due to reduced queue lengths and
(click for details)
Project contact
Lorraine Lai
206-296-B760
~"."-.
. ,
....
,~
http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdotiroads/cip/ProjectDetail.aspx?CIPID=40 1595 111 0/05
SE 192nd Street -King County Road Services Division
•
reduced overall delay at the traffic signal. After
construction is completed, disturbed areas will be
restored to previous conditions by using native
plant materials and seeded. Revegetation with
native plants will help stabilize the banks of
Panther Creek, shade the creek, and provide
habitat for wildlife.
See also
King County Comprehensive Plan
My Commute
Online Bus Trip Planner
Transportation Needs Report
How does the CIP work?
The Road Services Division Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) contains all design, construction
and studies for improvements on roads, bridges
or transportation facilities in unincorporated areas
in King County. We have a glossary to help
explain our terms and jargon.
King County
Department of Transportation
Road Services Divisiol1
201 S. Jackson S1.
Seattle, WA 98104
206-296-6590 or
1-800-325-6165
TIY: 711 Relay Service
E-'I!<:!H
~ = external link
Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County.
By visiting this and other King County Web pages,
you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site.
The details.
http://www .metrokc. gov Ikcdot/roads/cip/Proj ectDetai 1. aspx ?CIPID=40 15 95
Page 2 of2
111 0/05
JESSIE GLEN PLAT
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
KING COUNTY
Prepared for
THE HERBRAND COMPANY
315 39 th Ave. S.W. Suite #6
Puyallup, WA 98373
January 17,2005
Transportation
Planning & Engineering, Inc.
2223 -112th Avenue N.E., Suite 101
Bellevue, Washington 98004-2952
Telephone: (425) 455-5320
Facsimile: (425) 453-5759
L05P0005 K.C. D.D.E.S
JESSIE GLEN PLAT
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
KING COUNTY
Prepared for
THE HERBRAND COMPANY
315 39 th Ave. S.W. Suite #6
Puyallup, WA 98373
Prepared by
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC.
2223·112 th Ave. N.E., Suite 101
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Telephone: (425) 455·5320
Fax: (425) 453·5759
http:\\www.tranplaneng.com
January 17, 2005
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC.
VICTOR H. 81SHOP, P.E Preslden\
DAVID H. ENGER. RE. VIce Pfss,donl
Mr. Ty Pendergraft
THE HERBRAND COMPANY
315 39 'h Ave. S.W. Suite #6
Puyallup, WA 98373
Re: Jessie Glen Plat -King County
Traffic Impact Analysis
Dear Mr. Pendergraft:
2223 -1121" AVENUE N.E., SUITE 101 -BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004-2952
TELEPHONE (425) 455-5320
FACSIMILE (425) 453-5759
January 17, 2005
We are pleased to submit this Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed 49-lot
Jessie Glen project located 18924 116'h Ave. S.E. in unincorporated King County. This project
has received a Certificate of Concurrency, #01628, from King County. A copy of which is
attached.
This study was prepared based on the King County Intersection Standards requirements
as implemented by Ordinance # 11617, which requires analysis of intersections that carry 30 or
more site generated trips and at least 20% of the site generated traffic. No intersections meet
these criteria.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the project site and the surrounding
street network. The site is located on two connecting parcels between 116'h Ave. S.E. and 120'h
Ave. Southeast.
Figure 2 shows a preliminary site plan provided by ESM. The plan consists of
constructing 49 single-family lots on the two connecting parcels. However, the internal
roadways of the two parcels would not be connected and each parcel would have its own
access onto the County road system. The west parcel, comprising of 31 lots would have access
onto 116'h Ave. S.E. and the east parcel, comprising of 18 lots, would have access onto 120'h
Ave. Southeast
The site presently has three single-family houses, two of which will be removed as part
of the project. The third would be relocated within the site. Therefore, there would be 46 net
new single-family homes constructed. Full development and occupancy of Jessie Glen is
expected to occur by 2008. This is the horizon year used for this analysis.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Roadway Facilities
Figure 3 shows existing traffic control, number of roadway lanes, number of approach
lanes at intersections, and other pertinent information. The primary roads within the study area
C:IWORK DOCUMENTS\-PROJECTSIKtng CountylK0433005 Jessie Glen rlA,doc
Mr. Ty Pendergraft
THE HERBRAND COMPANY
January 17, 2005
Page 2
and their classification per the Arterial Functional Classification Map, December 1998 are as
follows:
SR 515 (108'h Ave. S.E.)
192 0d St. S.E.
116'h Ave. S.E.
120'h Ave. S.E.
Sight Distances
State Highway/Principal Arterial
Principal Arterial
Collector Arterial
Local Access
We conducted a sight distance review on 116'h Ave. S.E. at the proposed west site
access. 116'h Ave. S.E. is a straight and relatively level Collector Arterial. Results of the
available for which stopping sight distance (SSD) and entering sight distances (ESD) at the
proposed west site access are shown in the following table:
II SIGHT DISTANCE SUMMARY
Proposed West Site Access To/From the To/From the King County
North South Design Criteria
Stopping Sight Distance (ft.) Over 500 Approx. 750 (to 400 S. E. 1920d St.)
Entering Sight Distance (ft.) Over 700 Approx. 750 (to 620 S.E. 192 0d St.)
This table also shows the County's SSD and ESD criteria per Table 2.1 in the King
County Road Standards -1993 (KCRS). The KCRS recommended sight distances are for a
design speed of 45 MPH (posted speed limit on 116'h Ave. S.E. of 35 MPH plus 10 MPH per the
County policy).
Our field review shows that the County's SSD criteria of 400 feet is met both to the north
and south. The County's ESD criteria of 620 feet is also met to the north and south. Therefore,
we believe that there would not be a sight distance deficiency at the proposed west site access.
A sight distance review was also conducted at the east site access, which would
enter onto 120lh Ave. S.E., a local access road. For local access roads, the KCRC SSD
requirement is 150 ft. and would be met. There is no KCRC ESD criteria for local access roads.
We believe that there would not be a sight distance deficiency at the proposed east site access
either.
Accident Data
I
The King County staff provided accident report data for the roads surrounding the project
site for the time period January 1,2000 to December 31,2003. This data indicate that during
this four year period there appear to have been 11 reported accident at the S. E. 192 0d StJ116'h
C:'.WDRK DOCUMENTS\-PROJECTS\King Coun(y1K0433005 Jessie Glen TIA.dDC
Mr. Ty Pendergraft
THE HERBRAND COMPANY
January 17, 2005
Page 3
Ave. S.E. intersection, one accident on 116 1h Ave. S.E. 200 feet from S.E. 1891h PI. and one
traffic accident at the 120lh Ave. S.E.l188 Ih Sl. intersection. The County staff did not indicate
that any of the surrounding roadways or nearby intersections are high accident locations.
Based on this data, the relatively low number of accidents, and our field review no apparent
accident problem exists at the surrounding intersections. A copy of the accident data is
attached.
TRIP GENERA TlON AND DISTRIBUTION
The site presently has three single-family houses, two of which will be removed as part
of the project. The third would be relocated within the site. The project proposes to construct
49 single-family lots. Thus, there would be 46 net new single-family homes, which are expected
to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak
hours as shown below:
Time Period Average Trip Trips Trips Total Trips Rate Entering Exiting
Average Weekday T = 9.57 (X) 220 (50%) 220 (50%) 440
AM Peak Hour T = 0.75 (X) 9 (25%) 26 (75%) 35
PM Peak Hour T=1.01(X) 29 (63%) 17 (37%) 46
A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the
origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated
using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation,
Seventh Edition, for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 210). These trip
generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including
resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips.
Figure 4 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated site-generated traffic
volumes. The distribution is based on the characteristics of the road network, existing traffic
volume patterns, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping,
school, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies.
ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Review of the King County's Capital Improvement Program (CIP), found on the internet
at www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/roads/cip/defaull.aspx, identifies that there is one road improvement
project in the vicinity of the project site. This project, #401595 is an ongoing improvement
project of S.E. 192 0d St., from 108 1h Ave. S.E. to 140lh Ave. Southeast. Phase V of the project
would make improvements to the 116 1h Ave. S.E. intersection. However, this portion of the
project is currently unfunded. More data on this project is attached.
C.IWORK DOCUMENTS\-PROJECTS\Klng County\K043300S Jessie Glen TIA.doc
Mr. Ty Pendergraft
THE HERBRAND COMPANY
January 17, 2005
Page 4
TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
King County's Mitigation Payment System (MPS) is utilized to provide funding for
transportation improvements. The County is divided into 453 zones for which a residential fee
has been pre-calculated. This project is located in MPS zone #342, which has a fee of $3,730
per single-family unit. The current MPS fee for the 46 net new single-family units of the Jessie
Glen Plat is calculated to be $171,580.
Per King County standards, the developer would likely be required to construct frontage
improvements on 1161h Ave. S.E. and on 120lh Ave. S.E. adjacent to the project site. These
frontage improvements would likely consist of curb, gutter and a six and a half foot wide
sidewalk on 116 1h Ave. S.E. and curb, gutter and a five foot wide sidewalk on 1201h Ave.
Southeast.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA TlONS
Per King County criteria, no intersections would carry 30 or more site generated trips
and at least 20% of the site generated traffic. The proposed project would not have more than
30 site-generated trips at either of the site access intersections, which are expected to operate
at a satisfactorily with the proposed Jessie Glen project.
We recommend that the Jessie Glen project be constructed with the following traffic
impact mitigation measures:
1. Provide a King County MPS fee contribution for zone #342 in the likely amount of
$171,580.
2. Construct frontage improvements adjacent to the project site, which would likely
consist of curb, gutter and a six and a half foot wide sidewalk on 1161h Ave. S.E. and
curb, gutter and a five foot wide sidewalk on 1201hAve. Southeast.
3. Construct the proposed on-site roads per King County Road Standards.
No further mitigation is expected. If you have any questions, please call Mikhail (Mike)
Ekshtut, E.I.T. or myself at (425) 455-5320 or e-mail usatsgteks@tranplaneng.com.
ME:me
Very truly yours,
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
uv;;R~(
Victor H. Bishop, P.E.
President
C:IWORK DOCUMENTS\-PROJECTS\Klng CountylK0433005 Jessie Glen TIA,doc
L
rrl
Vl
Vl
~rrl ;:0
»C)
'l,
'lrrl oz
--0 $:,
-0»
»~ o
~I
»", z-»z
,C)
-<0 Vl
O Vl C
Z
~ -<
<
o
Z
---1 -<
$: »
-0
----'-
[ -,
~
'I
G)
---10. C
;:0
fTl
UJ -, -: ;;
~;
~~ ~~ C'
V1
o
2,
o
"
o :.
o
~
~ ,
~
9~1 \", \ C ".
---\U-I
o '~ -""I ----
\. ce. "
\ -Ie,
\ j::J -len I
-.J....Q5th PI sE--,o.. // C /
\/ 1-.. /
1041iJ PI SEI r----1 ~ Jk -1 110610 1,e S , ./
'" " '" " Q
"
'" " 2
" '"
116tfJ Ave SE
sf Ave S~
I'
~
ve
1081h A,e~ I i~/
I~
tOnh PI SE
l
109tn Ave SEC/'j
\
I \ ~ , lGIl
r-1
' ,r-~ '--1 1
-:-f_ 1 ~ , h ~-'-l dlh Ave SE }
r-~J i I I "I
I -~-+-1 ~
LI __ -------J'I,:
'" P>
1i1tn Ave SE :;:
F'
113IhPISE;
114ttlPfSEl
~
,m
m
~
~
I ! -: I -,
~ 1161 , I
I; I J r-,----,-r L 1181hAeSE Ij;'" J r') ~ I : .'
1,20 hAve SE ~ r~\ W
~ ~~
P-l -L
I l'~ J! '1,11;1 '
124lflAeSE 1/ I -
} 26/},
,0/
'N"" "' '" ~
..... ">-Ql \
OJ, ,~
-------'1~ -E / ~ I
'" ~
\~
/~
(1=
'" /' j ~ 132nd Av SE
\:rr~~rl l~' I I L' I 'N \
I -cz -
I
··r
• as ......... vlflon ,
•
! , , ,
~
, , , ~}~j ,
I
i ~ , -, ,
1 ~
. "":I,'-~;';' !#'~~_ .
jU
; •
,~
, • ,
.~. , , ~
--d " r:--i --~
L . ~, --, , <~ , ~ , •• ,
" ~ ,
( '. \ ~ ;; , .. • ~ • ::'-,. " , '-,
l'--: l .. ~ ,
'" • • , • . .
~ , , ~ --Q ~ ~ ~ . ~ • " ;: • ~ , • , " " ~ oor .GZ ,
~ •
t
· ~ , · , _. ~ •
· ~ '., ,
• , , · "
1
,
-< onr,Ql " "
.,
• • • n -• • " • -, ·
CJ-I'''VY .... u, .. )
:lS..,u .... 't"ll9H
SITE PLAN
JESSIE GLEN PLAT -KING COUNTY
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
L
',j
"
•
, , ,
----L __ L
FIGURE
2
515
w
Ul
ui I
CL ---.l> 2' ---.l N« N If) .c N ~
0
N
S.E. 186th St. ~
+ ~7-+ ~7-
------+ + -+~ +
I Pro ject
CL '/'/'i/ Site 2'
If) [///////// n
S.E. 192nd st. + 7-2L + ~ ...-
-+ +40 MPH-+I+
I
w w
(j) Ul
I ui ui CL > ---.l > 2' « N«
If) .c .c N ~ ~
CD to
0 ~
~ ~
LEGEND
o Traffic Control Signal
~ Stop Sign
XX mph Posted Speed Limit
_ Approach Lane & Direction
XL Number of Roadway Lanes
EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS
JESSIE GLEN PLAT -KING COUNTY
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
I
i
N
not to sc ale
S.E. 188th St.
w
(j)
ui >
«
.c
~
~
N
~
FIGURE
3
515
S.E. 186th St.
S. E. 188th
~ o n lOn
w
Ul
ill >
<{
St. ~ ~ -2 - - - - --l-:-t -=-----3-_-+-~--
n
fT777771 Pro je ct
p...'-L..L'-V1 Sit e
S.E. 192nd St. 30%
40%
w "<tn -6 w nN
(fl )~ (fl ) ~ -3 -3 -6
oj 7-oj > > 4-<{ 4-<{ 3-
..c ..c ~ ~
OJ CD 0
NET NEW
PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION:
WEST EAST PORTION
ENTER: 19 (63%) 10
EXIT: 10 (37%) 7 LEGEND
29 17 xx% Trip Distribution Percentage
N
not to scole
n
)
w
Ul
oj
>
<{
..c
~
V
N
X-PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
JESSIE GLEN PLAT -KING COUNTY
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
FIGURE
4
-
,------1. ~I
King~ounty
Road Services Division
Department ofTranBportation
201 South Jackson Street
Seattle, WA 98104·3856
TYPE OF CERTIFICATE
~ORIGINAL
D CONDITIONAL
October 22, 2004
Certificate # 01628
File Number: 04-10-15-02
Expires: October 22, 2005
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY
o Specific conditions are described on the reverse side of this certificate.
Pursuant to King County Code, Chapler 14.70 as amended, lhis certificate confirms that the level of service
standard used in the Transportation Concurrency Management program has been satisfied and sufficient road
capacity is reserved for the development project described below. IMPORTANT: This certificate docs not
guarantee a development permit. Other transportation improvements and mitigation will be required to comply with
Jntersection Standards. Mitigation Payment System. King County road slandards, and/or safety needs.
1. Applicant Name and Address: Ty Pendergraft, The Herbrand Company
1870 Lois Lane,Enumclaw, WA 98022
2. Property Location:
a. Property Address:18924 116th Avenue SE
b. Development Name: Jessie Glen
c. Parcel Nlunber: 6198400080,100,120,140,320
3. Type of Develop men I Permit To Be Requesled: Fonnal Plat
4. Proposed Land Use: Single Family Residential
5. Zone Location and Reserved Units:
a. Concurrency Zone: 799 Community Planning Area: Soas Crook
i. Commercial Project-Total Square Fcct: 0
ii. Multi-family -Number ofUnils: 0
iii. Single family. Number of Units: 49
6. 111is Certificate is subject to the following general conditions:
a. This Certificate of Concurrency runs with the land and is transferable only to subsequent o ...... ncrs of the
same property for the stated development, subject to the terms, conditions and expiration date listed herein.
TIlis Certificate of Concurrency is not transferable to any other property and has no conunerciaI value.
This Certificate Expires: October 22, 2005
unless you apply for the development permit described above, prior to that date. If this requirement is not met
the King County Department of Trans pOI tat ion reserves the option to cancel your certificate and capacity
reservation.
When you apply for a denlopment permil with King County's Department of Development and EnvIronmental Sen'h::es
(DDES), b.-lng this Certificate or Transportation Concurrency IS part of the development application package. If you
have any questions, please call (206) 263-4722.
~·0'?1~~ ./,.) ~~ tJ~/ J
Linda Dougherty, Director, Road services\.· ..
Department ofTransportiltion
King Counly. Washinglon
Page 1 of 1
Mikhail Ekshtut
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
Mike,
"Scanlon, Jodi" <Jodi.Scanlon@METROKC.GOV>
<sgteks@tranplaneng.com>
Tuesday, January 11, 2005 2:22 PM
Collisions on SE 192nd Street
Here is the collision information that you requested. A couple of questions you may be asking: 00 means opposite direction,
SO means same direction. The one accident with footage is measured to the south of the intersection. Please let me know if
you have other questions.
Thanks,
Jodi
l\cciJcnt usting
OI/()1/2000.12/31!2()(n
116th 1\\'(0 $c 1 !l90.0()() to 1 no.Oou
Smtcd by <DA'I'E;'nl\[I~,I\CC#:;'
QU.-\Dl0\NT CASE lD DATE Tlr-.JE Ace SEV12RITY Plm ACI! \v1~/\TIII~R ROM) COLLISION T\11E DLS'!'J\N STREET 1
STl{[E"1' 2
-~ llO-(,88Jln O-t/29/2IJOD 17:·10 Injury Ace 0 Daylight Dey 01) one 11 turn Olll: ~traigbt 0 l1GTI/ :\VI;; sr~ 51...: InN!) ST
(l()-161 ()27 OS/2l/21J1JO 1 (I :25 Il1j\ll)' Ace 0 Ckar/l'~rd)' Urll' Daylight Dry ()l) Oil(; It turn ()IlC ~traighl 0 116'1"11 AVI":SE Sl~ InND S'i'
4 00-993108 08/28/2lHlO IU () Injury Ace 0 Ckar/Panly Clou D~}'light Dey 5D bOlh ~trJ.ighl (jlle stop Itt!: 0 116TllAVI!SE SE InND ST
4 Ul-')93()<)6 02/28/2001 13:SU Injury Ace 0 CI[;:1[/Parll1' Clou Daylight Dry OD one It turn ono:; straight 0 l1fiTI1AVESE 5E l:J2ND ST
oj Cll /2-371359 {)9/:?S/201l1 8:[)3 Propcrty Damage 0 Cbr/P~rtly Clou Dnylight Dry Right nngk II Il(i'1'[ 1 t\ V[~ Sl~ Sl~ 192ND ST
4 1l1·371544 II/Hi/2IHJ2 22JlJ Inj\lf)' Ac<.: 0 Dark >lrl'l:llighl Dr)' 01) 0110.: Ir lurn ()IW ,trai~h! II lJ(ITlj AVES[·: SE 1<J2NDS"J'
1l1-1501<JO 11/3U/2U02 15:28 Property D:un;'\gc () J.'og/Smog/Smokc Daylight Dry ODClnclttufllOl1Cstraigil[ Il 11(,TJrl\Vl~SE sr~lnNDST
03·635!1!161IJ/03/2003 Ill::'7 Prupcrty Dnm::.geO Ckn/ParLi), Cio\! Dn)'light Dr)' SD buth ~traigllt bOlh moying 5S () 116'1'11 AVE SE Sri I92ND ST
L 03-6%\7410/11/2003 3:2.!! 10)ul'}' /\cc () Clear/Partly Cloo D:Hk WcCt light Dry V,-,h strikes ii~,-,d obj () [1()TJT1\VESE Sl~lnNDST
j 03-770.329 11/ [0/2003 14:(12 Property Damage \J Raining Day]ight \vc! Highillngle " 11(,Tll AVI~S[~ SE IlJ2ND ST
-+ 03-770330 11/1'J/2()()3 17.20 ProperlY Dnm~go: (J ]bining D.1rk!](),trcc!Ii \X/c! SDbolh~tr~ighto!l(:SlOpRE 20() 116TI!AVESI~ S[IH<JT]ILANE
,'4:\ ...... "'-.! 03-700-130 12/to/20()3 17:.t5 l'ropo.:nr ])'lm~gc lJ Raini!lg [)lllk 110 Slro.:l:l Ii \'(,\:1 SI) bOlh ~tr~'ght one stop [(l~ lJ 116-]'11 1\ VE SE Sli InND ST
·1 O]-.VJS-I20 ()-I/2t1/2003 22:5() Propo.:n), D.lImgc Il () l21l'!'] [ :\ VI,: SE Sl~ l11HTI] ST
1111105
SE 192nd Street -King County Road Services Division Page 1 of2
® King County ~ ~ "':l~rJ!';RI roJ.!idiiHlH'1 Search
"-."" 1<" .. '
))1 r .. l t:-"rl,,:i! l.;ulJl·,··cl"):
You are in: TransQortation > Road Services> !:i'!pital Improvement Program>
SE 192nd Street
Online Director)'
Services provided
Bridges
Citizen requests
Closures & delays
Commuter information
Construclion
Contact us
DOing business
Engineering
Environment
Maps
Planning
Safety
Signs
Traffic
Your Roads Division
About us
Links for.
Businesses
Communities
Commuters
Job seekers
Teachers & kids
Other links
Regional
Capital Improvement Program
SE 192nd Street
Project No.: 401595
Project limits: Benson Road to 140th Avenue
SE
Current phase: Intermediate Design
Project type: Capacity
Thomas Bros. map No.: 686d2
Project description
The SE 192nd Street CIP includes phases 1 to 5
along SE 192nd Street. Phase I was constructed
in 1997/1998 and included a pathway from 124th
Ave SE to 134th Ave SE and a pedestrian signal
at Meeker Jr High. Phase II is at 124th Ave SE
and will be a separate project. Phase III was
constructed in 2001 and added turn lanes and a
sidewalk at 140th Ave SE. Phase IV is located at
108th Ave SE and includes a sidewalk and new
right turn lanes. Phase V is located at 116th Ave
SE but is currently unfunded.
Why is King County doing this project?
S.E. 192nd St is a principal arterial in the Soos
Creek area. The road also provides access to
area schools.
Status as of January 7,2005
The project is in the design phase.
Environmental Information
The overall air quality within the project vicinity
may improve slightly after the completion of this
project due to reduced queue lengths and
http://www . metrokc. gov Ikcdot/roads/cip/Proj ectDetai I .aspx?CIPID=40 1595
:; ".-
L..;., -.-, ,.;-.'--', 11
1
:,; ;'
'.1 < -: ,,"~. ~
ui ~r---
(click for details)
.'" Current Budget ".
~'" & Future Funding j
'"~-~--... -~",,,,--,
Project contact
Lorraine Laj
206-296-8760
1110/05
SE 192nd Street -King County Road Services Division
reduced overall delay at the traffic signal. After
construction is completed, disturbed areas will be
restored to previous conditions by using native
plant materials and seeded. Revegetation with
native plants will help stabilize the banks of
Panther Creek, shade the creek, and provide
habitat for wildlife.
See also
KLI1(lCounty COIDRrehensiyoe Plan
My_Commute
On! in e El!J~T ri R-E'!<lQQ~I
TransRortation Needs ReR.Q...r:!
How does the CIP work?
The Road Services Division CaRlliillmQfov§lJlelJ.t
ProgLam !CIP) contains all design, construction
and studies for improvements on roads, bridges
or transportation facilities in unincorporated areas
in King County. We have a g!Q§Sq[y to help
explain our terms and jargon.
Top Qf page
King County
Department of Transportation
ROl!g_SerYj~!HiQiYil>jQn
201 S. Jackson St.
Seattle, WA 98104
206-296-6590 or
1-800-325-6165
TTY: 711 Relay Service
E,m",il
0= external link
Links to external sites do nol constilute endorsements by King County.
By visiting this and other King County Web pages,
you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site.
The details.
http://www . metrokc. gov /kcdot/roads/cip/Proj ectDetai 1. aspx?CIPID=40 15 95
Page 2 of2
1110/05
• B-12Wetland Inc.
December 14, 2004
Ty Pendergraft
The Herbrand Company
315 39th Ave SW Ste 6
Puyallup, W A 98373
1103W. MeekerSt
Kert, WA'HZ2-fi/51
RE: Wetland Determination -"Jessie Glen", King County, WA.
B-12 Job#A4-366
DearTy,
(v)253-B5S{)515
(Q 253S524732
This letter describes my findings regarding jurisdictional wetlands , streams and buffers
on the proposed "Jessie Glen" subdivision located off 116 th Avenue SW in
unincorporated King County, Washington (the "site"). Specifically, the 7.7 acre site is an
irregular shaped combination of five (5) parcels (Parcels #619840-0080, #619840-0100,
#619840-0120 , #619840-0140 , and #619840-0320) located behveen I 16 th Avenue SE and
120'h A venue SW in the SW Y. of Section 33, Township 23 North, Range 5 East of the
WiIlamette Meridian. The site is generally located within a suburban area surround ed
by re sidential development.
L05POOOE~
A Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Company KC DOES
The Herbrand Co. -Jessie G/en/#A4-366
B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc,
December 14, 2004
Page 2
The site includes several existing single family homes with associated landscaping, lawns
gravel driveways, and scattered outbuildings, Portions ofthe site have immature (20-
45yrs old) deciduous forest covering them.
No wetlands, streams or associated wetland or stream buffers were found on the site,
The proposed project is the construction of a 49 lot subdivision with associated road, and
stormwater facilities.
METHODS
On December 7,2004, I inspected the site for jurisdictional wetlands and streams using
methodology described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification Manual
(W ADOE, March 1997). This is the methodology currently recognized by King County
and the State of Washington for wetland determinations and delineations,
The Washington State Wetlands Identification Manual as well as the 1987 Federal
Manual requires the use of the three-parameter approach in identifying and delineating
wetlands. A wetland should support a predominance ofhydrophytic vegetation, have
hydric soils and display wetland hydrology. To be considered hydrophytic vegetation,
over 50% of the dominant species in an area must have an indicator status of facultative
(F AC), facultative wetland (FACW), or obligate wetland (OBL), according to the
National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9) (Reed,
1988). A hydric soil is "a soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during
the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part." Anaerobic
conditions are indicated in the field by soils with low chromas (2 or less), as determined
by using the Munsell Soil Color Charts; iron oxide mottles; hydrogen sulfide odor and
other indicators. Generally, wetland hydrology is defined by inundation or saturation to
the surface for a consecutive period of 12.5% or greater ofthe growing season. Areas
that contain indicators of wetland hydrology between 5%-12.5% of the growing season
mayor may not be wetlands depending upon other indicators, Field indicators include
visual observation of soil inundation, saturation, oxidized rhizospheres, water marks on
trees or other fixed objects, drift lines, etc. Under normal circumstances, indicators of all
three parameters will be present in wetland areas,
OBSERVATIONS
Prior to visiting the site a review of existing inventories that included the area of the site
was completed. The inventories reviewed included the Soil Survey of King County,
Washington, the National Wetlands Inventory Map (NWI), and the King County Wetland
Inventory and iMap website. There are no wetlands, streams or hydric soils mapped for
the site,
AcornoI'J' Irl..
w~o
Vw\ 'l7'\lVlV -
e.V7H-I
NoT l-l?f'CO q,vr
o~~ I/.) fiM.
Field Observations
The Herbrand Co. -Jessie Glen/#A4-366
B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc.
December 14, 2004
Page 3
The portions of the site that are not already developed with single family homes and
associated lawn, landscaping and driveways consists primarily of deciduous forest on the
east, and on the north, an area of mixed forest and shrubs and small saplings on the
north. The eastern forested area is a mix of alder, big leaf maple, scattered hemlock,
salmonberry, Indian plum, sword fern and Himalayan blackberry.
Soil pits excavated within the site revealed a well drained gravelly soil with a 1"-4" A-
horizon of 10YR 3/2 loam over a B-horizon of 10YR 3/4-3/6 gravelly loam. No hydric
soil indicators were noted, and excavated test pits on the site that were 6' deep were dry
to the bottom. No indication of wetland hydrology is present on the site.
The two northern parcels include a forested area on the extreme north, and a shrub area
just south of that parcel.
The forested area includes a mixed third growth forested area with a mix of Douglas fIr,
big leaf maple, red alder, sword fern, Indian plum, hazelnut and salmonberry. Soils are
dry with high chroma soils colors and hydric soil indicators.
The shrub area contains large thickets of Hi malayan blackberry as 'well as scattered
cherry, alder, and Indian plum. Several small (1 OOsf -400sf) depressions are located
within some tire rutted areas where vehicles and debris have been driven and stored.
Some scattered patches of buttercup were found in these areas but no evidence of wetland
soils or hydrology. Soils were similar to other areas of the site previously described.
Off-site Areas
I inspected the area of off-site forest to the north of proposed Lot 32 (see "Jessie Glen
Conceptual Site Plan -ESM Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1115/04) for wetlands with the
landowner's permission. This area has several large cottonwoods as well as some red-
osier dogwood which looked like a potential wetland area. However, soil pits excavated
within this area revealed only moist, non-hydric soils not meeting wetland criteria.
I also inspected the area to the south ofthe site in just south of proposed lots 33, 36, &
37-41. This area has a subdivision proposed on it (KCLU L04S0003). Some very small
depressions within old fIll were noted with wetland flags on this site. Only one, just
south of Lot 39 appeared to have any evidence of wetland hydrology or soils. This area
is a small (approximately 500sf) area of scrub-shrub wetland. Since this wetland is
<2,500sf in size it would not be regulated by the County within the urban area.
Conclusion
There are no jurisdictional wetlands, streams or buffers on the Jessie Glen site.
•
The Herbrand Co. -Jessie G/en/#A4-366
B-12 Wetland Consulting, Inc.
December 14, 2004
Page 4
If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at
(253) 859-0515 or at ed@b12assoc.com
Sincerely,
B-12 Wetland Consulting, 1nc.
Ed SewaII
Senior Wetland Ecologist (PWS#212)
King County Preferred Consultant
Revised on Web-07/12/2005
®
King County
ENGINEERING REVIEW
CHECKLIST
Department of Development and Environmental Services
Land Use Services Division
1998 Surface Water Design Manual
1993 King County Road Standards
900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest
Renton, WA 98055-1219
206-296-6600 TIY 206-296-7217 For alternate formats, call 206-296-6600.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name \.. \) t C?F25b-i'l,.,F~q"tn~~ _________ _
Activity Number LCY::=;>c::>.\S2lS ___________ _
Project Number LD 5 ?LX:::O'::::::>
Development Number ________ _
DOES Review Engineer ~ed Co oj? Q.t=
Notes
Date .. I2.-27-CS-
/}11..{S.-f cDord. i Moi€.. wifl\ L04 S()Oo S for-cn-si+e roa,Jw"-'-(
COM It e..,--+roJ/l.,
OK
D Hearing Examiner's Report ........ Date \ '::l. ~~. :::/5' Revised Report ...... Date
D Plat Ordinance Number Date
D Preliminary Plat Map ....... Date Approved by Hearing Examiner J "'»0r \,-\\\1. ?:::x:i5
D Revised Preliminary Plat Map ....... Date Approved by DOES -------------------
1IY"5-year Expiration. . Date / a hs /2.0/0 (Show on engineering cover sheet)
I I
ROUTING TO OTHER KING COUNTY SECTIONS
/-) /A [0' Wetland Report I Plans
Route Date _____ _ Response Date ____ _
rJ/ ! 8' Geotechnical Report I Plans
Route Date _________ _ Response Date ____________ _
Ai /A CZ( Grading Report I Plans
Route Date Response Date
rJ/A lId Structural Designs I Calculations I Civil Plans I Soils Report (Vaults, Retaining Walls, Bridges)
Route Date Response Date _____ _
Nt e.J .' D Landscape I Recreation I Street Tree I Plan
_.~ Route Date Response Date ___________ _
Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf Q7tl2J2Q05 1 of 16
(Continued)
tVA iB'Traffic Improvement Plan / Report
Route Date
[J(Tree Retention / Forestry / Plan
Route Date / -3 -;2 OOG
o Other Report / Plan
Route Date
o All required routing stations shown and updated on PRMS
Notes
Activity Number 1.'::)5 ~R,C)SLi
Response Date
Response Date /-(o-o~
Response date
,----------------------------~
GENERAL SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS
OK
~ite plan layout matches preliminary plat approved by Hearing Examiner
(Check for same lot count, tract configuration, road alignments, etc) o Compliance with conditions of preliminary approval
r,; / H ill" yompliance with Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance
[1jTract Table if three or more tracts, Identify name, size and purpose,
'J/A It'l Show and label all SAO tracts, buffers, and 15' BSBL
>~!.!I 0 Review maximum height of6-feet for rockeries and retaining walls per KCC 21A 12,030, 110-170, 220) Also show
standard note per policy on Web site,
~/\Jse updated cover sheet showing designation for highly critical sites per Appendix, 044,
IF;! ~ Determine if HPA fisheries permit required -contact CAO staff o Tree Retention Plans -Show standard plan note (see section policies),
SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL (1998)
CORE AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
OK SWDM
~. 1.2,1
0 1,2,2
0 U,3
H 1,2,6
0 1,2,8
[r 1-3,1
0 1-3,2
Core #1 -Evaluate diversion of drainage within subbasins andlor tightline requirements for landslide
hazard drainage areas,
Core #2 -Off-site analysis, Evaluate adequacy and conclusions,
Core #3 -Flow controL Determine design standard based upon mapping and/or off-site analysis,
Evaluate exemptions from fiow control if applicable,
Core #6 -All drainage facilities and road access shall be located in public tracts, right-of-way andlor
drainage easements dedicated to King County, For private facilities, specify the required Declaration of
Covenant and drainage easements for final recording,
Core #8 -Water Quality, Determine design standard based upon mapping andlor off-site analysis,
Evaluate exemptions if applicable and untreated areas per page 1-57,
Special #1 -Area specific requirements, Perform P-suffix search on computer, evaluate grading code
restrictions, and review for shared facility drainage plan,
Special #2 -Floodplain boundaries shown on plans,
Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 0711212005 2 of 16
Activity Number: ____________ _
DRAINAGE VARIANCES
OK SWDM
D 1.4 Activity No. ___ _ Approval Date _______ _
Design Issues ,---_
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT
OK SWDM
D 2.3.1.1
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Section 1 -Project Overview
Figure 1: TIR Worksheet
Figure 2: Site Location
Figure 3: Drainage Basins
a. Acreage of subbasins
b. Identify all site characteristics
c. Show existing discharge points to and from the site
d. Show routes of existing, construction, and future flows at all discharge points and
downstream hydraulic structures.
e. Use a minimum USGS 1 :2400 topographic map as a base
f. Show and cite the length of travel from the farthest upstream end of a proposed storm
system in the development to any proposed flow control facility.
Figure 4: Soils
a. Show the project site
b. The area draining to the site
c. The drainage system downstream for the distance of the downstream analysis
Section 2 -Preliminary Conditions Summary with responses
Section 3 -Off-Site Analysis
Section 4 -Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design
Existing Site Hydrology (Part A)
Developed Site Hydrology (Part B)
Performance Standards (Part C)
Flow Control System (Part D)
Water Quality System (Part E)
Section 5 -Conveyance System Design and Analysis
Section 6 -Special Reports and Studies -Geo, Wetlands, Floodplain analysis (4.4.2)
Section 7 -Other Permits (HPA, Special Use, WSDOT, etc.)
Section 8 -Erosion / Sedimentation Control Design
Section 9 -Bond Quantities Worksheet and RID Facility Summary
Section 10 -Maintenance and Operations Manual (Section 10 for privately maintained or special non-
standard features
Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 07/1212005 3 of 16
Activity Number: ____________ _
SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS
OK SWDM
o 2.3.1.2
r:g---Vertical Datum NAVD 1988 -show benchmark
g---Horizontal Control NAD 1983/91
2.3.1.2 General Plan Format
(1) Sheet size 24" x 36"; quality reproducibles
(2) King Co. Standard Map Symbols; existing 1 proposed (Reference 7A)
(3) Project Information 1 Cover Sheet
a. Title: Project name and DDES file number
b. Table of Contents if more than 3 plan sheets
c. Vicinity Map
o
W o
[2J
Q
g
[LI
[} d. Name & Phone of Utility field contacts and One Call Number: 1-800-424-5555 (water, sewer,
In o o o o o
flJ{ -0 --0
o
gas, power)
e. Preconstruction 1 Inspection notification requirements
f. Name & Phone of erosion control supervisor
g. Name & Phone of Surveyor
h. Name & Phone of Owner 1 Agent
i. Name & Phone of Applicant
j. Legal description
k. Plan approval block for DDES
I. Name & Phone of engineering firm preparing plans
m. Fire Marshal's approval stamp (if required)
n. Mailbox location approval by U.S. Postal Service
o. List of conditions of preliminary approval on all site improvements
(4) An overall site plan if more than three plan sheets are used
a. The complete property area development
b. Right-of-way information
c. Street names and road classification
d. All project phasing and proposed division boundaries
J2 -0 o o o o o o o e. All natural and proposed drainage collection and conveyance systems with catch basin numbers
shown
o
o o o o o o o o o o
(5) Each sheet and TIR is stamped, signed, and dated by a Professional Engineer licensed in
Washington State
(6) Detail Sheets Provided
(7) Title block on each sheet
a. Development title
b. Name, address and phone number of engineering firm
c. Revision block
d. Page numbering
e. Sheet title (e.g., road and drainage, grading, etc.)
(8) King County approval block on each plan sheet
(9) The location and label for each section or other detail shall be provided
(10) Critical Area Setbacks per K.C.C. 21A.24 o (11) All match lines correspond to the sheet reference o (12) Division phase lines with limits of construction ~ NOTE.S CH1l~ilEb(13) Standard Plan Notes -General, Drainage & Structural notes (Reference 78) o (14) Survey control plan sheet stamped by licensed PLS in Washington State
Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 07/12/2005 4 of 16
Activity Number: ____________ _
SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS (continued)
OK SWDM
D 2.3.1.2 Plan View: Site Plan and Roadway Elements
D (1) Property Lines, RIW lines, roadway widths shown
D (2) Existing I Proposed road features; Cl, edge pavement, edge shoulder, ditches, curb, sidewalk &
access pts
D (3) Existing I Proposed topographic contours @ 2', 5'>15% slope, 10-'>40% slope
D (4) All affected utilities are shown; utility poles marked
D (5) All roads and adjoining subdivisions identified
D (6) Existing I Proposed RIW dimensioned and shown
D (7) Existing I Proposed surfacing shown
D (8) Scale generally 1"=50' (1"=100' for lots >1 Acre)
D 2.3.1.2 Plan View: Drainage Conveyance
D Sequentially number all catch basins and curb inlets
D Show length, diameter, and material for all pipes, culverts, and stubouts
D label catch basin size and type
D Show stubout locations for roof drains
D label all drainage easements, access easements, tracts, and building setbacks
D Provide flow arrows for drainage direction
D 2.3.1.2 Plan View: Other
D Show all buildings, property lines, streets, alleys, and easements
D Verify condition of public right-of-way
D Show structures on abutting properties within 50 feet
D Identify fencing for drainage facilities
D Provide section details of all retaining walls and rockeries
D Show all wells on-site and within 1 OO-feet of site. For well abandonment, include notes referencing DOE
procedures.
D 2.3.1.2 Profiles: Roadway and Drainage
D Existing I proposed roadway centerline (Cl) at 50' stations increasing, reading from left to right. Show
stationing of pOints of smooth vertical curve, with elevations
D Show vertical curve data including stopping sight distance
D Show all pipes and detention tanks with slope, length, size and type
D Show all pipe inverts and elevations of catch basins or lids
D Minimum cover dimensions if less than 2.0'
D Indicate roadway stationing and offset for all catchbasins
D Show vertical and horizontal scales (vertical 1"=5')
D label all profiles with street names and reference numbers to plan sheet
D Show all property boundaries and match line locations
D Provide profiles for conveyance systems of 12" and larger pipes or channels other than roadway ditches
D Catch basin lids are flush with ground line
Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le~ckl~ercheck.pdf 07/12/2005 5 of 16
Activity Number: ____________ _
SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS (continued)
OK SWDM
D 2.3.1.2 Plan Details
D Provide scale drawing of each pond, vault, or water quality facility. Include all pipe details for size, type,
slope, length, etc.
D Show existing and final grade contours at 2-foot intervals. Show maximum design water elevation.
D Dimension all berm widths
D Provide two cross sections through pond, including one section through restrictor
D Specify soils and compaction requirements
D Show location and detail of emergency overflows, spillways, and bypasses
D Specify rock protection I energy dissipation details
D Provide inverts for all pipes, grates, etc., and spot elevations on pond bottom
D Show location of access roads to control manholes and pond I fore bay bottoms
D Provide plan and section views of all energy dissipaters. Specify size and thickness of rock.
D Show bollard locations (Typically at entrance to drainage facility and walking trails)
D Restrictor and control structures must have section and plan view drawn to scale
D 2.3.1.2 Structural Plan Details
D Verify that deSigner is a licensed structural P.E. for vaults or bridges
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (SWDM Appendix D)
OK SWDM
D 2.3.1.3
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
General SpeCifications
Separate plan sheet showing entire site w/features
Show critical areas and buffers in separate tracts
Show existing contours and final grades if scope or work includes grading
Pertinent information from soils report is added to plans
Drainage features identified (streams, wetlands, bogs, springs, seeps, swales, ditches, pipes &
depressions)
Utility corridors other than roads shown
Show drainage divides and flow directions
Specify best management practices
Show cut and fill slopes with catch lines indicated
Sufficient conceptual details to convey design intent
Standard ESC plan notes shown on plans (Page 0-69)
For grading and structural fill within lot areas -show standard notes for geo hazards (see section
policies for geo notes)
D 0.4.1 Clearing Limits
D (1) Delineate clearing limits -colored survey tape may be used. Critical areas require plastic I metal
safety fence or stake and wire fences.
D (2) Provide detail of fencing
Engineering Review Check.list FORM.doc le-cld-ercheck.pdf 07/12/2005 6 of 16
Activity Number:
2.3.1.3 EROSION ANO SEOIMENT CONTROL (SWOM Appendix OJ (continued! .-------------
OK SWDM
o 0.4.2 Cover Measures
o
o o o
(1) Specify the type and location of temporary and permanent cover measures. (Mulch, erosion control
nets, blankets, plastic. seeding and sodding)
(2) Specify the seed mixes, fertilizers and soil amendments to be used and application rates
(3) Areas receiving special treatment are specified Uute netting, rock lining or sod)
(4) Soil cover practices and locations of disturbed areas
o 0.4.3 Perimeter Protection
o
o
(1) Specify the location and type of perimeter protection to be used -silt fence, brush barriers, and / or
vegetated strips
(2) Provide details and specify type of fabric for silt fence
o 0.4.4 Traffic Area Stabilization
o o
(1) Show construction entrance with detail (Figure DA.G)
(2) Show proposed construction roads and parking areas. Specify details for stabilization.
o 0.4.5 Sediment Retention
o
o
o
o o o o o
(1) Show location of sediment pond or sediment trap. Very small areas can be treated with only
perimeter protection (see D.4.3).
(2) Sediment Trap -Can be used for drainage areas of 3 acres or less. Calculate surface area using
2-year design storm. Show detail per Figure D.4.H.
(3) Sediment Pond -Determine pond geometry and show details on plan for required storage, depth,
length and width
(4) Show sediment pond cross section and detail (Figures D.4.J and K)
(5) Provide details of cell dividers and stabilization techniques for inlet I outlet
(6) Specify mulch or recommended cover of berms & slopes
(7) Specify the l-foot marker for sediment removal
(8) Indicate catch basins for protection and show design details (Figures DA.L and M)
o 0.4.6 Surface Water Control
o o o o
o o
o
(1) Show conveyance of all surface water to a sediment pond or trap
(2) Discharge location shall be downslope from disturbed areas
(3) Show details for conveyance with interceptor dike, swales (Figures OA.O, Pl.
(4) For ditches, determine capacity for 1 O-year storm with 0.5 feet freeboard. Show details for check
dams (Figure DA.R). Determine check dam spacing and as needed, show inverts and minimum
slopes of open channels. Also show direction of open channel flow.
(5) For pipe slope drains, determine capacity for 10-year storm. Show details per Figure 0.4.0.
(6) Determine level of protection for outlet (rock pad, outfall design, or level spreader). See
requirements in D-38 through 0-40.
(7) Evaluate off-site flows entering the site and assure bypass of disturbed areas
Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckJ-ercheck.pdf 07/1212005 7 of 16
•
Activity Number: ____________ _
2.3.1.3 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (SWDM Appendix Dl (continued)
OK SWDM
o D.5.1 ESC Report
o o (1) Show detailed construction sequence (page 0-70)
(2) All required calculations and soils reports contained in TIR
o D.5.2 Wet Season Requirements
o (1) Provide a list of all applicable wet season requirements (details on page 0-42)
o D.5.3 Critical Area Restrictions
o (1) Consider phased construction during the dry season. See special recommendations on page 0-43.
o D.5.4 Maintenance
o
o
o
(1) Plans shall list the name, address and phone number of the ESC Supervisor. A sign shall also be
posted on the construction site with information for contacting the ESC supervisor.
(2) Determine if site is Highly Critical (Soil Types C or 0, 5 acres of disturbance, large areas with
slopes >10%, proximity to streams, wetlands, or lakes)
(3) On cover sheet of engineering plans, designate if highly critical site
o D.5.7 NPDES Requirements
o o (1) Determine if project will disturb more than 5 acres
(2) If disturbed area is greater the 5 acres, show the following note on the plans:
"No construction or site disturbance for this project may begin before the applicant first obtains a
General Permit to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity permit from the
Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). For more information or application form, please
visit DOE's website at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/ecy02085.html ..
o D.5.8 Forest Practices Permit
o o
o
o o
o o
o o o
(1) Determine if project needs FPA permit. Contact DOES grading section.
(2) Provide a reference note on the cover sheet indicating whether or not an FPA permit has been
obtained.
Early Start Plan Review
(1) Standard cover sheet included with Title for Phased Early Start
(2) List the scope of work for early start (scope of work will vary for each project -evaluate clearing,
grading for roads, lot grading, utility installation, vault construction, oft-site work)
(3) Update the sheet index to identify all plans with updated page numbers
(4) Include standard ESC plan prepared in accordance with all requirements listed above for erosion
and sediment control
(5) Include detailed construction sequence and identify ESC supervisor
(6) Show standard erosion control notes
(7) Show early start activity number on all plain sheets
Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 0711212005 8 of 16
Activity Number: _____________ _
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
OK SWDM
o
o o o
o o o o o
o o o o o
o o o o o
o o
o
o
o
o
o o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
3.2
3.27
3.3.6
3.3.7
4.0
4.5
4.7
4.9
4.9
4.10
4.27
4.35
4.51
4.69
4.53
5.0
5.3
5.9
5.11
Runoff Computation
Rational Method required for on-site conveyance (See Table 3.2)
KCRTS used for flow control design
Evaluate correct data: Rainfall region. scale factor. time step, record type, acreages, soil cover groups,
and percent impervious
For urban areas, unprotected forest modeled as pasture or grass
For rural areas, unprotected forest assumes 50% grass, 50% pasture
All pre-developed grassland modeled as pasture
All post developed grassland modeled as grass
Impervious coverage calculated based upon specific project -clearly summarize types and amounts of
impervious
For urban development, impervious for each lot, >= 4,000 sq It or maximum allowed in zoning code
For rural development, impervious for each lot, >= 8,000 sq It or maximum allowed in zoning code
Evaluate requirements for modeling with effective impervious area
Point of compliance -evaluate for on-site bypass and off-site closed depression
On-site closed depressions and ponding areas
Conveyance System Analysis and Design
Conveyance systems are in easements with BSBLs
Off-site easements must be recorded using standard forms (Reference 8H)
Determine which easements are public and private, label and dimension
Pipes are parallel to and alongside property lines
Minimum pipe size 12-inch, for private systems may allow 8 inch
Easements for pipes outside of right of way
For connecting pipes at structures, match crowns, 80% diameter, or inverts
Minimum velocity at full flow 3.0 feet per second
Minimum cover for pipes 2 feet
Debris barrier for pipes 18-36 inch
Outfall design criteria
Surcharges (backwater analysis may be required)
Maximum headwater allowed for culverts
Bridge design
Floodplain analysis
Open channels
Flow Control Design
Mandatory requirements for roof downspouts in order of preference. Must evaluate feasibility of each.
• Infiltration • Dispersion • Perforated stubouts
Dispersion system criteria including vegetated flow path
Perforated stub out, if used show detail per Fig. 5.1.3.A
Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 07/12/2005 9 of 16
Activity Number: ____________ _
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS (contlnuod)
OK SWDM
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
5.14
5.15
5.17
5.3
5.3.1
5.3.2
Forested open space fiow control BMPs
• Show tracts or easements for FOS
• Show required notes on plan for plat recording
Roadway dispersion BMPs. check design criteria
BMPs for reducing facility size. Note: Facility sizing credit allowed for dispersion only if fiowpath from
roofs ultimately drain to RID facility.
Detention Facilities
Emergency overflow -Evaluate fiow path for safe and adequate conveyance
Setbacks
Flow-through system
Detention Ponds
Dam Safety Compliance
Two cross-sections through pond (one x-section to include control structure)
Review pond details in Figures 5.3.1.A and B
Designed as fiow-through system
Side slopes interior 3H:1V or fenced
Vertical interior retaining walls Stamped by licensed structural civil engineer
For pond walls, min. 25% of perimeter vegetated and no steeper than 3: 1
Berms greater than 4 feet require key excavation
Minimum berm width of 6 feet
Primary overflow (control structure with riser).
Secondary Inlet to the control structure
Emergency Overflow Spillway, 100 year developed peak fiow
Soil and compaction requirements described (95% modified proctor)
Access road min. turning radius, maximum grade, min. width, fences or gates
Pond sign (Figure 5.3.1.D)
Fencing and planting requirements
Setbacks - 5 feet from tow of exterior slope or 5 feet from water surface for cut slope
Detention Tanks
Flow-through system required
6" of dead storage in tank bottom
Minimum pipe diameter of 36"
Materials and structural stability
Control structure per Section 5.3.4
Buoyancy
Access risers and CBs are spaced properly with max. depth from finished grade to tank invert shall be
20 feet and accessible by maintenance vehicles
Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 0711212005 10 of 16
Activity Number: ____________ _
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS leonllnuedl
OK SWDM
o
o o o o o o o o o
o
o o
,viA 0
o o o o o o o o
o
o
o
o
o o
o
o
o
o
o o o o
5.3.3 Detention Vaults
Structural package submitted for approval
Flow-through system required
Review design details per Fig. 5.3.3.A. Note: Grate over sump with 2' x 2' hinged access door
Access positioned a maximum of 50 feet from any location. (if over 3 foot cover use cone riser)
Access required to inlet pipe and outlet
Removable 5x10 panel if vault greater than 1250 sq. ft. floor area
Maximum depth from finished grade to vault invert to be 20 feet
Minimum internal height shall be 7 feet, min. width shall be 4 feet min
Ventilation pipes provided in all four corners
5.3.4 Control Structures
Section and plan view shown to scale
Orifice size and elevation on plans match calculations. Minimum orifice 0.5".
(Note: Information Plate details are no longer required -see policy on Web site.)
5.4 Infiltration Facilities
Appropriate soils logs and testing procedures in TIR
Pond bottom at least 3 feet above seasonal high water
Permeable soil extends minimum 3 feet below bottom of pond
Geotechnical report states suitability and determines design infiltration rate
Overflow route identified with 100-yr overflow conveyance
Spill Control device upstream of facility
Presettling
Review setback requirements, page 5-60. Design water surface setback of 20 feet from external tract,
easement or property lines
Show the standard note regarding public rule for in operation facility (see section policies)
6.0 Water Quality Design
6.1 Water Quality Menus
6.2 Water Quality facilities
6.2.2A Water Quality Sequencing
6.2.3 Setbacks, slopes and embankments
6.2.4 Facility Liners
6.2.5 Flow Splitter Designs
6.3 Biofiltration Facility
6.3.1 Biofiltration swales and soil amendments
6.3.1.1 Methods of Analysis
6.3.1 Swale geometry, plantings, flow conveyance, high flows, velocity
Road access requirements, page 6-43
6.3.4 Filter strip geometry (slopes)
Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 07/12/2005 11 of 16
Activity Number: ____________ _
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS Icontlnued)
OK SWDM
o 6.4 Wetpool Facility Designs
o Wetpool geometry, 2 cells, minimum depth of first cell 4 feet o Flowpath length to width ratio 3:1. Note: If flow path achieved with berms or walls, top of berm must be
at 2-year water surface elevation.
o 6.4.1.2 Berms, Baffles, Slopes o InleUOutlet Design o 6.4.1.1 Access, setbacks, and plantings
o 6.4.2 Wetvaults
o 6.4.1.1 Sizing basic or large o 6.4.1.1 Berms, Baffles, Slopes o 6.4.2.2 Two cells separated by wall or removable baffle o Vault bottom forms a broad "V" with 5% sides lopes o Inlet is submerged and outlet pipe designed for 1 DO-year overflow o Gravity drain provided if grade allows o Minimum 50 square feet of grate over second cell
o 6.4.3 Stormwater Wetlands
o 6.4. 3.1 Methods of Analysis o 6.4.3.2 Design Criteria -Wetland geometry, liners, access, plantings
o 6.4.4 Combination Detention and Wetpool facilities
o 6.4.4.1 Methods of Analysis o 6.4.4.2 Design Criteria -Detention and wetpool geometry, berms, baffles, slopes
o 6.4.4.2 Access and plantings
o 6.5 Media Filtration Facility Designs
o 6.5.1 Presettling/pretreatment o 6.5.2 Sandfilters -Basic and Large o 6.5.2.1 Methods of analysis o 6.5.2.2 Design Criteria -Geometry, overflow/bypass, underdrain, and access
0
0
0
Notes
6.5.3
6.5.3.2
6.5.3.2
Sandfilter Vaults
Design Criteria -geometry, pretreatment, flow-spreading, energy dissipation
Overflow/bypass, underdrain and access
Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 0711212005 12 of 16
, 0
,
~ 1 "
•
Activity Number: ____________ _
KING COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS (1993)
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1.03A, B
1.03 D
Off-site and frontage improvements determined by reviewing agency
Note: For grading permits, the required extent of road improvements must be determined during
engineering review. For subdivisions, the requirements are determined during preliminary
review.
Subdivisions must have recorded public access except for private roads
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
1.08 Road Variances
Activity No. Approval Date
Design Issues
ROAD CLASSIFICATION TABLE
Name of Roadway KCRS Classification
/(O,./{ -sf re',d
1----------------.---.--.---
._----------------1
. -------------------1
OK KCRS
19 2.03C Maximum Superelevation (2.05)
0 2.03D Horizontal curvature (2.05)
III 2.03E Maximum grade (2.11)
0 203F Stopping Sight Distance (2.05, 2.12)
0 2.03G Entering Sight Distance (2.05, 2.13)
Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 07/12/2005 13 of 16
Activity Number:~~~~~~~~~~~~_
KING COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS (1993)
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS Iconlinued)
OK
0
f I;: 0
"
'. 0
\.·,.,,0
[B
0
0
Ed
Jl.,J 0 ,:\,\,1,
~.
!!y/
Il6
(j/110
/iii 0
f·'J'~,p.r:f i~ p .. ')'
ll1
I/J."d I'H
/20th Av , 0
~
0
ff
[d-"
~
[U--
lid
'. .-0
/
I'J /1\ I:J-
J )//1 Q
",;,. 0
0
/.: I " 0 );j<:-:~e<;;f'
._----0
c "
;1dd i. 0
_(tt IJ,-~..II';r'-
KCRS
2.03H
2.031
2.03J
2.03J
2.03K
2.03L
2.06
2.06B7
2.07
2.OBA
2.OBB
2.OBE
2.08F
209
2.09B
2.10A
2.10A
2.10A
2.10B
2.10C
2.10E
2.11A
2.11 B
2.120
2.16
2.1B
2.20
3.01
3.01
3.02A
3.02B
305
Minimum pavement width (Note: Footnote 9 -Neighborhood collectors require 36-feet at approach to
intersections with arterials)
Minimum roadway width
Minimum R/Wwidth
Min. R/W width (Footnote 12 and 2.19B -include 1 foot extra ROW behind curb or sidewalk)
Curb or shoulder type road (2.01)
Minimum Half-Street width
Private Street Design Standards
Verify maximum potential of 16 lots
Half Streets
Minimum Cul-de-Sac diameters
Maximum Cul-de-Sac length
Maximum Cross Slope 6%
Bulb island shall be offset 2-feet
Alleys
Private Access Tracts (Note: Must meet all standards for minor access street, except curb cut driveway
design is allowed with property line radii dedication)
Angle of intersection between 85 and 95 degrees
Intersection curb radius
Intersection right-of-way radius
Intersection spacing
Intersection landing
Low Speed Curves
Maximum Grade -Use AC for grades >12%, Use PCC for grades >20%
Grade Brakes -maximum 1 % at intersections
Intersection stopping sight distance (125' SSD allowed for local access streets)
Bus zones -For arterials and neigh. collectors, the designer shall contact metro
Intersections with State Highways
Single access serving more than 100 lots
Driveways
Joint Use Driveways
Sidewalks (both sides for subcollectors and higher classification)
Location and width
Handicapped access ramp (Use updated detail from KC Road Engineer, 3/26/04)
Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 0711212005 140f16
Activity Number: ____________ _
KING COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS (1993)
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS (contlnuedl
~//I 0
iVy 0
'i,i 0 ,
309
3,10
3,11
4,01
School Access -asphalt walkway, sidewalk, or delineated shoulder
Bikeways
Equestrian Facilities
Road Section and Surfacing (drawings 1-001 -1-006)
Note: Neighborhood collectors require 3-inch asphalt concrete,
4,01 F Perform saw cut 01 pavement at log line
4,01 F Pavement overlay lor widening and channelization (show special note as approved by Development
Engineer -see section policies)
[§ 4,02
[3 4,02
~ /,.: (-S' [] 4.03
Iii;; k 0 4,05
I'll' 10 5,01
IB 5,02
flO; "&'j'~'"-O 5,03
?IJ~~ i),
'rG, rtf'.t-O 5,04
!Xl -0 5,05
1\ ct'II o 5,06
Residential street design
Poor subgrade evaluation
Arterial pavement design
Pavement markings, channelization, and tapers (Requires DOT review)
Rock lacings (Dwg, Nos, 5-004 --5-007)
Side slopes, generally 2H:1V
Street trees and landscaping
Mail boxes (Dwg, Nos, 5-010 -5-012)
Street illumination
Survey Monuments to be disturbed are shown
iliA 0 5,07 Roadway Barricades
~O 5,08 Bollards lor walkways or maintenance roads
o 5,11 Roadside obstacles (Note: II variance required lor utility pole, the utility company must apply lor the
variance,)
6,00 Bridges (minimum width 28-leet) ~/!' G}
(Jill 18 7,02A-D Grass-lined, pipe or rock lined, special designed ditch
g. 7,03A Minimum pipe size 12-inch diameter
o 7,03L Beveled ends lor culverts in ROW
o 7,04A Maximum spacing between catch basins
o 7,04E CBs taller than 5' (grate to invert) are Type II, Max, depth 12-leet per Dwg, 2-005
o 7,05A Vaned grates
0--7,05B Through curb inlet Irames lor sag curves and intersections> 4%,
Notes: a) Through curb inlet not used on rolled curb
b) See section policies lor policy on three fianking inlets
o 7,05E All covers and grates shall be locking
,0 8,02 Utility pole locations and other obstacles
o 8,03B Open cuts on existing roadways, patch requirements
Engineering Review Checklist FORM.doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 07112/2005 15 of 16
•
KING COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS (1993)
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS (contlnuod)
Notes
Check out the DOES Web site at www.metrokc.qovlddes
Engineering Review Checklist FORM. doc le-ckl-ercheck.pdf 0711212005 16 of 16
REQUEST FOR ENGINEERING SHORT PLAT REVIEW
SIGNIFICANT TREE RETENTION PLAN
Date Routed: January 3, 2006
Date to be returned to Ted Cooper: February 3,2006 (approximate) .:r~
Routed to: Bruce Engell, Site Development Specialist IV Forester
Plat Number: Project # L05P0005, Activity/Charge # L05SR054
Plat Name: Jessie Glen Plat
Plat Planner: Trisha Bull
Design Engineer: Laura G. Cociasu, PE
Phone: (253) 838-6113
Review Objectives (specify the type of information you need from me at this
stage ofreview):
1. Review of Tree Retention Plan (sheet 18) per Hearing Examiner's
Condition 19.
Describe relevant issues for this plat:
1. Required number of trees to be retained: 154.
2. Number of trees to be saved: 62.
3. Number of trees to be planted: 92.
Is a hearing required and date to be held?
This plat has preliminary approval (with Examiner's Conditions).
Comments: Conditions of Approval are not on plans yet.
Enclosures: Engineering plan sheets 1,2 and 14.
Plan sheet 18 (Landscaping sheet L3, Tree Retention Plan)
Hearing Examiner's Conditions of Preliminary Plat Approval
®
King County
Department of Development
and Environmental Services
900 Oakesdale Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98055-1219
November 3, 2005
Mr. Joe Singh
lP.S. Holding LLC
18124 Rivera Place SW
Seattle, W A 98 I 66
RE: Permit Fee Estimate
Project: Jessie Glen
File Number: L05SR054
Dear Applicant:
Thank you for submitting the engineering plans for site development of the Jesse Glen
subdivision. To implement the engineering review process, our office will usc a new
procedure for managing the permit application to provide applicants with an enhanced
level of customer service. The Project Manager Program seeks to provide customers with
increased predictability for the permit process and better accountability from County
review staff.
For permit applications using the Project Manager Program, a project manager is
assigned to the permit to facilitate communication with the applicant and provide a fee
estimate to cover the anticipated scope of review. The project manager will also monitor
and manage the permit application throughout the review process to ensure that review
schedules remain in line with performance standards and the overall work hours are
within the range of estimated fees for the project.
Your application for engineering review was received by our office on October 25,2005
and will be processed using the Project Manager Program. The enclosed information
provides a summary of the fee estimate for the anticipated work disciplines and also
discusses the submittal process and disclaimers which may affect the final permit fees.
The fee estimate includes the scope of work for engineering plan review only and does
not evaluate other final plat requirements such as construction inspection and review of
plat recording documents.
Joe Singh
November 3, 2005
Page 2
Based upon the current engineering submittal, several key documents including
requirements for traffic illumination, pavement designs, and other technical information
have not been submitted which are necessary to address site design issues and the
preliminary plat conditions. Due to the missing information, the attached fee summary is
a rough estimate and is subject to modification based upon the disclaimers noted in the
fee estimate form.
In addition to the engineering review documents, our Department must also review and
approve the recreation space plan as required by plat condition 16. Please be
aware that the recreation plan must be submitted to our planning section as a
separate permit application with fee payment. For further information regarding the
submittal process for recreation plans, please contact Kim Claussen at 206-296-7167.
Once the attached fee form is signed and submitted to my attention in the Land Use
Services Division, your project will be assigned for further review. A payment plan for
the estimated fees is acceptable using 50% down payment and 6 monthly installments.
Since your engineering submittal already included a fee deposit of $17,000, your initial
payment is satisfactory. To provide an efficient and timely review process, it is
recommended that the additional design information noted in the disclaimers also be
provided with your submittal.
If you have any questions regarding the permit fees or other aspects of the engineering
review process, please contact the project manager, Pete Dye via email
pete.dye@mctrokc.gov or by telephone at 206-296-7185.
~rerelY p~
Senior Engineer
Enclosure
cc: Laura Cociasu
® King County
Land Use Services Division Permit Fee Estimate
Activity Estimate Number: L05SR054
I
Date: 11/03/05
Permit Title: Jessie Glen Plat
Permit Type: SITEREVP -Engineering Plan
I
Based on permit information submitted by the applicant, the Department of Development and
Environmental Services (DOES) has determined the amount of review fees for the subject application.
The fees shown below do not include ancillary permit fees, recording fees, project-related mitigation
fees, or other fees that are passed through to the applicant from other agencies or as part of the project's
environmental review.
Fixed Fees:
Counter Service Fee for Application Intake
Base Review (first 4 hours)
Fire Flow and Access
Other Fixed Fees -Tree Retention Plan Review
Total Fixed Fees:
Estimate for Hourly Fees: ( 193 Hours x $144.9U)
Total Permit Fee Estimate:
$205.28
$2,898.00
$3, I 03.28
$27,965.70
$31,068.98
Note: The estimate for hourly fees stated above is based on the total estimated number of hours not to
exceed 193 hours for the disciplines listed below, and is calculated using the department's hourly rate in
effect at the time the work is performed. Based upon the financial disclosures found on page 2, the
number of hours required may be modified. The total estimated hours reflect work performed by the
following disciplines: Engineering Review, Survey Coordination, Project Management, Traffic Review,
Planning, Forestry, and Constructability.
After receiving the fee estimate from DOES, the applicant has ninety (90) days to complete the
application submittal. Please call 206-296-6797 to set up an appointment with the Permit Center to
complete your application and payment. If the application is not received within ninety (90) days, the
applicant may be required to obtain a new fee estimate or this activity may be cancelled.
For further questions on this fee estimate or for other requirements about this permit application, please
contact Pete Dye via email pete.dye@metrokc.gov or by telephone at 206-296-7185.
Land Use Services Division
Project Manager.dot 1126/04 Page 1
® King County
Land Use Services Division Permit Fee Estimate
Activity Estimate Number: L05SR054 Date: 11/04/05
Permit Title: Jessie Glen Plat
Permit Type: SITEREVP -Engineering Plan Estimated Maximum Hours: 193
Applicant: Joe Singh Total Fee: $31,068.98
The followmg dIsclaImers are attached and are part of the fee estImate for thIS permit. The applicant IS
required to submit a signed copy of this form with the application and fee payment acknowledging that
the applicant has read the disclaimers stated below.
Disclaimer
Applicants are responsible for all fixed fees, reported hours performed in reviewing submittal materials
and processing, up to the fee estimate. Changes in the scope of the project review will result in a revised
review fee estimate. Fee estimates are based on information submitted to DOES by the applicant prior
to finalization of the permit application. In addition, estimates are determined by utilizing historical
data gathered from projects of similar type, size, and scope. The fee estimate will be the maximum fee
charged unless the scope of the project changes. Should fewer hours be required to complete the
review, then the applicant may receive a refund for those hours. If items are identified that arc not
originally disclosed or identified later in the process, a new estimate may be required. Applicants will
be responsible for any additional hours identified in a new estimate because of:
I) Changes in the project and unknown or undisclosed site issues.
2) Incomplete information, errors in applicant submittal, and design conflicts with code.
3) County code fee changes.
4) Fees for Forest Practices permit if needed
5) Coordination with City of Federal Way
6) Additional Review for documents not provided with the initial submittal:
a) Illumination Plans required per KCRS 5.05,
b) Pavement design for arterials per KCRS 4.03
c) TIR Section 1-Summary and/or analysis ofBMP's not provided ((Drainage Manual Chap.5.2)
d) TIR Section 2 -Plat conditions with applicant responses not provided.
e) TIR Section 4 -Evaluation of enhanced water quality not provided (Drainage Manual pg. 1-60)
f) TIR Section 7 -Pollution plan referenced in TIR but not provided (Drainage Manual pg. 2-28)
g) TIR Section 9 -Bond quantity sheets not provided
Keeping review fees at or below the fee estimate will depend on the applicant's commitment to
complete the process review. This commitment should include submitting materials which address
all County codes, policies, previously approved conditions, and responding to the County's request
for corrections or additional information in a timely manner, not to exceed 90 days.
Applicant/Owner Signature,
Acknowledged: _______________ _ Date:
Project Manager.dot 1/26/04 Page 2
• ®
King County
Department of Development
and Environmental Services
900 Oakesdale Avenue SW
Renton, WA 98055-1219
November 3, 2005
Mr. Joe Singh
lP.S. Holding LLC
18124 Rivera Place SW
Seattle, W A 98166
RE: Permit Fee Estimate
Project: Jessie Glen
File Number: L05SR054
Dear Applicant:
Thank you for submitting the engineering plans for site development ofthe Jesse Glen
subdivision. To implement the engineering review process, our office will use a new
procedure for managing the pennit application to provide applicants with an enhanced
level of customer service. The Project Manager Program seeks to provide customers with
increased predictability for thc pennit process and better accountability from County
review staff.
For permit applications using the Project Manager Program, a project manager is
assigned to the pennit to facilitate communication with the applicant and provide a fee
estimate to cover the anticipated scope of review. The project manager will also monitor
and manage the pennit application throughout the review process to ensure that review
schedules remain in line with perfonnance standards and the overall work hours are
within the range of estimated fees for the project.
Your application for engineering review was received by our office on October 25,2005
and will be processed using the Project Manager Program. The enclosed infonnation
provides a summary of the fee estimate for the anticipated work disciplines and also
discusses the submittal process and disclaimers which may affect the final pennit fees.
The fee estimate includes the scope of work for engineering plan review only and does
not evaluate other final plat requirements sueh as construction inspection and review of
plat recording documents.
Joe Singh
November 3, 2005
Page 2
Based upon the current engineering submittal, several key documents including
requirements for traffic illumination, pavement designs, and other technical information
have not been submitted which are necessary to address site design issues and the
preliminary plat conditions, Due to the missing information, the attached fee summary is
a rough estimate and is subject to modification based upon the disclaimers noted in the
fee estimate form,
In addition to the engineering review documents, our Department must also review and
approve the recreation space plan as required by plat condition 16, Please be
aware that the recreation plan must be submitted to our planning section as a
separate permit application with fee payment. For further information regarding the
submittal process for recreation plans, please contact Kim Claussen at 206-296-7167.
Once the attached fee form is signed and submitted to my attention in the Land Use
Services Division, your project will be assigned for further review. A payment plan for
the estimated fees is acceptable using 50% down payment and 6 monthly installments,
Since your engineering submittal already included a fee deposit of$17,000, your initial
payment is satisfactory. To provide an efficient and timely review process, it is
recommended that the additional design information noted in the disclaimers also be
provided with your submittal.
If you have any questions regarding the permit fees or other aspects of the engineering
review process, please contact the project manager, Pete Dye via email
pete,dyelaimetrokc,gov or by telephone at 206-296-7185.
Senior Engineer
Enclosure
cc: Laura Cociasu
® King County
Land Use Services Division Permit Fee Estimate
Activity Estimate Number: L05SR054 Date: 11103/05
Permit Title: Jessie Glen Plat
Permit Type: SITEREVP -Engineering Plan
Based on permit information submitted by the applicant, the Department of Development and
Environmental Services (DOES) has determined the amount of review fees for the subject application.
The fees shown below do not include ancillary permit fees, recording fees, project-related mitigation
fees, or other fees that are passed through to the applicant from other agencies or as part of the project's
environmental review.
Fixed Fees:
Counter Service Fee for Application Intake
Base Review (first 4 hours)
Fire Flow and Access
Other Fixed Fees -Tree Retention Plan Review
Total Fixed Fees:
Estimate for Hourly Fees: ( 1 Y3 Hours x $144. YO)
Total Permit Fcc Estimate:
$205.28
$2,898.00
$3,103.28
$27,965.70
$31,068.98
Note: The estimate for hourly fees stated above is based on the total estimated number of hours not to
exceed 193 hours for the disciplines listed below, and is calculated using the department's hourly rate in
effect at the time the work is performed. Based upon the financial disclosures found on page 2, the
number of hours required may be modified. The total estimated hours reflect work performed by the
following disciplines: Engineering Review, Survey Coordination, Project Management, Traffic Review,
Planning, Forestry, and Constructability.
After receiving thc fee estimate from DOES, the applicant has ninety (90) days to complete the
application submittal. Please call 206-296-6797 to set up an appointment with the Permit Center to
complete your application and payment. If the application is not received within ninety (90) days, the
applicant may be required to obtain a new fee estimate or this activity may be cancelled.
For further questions on this fee estimate or for other requirements about this permit application, please
contact Pete Dye via email pete.dye@metrokc.govorby telephone at 206-296-7185.
Land Use Services Division
Project Manager.dot 1/26/04 Page 1
,
® King County
Land Use Services Division Permit Fee Estimate
Activity Estimate Number: L05SR054 Date: 11104/05
Permit Title: Jessie Glen Plat
Permit Type: SITEREVP -Engineering Plan Estimated Maximum Hours: 193
Applicant: Joe Singh Total Fee: $31,068.98
The followmg dIsclaImers are attached and are part of the fee esllmate for thIS permIt. The apphcant IS
required to submit a signed copy of this form with the application and fee payment acknowledging that
the applicant has read the disclaimers stated below.
Disclaimer
Applicants arc responsible for all fixed fees, reported hours performed in reviewing submittal materials
and processing, up to the fee estimate. Changes in the scope of the project review will result in a revised
review fee estimate. Fee estimates are based on information submitted to ODES by the applicant prior
to finalization ofthe permit application. In addition, estimates are determined by utilizing historical
data gathered from projects of similar type, size, and scope. The fee estimate will be the maximum fee
charged unless the scope of the project changes. Should fewer hours be required to complete the
review, then the applicant may receive a refund for those hours. If items are identified that are not
originally disclosed or identified later in the process, a new estimate may be required. Applicants will
be responsible for any additional hours identified in a new estimate because of:
1) Changes in the project and unknown or undisclosed site issues.
2) Incomplete information, errors in applicant submittal, and design conflicts with code.
3) County code fee changes.
4) Fees for Forest Practices permit if needed
5) Coordination with City of Federal Way
6) Additional Review for documents not provided with the initial submittal:
a) Illumination Plans required per KCRS 5.05,
b) Pavement design for arterials per KCRS 4.03
c) TIR Section 1-Summary and/or analysis of BMP's not provided ((Drainage Manual Chap.5.2)
d) TIR Section 2 -Plat conditions with applicant responses not provided.
e) TIR Section 4 -Evaluation of enhanced water quality not provided (Drainage Manual pg. 1-60)
1) TIR Section 7 -Pollution plan referenced in TIR but not provided (Drainage Manual pg. 2-28)
g) TIR Section 9 -Bond quantity sheets not provided
Keeping review fees at or below the fee estimate will depend on the applicant's commitment to
complete the process review. This commitlnent should include submitting materials which address
all County codes, policies, previously approved conditions, and responding to the County's request
for corrections or additional information in a timely manner, not to exceed 90 days.
Applicant/Owner Signature,
Acknowledged: ______________ _ Date:
Project Manager.dot 1126/04 Page 2
~ , ,~
r:~ !hOox ~Maosofto.rt ..
-~~~-~~ ,~ -,
r, If1 i'J ,;;,) £:! ~~ S ~1' ;. " l !)()($ Perrr,t Rouun<J .• ~ :iy'\M 7:58AH
, ~, " , ~ ~ '~~ ,
fJ ODES PeJnllt RouHng And M.1f1d~"(.'lntmt System (PRMS} Mu.:r osoft Intel n~t Explorer ~[§~
=·ie ECI: ... te'. ~\'O~ltes To,,", Heb 1f"
OBoe' ,
l;) / ,! : Se~r(h Plivontes €, Ii!! . ·5 . .~J .
/ .' ?
""~i""" .'CG!!Sf'D1'1e.':X'"r's2::)~.a:sp vGOo '"
I Routing I Project List I Project 8ud<;;l.:!t I SChedule I Reports I L05SR054 1212712005
Project Manager Dye, Pete Billable Hours ,
Pem1it Type SITE REV I SITEREVP % Due at App
Permit number L05SR054 . JESSIE GLEN number of Installments : i
Budget Status LOCKED PI.1 Statemen! for this Permit
1
~' 6udg;t D.fau~ 8udgel D.f.u~ 8l1dgel
ER 80 35 115 155
FR 2 1 3 3
GA "5 :1 I···· 7 0
PM 0 -0 -0 27
PR J 1 5 5
-SA, 8 3 11 0
m -0 0 0 3
To",1 99 123 42 70 1.IT 193
I r 1
I
. . . ~ . -" ... .,,, .. ,,,~,. ,",','"" ""',-_ .. ,.,.-. . ,-., .. ...• _ .... _ .. _ ......... _.".-..•.. ,--_."._, . ... . -.... ,,~ .... ............. _ .•.•.• _,.,.,-..... .-.•.•.•. _ ... " ..
I~TD ... ~-... "
~ lCK,)l :ntrMH
Tuesday, Dec 27. 2005 07158 AM
Enbies .... ked by U are CUllenily in efleel.
Tttl.l: I 1213112020
licensee: KING COUNTY, 'INA ;SeMIN~:G136 U~cn:150 Vefsion:v.4]77
Thursday, Dec 29,2005 02:20 PM
~'" "'~, , , " ,_~~ _ ~~ ~" 0' 0 ' , , , '
11 start r; ~ U ia C! :~ ~ ~;. }~ r:~lrbox-PlawoftC\tt.. ~OCSP(''i~tRQubllg" : tt Jl/~m 8'05AH -,
t~ ~f~;;;emllt Iw~Hng Arid M.u~·nwnt Syslvm (Plms} Mu;rowft (nteroe;r~¢~r~~-~ ~ ~~~
=.ie: Edt \'re-,'. ;:a';o;ltes Tools Hel;:.
0""'"
, .. ' SetlrC': " • .1 ,~.1 I /
I Routing I Project List I Project Budget I Schedule I Reports I Vel' 2.4 SEND TH!S PAGE
,
'STATION
Land Use Enilirj$eriJi,g
lend Use Traffic Engineer
land Use ~~Ietls!tlds R~jelt
~
Land Use Gectech
~JfmI>J;,X3!W:Bmjctur~L
Landscape 1Rec plan RsyiWY
Forest Practice or CleM
Land Use Slll .... e," Re',is''''
HydnHllic Proi Ar;c(c<.S!1
Land Use Inspection Secti
RELATEO PEI'UvII1S,
lTRF Traffic Plan
LI/.fET Site PlantDoc
LSTM Site Plan/Doc
LGEO Site PlanJDoc
PES Site PlaoiDoc
LREC -Site PlaniDoc
FORS Site PI.!lvDoc
SURV Site Plans
HPA Documentalion
PERSON
.sfJJ.!£
SE.TIJP
;.SfJJ.!£
SETUP
. .sfJJ.!£
p(iQP~~~' ~~~"~"U"
.sfJJ.!£
.sfJJ.!£
.sfJJ.!£
LUIS Construction Rgyie'c" ~
Finance & Plan Approval EI
Tuesday, Dec 27, 2005 08:05 AM
v I Search I
12/27'2005 !:!m
iewCommenl
Print
v 11'-="'=--'/